Reimagining the Modern Hindu Self: Caste, Untouchability and Hindu Theology in

Colonial South Asia, 1899-1948

Rahul Sarwate

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
under the Executive Committee
of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

2020
 © 2020

Rahul Sarwate

All Rights Reserved

 Abstract

Reimagining the Modern Hindu Self: Caste, Untouchability and Hindu Theology in

Colonial South Asia, 1899-1948

Rahul Sarwate

My dissertation project, ‗Reimagining the Modern Hindu Self: Caste, Untouchability and

Hindu Theology in Colonial South Asia, 1899-1948‘ examines the interrelationship between

modern forms of Hinduness and the narratives of Progressivism in the context of Maharashtra, a

region in Western India. I present a thick description of the complex social world of Marathi

intellectuals and cultural actors of the early twentieth century through an analysis of various

discursive/philosophical writings, journals, newspapers, pamphlets, personal correspondence,

biographies, as well as a wide range of literary corpus of novels, plays and literary criticism in

Marathi. My project hopes to demonstrate that a deeper engagement with the vernacular

discourses would be enriching and productive for South Asian intellectual history. My

methodology involved an exploration of the dialogic and transformational relationships between

the centre and the peripheries of ‗Hinduness‘ across disparate sites of discursive productions like

non-Brahmin print publics, theological debates and literary culture. Through an examination of

the ways in which the various peripheries of Hinduness – like Untouchables, the non-Brahmin,

the non-Hindu and the women – had transformed the ideas of what constituted the core of

modern Hinduness, I argue that the various narratives of Maharashtra‘s progressivism and a

complex phenomenon of modern Hinduness were deeply implicated in the production of each

other in the first half of the twentieth century.

My project identifies untouchables, women, anti-caste intellectuals, toilet cleaners,

translators of Sanskrit texts and people who fasted unto death as crucial actors in this
reimagination of modern Hindu self. Also, by providing a regionally specific history of Hindu

ethic, my project challenges the Pan-Indian narrative of universal Hinduism that is privileged in

the historiography of South Asia. This history also enables me to argue that the ethical value of

Hinduness was inherently political and the universal idea of Hinduness did not emerge through a

singular genealogy. It is in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, that the contradiction

between the ethical and political aspects of Hinduness became significant. My project is to write

a long and complex history of this imperative moment that coincided with the dawn of

independent India.
 Table of Contents

List of Charts, Graphs, Illustrations ........................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................v

Dedication............................................................................................................................... viii

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

Chapter 1 Non-Brahminism and an ‗Incitement to Discourse‘ on Modern Hinduness ................ 14

1.1 The Kshatriya Turn in Non-Brahmin Discourse………………………...…………………...21

1.2 The making of Non-Brahmin Hinduness………………………………………………….36

1.3 Body and Caste in the Non-Brahmin Discourse……………………….………………….52

1.4 Non-Brahmanism as ‗Casteism‘: Kesari‟s perspective on non-Brahmin Activism…....…60

Chapter 2: Texts and Contexts of Neo-Hinduism: the Pradnya Pathshala Project ....................... 69

2.1 The Vedokta controversy and the Brahmin Pundits……………………………………....69

2.2 Education, Nationalism and the Native Body……………………………………………..77

2.3 Vijapurkar‘s Samartha Vidyalaya…………………………………………………………85

2.4 Pradnya Pathshala: the epicenter of new thinking about Dharma………………………...94

2.5 Pradnya Pathshala and the New Hinduness……………………………………………...100

Chapter 3: Modern Science, the Holy Cow, and the Untouchability Question: Conversations on

the Ethical Hindu self .............................................................................................................. 122

3.1 The Sanatana Position on Untouchability………………………………………………..126

3.2 A ‗Ticklish Problem‘ of the cultured classes…………………………………………….132

3.3. The ‗Kirloskar‘ Magazines: Engineers of Maharashtrian Progressivism……………….138

3.4 A Discourse on Cow and Savarkar as ‗Karna‘…………………………………………..147

i
 3.5 Becoming Harijan: Gandhism and Embodying an Ethical Subject……………………...156

Chapter 4: Domesticity and Desire: Caste, Body, and Progressivism in Early Twentieth-Century

Marathi Literary Culture ......................................................................................................... 167

4.1 Romanticism and the New Novel………………………………………………………..179

4.2 Conjugality and Body: Anxieties of the Cultured Classes……………………………….185

4.3 The Brahmin Body: Masculinity and Physical Culture………………………………….195

4.4. Art, Ethics, and Obscenity: Oleti and other debates….....................................................204

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 220

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 224

Appendix A. Note on Transliteration…………………………………………………………...262

ii
 List of Charts, Graphs, Illustrations

List of Images Used:

1. A scene from B. V. Varerkar‘s play Sanyashacha Sansar (actor Madhavrao Walavalkar

as Shankaracharya, dressed as Swami Vivekananda)……………………………………22

2. Kshatra Jagadguru Sadashivrao Patil Benadikar at his initiation ceremony on November

11th, 1920 at the Mauni Peeth in Patgaon, Kolhapur……………………………………26

3. An advertisement of the books published by Kashinath Bapuji Deshmukh‘s Subodh

Granthmala ((series of books)…………………………………………………………...35

4. A Picture taken at the Hindu Yuvak Parishad (Pune, 1938)……………………………..47

5. Seetaram Bole: with Ambedkar on the left, and with Savarkar on the right…………….51

6. The non-Brahmin Newspapers: Brahmanetar (the Non-Brahmin), Vijayi Maratha (the

Victorious Maratha) and Prabodhan (the Enlightenment)………………………………53

7. Mahadevshastri Divekar‘s four texts on the four margins of the Hindu society………...75

8. Lokmanya Tilak as Sri Krishna: delivering the message of the Gita to Arjuna…………87

9. Tilak, Ramdas, and Shivaji: the Trinity of Lokmanya Seva Sangh, Mumbai……...........89

10. Pradnya Pathshala, Wai – students and teachers‘ gathering for the 75th birthday of

Narayan Shastri Marathe, the founder of the school (21st November 1952)……..........100

11. Advertisement for N C Kelkar‘s ‗The Commonwealth Insurance Company‘…………111

12. The Royists in Maharashtra, Solapur, 1949…………………………………………….118

13. The executive committee of ‗Sharadiya Dnyanasatra‘ (Annual lecture series)....……...134

14. Kirloskar Khabar (August 1923)……………………………………………………….141

15. Chourasi Devtaon Wali Gaay (Portrait of a Cow Containing Eighty-Four Gods): Ravi

Varma Press (1915)……………………………………………………………………..149

iii
 16. Dr. Ambedkar‘s Samaj Samata Sangh (1927)………………………………………….153

17. Appa Patwardhan: Cutting a dead cattle………………………………………………..162

18. Ravikiran Mandal (A Poetry Circle, 1923)……………………………………………..171

19. Narayan Seetaram Phadke……………………………………………………………...180

20. Physical Culture (1928) and Striyanche Vyayam (Physical Exercises for Women, 1932)

by L. B. Bhopatkar……………………………………………………………………..199

21. The first volume of Vyayam Dnyankosh (Encyclopaedia of physical Exercises)……...200

22. Members of the Maharashtra Vyayam Prasarak Mandal (Maharashtra Institute for

Physical Exercise)……………………………………………………………………....203

23. Pranayinicha Manobhanga (A Disheartened Lover) by Thakur Singh………………..206

24. Oleti (After the Bath) by SG Thakur Singh…………………………………………….208

List of Charts

1. The Dharmashastra discourse in early Twentieth Century Maharashtra……………....106

List of Illustrations

1. Four illustration from Takanchya Phenki (1935) by Kirloskar and Phadke……….144-146

iv
 Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I wish to thank my advisor Dr. Manan Ahmed for his tremendous

patience and unwavering support throughout the making of this dissertation. Manan had been a

rock sold strength throughout my life as a graduate student. I would also like to express my

heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Prachi Deshpande, who has truly been a mentor for me over the years.

Prachi had shown immense faith in me and my project. Her very engaged and critical feedback

on my work including the grant applications and my – terribly delayed – chapters, helped me

tremendously in rethinking my archive, my methodology and the stakes involved in my work.

Apart from her own highly acclaimed scholarship, her very warm and kind self was inspirational

and encouraging. I only hope that my scholarship will boost her confidence in me and my work.

I would also like to thank Dr. Anupama Rao, who urged me to think critically about many

aspects of my project, which helped me immensely in giving my work a final shape and

structure. I am also thankful to Professor Partha Chatterjee and Dr. Kavita Sivaramakrishnan for

agreeing to be on my committee on the last minute. I am grateful for their very valuable and

critical feedback on my work.

I would also like to thanks my teachers over the years: Ramesh Kamble, Dr. Deepak

Mehta, Dr. Rabindra Ray, Dr. Harish Naraindas, Dr. Rita Brara, Dr. Janaki Bakhle, Professor

Sheldon Pollock, Professor Partha Chatterjee, Professor Sudipta Kaviraj, Professor Nicholas

Dirks, among others who have significantly contributed to my intellectual growth. I wish to

express my special thanks to Dr. Ashley Tellis, who was instrumental in making me realize that

my true interests lied in History and who almost tortured me into applying to graduate schools in

the US.

v
 I am also very grateful to American Institute of Indian Studies (AIIS) for a very generous

grant which enabled me to carry out my archival work across different cities in India. I am

thankful to the staff of AIIS in Pune and New Delhi for their cooperation and support. I am also

indebted to the Doris G. Quinn Foundation for their financial support while writing this

dissertation. Let me also express my gratitude towards the libraries from which I drew my

materials for this work. The Mumbai Marathi Granth Sangrahalaya and the Library of Mumbai

University, in Mumbai; Jaykar Library of the Pune University, library of Chanakya Mandal,

library of Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad, library of the Kesari-Mahratta Trust, Pune Nagar

Vachan Mandir, Pune Marathi Granthalaya in Pune; the Pradnya Pathshala archive at Wai;

Personal collection of Jaysingrao Pawar and the library of Shahu Research Center in Kolhapur;

and the library of Dr. Ambedkar Marathwada University in Aurangabad. I would like to

sincerely thank the staff of these libraries. Thanks are also due in particular to Dr. Bina Sengar of

Department of History from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, for promptly

allowing me an access to the library of the university. I would also like to thank Professor Suhas

Palshikar, Dr. Shraddha Kumbhojkar, and Dr. Jaysingrao Pawar for illuminating conversations

on my research.

And of course, I wish to remember my colleagues and friends of the University space –

Ulug Kuzuoglu, Adrien Zakar, Shehab Ismail, Hannah Elmer, Dominic Vendell, Sayantani

Chatterjee, Tania Bhattacharya, Sayantani Mukherjee, Aarti Sethi, Abhishek Kaicker, Maya

Ratnam, Tathagatan, and Moyukh Chatterjee – for their love and intellectual and emotional

support. I would particularly cherish many wonderful moments I had with Ulug and Adiren, who

were two of the most amazing people I had ever met. Support from friends from other – perhaps

more illuminating – worlds: Shridhar Tilve, Avinash Dharmadhikari, Kirtikumar Shinde, Sandip

vi
Deshpande, Vaibhav Abnave, Pushkar Sohoni, Kaustubh Naik, Makarand Sathe, Abhijeet

Ranadive, Hrushikesh Arvikar, Meghna Bhuskute, Amol Karandikar, Sarover Zaidi, and

Anasuya Ray had also been very valuable.

But more than anyone else, I wish to thank my family: my parents – Shirish and Chitra

Sarwate, my brother Rohit and his wife Akshaya, my in-laws, Nilakantha and Nilima Deshmukh,

and my brother-in-law Anup for their unwavering love and faith in me. And perhaps the one who

truly deserves my most unfathomable gratitude is my wife Rucha, without whom I could not

have finished this dissertation. Rucha has truly been the bright light of my life. She had been

there for me in all my highs and lows, whose support has never faltered and whose hope never

diminished. Through her wisdom and warmth, her kindness and strength, Rucha has been the

source of energy and inspiration for me. And last but by no means the least, my seven-year-old

son Maitreya who was born while I was still a graduate student, had been my strength and

cheerleader through many difficult phases during my graduate years. It was Rucha and Maitreya

and their profound love and unwavering faith in me that sustained me through this phase. I feel

blessed to have them in my life.

vii
 Dedication

I wish to dedicate this work to the long history of Marathi intellectual tradition which

inspired and enabled me to write this dissertation. I sincerely hope to contribute to that tradition

in my own humble way. On this occasion, I also wish to acknowledge that the valiant spirit with

which Comrade Sharad Patil (1925-2014) led his life has greatly inspired me over the years and I

want to take this opportunity to remember him warmly.

viii
 Introduction

Anyone who grew up in Maharashtra in the 1990s and 2000s, like me, was incessantly

informed about Maharashtra‘s exceptional progressivism. It was always a ‗given‘ to us that

Maharashtra‘s was always a Purogami (forward-looking and progressive) culture. Among other

things, the two most important aspects of this narrative of being progressive were the glorious

memories of the Maratha pasts; and the various social reforms that were carried out in the

colonial period, particularly with reference to caste and gender leading to a modernist and

rationalist outlook towards life. However, what was actually evident to us was the wide

dissemination and consumption of affective politics which was largely driven by the logics of

Hindu fanaticism. This paradoxical construction of politics of pride on the one hand, and

narratives of progress on the other, became the core concern of my inquiry and thus, the central

question that I sought to answer through this dissertation was ―how and why did the coexistence

of these contradictory narratives endure in Marathi intellectual culture for more than a century?‖.

While examining the relationship between forms of progressivism and ideas of modern

Hinduness, I realised that both these strands drew upon principles of modernism, rationality, and

scientism. The most ironic example of this was Nathuram Godse himself, who in his testimony

in front of the court presented himself as a reformist and progressive Hindu. Godse‘s letter

written to Madkholkar, where he had hoped that his transgressive act of assassinating the

Mahatma will lead to the dawn of reason, prompted me to rethink the neat bifurcations between

progressivism and Hindutva that have been provided to us through academic and popular

discourses. However, Godse was not an exceptional case in this regard. One also needs to

remember that the tradition of Hindu Nationalism that was inaugurated by Vishnushastri

Chiplunkar and furthered by historian Rajwade and Lokmanya Tilak had two very distinct

1
representatives in the post-1920s. While on the one hand, Savarkar and the Pradnya pathshala

collective developed this tradition into a more reform-oriented, anti-Muslim political Hinduness;

Comrade Shripad Amrit Dange, one of the most significant communist leaders in colonial India

lent to it a form of socialism. Thus, the core ideas of Hindu nationalism were deeply connected

to the forms of reformism and progressivism in the early twentieth century Maharashtra.

One of my central arguments in this thesis is that forms of progressivism – manifested in anti-

caste thought and literary culture – and textures of modern Hinduness – articulated through

discursive texts, nationalist schools, and bodily practices – were weaved together in the

production of Marathi modernity. If one attributes a positive value to one over the other, it

obscures the fact that they were both implicated in the production of each other and they were

both delimited by their shallow modernism; a modernism that on the one hand, sought to build a

strong masculinized Hinduness, and on the other, desired a refined domesticity along the lines of

the British aristocratic tastes. The critique of caste and Hindu tradition which was central to the

making of progressivism as well as to the imagination of modern forms of being Hindu was not a

philosophical critique but rather a cosmetic attempt of engaging with material and textual

questions of tradition.

Through my dissertation project, ‗Reimagining the Modern Hindu Self: Caste,

Untouchability and Hindu Theology in Colonial South Asia, 1899-1948‘ I examine the

interrelationship between modern forms of Hinduness and the narratives of Maharashtrian

Progressivism from 1899 to 1948. The narratives of Maharashtra‘s progressivism as well as the

processes that engaged in reimagining a modern Hindu self were infused with this secular, this-

worldly, materialist religiosity through conversations around key conceptual categories like Jati

(Caste), Dharma (Religion) and Desh (Nation). I investigate the specific regional understandings

2
of these categories which became the primary site of contestation in Maharashtra, as means to

critically interrogate and historicize discourses and critiques of universalism, cosmopolitanism

and place. I also show that these concepts did not signify fixed meanings; rather, they opened up

new fields of debate around inequality, ethics, and selfhood. While I take all of these terms Jati –

Dharma – Desh in their broader applications, I also perceive them as intertwined and locate them

in conversation with each other. The manifold conversations around these concepts were directed

towards altering the structure of these discourses and it was through texts, bodily practices and

ethical invocations that transformed the discourses on caste, Hinduness and nation. The chapters

of my dissertation are organized around such textual interventions, bodily and labour practices

and the reordering of spiritual and material ethics.

By 'reimagination of the Hindu self', I refer to the different ways in which this modern

Hindu-self negotiated with its margins such as untouchables and women; engaged with its ethical

limits such as anti-caste politics; and responded to the logics of colonial modernity in early

twentieth century. My project locates these processes of reimagining the Hindu self in the

specific context of Maharashtra, a region in Western India with Marathi as its principle language

from 1899 to 1948. Maharashtra emerged as the most important site for the discursive production

of both – the varied imaginations of political Hinduism (Hindutva, Savarkar and the RSS), as

well as its most valiant opposition in the form of radical anti-caste critique (Ambedkar, 1891-

1956).This contestation - along the questions of caste, untouchability and ethical limits of

theological texts - created divergent print publics whereby the tensions between the ethics and

politics of Hinduness became evident in Maharashtra probably more than in any other region in

India. The fact that these two contesting interpretations of modern Hinduness, simultaneously

clashed with both Gandhi as well as the orthodox theologises on the limits of Hindu ethics,

3
shows why and how it is the Marathi public culture of the early twentieth century that needs

deeper investigations for understanding the making of modern Hindu self.

The ethical implications and the political intensity of the question ―who is a Hindu‖

remained enormously significant in post-colonial India, with the escalation of the Hindu-right.

By examining the tensions between the ethics and politics of modern Hinduness, which enabled

the rise of the Hindu Right in postcolonial India, my project attends to a significant question of

when and how did ‗Hinduness‘ become a politically contested category. My project also

challenges the centrality of colonial and legal registers in modern South Asian historiography

and locates the production of this Hindu self along multiple vernacular invocations, religious

traditions, and cultural formations. My project identifies untouchables, women, anti-caste

intellectuals, toilet cleaners, translators of Sanskrit texts and people who fasted unto death as

crucial actors in this reimagination of the modern Hindu self. Also, by providing a regionally

specific history of Hindu ethic, my project disrupts the Pan-Indian narrative of universal

Hinduism that is privileged in the historiography of South Asia.

Archive, Historiography and Method:

Caste has remained central to the historical imagination of modern India. The central

debates around caste in South Asian historiography, however, place themselves within the

context of colonialism through exploring colonial modes of governance and social mapping of

the demographic space. Colonialism and its discursive production remains central to the debates

between the Cambridge school, led by Christopher Bayly and a forceful critique of the colonial

construction of caste by Nicolas Dirks (1988, 2001), Barnard Cohn (1987, 1996) and the

Subaltern Studies collective. Colonial modernity, Bayly argued, took shape through a

collaborative project between the colonizers and the colonized. Bayly (2001) attempted to

4
contradict the frame of orientalism and European domination by arguing that the seventeenth

century sentiments of patriotism and its various symbols and institutions played a significant role

in the construction of nationalism in India, while Dirks showed that Bayly has underplayed the

role played by colonialism. Their debate puts the two arguments – colonial discursive practices

based upon imbalanced colonial relations of governance and Eurocentric worldview of the

colonizers is a decisive rupture in Indian history; and the differential roles played by the various

categories of natives within the colonial regime – centrally on the plane of Indian historiography.

More recent works on Caste such as Sumit Guha‘s (2013) saw caste as an involuted and complex

form of ethnicity and explored its continuous existence across non-Hindu polities and

populations. Anupama Rao (2009) on the other hand, has placed the debates on caste within the

language of rights and democratic emancipation by engaging with the making and unmaking of

the category - Dalit. My project gains from Rao‘s efforts to broaden the archival basis of the

caste question and in particular her argument about the penetrating manifestation of the colonial

political and intellectual frameworks in the discursive projects of regional modernity. Rao has

shown that while the colonial state enabled a new politics of caste by treating it as both

traditional and political; it also facilitated the analytical distinction between the social and the

political that was visible in the agendas of the anti-colonial reformists.

The centrality of Maharashtra to the caste question has also been well recognized by

scholars signifying the importance of this region in the discursive production of the critique of

caste (Omvedt1976; O‘Hanlon, 1985; Vajpayee 2004; Chandra 2012, Guha 2013). However,

caste in Maharashtra has usually been treated independently of the vernacular political and

cultural discourses. While engaging with these path-breaking historical works and questions, my

project has sought to understand caste through exploring its inner workings within the Marathi

5
discursive tradition. I read the colonial history of caste as constituted through pre-colonial

religious and cultural histories as well as the new regional understanding of caste enabled by the

colonial regime and its institutions. My project attempts to situate this formation of caste

between modern political subjectivities and the new institutional and intellectual spaces – print,

colonial education and standardization of vernacular languages – which emerged during the

colonial rule.

Following Prachi Deshpande‘s (2007) work on historical memory as articulated in

numerous literary genres and its role in the construction of modern Marathi identity, my project

explores the various textures of the construction of this historical memory. Much like

Deshpande, I treat regional imaginations as contingent communities and read the regional

consciousness as a ‗dialogic process‘. (Deshpande 2007: 208-209). To use Deshpande‘s

formulation again, in exploring how the pre-colonial categories – like jati and dharma – survived

and adapted during the colonial period, I seek to illuminate the complex engagement with older,

pre-colonial methods, narratives and categories that attended this process.

As I traversed through both the English-language academia and a non-academic Marathi

intellectual culture, I recognized two problems in the production of historical knowledge in

India: On the one hand, there was no clear demarcation between professional history and

political rhetoric in the vernacular scholarship; while on the other hand, the various textures of

the vernacular registers were largely ignored in professional history-writing in English-language

academia, in spite of the fact that the construction of the modern Hinduness was greatly

influenced by the political production of contesting historical memories in Indian vernaculars.

Consequently, the predominance of the Hindu right in contemporary India was explained either

in terms of communal violence or waves of hyper-nationalism, instead of foregrounding it in the

6
concrete space of its historical manifestation – the vernacular public sphere. By recognizing this

precarious gap between the academic and vernacular scholarship in Indian history writing, I

began to think about the historicity of these divergent formulations and their ethical implications.

The choice of the archive for this study was largely determined by this context. Also, what was

rather peculiar in Maharashtra‘s case was that the Marathi intellectual culture has had a long

genealogy of Hindu nationalist thought and interestingly, it also had an equally complex tradition

of anti-caste and dalit thought. Maharashtra thus was a political and intellectual battleground of

caste and Hinduness in the colonial period. This battle decisively shaped its intellectual concerns

and its political trajectories. The pan-Indian imagination of political Hinduness as well as

politically conscious radical anti-caste sentiments could both be traced back to Maharashtra‘s

intellectual history of early twentieth century. My project hopes to demonstrate that a deeper

engagement with the vernacular discourses would be enriching and productive for South Asian

intellectual history.

My primary objective was to present a thick description of the complex social world of

Marathi intellectuals and cultural actors of the early twentieth century through various

discursive/philosophical writings, journals, newspapers, pamphlets, personal correspondence,

biographies, as well as a wide range of literary corpus of novels, plays and literary criticism and

contemporary secondary scholarship. While engaging with notions of progressivism and the

varied ideas of ‗Hinduness‘, I deployed them in their plural and historically and culturally

contingent forms. The method I deployed in this dissertational work had two aspects to it:

Firstly, I wanted to explore the dialogic and transformational relationships between the centre

and the peripheries of Hinduness, i.e. to explore the ways in which the various peripheries of

Hinduness – like Untouchables, the non-Brahmin, the non-Hindu and the women – had

7
transformed the ideas of what constituted the core of modern Hinduness. I argue here that the

various conversations between these categories across genres led to the reimagination of what

constituted Hinduness and the question of: who is a Hindu?

The other important aspect of my methodology was to bring together the seemingly

disparate sites of discursive productions like non-Brahminism and Hindutva and also

ideologically opposing individuals like Gandhians, Ambedkarites, and Savarkarites. Many

excellent academic works on social categories like Maratha, Dalit, and the non-Brahmin have

allowed us to think about histories of caste, broader conceptual histories, and yet many of these

works take the sociological Brahmin and ideological Brahmin as one and the same. For example,

Christian Lee Novetzke, in his exploration of links between Brahmanism and non-Brahmin

publics of bhakti in Marathi popular memory proposed an idea of ‗Brahmin double‘ (2008).

Novetzke has argued that Brahmins played a double role of supremacy and self-critique in the

domain dominated by the lower-caste publics. However, this bi-polar division between Brahmin

and non-Brahmin distorts the complexity of caste relations and treats both – Brahmins and non-

Brahmins as closed categories. My thesis, while historicizing this social formation along the

lines of body, gender, caste and aesthetics proposes that this categorization was more indistinct

in the actual reproduction of the Indian social in the early twentieth century.

Although colonial political and intellectual frameworks did penetrate in the discursive

project of regional modernity however, it involved a dialogic process. Much in the same way that

John Stratton Hawley (1988) has shown that the trope of ―bhakti movement‖ was a bifocal,

multi-layered notion that drew upon both, the indigenous categories and Orientalist categories;

the reformist shastris of the Pradnya pathshala also invoked Indian categories like varna and jati

from Dharmashastra texts and Puranas, as well as worked with modernist structures like school

8
curriculum, syllabus and social and natural sciences. Similarly, while the non-Brahmin caste

conferences deployed the new colonial categorization of caste for building communitarian

solidarity, the non-Brahmin print publics were equally invested in the traditional categories of

jati and varna for claiming higher social status.

As Philip Constable (2001) and Prachi Deshpande (2004) have shown, colonial state‘s

policies regarding caste in recruitment and political representation led to the consolidation of the

elite strands within the non-Brahmin discourse. Thus, though colonial sociology had a dialogic

relationship with the internal debates amongst the Marathas, it does not mean that the nature of

the impact of the colonial power over the colonized was any less hegemonic. And yet, the

dialogic nature of the process testifies to the fact that these debates about the Kshatriya-ness or

Vedic origin of the Marathas were attempts of producing native agency. Sites like literary

culture, aesthetic debates, non-Brahmin print publics, Gandhian practices of ‗becoming Harijan‘

and the varied conversations on Dharmashastras through which I mapped the traversing of the

categories like caste, gender and body indicated attempts to produce native agency on the part of

these intellectuals and literary and political actors.

Although many of these conversations were taking place within the confinements of

colonial structures, and were significantly impacted by the colonial apparatuses of caste

categorization, educational structures and employment possibilities, at a much deeper level these

conversations were about envisioning the very essence of their Hinduness and Indian-ness. My

dissertation seeks to recover their attempts of producing native agencies.

Chapter Organization:

My project begins with an epochal moment known as ―the Vedokta controversy‖ (1899),

regarding the ritual status of the Maratha (Hindu) king. In 1899, a Brahmin priest denied to

9
perform the Vedic rituals for Shahu Maharaj, descendant of the Maratha dynasty (1674-1818),

claiming that the King‘s body had become impure in the modern age. This led to numerous

debates on relationships between caste and the purity of the body; and religious scriptures and

their ethical limitations in modern age.

In the first chapter, titled, ‗Non-Brahminism and an Incitement to Discourse on

Hinduness‘, I explore multiple conversations on the relationship between caste, body, and

Hinduness in the aftermath of the Vedokta controversy regarding the Varna status of the

Marathas at the beginning of the twentieth century in Maharashtra, particularly in the non-

Brahmin print discourse. I consider three distinct aspects of this non-Brahmin discourse: Firstly,

a new sense of Vedic/Kshatriya identity was widely preached and promoted amongst the non-

Brahmin masses through the production of a range of non-Brahmin print materials and

performances of Jalsas and Melas. The second important aspect of it was the cultivation of a

distinct sense of non-Brahmin Hinduness which was imagined as independent of the

Brahmanical order of society. And, thirdly, this anti-Brahmin political culture was deeply

implicated in complex notions of gender and body that were produced through polemical tracts

on fictional genealogies and imagination of masculinized Maratha power. Towards the end, I

examine the Brahmanical understanding of the non-Brahmin movement by undertaking a close

reading of a pamphlet by V K Bhave, a member of the Kesari group, the locus of the Brahmin

power in Pune. The central argument I present here is that both the Brahmanical reformers and

the non-Brahmin radicals participated in the production of modern Hinduness – through textual

and bodily practices – that was centrally concerned with the question of caste and its relationship

with modernity in the early twentieth century.

10
 In the second chapter, ‗Texts and Contexts of Neo-Hinduism: the Pradnya Pathshala

Project‘, I explore a project of applying historicist method to the analysis of Hindu

Dharmashastra texts, initiated by Pradnya Pathshala, a Sanskrit school at Wai (established in

1916). By interpreting old texts and creating new ones, many scholars working in this school,

challenged the sanctions on caste and untouchability, envisioning an egalitarian Hindu ethic or as

they eventually called it: Neo-Hinduism (1934). I examine how the various texts produced by the

Pradnya Pathshala collective, and the political and cultural contexts within which these texts

were produced intensely informed each other. The context that I draw upon is the 1920s, which

had witnessed a political and intellectual crisis for the Brahmin leadership in Maharashtra, a

vacuum they sought to fill with the political imagination of modern – inclusive, universal and

rational – Hinduness.

Here, I show that four distinct yet entangled articulations of the conception of Hinduness

– the Sanatana Pundits‘ classical text-based and ritualistic Hinduness; The nationalist Hinduness

envisioned by Chiplunkar and Tilak and applied by Vijapurkar in national education;

Mahadevshastri Divekar‘s Hindutva which hinged upon Savarkar‘s definition of ‗who is a

Hindu‘ and Laxmanshastri Joshi‘s rational and materialist Hinduness – emerged through the

writings and actions of various individuals, institutions, and social networks in the early

twentieth century Maharashtra. And while it was all articulated within the Marathi discursive

space, the categories central to it – Caste, Hinduness, and Nation – were all pan-Indian.

In my third chapter, ‗Science, Cow and the Untouchability Question: Conversations on

the Ethical Hindu Self‘, I explore the entangled nature of ideas of progressivism and the efforts

to recover an ethical Hindu subject that revolved around the figure of the untouchable. I trace

three distinct conversations on untouchability – orthodoxy‘s deployment of modern science to

11
justify tradition, various attempts on part of ‗Hindutva‘ to make untouchability a secular (de-

ritualized) category, and the efforts of Gandhians like Appa Patwardhan and Sane Guruji to

recover an ethical Hindu subject through inscribing untouchable labour on to the bodies of the

caste-Hindus. I also explore an archive of Kirloskar magazines, a project of disseminating and

popularising capitalist ideals which decisively shaped the notions of Maharashtrian

progressivism.

I examine the ways in which untouchability became a political space for theorization of

modern Hinduness. I read a critique of untouchability along the lines of ritual purity and

untouchable labor practices. While Dr. Ambedkar categorically refuted the possibility of

egalitarian Hindu ethics, in Annihilation of caste; Savarkar and Gandhi provided important and

diverse ways for its recovery. Savarkar derecognized the authority of the scriptures and focused

on the temple-entry for the untouchables and sahabhojan (inter-dinning) as the strategies for the

making of a political Hinduness; Gandhi on the other hand, proposed to reverse the varna

hierarchy whereby the caste-Hindus were called upon to become Harijan (Gandhi‘s term for the

untouchable). Untouchability thus became a fluid category in the Gandhian discourse. This

inserting of the savarna self into an avarna self was seen as a process of purification of the sin of

untouchability from Hindu society in the Gandhian discourse.

And in the fourth and the last chapter, ‗Domesticity and Desire: Caste, Body, and

Progressivism in Early Twentieth-Century Marathi Literary Culture‘, I explore the interplay

between sexuality, caste and power in early twentieth century Marathi literary culture. A range of

characteristics – an emphasis on materiality and body, rationality and a conscious individualism

– all of which came to be associated with the idea of Maharashtrian progressivism became

apparent in the literary and intellectual culture during this era. A form of romanticism -

12
popularized by Ravikiran Mandal (1923-39) an association of poets and also by Narayan

Seetaram Phadke (1894-1978), a highly influential novelist - paved the way for a new moral

aesthetic - with a new idea of body and gender relations and cultivated a new sense of social self

that was based upon romanticised (caste) aesthetics. It led to the cultivation of an idea that

literary and aesthetic emancipation was the desired goal for the educated, urbanized, and upper-

caste elites. Thus, the materiality of the feminine body, its romantic and sensual fervour was at

the centre of this new literary culture in the post-Tilak age. I also explore discussions on the

relationship between art and obscenity and a famous debate on the relationship between art and

life. Here, I argue that the cultural politics shaped in the first half of the twentieth century

Maharashtra revolved around the categories of body, rationality, masculinity and modern ways

of being Hindu and in the process imagined a certain form of Maharashtrian progressivism.

Drawing upon Charles Taylor, Sudipta Kaviraj (2011) has shown that if in the modern

world, human beings have no recourse but to live their lives theoretically, then in the case of

modern Indians this ineluctable function was performed by texts of modern vernacular literature

rather than by reading texts of Kant and Mill. Literature, he suggested, and I agree, played a

fundamental role as the primary vehicle for the dissemination, popularization and eventually the

normalization of modern ideas about moral conduct.

Towards the end, I reflect upon a letter sent to Gajanan Madkholkar, a renowned novelist,

by Nathuram Godse, day before his execution, where he exclaimed that ‗with the death of the

Mahatma, the dawn of rationalism would soon arrive‘ to show that Godse‘s characterization of

rationalism as a result of an assassination indicate a deep and inherent contradiction in the very

core of Maharashtra‘s progressivism.

13
 Chapter 1

Non-Brahminism and an ‘Incitement to Discourse’ on Modern Hinduness

On one early morning in the Hindu month of Kartik in October 1899,1 Chhatrapati Shahu,

the ruler of the princely state of Kolhapur in Southern Maharashtra (reigned:1894-1922) and the

descendant of the legendary Maratha king Chhatrapati Shivaji, went to the river Panchganga for

the Kartik holy bath, a traditional Hindu ritual. Amongst the people who accompanied him

included, Rajaram Shastri Bhagwat 2, a renowned Sanskrit scholar and social reformer from

Mumbai and Bapusaheb Ghatge, Shahu‘s younger brother.3 Narayan Shastri, an appointed priest

of the Kolhapur state, was also present there to perform the ritual. As the priest began the ritual,

Rajaram Shastri, a Sanskrit scholar, realized that instead of the Vedic hymns, the priest was

uttering mantras from the Puranas. Later, it was also discovered that the priest did not bother to

bathe himself as well, which was an essential prerequisite for performing religious rituals. When

Shahu Maharaj sought an explanation from him, Narayan Shastri replied that bathing is only

1
Yashwant Dinkar Phadke (1986:47). According to Phadke and Dhananjay Keer (1979), both renowned
commentators of Maharashtra‘s social history, this event occurred in the year 1899. However, there seemed to have
been some confusion within the Marathi historiography about the precise year of this significant incident, which was
probably caused by the first full biography of Shahu Maharaj written by Annasaheb Babaji Latthe in 1924. Latthe
wrote that the incident took place in November 1900. (Latthe 1924: 171). Following Latthe, many English language
academic works also believed that the controversy took place in October 1900. See, for example, Ian Copeland
(1973:217) and Gail Omvedt (1976:132). However, in the second edition of Latthe‘s text, published in 2008, Editor
Jaysingrao Pawar corrected it to October 1899. Pawar pointed out that Vishnu Govind Vijapurkar, the editor of a
renowned monthly Granthmala, had criticised Shahu Maharaj for his insistence on the Vedic rites for himself, in an
article titled, ‗Jatibhed aani Marathyanche Nashta Vaibhav‘ (Casteism and the lost glory of the Marathas), which
was published in the August 1900 issue of Granthmala. This, according to Pawar, clearly indicated that the Vedokta
controversy must have taken place earlier than August 1900. In all likelihood, it was in November 1899 that the
above incident occurred in Kolhapur.
2
Rajaram Shastri Bhagwat (1851-1908) was a distinguished Sanskrit scholar who vehemently stood against
the Brahmanical hegemony. Durga Bhagwat has suggested that the term Brahmanetar (Non-Brahmin) came into
currency only because of Rajaram Shastri. (Durga Bhagwat 1947:19) In Dhananjay Keer‘s narrative of the Vedokta
controversy in his well-known biography of Shahu Maharaj, it was Rajaram Shastri who attracted Shahu‘s attention
to the fact that his priest Narayan Shastri was not performing the Vedic ritual. (Keer 1979:82) Bhagwat was also
renowned for an eccentric identification of himself as ‗a Brahmin but not a Hindu‘.
3
Shahu Maharaj was born as Yeshwantrao Ghatge in a Maratha family of Kagal near Kolhapur. When he
was 10 years old, he was adopted by the widow of Shivaji IV. At the time of his accession to the throne, he was
renamed as Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj.

14
mandatory before performing a Vedic ritual but since Shahu was a shudra, and therefore was

forbidden to even hear the Vedic mantras, the priest could only recite the mantras from the

Puranas and thus needed no bath. He further claimed that the Kshatriya status of the king of the

erstwhile Maratha Empire required approval from the mighty Brahmins of Kolhapur 4. Being the

descendant of Chhatrapati Shivaji, whose Kshatriya status was established by Gaga Bhatta, a

renowned Vedic pundit from Benares, through the Vedic coronation ceremony in 1674, it was

surprising for Shahu to find himself categorized as a shudra by this ordinary priest.

This incident, famously known as the Vedokta controversy, was a foundational moment

for the making of a new anti-Brahminism distinct from the one informed by the Phuleite

discourse. Narayan Shastri was not the only one to consider Shahu Chhatrapati a Shudra. All the

sixteen Shastri families patronized by the Kolhapur state also refused to acknowledge Shahu‘s

Kshatriya status. Even when Shahu gave a written order to the chief priest of the Kolhapur state

– Narayan Sadashiv Rajopadhye – to perform all the religious rituals of the Bhosale family as per

the Vedic tradition, he evaded performing the Vedic rituals for Shahu. Shahu, then, removed

Rajopadhye from the post and his lands and other inams were confiscated. Rajopadhye appealed

against Shahu‘s decision with the British legal authorities. The British court ruled against

Rajopadhye and upheld Shahu‘s decision in 1903. 5

The debate over the Varna status of Shahu Maharaj within the realm of Hindu legal and

religious authority – the Shankaracharya of the Sankeshwar Peeth – continued a little longer

though.6 Vasudev Shastri Bhilawadikar aka Shri Vidyashankar Bharati aka Guru Swami was the

4
In a letter, dated July 12th, 1903, to the Secretary of State for India, the governor of Bombay had
mentioned Shahu‘s conversation with Narayan Shastri at the Panchganga River. (Phadke 1986: 48)
5
Phadke (1986:104) Phadke has persuasively argued that the most important reason for ruling against
Rajopadhye was his connections with Lokmanya Tilak.

15
Shankaracharya at the Karvir Peeth during the Vedokta controversy. With the belief that he was

in the last stages of his life, Guru swami declared Kashinath Brahmanalkar as his heir apparent

and renamed him as Vidyanrusinha Bharati aka Shishya Swami on February 23 rd, 1903 at

Sankeshwar. At this moment, both the Guru and the Shishya swami were against conferring the

Kshatriya status on Shahu. After many conversations and shuffles between the Guru Swami and

the Shishya Swami and a threat of seizure of the estate of the Peeth from Shahu, finally, the

acknowledgment of Shahu‘s Kshatriya status came from the Sankeshwar Peeth on July 10th,

1905.7 However, the Peeth acknowledged Shahu‘s claim of being a Kshatriya only on the ground

that he was – being adopted into the Bhosale family – a descendent of the coroneted King,

Chhatrapati Shivaji. The acknowledgment of Shahu as an embodiment of Kshatriya-hood by the

Sankeshwar Peeth was merely the recognition of the body of the Hindu King. The Peeth refused

to consider all the Marathas as Kshatriyas. This was also a widely held opinion amongst the

Brahmins across Maharashtra.8

Yet, a large section of the Sanatana (orthodox) Brahmins refused to consider the King a

Kshatriya. A section of the Brahmins at Wai, which had long been the center of Brahmanical

orthodoxy in Southern Maharashtra, publicly condemned this decision of the Sankeshwar Peeth.

6
The Sankeshwar Peeth was established in 1510 AD at Sankeshwar, south of Kolhapur by Swami
Shankarananda of Sringeri with the blessings from the Kolhapur kings. Sankeshwar and Karvir were the two
branches of this Peeth.
7
Shahu Chhatrapati had sent a written intimation to Guru Swami that the Kolhapur court should have been
consulted in deciding the heir apparent of the Sankeshwar Peeth. Since Shahu was not consulted when this decision
was made, he decided to confiscate the entire estate of Guru Swami in March 1903. Consequently, Guru Swami
changed his mind and acknowledged the Kshatriya status of Shahu Maharaj. Shahu‘s means of confiscating the
estates of the Brahmin priests did work for him. According to a report in Tilak‘s Kesari, published in September 1st,
1903, the total annual inams seized by the Chhatrapati from the Kolhapur brahmins who refused to acknowledge
him as Kshatriya and were unwilling to perform the Vedic rituals for him, was about Rs 48000/- of which
Rajopadhye‘s was about 17500 and Shankaracharya‘s was about 14000. Rajopadhye claimed that the total amount
was worth rupees 52000 per annum.
8
Lokmanya Tilak was also ready to accept Shahu as Kshatriya as a descendent of Chhatrapati Shivaji.
Tilak conveyed the same to Shahu in a personal conversation with him. (Shahu Maharaj‘s letter to Colonel W B
Ferris, British political agent, dated 12 November, 1907, printed in Shahu Chhatrapati Papers, Volume 4; 1985)

16
A little later, in 1908, when Shahu‘s daughter married Tukojirao Pawar, a Maratha ruler at the

princely state of Devas in central India, many Brahmins from Devas sent a petition to the

Shankaracharya of the Dwarka Peeth inquiring about the Varna status of the Devas ruler. The

Shankaracharya of Dwarka gave a historic decision that conferred the Kshatriya status on

Tukojirao Pawar and the Marathas as a jati as well.9 Thus, the debate that went on for almost a

decade was settled after the decision from the Shankaracharya of the Dwarka Peeth came in late

1908. Part of this long controversy remained confined to legal and religious registers but the

debate went on beyond the realms of legality and the hermeneutics of the Dharmashastras. The

public form of this dispute over the Kshatriya status of the Maratha King (Shahu Maharaj) – and

by extension the Marathas as a jati – had a life of its own. The Vedokta moment laid the

foundations for the non-Brahmin – particularly the Maratha – political consciousness which has

continued to dominate social ideology and politics of Maharashtra ever since. Many scholars of

modern Maharashtra have rightly highlighted the importance of the Vedokta controversy and

explored this significant moment in the context of the mapping of genealogies of anti-caste

consciousness10. However, the consequences of this moment also reshaped the relationship

between caste and its ideological expression in the form of the non-Brahmin movement and the

discursive articulations of modern Hinduness since the beginning of the twentieth century.

The demand for Kshatriya status on part of the Marathas11 was not new. The first

Maratha Chhatrapati, Shivaji Maharaj himself had found it difficult to establish his Kshatriya

9
Shrimant Tukojirao Pawar Rajesaheb Yanchya Kshatriyatvacha Nirnaya [the Marathi version of the order
of the Dwarka Peeth, Acknowledging the Kshatriya status of the Devas ruler and the Marathas as a jati] (Published
in Kolhapur in 1908) This decision by the Shankaracharya of the Dwarka Peeth is known as Vratya Kshatriya
Samskara Nirnaya. See also, Dharma (November 1st, 1908)
10
See for example Gail Omvedt (1976) and Rosalind O‘Hanlon (1985)

17
status in the late seventeenth century. Later in 1835, Pratap Sinh, descendent of Shivaji and the

last ruler of the Maratha confederacy at Satara demanded a public debate on his Varna status.

The debate went on for several days in which the orthodox Brahmins were defeated by Vitthal

Parasnis, a Kayastha pundit and it was declared that the Bhosale families at Satara, Tanjore,

Nagpur, and Kolhapur can perform Vedic religious rites. However, Chhatrapati Pratap Sinh was

seeking the rights to Vedic rituals only for himself and the Bhosale family, as he also considered

other ―Marathas‖ like the Shindes of Gwalior, Gaekwads of Baroda as Kunbis

(peasants/Shudras). He considered marital alliances with such lower peasant castes as sinful as

an incestuous relationship. 12 However, as Rosalind O‘Hanlon has shown, the public debate that

secured a Kshatriya status for Pratap Sinh also led to the widening of the category Maratha, by

the mid-nineteenth century. It did not remain confined to the landed-elites and the upper strata of

the Maratha-Kunbi community but enabled many modest Marathas to put forward Kshatriya

claims. 13

In 1891, Sayajirao Gaekwad, ruler of the princely state of Baroda, during his visit to the

Jodhpur state realized that the Rajput kings had access to Vedic religious rites. Sayajirao then

tried to convince the Baroda Brahmins to perform the Vedic rituals at his palace for the next few

years. Eventually, in May 1896, he issued an order for the Brahmin priests at his palace to

perform the Vedic rituals. When no Maharashtrian priest came forward to perform the Vedic

rituals for the Gaekwads, he removed them from the posts and appointed Gujarati and Marwari

Brahmins in their place. And, later Sayajirao also published a booklet titled Upanayanvidhisaar,

11
Prachi Deshpande has illustrated this transformation in the category Maratha from its pre-colonial open-
ended military ethos to a more Hinduized and exclusively bounded community during the colonial period.
Deshpande (2004)
12
Keshav Seetaram Thakare (1948:123)
13
O‘Hanlon (1985: 25-49)

18
written by a professor at the Benares Sanskrit College, Amritrao Narayan Shastri in Marathi

which contained the Vedic hymns with Marathi translations. It described the Vedic ritual of the

sacred thread ceremony for everyone to follow. 14 Many of the Gujarati Brahmins faced ex-

communication and social expulsion from the Brahmin community in Baroda for performing the

Vedic rites for Gaekwad Maharaj. A Maharashtrian pundit, Bhikacharya Ainapure who

performed the Vedic religious rites for Sayajirao was also excommunicated by the Brahmins

when he returned to his home in Wai after retirement.

But the strength and intensity of public (Brahmin) outrage against Sayajirao were far less

significant as compared to what Shahu Chhatrapati had to face. The geographical distance of

Baroda from Maharashtra and as well as the difference in how both Sayajirao and Shahu handled

the Vedokta controversy contributed to this difference in the degree of severity of the opposition

they encountered. However, two important factors should also be noted in that regard: Firstly,

Shahu Chhatrapati was arguing on behalf of all the Marathas and by implementing the policy of

50% reservation in education and employment for the non-Brahmin masses, he ignited a new

political spirit in the non-Brahmin movement in 1902. And, secondly, the Satyashodhak

movement initiated by Jotirao Phule, had provided the historical context for the critique of

Brahminism that Shahu participated in and widely encouraged. 15

A celebrated historian of the Marathas, Vishwanath Kashinath Rajwade pointed out an

interesting contradiction that had crept into the formation of anti-Brahminism that sprouted out

of the demand to access the Vedas. Rajwade argued in an article written in 1906 for

Vishwavrutta – a journal edited by Vishnu Govind Vijapurkar – that since Vedokta controversy

14
Phadke (1986)
15
Also, as Phadke has pointed out Baroda was a much larger princely state than Kolhapur which was
relatively less dependent on the whims of the British power. (Phadke, 1986: 113)

19
was essentially a desire expressed by the Marathas to be regarded as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins,

it also meant an acceptance of the authority of the Brahmins and the Vedas by the Marathas. 16

Towards the end of that article, Rajwade pointed out the need to establish a western-educated

Vedic pundit at the helm of the Shankaracharya Peeth. Incidentally, Shahu Maharaj also arrived

at the same conclusion soon, as I will explore in greater detail later in the chapter, to dethrone the

religious authority of the Brahmins over the Kshatriyas, Shahu Maharaj established a new

Maratha Shankaracharya in 1920. 17 Though there were many in the non-Brahmin movement –

like Bhaskarrao Jadhav and Keshav Seetaram Thakare18 – who disagreed with Shahu‘s decision

to install a new religious authority, the non-Brahmin Shankaracharya was seen as a radical

refashioning of the Hindu Varna hierarchy.

While a section of the orthodox Brahmins continued their insistence on the non-existence

of the Kshatriya varna in Kali Yuga, there emerged a school of new pundits who not only argued

for the recognition of Marathas as Kshatriyas but also reasoned for a historicist method for the

interpretation of Dharmashastras. The Vedic shastris who had acquainted themselves with the

western natural and social sciences offered an imagination of a new ‗Hinduness‘ – which was

often described with the Sanskrit term Hindutva – for the modern times through a range of texts

and speeches and public debates all across Maharashtra in the first half of the twentieth century,

which I will examine in the second chapter.

In this chapter, I map diverse trajectories of the non-Brahmin discourse which sprouted

from the Vedokta controversy to show that the Vedokta moment, while challenging the

Brahmanical religious and cultural dominance in Maharashtra also provided an incitement to a

16
V K Rajwade (1906); reprinted in Rajwade Lekha Sangraha part 2, Chitrashala Press, 1932.
17
Latthe (1924: 520)
18
Thakare (1973: 298-300)

20
range of discourses on the idea of modern Hinduness. This then, was a foundational moment for

a new set of debates among Brahmans and non-Brahmans about what being Hindu was, and what

its ritual basis and rules would be for the modern times.

The ‘Kshatriya’ turn in non-Brahmin Discourse:

Marathi theatre has historically played a significant part in imagining the resolution of

societal conflicts and envisaging a future path, particularly in the colonial period. A renowned

Marathi playwright, who later became a Gandhian activist, Bhargavram aka Mama Varerkar

wrote a play, titled Sanyashacha Sansar (the world of a Sanyasi) based on the theme of Hindu

Missionaries for the reimagination of the Hindu social order in 1919. Shankaracharya, the

highest religious authority for the Hindus, was the central protagonist in the play and he was

dressed as Swami Vivekananda. In his multi-volume autobiography, Majha Nataki Sansar,

Varerkar has narrated an interesting incident regarding this play. Varerkar mentioned that when

Sanyashacha Sansar was staged in Kolhapur in 1919, Shahu Maharaj was also present. In one of

the scenes in the second act of the play, Varerkar‘s Shankaracharya hailed Chhatrapati Shivaji

for his initiative of Shuddhi of the converted Hindus and loudly proclaimed that Shivaji was the

real Shankaracharya of his times. Shahu Maharaj, while watching the play from the wings, was

so excited that he suddenly came onto the stage and addressing directly the audience he said,

―Listen to what this Shankaracharya is saying, brothers!‖ 19

19
B V Varerkar ([1959] 1995: 402)

21
 Varerkar‘s Sanyashacha Sansar (actor Madhavrao Walavalkar as Shankaracharya,

dressed as Swami Vivekananda)20

This excitement shown by Shahu Maharaj on the idea of a Kshatriya Shankaracharya

provides an indication of Shahu‘s direction of thinking. Within a year of this incident, in 1920,

he initiated an establishment of a Maratha Shankaracharya. After his experience with the

Brahmanical tyranny during the Vedokta controversy, Shahu Maharaj had become more

determined to overthrow what he termed as the religious bureaucracy of the Brahmins. 21 He was

convinced that only a parallel non-Brahmin priestly order can curtail the dominance of this

Brahmin bureaucracy. It seems that in Shahu‘s perception, the Brahmanical hegemony was

essentially a bureaucratic problem which needed a change in the bureaucratic regime through

20
Picture from Varerkar (1995:404)
21
Shahu Maharaj quite often used the term religious bureaucracy to refer to the dominance of the Brahmin
priestly class over the Hindu society. See his confidential letter to Mr. G M Curtis, chief secretary to the government
of Bombay, dated July 13th, 1920.

22
policies like caste-based reservations and the Kshatriya priesthood.22 In a public speech delivered

as a chief guest of the foundation laying ceremony of Shri Udaji Maratha Students‘ Hostel at

Nasik on April 15th, 1920, Shahu Maharaj appealed to his people that they should abandon the

Brahmin priests. He said:

―…the dominance of the Brahmins over the Hindu society is due to the
religious privileges they acquire by birth. This has led to the establishment of a
religious bureaucracy by the Brahmins. And, unless this bureaucracy is destroyed
and everyone is considered equal in religious terms, this country can never prosper.
Therefore, our people should abandon the practice of performing religious rituals
through the Brahmin priests….The fact that the Brahmins worship our (Kshatriya)
ancestors like Rama and Krishna is enough to establish that the Brahmins are lower
than us in terms of caste status…Despite my affection for the Brahmins, if they
continue to harbor hatred for me, I will be forced to replace them by the priests from
the Maratha caste.‖23

Through his battles with the Brahmins, Shahu Chhatrapati was convinced that their

usurpation of religious power was the reason for Kshatriya slavery. The right remedy therefore,

was to replace the Brahmins altogether by reassuming authority as the King of his people.

However, it is important to note that this remedy was to take place within the fold of Hinduism

itself. While explaining the context of Shahu Chhatrapati‘s decision to establish a Kshatra

Jagadguru or a Maratha High Priest, Shahu‘s biographer Annasaheb Latthe compared this

endeavor with the Protestant reformation in medieval Europe precisely to emphasize the point

that Shahu wanted to overthrow the hegemony of the Brahmins; he did not wish to abandon

Hinduism at all. 24

22
Unlike Mahatma Phule, Shahu‘s was not a primarily intellectual or textual engagement with the question
of the Brahmin dominance, rather it was practical.
23
Rajarshi Shahu Chhatrapati Papers, Vol. 9 pages 72-73.
24
―Luther and the host of reformers in Europe who labored to overthrow the Papacy did not desire to
destroy all organization root and branch, but they purified the system by removing its weeds and reformed the
Church as it exists in Protestant Europe, That was exactly the ideal of the Maharaja in the creation of the Kshatriya
Jagadguru and the Vedic School at Kolhapur.‖ Latthe (1924: 520)

23
 In an order issued to his Khasgi (private) Department on June 15th, 1920, Shahu

instructed that ―all worship and the sixteen rites in the (old) Palace, New Palace and the Chhatris

(ancestral memorial temples) are to be performed at the hands of the Marathas.‖ 25 After realizing

that this order was yet to be implemented Shahu issued another order on June 26th, 1920 which

explicitly stated his rationale behind the previous order:

―The order of 16-6-20 has not yet been carried out. It is extremely necessary that it

should be; for the race of Chhatrapati Shivaji is derived from Rama and Krishna and is that of the

Maratha Kshatriyas. The Brahmins, however, are sprung from Shudras…‖ 26

Further, Shahu added that the descendants of Shiva Chhatrapati became extinct at

Tanjore, Satara, Nagpur, etc. and in the Kolhapur State as well because the Kshatriya Marathas

allowed the worship of their family Gods to be performed by ―these lower people‖ (Brahmins).

Accordingly, the Shivaji Kshatriya Vedic Pathshala began in Kolhapur on July 6 th, 1920 to train

Maratha priests. The school started with fourteen students and by the end of the year, the number

reached sixty-two. Among them was a student of the Bhoi (fisherman) caste.27 The curriculum of

the Pathshala included Vedic mantras, music, musical expositions of religion, and Marathi.

Latthe has noted that the experiment was so popular among the Marathas that within the very

first year of its existence the school had to its credit more than five hundred marriages at which

the alumni of the school officiated as the Maratha Vedic priests. Almost simultaneously, Shahu

Chhatrapati also began his search for ‗a qualified Mahratta of an unimpeachably pure descent‘ 28

25
Latthe (1924:521)
26
Latthe (1924:522)
27
Out of the 62 boys on the roll, 30 belonged to the capital of the State from which another 27 came;
Poona, Nasik and Khandesh sent one each, and the Phaltan State sent two.
28
Latthe (1924: 523)

24
to be installed as the High Priest for the Kshatriya order. Mr. Sadashivrao Patil of the village

Benadi, an under-graduate from the Fergusson College, was accordingly selected for the

position. The Patgaon Math – founded by a celebrated Non-Brahmin Sanyasi, Mauni Buwa and

was patronized by Chhatrapati Shivaji himself – was chosen as the seat for the new Kshatriya

priestly order. Sadashivrao Patil Benadikar thus became the head of the Patgaon Math on

November 11th, 1920.

In Latthe‘s description,

―In this Kshatriya Guru were thus combined the ascetic ideals of the eighteenth-century

saints and the Vedic ideals of the Kshatriya — not a caste but an order without reference to birth

or race—holding its own in matters spiritual as well as secular.‖ 29

Here, what Latthe – and Shahu Chhatrapati – indicated was the idea that has been in

currency since the beginning of the Vedokta controversy, i.e. the varnas in the original Vedic

society were not based on birth, as people could attain any varna according to the qualities they

showed. Apart from Shahu, Sayajirao Gaekwad of Baroda, also believed in this, as is evident

from a letter he sent to Bhaushastri Lele, a sanatana Brahmin of Wai. 30 As has been explicitly

clarified at the time of the initiation ceremony of Kshatra Jagadguru, he was not selected by the

virtue of his birth nor would his post be hereditary. And, Latthe‘s claim that this new priestly

order was to be both spiritual and secular, refers to attempts to ‗modernize‘ or ‗rationalize‘

Hinduism on part of Shahu Chhatrapati.

Interestingly, as one of the early, contemporary spokesmen of Shahu‘s efforts, Latthe‘s

description attempts to cast Shahu‘s policy as a necessary modernizing, rationalizing reform of

Hinduism that also preserved the best of its pre-colonial tradition. Latthe was clearly aware of

29
Latthe (1924: 525)
30
Dharma 5th May, 1904

25
the radical critique of Hinduism put forward by Jotirao Phule and the Satyashodhak Samaj

earlier; he was therefore at pains to show that the new Maratha priestly order was not against the

Satyashodhak Samaj‘s teachings. On the contrary, he tried to show, by extensively quoting from

the radical Samaj leader and President Mukundrao Patil‘s speech on December 31, 1919 that

there was no contradiction between Satyashodhak Samaj‘s severe criticism of the priestly order

and Shahu Chhatrapati‘s efforts to initiate a new one. Latthe and Shahu, therefore, tried to

harness the anti-Brahman critique of the Samaj for the anti-Brahman project of a Kshatriya-led

Hinduism.

Kshatra Jagadguru Sadashivrao Patil Benadikar at his initiation ceremony on November

11th, 1920 at the Mauni Peeth in Patgaon, Kolhapur 31

31
Photo from Jaysingrao Pawar (2013)

26
 One of the consequences of this Kshatriya turn within the non-Brahmin movement was

that the elite Marathas increasingly began to claim a Kshatriya status and thereby distinguished

themselves from the common Kunbis. Within the broad non-Brahmin categorization, there also

emerged a distinction between the Marathas and the non-Marathas. As Gail Omvedt has shown

through her discussion of the various conferences organized by the middle-castes – such as the

Dhangars (Shepherds), the Salis (Weavers), and the Lohars (Blacksmiths) – in the early

twentieth century, the real choice in front of these non-Brahmin castes was between ‗aiming for

status in the varna sense or appealing for government benefits by identifying themselves as

―backward‖. And it also involved the Aryan-non-Aryan question‘. 32

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the colonial state had developed apparatuses

like census, gazetteers and ethnographic surveys which produced a large body of information

about native society, its history, culture and social institutions like caste. 33 These colonial

interventions produced two seemingly contradictory processes: the secularization of caste and its

novel association with Hinduism. 34 While the production of this vast body of sociological

knowledge about the Hindus involved considerable input from the Brahmins, 35 it had acquired an

independent status by the early twentieth century and replaced the traditional authority of

Brahmins as the sole custodians and interpreters of Hindu knowledge systems. These two

processes impacted the functioning of Caste as well. On the one hand, caste differences and caste
32
Omvedt (1976: 188)
33
A large body of scholarship since the 1990s has emphasized the colonial construction of knowledge
about Indian society, and of various social categories like religion and caste that were previously understood as
traditional and ageless. See for example, Nicolas Dirks (1988, 2001), Barnard Cohn (1987, 1996) and the histories
produced by the Subaltern Studies collective.
34
Rao (2009:43)
35
In contrast with the scholarship that emphasized the role of the colonial government in the ‗invention‘ of
caste, C. A. Bayly, historian of the Cambridge school has argued that colonial modernity was essentially a
collaborative project between the colonizers and the colonized. See Bayly (1983, 1996). See also, Susan Bayly
(1999).

27
identities became more solidified and fixed, while on the other, it was now increasingly possible

for non-Brahmins to challenge Brahmin authority. Also, non-Brahmins, through the engagement

with modernizing institutions like schools and colleges, developed a new sense of rights. 36 And

these same institutions also brought about new investments in caste identities in the case of the

Marathas. 37 But there also developed a robust non-Brahmin print-public which intensely debated

various aspects of the historicity and contemporary status of caste in Indian society. And, as

Prachi Deshpande has persuasively argued profound interactions between the colonial sociology

and the Marathi non-Brahmin public sphere led to the production of the modern non-

Brahmin/Maratha identity.

As Orientalist scholarship of the late nineteenth century had divided the Indian

population between Aryan and non-Aryan races, the idea was also taken up by the native

intellectuals.38 Much like the orthodox Brahmins used the terms Brahmin and shudra as

essentialized and absolute categories, the non-Brahmin print publics also deployed the categories

Aryan and non-Aryan as essentialized and absolute. In particular, Mahatma Phule‘s writings

were instrumental in the popularization of this deployment of these terms in the non-Brahmin

print publics. The ―non-Aryan‖ theory – developed by Phule – was intended to establish a

cultural and racial basis for the unity of the Maharashtrian masses: a unity that categorically

excluded the Chitpavan Brahmins – who were termed as Irani Aryabhatta [the Iranian Aryans] –

and considered the Bahujan Samaj (the middle agrarian castes of Kunbis, Malis, Dhangars,

artisans, etc.) with untouchables and tribals as one indigenous community.

36
As Narendra Wagle has shown in the case of devadnya sonars, the authority of the Brahmins was
diminished through the arrival of a new arbitrator for caste disputes in the form of the colonial courts which replaced
the brahmin-oriented Peshwa regime in early nineteenth century. Wagle (1987)
37
Omvedt (1976: 180-199) also see, Deshpande (2004: 17-21)
38
Leopold (1970)

28
 But, as Omvedt has further noted, the non-Aryan theory proved somewhat of an

embarrassment to many of Phule‘s later Maharashtrian followers, for two reasons. To begin with,

the whole idea of ethnic conflict between Aryans and non-Aryans was de-emphasized, not only

because the issue of actual racial mixing was recognized as a complex one, but also because of a

need to assert a Hindu national unity. Secondly, the middle castes of Maharashtra, through the

various caste conferences under the leadership of the educated and rich elites, chose instead to

identify themselves as Kshatriya Hindus, and thus, of Aryan or northern dissent. 39 In the

classification adopted by the non-Brahmin movement, Brahmins, especially the Chitpavans,

could be characterized as Aryan outsiders while untouchables and tribals were considered as

non-Aryan natives. But a wide range of middle-castes in the post-Phule phase of the non-

Brahmin politics chose to emphasize an Aryan and Kshatriya identity to express a high status

and belongingness to northern and Vedic traditions, which also separated them from the low

castes (Shudra) and untouchables (Atishudra) of Maharashtra. There was a discernible

willingness to accommodate or even assert ―Hinduness‖ in the early twentieth century non-

Brahmin discourse, particularly in the aftermath of the Vedokta movement. Despite the

differences amongst the non-Brahmin intellectuals regarding the content and meaning of

categories like ‗Non-Brahmin‘, ‗Brahmanetar‘ and ‗Maratha-Kunbi‘, the political non-

Brahminism that emerged through their collective writings and activism had begun to assert a

definitive Hindu identity.

Shahu Chhatrapati‘s position on caste best reflects this emergent trend within non-

Brahminism in Maharashtra. It had two interlinked aspects to it: on the one hand, he provided

tremendous financial and political support to the Satyashodhak movement in its fight against

Brahminism but on the other he refused to actually be a member of the Samaj himself. On the
39
Omvedt (1976: 118)

29
contrary, he was supportive of Arya Samaj‘s quest for the revival of Vedic/Aryan religion. By

establishing the Kshatriya Priesthood and Maratha Vedic schools, thus, he opened up new

discursive and political spaces for the imagination of non-Brahmin Hinduness. 40 In 1921, in a

letter published in Jagruti, a Marathi newspaper from Baroda, edited by a renowned non-

Brahmin journalist, Bhagwantrao Palekar, Shahu Chhatrapati had stated his position in no

uncertain terms:

―It seems that there are many misconceptions about my position (regarding the

Satyashodhak Samaj) and thus I am writing to you to state my position clearly in front of the

public…I am not and have never been a Satya Samajist. And I have stated this publicly many

times…I still do not understand why I am called a Satya Samajist…I accept the authority of the

Vedas and I follow them, then why are the Satya Samajists condemning me?‖ 41

Even when the movement was at its peak, the ―non-Brahmin‖ never operated as a stable

and homogenous category. As V. Geetha and S. V. Rajadurai have noted in the context of the

non-Brahmin politics in Tamil Nadu, ‗non-Brahmin was a consciously constructed political

category, whose referents were shifting and various‘. 42 The establishment of the Maratha High

Priest and the increasing tendency to claim the Kshatriya status shown by the elite Marathas

altered the referents of the non-Brahmin movement in Maharashtra by the 1920s. 43

40
For similar arguments regarding Shahu‘s position on caste, see Omvedt (1976:124-136), Deshpande
(2004:17-18), and Rao (2009: 56-57). See also Y D Phadke (1986: 217-224) and Phadke (1989: 292-294)
41
Jagruti (26 February 1921), also quoted in Y D Phadke ([1986] 2018:218) Jaysingrao Pawar – and V B
Kolte before him – have argued that this was a strategic position adopted by Shahu Chhatrapati to evade the division
between different castes and he was a true Satyashodhak at heart. Pawar (2001:150)
42
V. Geetha and S. V. Rajadurai (second revised edition, 2008: xv)
43
The other contentious issue within the non-Brahmin movement was the degree to which the non-
Brahmins should align with the nationalist struggle. Since the formation of the Maratha Brotherhood (1911), an
association of to promote education and reforms amongst the Marathas, formed by Baburao Jagtap in Pune, there
emerged a distinction between the Rashtriya Maratha (Nationalist Maratha) – those who advocate participation in
the nationalist struggle and an alliance with the Congress politics, a category in which Shinde and Jagtap would find

30
 Some non-Brahmin radicals like Shripatrao Shinde, the editor of the Vijayi Maratha

believed that the Brahmin priestly order created hierarchies amongst the Hindus and defeated the

true Vedic spirit. He went on to claim, remarkably, that Phule‘s Satyashodhak Samaj was an

endeavor to reclaim the Vedic religion from the Brahmins. If Phule had sought to rescue an

aboriginal, non-Aryan and non-Brahmin community from the Brahmans by terming them

invaders, Shinde went a step further and sought to rescue the Vedic religion itself from

Brahmans.44 On the other hand, many non-Brahmin leaders like Vitthal Ramji Shinde,

Mukundrao Patil, Bhaskarrao Jadhav, and Keshavrao Thakare were disconcerted – to different

degrees – with the establishment of the Maratha high priest, as well as with the increasing

obsession with the Kshatriya status amongst the Marathas. Mukundrao Patil steadfastly argued

against the new priestly order. Although Latthe quoted Mukundrao Patil to claim that the

establishment of the Kshatra Jagadguru Peeth was not in contradiction with the Phule ideology,

Patil himself never supported the Maratha high priest. He considered the very idea of a priest –

Brahmin or non-Brahmin – as a mediator between God and man was a contradiction with the

ideology of Satyashodhak Samaj.

On the other hand, although like Patil, Bhaskarrao Jadhav also claimed to be a true

disciple of Mahatma Phule and refused to bow in front of the Kshatra Jagadguru, he, however,

claimed that Phule was the true Hindu. In a series of articles written in 1928, for Garibancha

Kaivari [The Champion of the Poor], a non-Brahmin periodical edited by Baburao Yadav,

Jadhav argued that Satyashodhak Samaj was the true organization of the Vedic Hindus 45, a

themselves – and the Satyashodhak Maratha, the non-Brahmin radicals whose politics was centered only around
anti-Brahminism, wherein radicals like Javalkar and Lad could be placed .For more details on this, see G. M. Pawar
(2010)
44
Jaysingrao Pawar and Ramesh Jadhav (1993:147-48)
45
Gundekar (2013: 433)

31
position that hinged upon Shripatrao Shinde‘s casting of Phule‘s project in the Vijayi Maratha as

being about the recovery of the Vedic spirit . Keshavrao Jedhe could be placed in between

Mukundrao Patil and Shripatrao Shinde. Jedhe was an active supporter of Dr. Ambedkar and the

untouchable cause, yet he also claimed the Maratha Kshatriya status and was unperturbed by the

division it created between the elite Marathas and the Maratha-Kunbis. 46 Thus, we see that

placing the Satyashodhak legacy and Phule‘s writings, which were still a rallying and critical

reference point for the non-Brahman movement, within the vocabulary and institutions of

Hinduness became increasingly important for various writers and activists within the non-

Brahman fold.

The widespread non-Brahmin political network across Maharashtra by the first decade of

the twentieth century was instrumental in spreading this turn towards Hindu and Kshatriya

identity within the movement. Satyashodhak/non-Brahmin campaigners such as – Vasudev

Lingoji Birje, a Maratha from Belgaum (1864-1908), Motiram Tukaram Wankhade, a Mali from

Amravati (d.1952), Gopalrao Dalvi, a Maratha Deshmukh from Nagpur, Govindrao Wakale, a

Maratha advocate from Solapur, Kashirao Bapuji Deshmukh (1860-1943) a Maratha Deshmukh

from Shirasgaon, Kashinath Rambhau Divte aka Anand Swami (1893-1952), a revolutionary

Sanyasi belonging to a Nhavi (Barber) caste from Ahmednagar, etc. – were active in the

aftermath of the Vedokta movement and wrote extensively against the Brahmin hegemony while

supporting the Kshatriya claims. Many of these non-Brahmin intellectuals/activists, as we shall

see, took up the claim to the Kshatriya status quite enthusiastically.

Vasudev Birje‘s text Kshatriya Ani Tyanche Astitva [the Existence of the Kshatriyas]

(1903) was a pioneering effort in claiming the continued existence of Kshatriyas in the world

(rather than being exterminated, as claimed in some Puranic texts and argued by Brahmins) and
46
Deshpande (2004: 20)

32
demanding Kshatriya status for Marathas. Birje‘s book – of about 350 pages and 29 chapters –

was the product of the environment of intense antagonism between Brahmins and Marathas in

the aftermath of the Vedokta controversy. He explicitly stated in the introduction to the text that

he was motivated by ‗the desire to answer the daily insults thrown at the Kshatriyas in

Maharashtra‘. Birje was one of the first non-Brahmin voices to claim that the Brahmavidya or

the spiritual knowledge of the ancient Hindus was created by the Kshatriyas, which was stolen

by the Brahmins. Of course, Phule had made a similar polemic about Brahman invaders having

oppressed and stolen the knowledge and resources of aboriginal Shudras and atishudras, through

the story of the crafty Vaman tricking the generous king Bali raja into giving up all he had,

including his own life. As Gundekar has rightly pointed out, Birje‘s text inaugurated the

transition from Phule‘s term of Shudra-Atishudras to Aryans and Kshatriyas.47

The writings of Kashinath Bapuji Deshmukh, an elite Maratha from Amravati, are

exemplary in illustrating the range of such arguments and the contradictions within them.

Deshmukh‘s anti-Brahminism, entangled with his claims to Kshatriyahood, sought to promote a

proud Maratha-Hindu identity on the one hand, even as made new claims regarding Kshatriyas

being the original creators of the Hindu society and culture. Deshmukh had initially lost sight of

the apparent contradiction in these claims – that if they were indeed the creators of Hindu

society, the Kshatriyas would then be the new Brahmins in the social order, and thus would have

to accept the responsibility for all the evils and accusations the Marathas had hitherto imposed

upon the Brahmins. Deshmukh realized this contradiction, he argued that the Vedic religion was

founded by the Kshatriyas and it was entirely separate from the Brahmin religion. 48 Deshmukh‘s

efforts were concentrated upon the elevation of the status of the high caste Marathas, as in his

47
Gundekar (2010: 334)
48
Deshmukh (1927:83-85)

33
imagination the category Kshatriya was exclusive, and not open for all non-Brahmins.

Effectively then, Deshmukh‘s project reflected the same conservatism showed by the orthodox

Brahmins in their reliance upon family genealogies and insistence on the purity of caste.

34
An advertisement of the books published by Kashinath Bapuji Deshmukh‘s Subodh Granthmala

(series of books) including, An Illustrated Ancient and Modern History of Kshatriyas, An

Illustrated History of Kshatriya Castes, A History of Maratha Kshatriyas, A History of

Kshatriyas Kula and Families, Vedic Rituals for Kshatriyas, Decline and fall of the Hindus, The

Kshatriya-Brahman Confrontation, The Message of the Arya Samaj, Are the Vedas Divine? A

Guide to Perform Religious Rituals by Motiram Wankhade, and Kodandacha Tanatkar, a

polemic against the Brahmin historiography by Keshav Seetaram Thakare, etc. The

advertisement also says that the Granthmala has won various awards from his holiness, the

Kshatra Jagadguru of Kolhapur, from the Nagpur-based Kshatriya-Vaishya Dharma Sanrakshak

Parishad and Maratha Shikshan Parishad of Mumbai. 49

49
K B Deshmukh (1929:1)

35
 Thus, we see the coming together and foregrounding of the categories Hindu, Kshatriya

and Maratha in non-Brahman discourse. Let us now look at some of the features of Hinduness in

this discourse in further detail.

The making of Non-Brahmin Hinduness

Although unlike Dr. Ambedkar, Mahatma Phule never practically abandoned Hinduism,

his overall position – articulated across multiple texts from the 1840s to 1880s – was rather

antithetical to Hinduism in general. He rarely used the term Hinduism and instead only called it

Brahmanism. He characterized Indian history as the history of the Varna struggle, i.e. the central

logic of Indian history, according to him, was the antagonism between the Brahmins and the

Shudras since the colonization of Indian inhabitants (Shudra-Atishudras) by the Aryan invaders

(the Brahmins). Phule even viewed Christianity and Islam – as monotheistic and book-based

religions without a hierarchically organized caste structure – as potential sources of liberation for

the Shudra-Atishudras of Hindustan. He was also quite critical of religious traditions within

Hinduism that fought against Brahminism such as Bhakti. In Shetkaryacha Asud [Cultivator‘s

Whipcord (1883)] he wrote:

―When the masculine warriors of Islam arrived in India and destroyed the false Aryan

religion and its temples like Somnatha and sought to free the peasants from the cunning of

Brahminism, the Brahmin-bhats like Dnyaneshwar and Mukundraj translated the Sanskrit

Bhagavata texts into Prakrit Marathi – namely Dnyaneshwari and Viveksindhu respectively –

which infuriated the minds of the Shudra peasants against Muslims.‖ 50

Phule squarely blamed the bhakti tradition, particularly the Varkari movement – within

which he also distinguished between Brahmins like Dnyaneshwar and the Kunbi-shudra saints

50
Keer, Malshe and Phadke (1991:266)

36
like Tukaram, favoring the latter over the former – for dissuading people from receiving the

message of a true religion like Islam. 51

Phule was unwavering in his views regarding the monotheistic religions. Phule‘s very

close associate and the later president of Satyashodhak Samaj, a Telugu contractor from

Mumbai; Swami Ramayya Vyankayya Ayyawaru (1826-1912) had founded Niti Prasarak

Mandali, a society for promoting ethical critique of religions in 1882 along with Simian

Benjamin Walker, an atheist Jew and his wife Rebecca Walker. Through close interactions with

the Walkers and Krushnaji Arjun Keluskar, an important non-Brahmin intellectual, Ayyawaru

began to realize that Christianity itself would not stand the scrutiny the Christian missionaries

had subjected Hinduism to. And thus, by applying the same critical gaze to Christianity – that the

missionaries (and Phule) had applied to Hinduism – Ayyawaru published a small booklet titled,

Khristi Bandhujannans Vinanti (A Request to My Christian Brethren) in 1887. He also

successfully convinced a merchant named Manjishet of the Bhatia caste against converting into

Christianity. When Jotirao came to know about Ayyawaru‘s critique of Christianity, he was so

furious that he wrote an offensive piece against him, calling him a drunkard and a fool in

Dnyanodaya, a periodical of the Christian mission on September 8 th, 1887.52

As seen in the above episode, an aspect of Phule‘s worldview was to consider

Brahmanism as the singular source of slavery of the Bahujan masses and therefore he imagined a
51
Interestingly, the doyen of Maratha history who popularized the Brahmanical conception of
Maharashtra-Dharma, Vishwanath Kashinath Rajwade was equally critical of the medieval Marathi bhakti
movement for the exact opposite reason, that of not fighting the Islamic invasion of Dharma and Desh. Rajwade
also separated the Varkari tradition from the teachings of the Brahmin saint-poet Ramdas, who according to him was
acutely aware of politics than the Vedantic otherworldly Varkari saint-poets. The imagination of Ramdas as
Shivaji‘s political teacher was foundational to the Brahmin-centric cultural nationalism of Rajwade. For a
fascinating discussion of Rajwade‘s overall view of History and Maharashtra-dharma and his critique of the Bhakti
tradition, see Sadanand More‘s excellent introduction to volume 10 of the Collected Works of Rajwade. Another
excellent historian of Maharashtra, T. S. Shejwalkar has also critically reviewed Rajwade‘s position on Bhakti, in
Shejwalkar (1940:5-14) see also Prachi Deshpande on Rajwade and Maharashtra-dharma (2007: 131-135).
52
Phule, however, promptly and publically apologized to Ayyawaru in the next issue of Dnyanodaya
(October 1887). Y D Phadke (1995:172-73)

37
clear historical distinction between the two categories of people: Brahmins and the Shudra-

atishudras.53 This view was taken up by the more radical Phuleites in the later phase of the

Satyashodhak or the non-Brahman movement. However, this very distinction imagined between

the Brahmins and the rest, allowed Satyashodhaks like Mukundrao Patil to put forward a notion

that Hindus and Brahmins belonged to two different religions altogether, which he developed in

Hindu and Brahmin (1914) in the post-Phule phase of the Satyashodhak discourse. While on the

other hand, the same conception also enabled others to reimagine the substance of this Hinduness

of the Bahujan society.

When, Dr. Vishram Ramji Ghole (1833-1900) – a renowned medical practitioner from a

Yadava-Gavali caste which claimed descent from Lord Krishna and a family physician of both

Phule and Chiplunkar, and the first president of Satyashodhak Samaj in 1875 – deviated from the

Phule line, he had to resign from the Samaj in 1877. In 1877, Satyashodhak Samaj at Pune had

announced an essay competition in Dnyanodaya, wherein the subject given for the essay was as

follows:

―Imagine a scenario in which the Empress of India, Queen Victoria is traveling in

Hindustan and suddenly her carriage stops at the Mahar Wada 54. Now, two woodcutters, a Mang

and a Mahar, arrive there and narrate the numerous miseries they suffer from remaining Hindus

and how their forefathers suffered innumerable atrocities and despair in the previous Brahmin

polities, etc. They also talk about the possible future agonies they may suffer from by remaining

Hindus.‖55

53
This distinction was in fact first applied by the orthodox Brahmins as evident from the Vedokta
controversy. The Brahmin orthodoxy‘s position on this distinction is discussed more at length in chapter 2.
54
A cluster of houses of the untouchables – Mahars and Mangs – generally at the outskirts of village.
55
Dnyanodaya (12 April, 1877) reprinted in Keer, Malshe, and Phadke (1991:235)

38
 The competition was organized in May and the prize distribution ceremony took place on

June, 7th, 1877. In his speech as the president of the Samaj at the occasion, Ghole spoke vividly

against the very concept-note for the essay. He argued that Hinduism was formed by people from

all castes and creeds and not merely by the Brahmins. Ghole said:

―The subject of the essay was quite bizarre. The historical information conveyed through

the concept-note was rather baseless and seemed entirely fictional. Obviously, the Queen‘s

answer to the Mahars and the Mangs would be to ask them to convert to Christianity. The

conditions of the Mahars and the Mangs in India are not as miserable as the slaves in the

Americas under Christianity.‖ 56

As we would see in the case of Ayyawaru a decade later, Jotirao did not appreciate such

even mildly critical views of Christianity and Ghole gradually drifted apart from the Samaj.

However, he remained a close friend of Phule and even wrote a foreword to Jotirao‘s last and

posthumously published book, Sarvajanik Satya Dharma. Ghole was also deeply influenced by

the Vedanta philosophy and Bhagwad Gita. His daughter, Gangutai Khedkar (née Ghole) has

noted in her memoirs that Ghole had become a pure Vedantic towards the end of his life and had

even distributed 3000 copies of Bhagwad Gita.57 Another important non-Brahmin activist,

author, and an associate of Ayyawaru, Krushnaji Keluskar - more famously known for writing

the first ‗non-Brahmin‘ biography of Chhatrapati Shivaji, and another of Gautama Buddha which

ignited a curiosity in Ambedkar about Buddhism – also published a 900-page commentary on

Bhagwad Gita in 1895. Thus, even before the Bhagwad Gita became the central text in the

lexicon of Indian nationalism in the early twentieth century, non-Brahmin thinkers like Ghole

and Keluskar had already begun to have deep engagements with the text and with what Keluskar

56
Keer et al. (1996:172-73)
57
Aruna Dhere (2002: 86)

39
referred to as ‗the Aryan wisdom‘58. Therefore, we can see that the Satyashodhak movement‘s

―return‖ to the Hindu-fold in its second phase, thus, had actually begun a little before the

Vedokta controversy.

Ghole‘s son-in-law, Dr. Raghunathrao Khedkar (1873- ) was the son of a Prarthana

Samajist, Vitthal Krishnaji Khedkar. Vitthal Krishnaji had published numerous texts – original

and translated – on Shri Krishna and Gita including a text titled, The Divine Heritage of the

Yadavas. Vitthal Krishnaji and his son Raghunath were part of the reformation efforts visible in

the middle-castes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. A mysterious tale about

Raghunath Khedkar has also been recorded: when he was about 7-8 years old, a Sanyasi had

approached the Khedkar family. He told them that Raghunath was part of ―them‖: the Vedic

Sanyasis and he prophesied that Raghunath will become a missionary of Vedanta. 59 Raghunath

Khedkar eventually worked as the champion of Vedanta. Khedkar, who was inspired by Tilak‘s

defence of Hinduism against the Missionaries in his early years, studied Medicine in England

from 1896 to 1902 and later he started a study circle on Bhagwad Gita in Newcastle upon Tyne.

When he returned to India, he began working as the assistant Durbar Surgeon of the Kolhapur

state and was a close associate of Bhaskarrao Jadhav and Keshavrao Vichare, two important

Satyashodhak leaders in Kolhapur.

Khedkar‘s wife Gangutai was also influenced by Vedanta. Dharmajidnyasu Kumudini

[Religious Curiosities of Kumudini], a short story written by Ghole‘s daughter Gangutai –

published in two parts in the 1912 issues of ‗Dharma Vichar‘, a periodical published by the

Karvir Peeth of Kolhapur – described how a woman traversed her way through the conflicting

worldviews of different religious sects such as the Prarthana Samaj, and Theosophy. In the story,

58
Keluskar (1895 [1992]: 1)
59
Yadava Patrika (October, 1947: 5-10) reprinted in Dhere (2002: 137-138)

40
Khedkar‘s Kumudini, through her conversations with a Vedantic pundit and her own life

experiences, finally realizes the limitations of Prarthana Samaj and theosophy and embraces the

eternal greatness of Vedanta.60 As Aruna Dhere has pointed out, Gangutai‘s story was inspired

from her own life in many ways as it is difficult not to spot the similarities between the fictional

Kumudini and Gangutai‘s own religious and philosophical journey. 61

Gangutai was also part of the larger non-brahmin network, such as ‗The Maratha

Brotherhood‘, an association founded by Baburao Jagtap to promote educational and other

reforms amongst the Marathas. In an article, The Importance of Hindu Rashtra that was

published in a periodical named, ‗Maratha‘ in 1916 she argued for the necessity of strengthening

Hindu society. 62 She was also a member of the Vedic Association of Kolhapur and Ramabai

Ranade‘s Sharada Sadan. Raghunathrao Khedkar was also connected with the Karvir Peeth. He

started a bi-monthly The Vedantin in English in association with the Peeth and also prepared a

primer of about 300-pages on Vedanta in two parts – mainly with the foreign reader in mind –

titled, A Handbook on the Vedanta Philosophy and Religion in 1911, which he dedicated to

Tukojirao Pawar, the Maratha ruler of Devas. 63 When he left Kolhapur in 1915, Khedkar settled

in Mumbai and later moved to Pune. He formed an important bridge between Shahu Maharaj and

the larger non-Brahmin network with the Tilakites in Pune. 64 We can see, thus, that beyond the

question of Kshatriyahood for Marathas, there were both conceptual as well as social links
60
Aruna Dhere (2002: 118)
61
Aruna Dhere (2002: 119)
62
Aruna Dhere (2002: 132)
63
Khedkar‘s primer was sold in high numbers in the four long tours of Europe and the Americas he had
between 1896 and 1913 for preaching and promoting Vedantic Hinduism.
64
In a lecture delivered on April 2nd, 1912, at the Maratha Aikyechhu Sabha, founded for enabling the unity
of a vast number of non-Brahmin castes under the umbrella term Maratha by a Bhandari leader Seetaram Bole at
Mumbai, Khedkar spoke about how he was financed by Shahu Chhatrapati for his missionary work.

41
between emergent non-Brahman interests in Hinduism, its philosophical foundations, its

problems and its revivalism, and those simultaneously being articulated among Brahman groups

in Maharashtra.

Khedkar later became the first president of the Pune branch of the Hindu Missionary

society soon after its foundation in 1917. 65 The Hindu Missionary society was founded at

Mumbai by Gajananrao Vaidya, a non-Brahmin (Kayastha) and an associate of Keshavrao

Thakare on July 5th, 1917. The society also started a Marathi monthly journal named Hindu

Missionary. Vaidya devised two specific Vedic rituals for the modern times: one was a compact

– an hour-long – Vedic marriage ritual for all the Hindus irrespective of caste. Thakare himself

worked as a priest and performed more than 75 marriages to popularize Vaidya‘s new rituals. 66

Vaidya‘s second ritual was for the admission of non-Hindus into Hinduism. Vaidya

disliked the term Shuddhi (purification) as it had a connotation of the distinction between purity

and pollution. Vaidya instead proposed to call it Upanayana (a ceremony that confers the twice-

born status) As reported by Thakare in his autobiography Majhi Jeevangatha [The Story of My

Life], when the first non-Hindu was readmitted into Hinduism – a Muslim named Wahiduddin,

whose father was a devotee of Krishna and who became Gopaldas after his Upanayana

Samskara – Vaidya took him to see Lokmanya Tilak. Tilak, who was initially not particularly

optimistic about the prospects of the Hindu Missionary Society, congratulated Vaidya

wholeheartedly. 67

The missionary society had three primary principles:

65
Through the society he played an important part in the marriage of Ms. Cohen with Dr. Ketkar and her
subsequent conversion into Hinduism through a Vratyastoma ritual (discussed in chapter 4).
66
Keshavrao Thakare (1973: 244)
67
Thakare (1973: 240-244)

42
 a. Anyone who calls oneself a Hindu should be considered Hindu.

b. Anyone who wishes to join Hinduism would be welcomed, and

c. The religious rights of every Hindu are equal.

The society also declared that the neo-Hindus would be casteless and even proposed that

the Hinduism preached and practiced by the Hindu Missionary society would disregard caste

entirely. The society also believed that the Hindu social customs and practices had changed

through history and the Smritis should accordingly be read and interpreted in the light of

historical understanding.68 Khedkar, Vaidya, and Thakare were conscious of the Brahmin

hegemony and, yet, they identified themselves as Hindu reformers and were proud of the

plurality and synthetic nature of Hindu traditions. In their view, the Hinduness or Hindutva as an

umbrella term for the amalgamation of various religious beliefs and practices would be able to

dissolve all the other cosmetic and superficial differences between people created by caste, race,

and nation.69

Thakare, in particular, wrote and acted extensively against Brahminism but remained a

staunch Hindutvaite. While working as an activist of the Hindu Missionary Society, Thakare had

a public debate with a Christian priest in Nagpur. When the Reverend asked him whether or not a

Hindu becomes impure by eating with non-Hindus and if Thakare would eat beef with a Muslim

himself, Thakare‘s answer was very much Thakare-like. He said to the Reverend:

68
A similar argument was presented by the Shastris and Pundits of the Pradnyapathshala, a Sanskrit school
at Wai. (Discussed in chapter 2) Although there was a considerable overlap between the ideas of the Hindu
Missionary Society and the works of the Pradnyapathshala collective, there is no record to suggest that the two
institutions worked alongside each other.
69
This belief was also expressed in the works of Mahadev Shastri Divekar (discussed in the second
chapter) and more famously in the discourse of V D Savarkar (discussed in the third chapter)

43
 ―Not only will we eat beef; we will eat you, and your Christ; we will eat the whole world

and will remain pure Hindus. This is our new People‘s Smriti.‖70

Thakare started his short-lived, but quite influential, periodical Prabodhan on October

16th, 1921 and the first editorial he wrote for it, ‗the Goal of Prabodhan‘, clearly spells out his

position on the predicament of the modern Hindu and his broader position on Hindutva. Thakare

wrote:

―…today the very neck of the Hindu culture is caught in the grip of world politics. The

current situation dictates that we Hindus need to resolve all our internal hierarchies and embrace

one another as true brethren to protect our Hindutva, our inner core and yet our hearts should be

filled with grand desires of establishing the Hindu Empire.‖71

Thakare was also part of a large and unconventional network. He was a close associate of

Shahu Maharaj, Bhaurao Patil, a Jain non-Brahmin, Dinkarrao Javalkar, a fiery ambassador of

the radical non-Brahminism, and many other non-Brahmin activists. He also had close ties with

Dr. Ambedkar and literary figures like Dwarakanath Pitale (the historical novelist who wrote

under the nom de plume Nath Madhav), the historian Dattopant Apte, the journalist Pralhad

Keshav, aka Acharya Atre, etc. In 1926, Thakare demanded that the untouchables should be

allowed to participate in the Ganapati festival organized at Dadar, a suburb in Mumbai. He,

along with Dr. Ambedkar and Seetaram Bole, rallied in front of the Ganapati statue. When the

Brahmin priests had no option but to accommodate Thakare‘s requests, the committee decided to

stop organizing the festival from the next year as they believed that the deity had become impure

by the touch of the untouchables. Thakare then argued that the real deity of Maharashtra, the one

that was worshipped by Chhatrapati Shivaji and was accessed by all the non-Brahmins was

70
Thakare (1973: 251)
71
Thakare (1973: 311)

44
Goddess Bhavani and therefore, he began organizing the Navaratri festival for worshiping the

goddess from the same year. Bole and Ambedkar also participated in the festival along with

many other non-Brahmin activists.72 Thakare thus could unite the non-Brahmin cause without

abandoning Hinduness. Thakare‘s historical text, Gramanyacha Sadyant Itihas, Arthat

Nokarshahiche Band [A Complete History of Caste-Conflict or the Revolt of the Bureaucracy],

published in 1919, made a case for the Maratha Swaraj as a collaborative project of all the castes

in Maharashtra.73

Thakare‘s anti-Brahminism, however, was quite distinct from that of Phule, Javalkar and

even Ambedkar. Rather than see them primarily as oppressors and exploiters of other castes and

responsible for their backwardness, he believed that the Brahmins – and particularly the

Bhikshukshahi (the priestly order) – had above all caused the Hindu society as a whole to be

superstitious, divided and therefore, weak. He felt that a unified and strong Hindu society could

rise only if this superstitious Brahmin dominance could be overthrown. Thakare was therefore,

quite forthright in his critique of the Kshatra Jagadguru. He considered the new Maratha priestly

order as a sign of fresh slavery for non-Brahman Hindus, and urged Shahu Maharaj to dissolve

the institution. Thakare‘s position, therefore, did not support an alternative priesthood or specific

varna status, even though he supported the Kayastha claim to Kshatriya status; his critique of

Brahmanism was primarily against obscurantist priesthood.

For his part, the new Kshatra Jagadguru, not unlike Thakare, also paved the way for new

alliances between the Bahujan Samaj and Hindutva. In fact, Kshatra Jagadguru Benadikar‘s

72
Thakare (1973: 426-435)
73
Thakare argued against Rajwade‘s Brahmin-centric narrative and as Prachi Deshpande has shown, the
Thakare approach – to claim dignity and high status for the Prabhus or the Kayasthas (Thakare‘s caste) in the
present time based primarily on their contribution to the Maratha project in the past – was developed by the non-
Brahmin discourse against the Brahmins. They described the Peshwas as deceitful of the descendants of Chhatrapati
Shivaji and by extension; the contemporary Brahmins had no right to the socially superior status they claimed.
Deshpande (2007:182); Emphasis in the original.

45
views of Hinduism were not dissimilar from Thakare‘s. Benadikar had argued in a speech

delivered at the Shivaji Vedic Pathshala at Kolhapur on July 10 th, 1921:

―Our religion (Hinduism), emerged in the pious land of the Vedas was essentially pure,

holy and sacred but only as it was contaminated by the dirt of Brahminism, it has become not

only useless but also hazardous for people. Your duty (as part of the Maratha priestly order) is to

recover the pure Vedic religion by removing the dirt of Brahminism…‖ 74

He further said in the same speech that the Kshatriyas were the true creators of the Vedic

religion. By citing examples of Bhagwan Mahavir, the founder of Jainism, Gautama Buddha, and

Guru Nanak, Benadikar argued that all the Indian religions – Vedic and non-Vedic – were

founded by the Kshatriyas and therefore, today's Kshatriyas should also actively engage with

recovering of what our ancestors had built. Despite his strong ties with the non-Brahmin

movement, Benadikar had a very favourable opinion of Tilak‘s magnum opus Gitarahasya.75

Benadikar, much like many other advocates of modern Hindutva – such as Mahadevshastri

Divekar, B. S. Moonje, Keshavrao Thakare, and Savarkar – urged Hindu society to be strong.

And for Benadikar, Tilak‘s insistence on embracing the materiality of this world in Gitarahasya

was much-needed advice for young Hindus. Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that despite

his position as a non-Brahman priestly leader, we see Benadikar actively engaging with the

Hindu Mahasabha. On April 30th, 1938, for example, he participated in the Hindu Yuvak

Parishad (Young Hindu Conference) organized by the Hindu Mahasabha at Pune, and presided

over by Dr. Hedgewar, founder of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. In his speech as a

president, Hedgewar reiterated the mantra that the organizing and strengthening of Hindus was

74
Jaysingrao Pawar (2013: 35)
75
Benadikar called Tilak Prachhanna Brahmanetar (a hidden non-Brahmin) for his critique of
Shankaracharya in Gitarahasya. (Jaysingrao Pawar (2013: 31)

46
the key to the resolution of the Hindu-Muslim conflict. The conference passed eighteen

resolutions including the dissolution of the caste system, facilitating military training for Hindus,

etc. When the Kesari newspaper started by Tilak felicitated Benadikar along with Hedgewar and

Savarkar after the conference, Benadikar was overwhelmed, and declared Savarkar and

Hedgewar to be the true heroes, because he could only talk, while they acted.76

From left to right: Ganesh Damodar Savarkar, B. S. Moonje, Kshatra Jagadguru

Sadashivrao Benadikar, Keshavrao Hedgewar, Ganpatrao Nalawade 77 and Vinayak Damodar

Savarkar at the Hindu Yuvak Parishad (Pune, 1938)78

76
Palkar (1960: 322)
77
Ganpatrao Nalawade was the president of the Maharashtra provincial Hindu Sabha from 1954-1962 and
an important non-Brahmin supporter of Savarkar. He was also an editor of a weekly Sangram between 1925 and
1932.
78
Picture from N H Palkar (1960: 337)

47
 But even if one discounts more religiously oriented non-Brahmins like Benadikar and

Khedkar, even amongst the most radical of the Phuleites, such as Motiram Tukaram Wankhade

(d. 1952), a connection with Hindu politics can still be found. Wankhade, from Karajgaon,

Amravati, a Mali by caste and the general secretary of the All India Satyashodhak Samaj, was by

all accounts a staunch anti-Brahmin. His oeuvre comprised of sixteen texts, such as the collection

of anti-Brahmin poetry titled Satyashodhak Chabuk [The Satyashodhak Whipcord] (second

edition 1908), and a text of about a hundred and eighty five pages on ritual practice, called

Swayampurohit Athva Pujapaddhati [Self-Priest or the Method of Worshipping] (1909). This

text changed its form quite drastically in subsequent editions, with the result that the 12 th edition

published in 1928 had swelled to 470 pages; He also wrote Brahmanancha Hakka Nahi

[Brahmins Have No Rights] (1910), a discursive text that appealed to the non-Brahmins to

abandon the Brahmins‘ ways, Brahman ani Bahishkar [Brahmins and the Boycott] (1913), a

speech delivered at the first Satyashodhak Conference at Pune on April 17 th, 1911; Pavitra Kon:

Brahman ki Nhavi? [Who is Purer: A Brahmin or a Barber?] (1923); etc.79

Although Wankhade was vehemently against Brahmins and Brahminism, he was also the

vice president of the Amravati Hindu Mahasabha. In a text written in 1923, titled, Satyacha

Shodh [In search of Truth], Wankhade extensively quoted Samartha Ramdas – the historical

saintly figure and contemporary of Shivaji who had become a symbol of Brahmin superiority in

historical debates between Brahmins and non-Brahmins, and who had become a figure of some

ridicule for most non-Brahmin writers – and Tukaram to argue that the search for truth should be

grounded in the spirituality of the bhakti tradition. 80 This position was antithetical to Phule‘s

understanding of the Marathi bhakti saints as well as to the broader non-Brahmin position on

79
Gundekar (2010: 337-67)
80
Gundekar (2010: 343-44)

48
Ramdas specifically. However, as I have shown, it was not only Wankhade but many other non-

Brahmin critics of Brahminism of the early twentieth century who had begun affiliating

themselves with some or the other form of Hinduness. They either agreed with the political

articulations of Hindutva by the Hindu Mahasabha or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as

could be seen in the case of Wankhade (or Benadikar?), or they cultivated a distinct position of

their own, such as in the case of Keshavrao Thakare.

Seetaram Bole (1868-1961), a close associate of Ambedkar and the pioneering

industrialist? Walchand Kothari (1892-1974), and editor of a non-Brahmin newspaper Jagaruk

also joined the Hindu Mahasabha. Bole had famously debated the Gitarahasya with Lokmanya

Tilak from the point of view of Lokayata, a materialist system of Indian philosophy. Bole was a

Bhandari by caste and also became the president of the Hindu Mahasabha of the Mumbai region

in 1938. Bole was angered by the ‗Muslim appeasement‘ policy of the Congress 81 even as

Kothari, who himself was a Jain, increasingly grew disappointed with the non-Brahmin politics.

They both were also increasingly drawn to Savarkar‘s Hindutva.

81
For details of Bole‘s association with Hindutva and Hindu Mahasabha see Keer (1978: 307-332)

49
 Seetaram Bole: with Ambedkar on the left, and with Savarkar on the right

In 1937, Bole stood for the general elections as a candidate of Dr. Ambedkar‘s

Independent Labour Party from the Ratnagiri South constituency. Although the party did quite

well in the elections – with 14 out 18 of its candidates winning – Bole lost the election. The very

next year, Bole became the president of Mumbai regional Hindu Mahasabha. Later, in 1947, on

July 3rd, when Ambedkar was the member of the flag committee, Bole, Thakare, and others

appealed to him that the Bhagwa Dhwaja (the saffron flag of the Varkari movement and the

erstwhile Maratha Empire) should be taken up as the national flag of independent India. Thakare

had noted in his autobiography that in response Dr. Ambedkar promised them that if there were a

public movement for the acceptance of the saffron flag, then he would also support the idea. 82

82
Bagul (2015: 21-22)

50
 Kothari moved away from the non-Brahmin politics for two reasons: his revaluation of

nationalist politics under the Tilakites, and his critique of the radical actions of the non-Brahmin

activists against Brahmins. Kothari provided an important self-referential critique to the non-

Brahmin discourse but for the same reason, he was increasingly alienated from them. He joined

the Swaraj Party in 1923 and later in the 1930s he promoted Savarkar‘s position on the

annihilation of caste, his critique of superstitious practices like cow worship, and supported the

idea of Shuddhi through a journal named Rashtramat. Rashtramat was a bi-weekly and ran only

for a year in 1936. It was revived in 1937 as a weekly but was shelved within a few months. But

by 1937, Kothari‘s policies had become completely pro-Hindutva as an advertisement of

Rashtramat in the Kesari indicates. The avowed policies of Rashtramat were:

a. To think about how the two goals – of protection of Hindu culture and the gaining

Swaraj – could be achieved.

b. To elaborate and describe how the politics of the Congress party was against the

interests of the Hindus. 83

It is not entirely clear why Kothari severed his ties with the Hindu Mahasabha in the

1940s. Despite this, he remained staunchly pro-Hindutva throughout. In 1915, when Kothari had

critiqued Gitarahasya, Lokmanya Tilak‘s celebrated commentary on Bhagwad Gita; his position

had been purely materialist. He had argued for the nonexistence of the metaphysical and also

disagreed with the justification for the Chaturvarna in Bhagwad Gita that Tilak had reinforced in

his commentary.84 In 1958, he published Gitarahasya Saar [The Essence of Tilak‘s Gitarahasya]

wherein he completely reversed his earlier position, and argued for the greatness of both Tilak

83
Yashwant Sumant in Shah, Vashta and Rashinkar (1993:221)
84
Kothari published his critique of Gitarahasya in 1915 in Pune titled, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak
Yanni Lihilelya Gitarahasyavar Tikatmak Nibandh [A Critical Essay on Gitarahasya by Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar
Tilak].

51
and Gita. The Kothari of 1958 was primarily concerned with establishing the greatness of the

Hindu philosophy rather than dismantling it from the materialist point of view.

In 1914, the radical Satyashodhak activist and editor of Deenmitra Mukundrao Patil had

rhetorically argued in the book Hindu and Brahmin that Brahmins and Hindus historically

neither belonged to the same country nor did they share the same religion. Towards the end of

the book, Patil gave two choices to the Brahmins: a) they could either become Brahmins in the

classical ascetic sense, or b) they could embrace the modern secular egalitarian way of life and

consider everyone equal. 85 The non-Brahmin movement in the post-Vedokta period, instead,

sought to become the new Brahmins rather than embracing the modern egalitarian way of life.

As shown by the scholars of non-Brahminism, Patil‘s was a lone voice of Phuleism in this

period.

Thus, as I have sought to demonstrate in this section, non-Brahminism did not function as

a coherent whole and the various factions within it were entangled with the overlapping

questions of caste and Hindutva. A few of the groups or individuals remained steadfastly anti-

Brahmin and anti-Hindu, while many – such as Ghole, Thakare, Bole and Kothari – developed

autonomous positions vis-à-vis these questions. Their answers grew more in alignment with how

the modern Hinduness or Hindutva was produced in early twentieth-century India. To further

understand the connections between these non-Brahmin engagements with Hinduness and the

wider, national and regional discourses of Hindutva taking shape in the early twentieth century, I

now turn to the question of the Body and caste in non-Brahmin discourse.

Body and Caste in the Non-Brahmin Discourse

85
Patil (1914 [1990: 58-63])

52
 The Marathi public sphere comprised of the modern print culture was controlled by the

urban elites since its beginning in the early nineteenth century. Literacy was limited amongst the

non-Brahmins, and Brahmins were historically dominant in the various spheres of penmanship.

Indeed, the established Marathi press was heavily dominated by Brahmins, and as Jotirao Phule

had observed the Brahmin journalists had neither any relationship with the lives of the Shudras

and Atishudras that surrounded them nor did they take any cognizance of them. Also, as he

remarked in Gulamgiri [Slavery, 1873], ―the Bahujan Samaj has no idea whether the newspaper

is a fox, or a dog or a monkey‖ 86.

The non-Brahmin Newspapers: Brahmanetar (Vardha, ed. Vyankatrao Gode), Vijayi Maratha

(Pune, ed. Shripatrao Shinde) and Prabodhan (Mumbai, Keshavrao Thakare)87

By the 1920s, however, the non-Brahmin print public had widened quite extensively due

to the emergence and spread of various periodicals devoted to the non-Brahmin cause, many of

which had generous financial support from Shahu Chhatrapati. In 1910, Deenmitra, edited by

Mukundrao Patil and published from Taravadi, a small village near Ahmednagar, was the only

86
Keer, Malshe and Phadke (1991:201)
87
Pictures from Arun Shinde (2019)

53
non-Brahmin periodical. But between 1917 to 1922 many new non-Brahmin newspapers or

weekly began to be published, including Bhagwantrao Palekar‘s Jagruti (Baroda, 1917),

Shripatrao Shinde‘s Vijayi Maratha (Pune, 1919), Duttaji Kurane‘s Bhagwa Jhenda, Dinkarrao

Javalkar‘s Tarun Maratha, Khanderao Bagal‘s Hunter (Kolhapur, 1925), Ramachandra Lad‘s

Majur (Pune, 1925), Shamrao Desai‘s Rashtraveer (Belgaum, 1923), Jagaruk edited by

Walchand Kothari (Pune, 1917), Keshavrao Thakare‘s Prabodhan (Mumbai, 1921), Vyankatrao

Gode‘s Brahmanetar (Vardha, 1926), Balasaheb Patil‘s Satyavadi (Kolhapur, 1926), etc.88

A few of these non-Brahmin newspapers – like Vijayi Maratha and Majur – participated

in fiery and impassioned battles with Kesari and a few other Brahmin newspapers. The battle

between Majur [Labourer] ed. Ramachandra Narayan Lad, a non-Brahmin radical) and Sangram

([the Battle] ed. Ganapatrao Nalawade, a Tilakite Maratha) was particularly unpleasant. Sangram

was started to counter the non-Brahmin propaganda against the Brahmins and the Tilakites in the

aftermath of the controversy generated by Dinkarrao Javalkar‘s fiery anti-Brahmin polemic

Deshache Dushman (1925). Sangram‟s first issue came out on September 19th, 1925. Also in the

same year, Nalawade published a rather distasteful polemic himself titled, Satyashodhak Ki

Kristasevak [Seeker of Truth or the servant of Christ?] against Mahatma Phule.

Gender and the body were at the very heart of these ideological and political battles

between Tilakites and the non-Brahmin radicals of the early twentieth century. The non-Brahmin

discourse proliferated through performative acts like Melas and the various polemical texts that

were produced particularly in the 1920s through the non-Brahmin periodicals. In many of these

acts – performative or discursive – fictitious genealogies of Brahmin sub-castes, particularly of

88
Phadke (1982:6) For a detailed discussion of the non-Brahmin periodicals see, Arun Shinde,
Satyashodhakiya Niyatkalike [the Satyashodhak Periodicals] (2019) and for a broad review of the Satyashodhak
literature see, Shriram Gundekar, Satyashodhaki Sahityacha Itihas [History of Satyashodhak Literature] in two parts
(2010). For the general history of the Marathi Print media from early nineteenth to mid-twentieth century, see an
excellent study, Marathi Vruttapatrancha Itihas [History of Marathi Newspapers] by R K Lele (1984).

54
the Chitpavans were presented and the sexuality and the body of the Brahmin woman came

under scrutiny. Many of the non-Brahmin writers – particularly Palekar, editor of Jagruti and

Vitthal Ramji Shinde, a renowned and widely respected Brahmo Samaji Maratha – expressed

their displeasure about the obscenity involved in the non-Brahmin expressions of resistance to

the Brahmin dominance, but many – such as Shripatrao Shinde, the editor of Vijayi Maratha –

however, were quick to point out that it was all started by the Tilakites themselves through their

Melas at the Ganapati festival against the reformers. And indeed it was not far from the truth.

The Ganapati festival in its public and collective form began in Pune in the aftermath of

the Hindu-Muslim riots in 1893. The need for spectacle at the festival provided space for

performative mediums like Melas and Sangeet Nataks (a musical play), many of which were

inspired by the cultural nationalism influenced by Vishnushastri Chiplunkar. In the early years,

the songs performed at the Melas targeted social reformers (mostly of the Brahmin caste), by

calling them eunuchs or impotent. In their worldview, Sanatana Dharma and Tilakite

nationalism were equated with sexual potency and manliness, while liberal and reformist

attitudes towards Hindu religious and cultural life was an indication of the lack of these qualities.

The songs also targeted the lower castes, untouchables, and educated women who were breaking

away from the orthodox normativity of Hindu social customs. For example, one of the most

popular couplets from a song was:

―But I am reformer | I don‘t like such murmur ||

I will take my wife near | the Sahib||‖ 89

A renowned reformer and a major rival of Lokmanya Tilak, Gopal Krishna Gokhle was

regularly targeted in these Melas. For example:

89
Phadke (1982:40) also see, J. S. Karandikar Shri Ganeshotsavachi Saath Varshe [Sixty Years of the
Ganapati Festival, 1952].

55
 ―Gopi-Krishna is a eunuch | Wears a Sari‖; and

―I was once a Brahmin | and am now a Traitor‖

Or

―You eat defiled biscuits | and wear Sahib‘s taunt || Lick his boots | you sycophant

You‘ll find a crooked Maharin 90 | dark as an owl || You both will then happily howl ||

Thus, the strategies employed by the Tilakite Melas to deride reformers and modernizing

women were to portray such men as emasculate and women as unwomanly or sexually decadent.

The non-Brahmin Melas – namely the Chhatrapati Mela started by Keshavrao Jedhe in 1922 – in

their aggressive sloganeering also took up a similar strategy. The famous slogan that the

Chhatrapati Mela used was:

―Chhatrapati Mela has come | Bhat Brahmins! You better run!!‖91

Soon, apart from the Chhatrapati Mela, many new Melas – such as the Gopal Club Mela,

Agarkar Mela, Mavali Mela, the Mela of a lawyer from Bhor, the Dagadu Halwai Mela, the

Bhagwa Jhenda Mela, etc. – became operational. 92 Predictably, the songs performed at many of

these Melas were directed at Tilak, Chiplunkar, the Peshwas, and Samarth Ramdas. They

mocked the Peshwai or the Peshwa rule in Maratha history from about 1720 to 1818, as the reign

of sexual debauchery and called the purity of the Brahmin caste status of the Chitpavans into

question. Anupama Rao has elaborately shown how Gender and genealogy were discursively

central to this aggressive and highly masculinized non-Brahminism which was championed

90
A woman belonging to Mahar (untouchable) caste.
91
Jedhe published a collection of sixteen songs performed by the Chhatrapati Mela titled as Chhatrapati
Mela Padya-sangraha in 1928. (Republished in Dinkarrao Javalkar Samagra Vangmay [Dinkarrao Javalkar
Collected Works] edited by Y D Phadke (1984) Hereafter, DJSV.
92
Vijayi Maratha (September 18th, 1922). Karandikar (1952) provided a long list of Melas operational in
Pune and other parts of Maharashtra in his 600-page history of Ganapati Festival in Maharashtra, but unsurprisingly
failed to note any Melas of the non-Brahmin radicals.

56
through performances of Melas and polemical texts.93 She has also argued that in the first

decades of the twentieth century non-Brahmin critiques of the gendered character of caste were

muted by emergent forms of caste conflict that increasingly framed the modernization of gender

as dependent on the reconstitution of caste masculinity. 94

In an article published on September 11th, 1925, in a non-Brahmin periodical, Majur,

edited by Ramachandra Lad, Brahmins were called shandha (impotent) and that the Brahmin

caste was called a product of sexual promiscuity. When a case was filed against Lad by

Ramachandra Dandavate, a lawyer and a Pune municipal corporator, Lad was very quick to

apologize. He published a note in Majur under the title, ―Unconditional Apologies to

Vishnushastri Chiplunkar, Lokmanya Tilak, all the Brahmin men and women, members of the

Hindu Sanatana religion, Narayanrao Gunjal95, Baburao Phule96 and other members of the Pune

Municipal Corporation‖.97 Lad submitted his sincere apologies for writing and publishing false,

obscene and defaming content about the above-mentioned people since the day Majur started

and promised that henceforth he would refrain from writing, publishing or encouraging such

views.98However, Lad soon published Marathyanche Dasiputra athva Paypos Kimmtiche Peshve

[The Bastards of Marathas or the Worthless Peshwas], a polemical text which went a step further

in denigrating Brahmins. There were a series of polemics written during this ugly battle between

Brahmins and non-Brahmins. Khanderao Kulkarni‘s Peshvyanche Paypos [Footwear of the

93
Also See Gail Omvedt (1976: 272-279), Deshpande (2004: 20; 2007: 191-92)
94
Rao (2009: 54)
95
Narayanrao Gunjal was a Tilakite Maratha and a member of Pune Municipal Corporation
96
Baburao Phule was Mahatma Phule‘s nephew but was part of the Tilakite collective. Baburao
vehemently criticized Phule and called him an agent of Christian missionaries whose agenda was to destroy the
Hindu religion.
97
Phadke (1982: 54)
98
Kesari October 13th, 1925

57
Peshwas] (1926) was written as a response to Javalkar‘s Deshache Dushman. Lad‘s

Marathyanche Dasiputra (1927) responded to Kulkarni, and in turn D.N. Date wrote a response

titled Bepattha Bapache Bete [Children of the Missing Father] (1928) to Lad.99

Dinkarrao Javalkar, a firebrand non-Brahmin writer– renowned for a controversial text

Deshache Dushman (1925) that declared Tilak and Chiplunkar as the enemies of the nation –

frequently made lewd remarks about Brahmin women in public conversations. He often used

words like sexy or sexually promiscuous to describe Brahmin women. 100 In an incident

recounted by Changdeo Khairmode in a multi-volume biography of Babasaheb Ambedkar,

Vasant Raghunath Goregaonkar, a Maratha associate of Javalkar, had conveyed his desire to

Ambedkar to marry an educated Dalit girl. When Ambedkar asked Khairmode to inquire about

him, he found out that Goregaonkar had formed a secret society named, Brahma-Balikaharan

Sangh (A society for the abduction of Brahmin Girls). Goregaonkar had also expounded the idea

of forceful marriage between a Brahmin woman and a Maratha man as a means to resolve

casteism amongst his fellow Marathas. 101

In 1926, when the controversy triggered by Deshache Dushman was still fuming,

Javalkar published a small booklet A Brahmin conference of 1950, which was a report of an

imagined conference of the Brahmin men and women in the year 1950. Javalkar noted that the

conference passed a few resolutions – most of which were repeated time and again – resonating

with the notion that the Brahmin men had become emasculated and impotent and the Brahmin

women had become hyper-sexed and worked mostly as prostitutes or concubines. In this

99
Anupama Rao has pointed out that each of the texts related contemporary caste identity with historical
accounts of sexual licentiousness, conquest, and political treachery. (Rao 2009: 306, n.97)
100
The Marathi words that were ascribed to Javalkar were Tanch (sexy) and Tachachalelya Madya (slutty
women). Phadke (1989: 54)
101
Changdeo Khairmode (1958: 167-168)

58
fictional universe of Javalkar, Brahmin women functioned as servants at the Maratha households,

and as proud prostitutes. They also routinely fell in love with the non-Brahmins, as Brahmin men

had become unmanly and weak. As one of the female characters in this imaginary world –

Premabai Shrungare102 – said, ―Brahmin men were nothing but women with moustaches‖. 103

Then, as the conference preceded, a Brahmin man – Prof. Pokalkashte (Hollow Dhoti!) 104 –

lamented about how the number of Brahmin prostitutes increased exponentially since 1926. He

regretted the fact that Maratha households only employed Brahmin women as servants and that

Brahmin women also constituted ninety-nine percent of the prostitutes in the red-light areas of

the city. He then proposed that due to the incapability of Brahmin men to produce healthy

children, Brahmin women should be sent to Europe for reproduction. Finally, the conference

agreed that they should recruit eunuchs and other physically disabled people into the Brahmin

fold to increase their numbers.105

This polemical farce of 9 pages, though claimed to have written as part of an

emancipatory politics against Brahminism, served no such purpose. Instead, as Anupama Rao

has argued:

―Given the centrality of gender and sexual regulation to the discursive hegemony of

Brahminism in western India, the Brahmin woman had long personified elements of non-

Brahmin critique, even as she became the rallying point for a renewed politics of Brahminism.

102
This fictional name Premabai Shrungare alludes to the character‘s hyper-sexuality.
103
DJSV (1984:212)
104
Pokalkashte – alludes to impotency of this Brahmin male figure. According to Molesworth dictionary, it
is a contemptuous terms for a Brahman; ―a Brahman without learning, money, or wit; a mere dhoti-wearer.‖
105
DJSV (1984: 209-219)

59
Here, the historic conflict between Brahmins and non-Brahmins was staged through competing

narratives of caste masculinity and differential claims over women.‖ 106

To summarize my argument in this chapter thus far, three distinct yet overlapping spheres

of political and cultural processes – unleashed by colonial modernity were entangled together in

the early twentieth century Maharashtra: firstly, the anti-brahmin caste consciousness in

combination with the claims to the Kshatriya status amongst the non-Brahmin masses led to a

deeply contradictory conception of the non-Brahmin self. One the one hand, their valiant fight

against Brahminism and a declaration that ‗equality was our birth-right‘ brought about a self-

conception in the non-Brahmin movement as being progressive. However, on the other hand, this

anti-Brahminism failed to translate into anti-casteism, or rather, led to a fragmentation of the

movement between new binaries like Maratha/non-Maratha, Kshatriya/non-Kshatriya, etc. and

thus made this self-conception of being progressive quite hollow from within. Secondly,

although the non-Brahmin radicals had deeply fraught and intensely fragile relations with

Brahmanism, the large sections of the Bahujan Samaj did not severe its historical ties with

Hinduism as such. Non-Brahminism in the post-Phule era accommodated and even asserted a

Hindu identity. Thirdly, deep anxieties regarding gender and sexuality within the movement did

not allow it to become a genuinely emancipatory ‗cultural revolt,‘ to use the term popularized by

Gail Omvedt. Let us end this chapter by taking a look at how this non-Brahminism was

perceived by the Brahmin literati.

Non-Brahmanism as ‘Casteism’: Kesari’s perspective on non-Brahmin Activism

By the second decade of the twentieth century, a parallel literary and political sphere was

well established in Marathi through the formation of various caste-organizations and the

publications and circulation of non-Brahmin print materials including literary and political texts
106
Rao (2009: 61)

60
and a wide range of journals. An expansion of this process in the first two decades of the

twentieth century led to the creation of a potent counter-public which challenged the

Brahmanical supremacy over the Marathi literary and public sphere. By the beginning of the

1920s, with the death of Tilak and the implementation of Morley-Minto reforms opening up

political spaces to non-Brahmin leaders, non-Brahmin counter-publics became increasingly more

mainstream in Marathi.

As I will discuss in chapter 4, one of the consequences of these changes included the

emergence of the literary sphere as a new sacred space in the Brahmanical imagination. This new

imagination paved the way for the preservation and continuation of Brahmanical culture and

fantasies, which were substantially immersed in their notions of romanticism and rationalism.

Simultaneously, in their search for a new political sociology for the reconstruction of the caste-

relations between Brahmins and non-brahmins, the Brahmin intelligentsia produced two –

distinct yet overlapping – responses. A more thoughtful reaction came from the Brahmin

Dharmashastra scholars with reformist orientations, as we will see in the case of Pradnya

Pathshala in the next chapter. The English-educated modernist brahmins, belonging to what

came to be called as the Kesari Paksha (the Kesari Party), however, was distinctly conformist

and was rather condescending of the non-Brahmin discourse. It formed a consistent mirror-image

to the emergent non-Brahman public, both reinforcing its stereotypes and accounting for its very

existence.

Vishnu Shastri Chiplunkar, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Gopal Ganesh Agarkar started two

newspapers – Kesari (the Lion) in Marathi and the Mahratta in English – in 1881 with both a

missionary zeal for social and political reforms and a fierce anti-imperialist sentiment. Kesari

was one of the most important expressions of the modern cultural nationalism stimulated by

61
Chiplunkar in Nibandhmala (1874-1882), a journal that inaugurated a new era in Marathi

thought. This modern cultural nationalism began increasingly to lean towards Brahmanical

orthodoxy, especially after Agarkar left Kesari and started his own newspaper Sudharak

(reformer) in 1888. Until Agarkar‘s death in 1895, both Kesari and Sudharak bitterly fought on

almost every important social and cultural aspect of public life. Until 1920, when Tilak was at

the helm of Kesari, it strongly voiced opinions against reforms around caste and gender but also

maintained a wider connection with the masses due to Tilak‘s charisma.

With the emergence of Mahatma Gandhi as the undisputed heir to Tilak‘s nationalist

politics, the Tilakites gradually began to be divided into two radically opposed fractions.

Subsequently, the fraction that opposed Gandhi – openly or tacitly – was glued together in Pune,

around periodicals like Sahyadri, Kesari and Bhala and institutions like the Bharat Itihas

Sanshodhan Mandal (founded in 1910). It eventually settled in the political formation of Hindu

Mahasabha under the leadership of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. This collective was generally

referred to as the Kesari party. 107The most important member of this group was Narsimha

Chintaman Kelkar (1872-1947) who was the editor of Mahratta for twenty years and of Kesari

for twenty-two years and wrote a copious three-volume biography of Lokmanya Tilak and an

equally long autobiography of his own. His complete works – more than 15000 pages – are

compiled in fifteen large volumes and thus he has been called Sahitya Samrat (an Emperor of

Literature). Because of Tilak, the leadership of Maharashtra and the editorship of Kesari had

become fused into one. After his demise in August 1920, Kelkar being the editor of Kesari was

automatically thought of as the new leader of Maharashtra. The other important members of this

collective include: Laxman Balwant Bhopatkar, 1880-1960 (champion of the Physical Culture

107
The other faction was composed of those who accepted Gandhi‘s leadership, which included Gangadhar
Deshpande, Shivram Paranjape, etc.

62
movement in Maharashtra, and was the president of Hindu Mahasabha between 1932 and 1942),

Bhaskar Balwant Bhopatkar, 1874-1949 (editor of Bhala from 1905 to 1910 and from 1924 to

1935), Vasudev Krushna Bhave (editor of Kesari for 1932-33) among others.108 Most of them

wrote extensively and functioned as lawyers, journalists, writers, editors, public speakers, etc.

They were the products of both modern Western education and Brahmanical orthodoxy, and they

constructed and cultivated through their writings and speeches what came to be called the

Sadashiv Pethi culture in Maharashtra, after the eponymous neighbourhood in Pune of

conservative Brahmans.

One classic example of this Sadashiv Pethi attitude towards caste was a booklet titled

Brahmanetar Vadache Swaroop va Brahman Jatichi Sadyasthiti (The character of Non-

Brahmanism and the contemporary condition of Brahmins), written by V K Bhave, and

published by Shankar Ramachandra Date, the then secretary of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1926.

The booklet consisted of small essays, which were earlier serially published in Kesari between

29th September to 10th November 1925, where Bhave was employed and subsequently, also

became the chief editor of Kesari from 1932 to 1933. As he stated at the beginning, Bhave‘s

series of articles were written in the context of the controversy generated by Dinkarrao Javalkar‘s

fiery pamphlet titled, Deshache Dushman (Enemies of the Nation), published in 1925, in which

Javalkar had declared both Vishnu Shastri Chiplunkar and Lokmanya Tilak – the two founding

fathers of the Kesari party – as the enemies of the country.

When one of Chiplunkar‘s relatives filed a case against Javalkar for defamation of

Chiplunkar in Deshache Dushman at the city magistrate court, Javalkar, Keshavrao Jedhe, and a

few others in the non-Brahmin fold came to consult Dr. Ambedkar. Ambedkar had already read

108
Other members of this collective including Khaparde, Ane and Moonje etc. were based in Vidarbha and
a few others like Gangadhar Pant Deshpande were Belgaum-based.

63
the text. He told them that it was ‗a good book written in bad taste‘ and advised Javalkar to learn

from the reformist and expansionist tendencies of the Brahmins. Ambedkar said to him,

―Brahmins have transformed themselves in social and religious terms and they will

continue to do so. Only cursing the Brahmins, the way the Marathas and the non-Brahmins do

these days, will not help. Widow-remarriages and inter-caste marriages have already begun

amongst the Brahmins, why don‘t the Marathas do the same? The Brahmins will change as per

time. They have a tremendous desire for knowledge and capital. They have looked to protect

their interests and thus could dominate all the other castes. Remember! Brahmins have brains

within brains…‖109

It is instructive to read Bhave‘s booklet in the light of Ambedkar‘s remarks quoted above.

Bhave‘s ‗brain within his brain‘ claimed that the Brahmins had become insure because of

aggressive non-Brahminism as he advised them to explore fresh avenues for livelihood and

social hegemony.

Bhave‘s opening statement was:

―With the passing of the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms in 1920, the

Brahmanetar politics was legitimized and since then it operated under multiple
guises in the last five years and tried to obstruct the political movements initiated by
the Brahmins. But since their whims are not satisfied as yet, they have devised a few
new tricks to mock the Brahmins. These include: establishing a statue of Jotiba
Phule110, the publication of a booklet named Deshache Dushman, and the Majoor
journal. Their obscene and uncivilized spectacle has attracted the attention of not
only Brahmins but the entire Hindu society towards them and has caused us all to be
concerned and worried. Thus we seek an impartial inquiry into the exact nature of
this disease of casteism.‖ 111

109
C B Khairmode (vol.2, 1958:198-99)
110
In 1925, Keshavrao Jedhe had proposed in Pune municipal council to erect a statue of Mahatma Jotiba
Phule which was rejected.
111
Bhave (1926: 1) Non-Brahminism was usually referred to as casteism in the Brahmanical discursive
writings in this period.

64
 In a series of articles that sought to inquire into the disease of ―casteism‖ in the grand

body of the Maharashtrian society‖, Bhave‘s central concern was that the non-Brahmins did not

acknowledge the immense sacrifices made by the Brahmins in the struggle against the colonial

regime. He argued that all the political movements that the Brahmins initiated were for the

betterment of the non-Brahmins. The Shivaji festival that Tilak started, the Swadeshi movement,

movement for the prohibition of liquor, the Home-rule movement – were all beneficial for the

Bahujan masses. And he was disheartened that after all that the Brahmins did for the masses, the

chief amongst the Brahmin activists – Chiplunkar and Tilak – were being cursed as the enemies

of the country. He wrote, ―It is indeed trembling to even try to imagine the true evil nature of

Brahmanetar politics.‖112

In a Kesari editorial titled, ‗the educated class and Swaraj‘, published on May 10th, 1932

– when Bhave himself was the editor of Kesari – a similar lament was uttered, echoing the

Bhave‘s argument, which was expressed in the following terms:

―The educated classes deserve all the credit for a new awakening in political and religious

spheres that is discernible in contemporary Hindustan…The history of political movements of

the last fifty years, from the beginning of the Indian National Congress, shows the intensity and

magnitude of the efforts of the educated classes. They fought with the British, initiated political

movements, went to jail, and were exiled and became unpopular with the government. And then

the fruits of their actions are being received by those castes and classes who sacrificed nothing

for the freedom of this land. Is there an irony greater than this?‖ 113

112
Bhave, V K (1926: 50-51) By ‗educated classes‘, Kesari referred primarily and at times only to the
Brahmin caste.
113
Kesari May 10th, 1932. ―Sushikshit Varga aani Swarajya‖ (Educated Classes and Self-rule)

65
 Bhave warned the non-Brahmins at the end of his series that if the Brahmins feel that the

road to the Swaraj was a road to their annihilation, then the Brahmins would have to rethink

about their participation in the nationalist struggle. In conclusion, Bhave wrote:

―The Brahmins are increasingly inclined towards withdrawing from the anticolonial

struggle and live for their welfare. And it will only be a loss of the non-Brahmins. The little

community of four lakh Brahmins can live anywhere in Maharashtra, and in fact, anywhere in

the world. What would the unorganized, backward and numerically humongous non-Brahmins

do?‖

His advice to the Brahmins was that they should now embrace a Vaishya-like attitude and

initiate new industries and factories.114 Bhave‘s pamphlet presents to us the quintessential

perception of the Kesari party, which at this point had an enormous influence on Marathi cultural

and political spheres, particularly in western Maharashtra. Interestingly, it was also the same

time when Kirloskar brothers, were in the process of establishing new industries and a new

industrial town in Kirloskar wadi in the princely state of Aundh in Western India. I will examine

the role the Kirloskars played in the making of Maharashtra‘s modernity in the third chapter.

Later, in the Christmas of 1932, Bhave was attending the Marathi Sahitya Sammelan, an

annual Marathi literary meet in Kolhapur. A very popular weekly in Pune called Dnyanprakash

published a small note, where it was mentioned that Bhave had dined with the non-Brahmins in

that literary conference. Upon his return to Pune, Bhave was severely condemned, particularly by

Bhaskar Bhopatkar and others from the Kesari group and was asked to ritually purify himself.

Around the same time, N C Kelkar, another member of the Kesari group, had returned from the

round table conference in London. Both Bhave and Kelkar underwent a penance ritual to purify

114
Bhave, V K (1926: 52-54)

66
themselves as per the dictates of the Shastras.115 Even as Bhave exhorted Brahmins in

Maharashtra and India to embrace new spaces and avenues for employment, thus, the Kesari

collective‘s own personal and social routines and beliefs remained firmly entrenched in

conservative ritual.

Another example of Kesari‟s obsession with orthodoxy could be seen in the case of

Gajanan Ketkar, a grandson of Lokmanya Tilak. Ketkar, a staunch Hindutvaite and the editor of

Kesari from 15th August 1947 wrote aggressively in Kesari to defend Savarkar and Rashtriya

Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) against all odds in the case of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

He was imprisoned in independent India for his editorials. In prison, however, he met with Elva

Redmond, a Christian nun who visited the prison to pray for the Christian prisoners. They fell in

love and married soon after. Elva Redmond became a Hindu and was renamed as Amla Ketkar.

However, this blasphemous act of Ketkar was not taken kindly in Kesari and he had to resign

from the editorship of the newspaper.

Bhave‘s appeal to his Brahmin brothers to withdraw from the political life and embrace a

Vaishya-like attitude is important, because it reappears in many forms in the public and private

conversations amongst the Brahmins. A letter by Captain Shivram Pant Damle, a renowned

bodybuilder and the president of Maharashtra Mandal, Pune sent in 1946 from Singapore to

Sadashivrao Bapat, a close associate of Tilak and Kelkar neatly summarizes the Brahmin mind-

set on the eve of Indian independence. Damle wrote:

―Overall, I think Brahmins should not take part in the upcoming elections as
candidates. That day would soon be upon us, anyway. Then wouldn‘t it better to take
that stand sooner rather than later? Congress will win Swaraj. Let it be victorious.
We would also win freedom automatically. We should aspire to be Peshwas, but the
king should always be a Maratha. That‘s why the Peshwas could rule. If you ask me,
we Brahmins should quit politics for a couple of generations. We should solidify our

115
Y. D. Lokurkar. 1984:26.

67
 people, our caste; by doing business and modelling ourselves on the Parsis. Until
then if someone wins the Swaraj, we would always benefit from it.‖ 116

Damle‘s letter is indicative of the fact that it was all too evident to the Brahmin elites that

these ―unorganized, backward and numerically humongous non-Brahmins‖ (to use Bhave‘s

phrase), were soon to become politically significant. Their numbers would become increasingly

important, and the political paradigm would shift, with the arrival of Savarkar‘s Hindutva, and its

attempt to reimagine the notions of jati, varna, and ritual into a more expansive notion of

religious community, which we will examine in greater detail in another chapter. It suffices here

to say, that the Brahmanical culture represented by the Kesari group on the one hand and the

romantic literary cocoon on the other, failed to transform itself to become inclusive, humanistic

and universal throughout the colonial phase. And as we will see in the case of the romantic poets

and other literary actors, caste and gender were casting long shadows on the Brahmin elites, and

the day was not far away when they would be rudely awakened from their cozy cocoons in the

aftermath of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948.

116
Sadanand More (2007: 792)

68
 Chapter 2: Texts and Contexts of Neo-Hinduism: the Pradnya Pathshala Project

As I have discussed in the first chapter, the Vedokta Controversy led to several debates

regarding the original forms of Vedic rituals, the concepts of varnas and their relationship with

castes, the validity of the Dharmashastra and other religious texts and the possibility of

reconfiguring the Hindu religious order for the modern times. The various interest-groups and

stake-holders these debates involved included the orthodox Brahmin Pundits, the modern

English-educated Brahmin literati, various actors from the newly emerging non-Brahmin publics,

as well as a new cluster of Vedic Pundits who reimagined the Hindu social and political order by

applying a historicist method for the reading of Vedic texts. The Vedokta controversy also

cultivated strong anti-Brahmin sentiments amongst the non-Brahmin masses, particularly in the

Southern and the Western parts of Maharashtra as discussed in chapter one. The central question

that came to the forefront through it was two-fold. On the one hand, the nature of the relationship

of the large non-Brahmin masses with Brahmanical power and authority became a matter of

public debate; and secondly, the question of the hermeneutics of the Brahmanical scriptural

tradition became more urgent.

The Vedokta controversy and the Brahmin Pundits:

The Sanatana (orthodox) Brahmins had a specific theory about the historical development

of the Varna society, which was the basis for the denial of the Kshatriya status to the Marathas. It

was succinctly summarized by Kashinath Vaman alias Bhaushastri Lele (1863-1918) in Dharma,

a weekly journal he edited from Wai:

―In the Kali Yuga (the age of Kali), only two varnas exist, the Brahman and the Shudra.

Neither Kshatriyas nor Vaishyas exist in this age according to the Shastras.‖117

117
Lele (Dharma, July 13th, 1905)

69
 In several articles devoted to this question, Lele discussed numerous religious and

historical texts – including the various Puranas such as the Matsya Purana, the Vayu Purana,

the Bhagavata Purana, and also other Hindu legal texts such as Vratyanirnaya by Nagoji Bhatta,

Shudra Kamalakara by Kamalakara Bhatta, and philosophical treatises such as Adi

Shankaracharya‘s commentary on the Brahma Sutras among others – to argue that the

Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas ceased to exist in the aftermath of the Nanda dynasty in about 321

BCE. Apart from Lele, many other renowned orthodox Brahmin Pundits of Wai – like

Rashivadekar Shastri – proclaimed that all the Marathas, including Chhatrapati Shivaji, were

Shudras. Lele did not hesitate to remind the dictates of the Manu Smriti to punish the Shudras

even for listening to the Vedic mantras in his writings in Dharma.118 He argued that the lack of

continuity in the Vedic ritualistic practices, such as Jatakarma, Upanayana, Vivaha, etc.

amongst the Marathas – or even for that matter the Rajputs119 – had over a period of time

degraded these communities to shudra-hood. Lele pointed out that of the sixteen Vedic

Samskaras, essential for the continuation of the status of the Dwija (twice-born), the only one

that the Marathas practiced was Vivaha (marriage).

However, a few Brahmin Pundits such as Krishnananda Saraswati, a Maharashtrian

Sanskrit scholar from Benares, believed that there was ample evidence, such as the genealogy of

the Bhosale family, the Upanayana of Shahu Maharaj himself and a Vedic Shruti that stated that

a crowned king becomes Kshatriya irrespective of the caste he was born into, to establish that the

Bhosales were Kshatriyas. He urged the Wai Brahmins to reconsider their opposition to Shahu‘s

118
Phadke (1986:50)
119
In 1674, when Chhatrapati Shivaji was coroneted in a Vedic ceremony, Gaga Bhatta, the priest who
oversaw the ceremony propagated the view that Shivaji‘s family (the Bhosales) originated from the Rajputs and
therefore should be recognized as Kshatriyas. For Lele Shastri, the Rajputs themselves could not be called
Kshatriyas and thus the Marathas‘ claim for the Kshatriya status automatically became redundant for him.

70
claim to Kshatriyahood in a letter written to Vishnu Bhatta and Gopal Bhatta Dharamadhikari 120.

However, the orthodox Brahmins at Wai refuted the claims of Krishnananda Saraswati. They

argued that even though the Upanayana Samskara was performed in the Bhosale family for

generations since Chhatrapati Shivaji, the rite of passage was done with the mantras from the

Puranas instead of the Vedas, and thus, it could not be considered as a proof of Kshatriya-ness

of the Bhosale family. Also, in a letter to Lele Shastri, Shrinivas Dixit, an editor of a magazine

called Brahmavidya va Upanishadavidya, had mentioned that the religious practices at the

Tanjore branch of the Maratha kingdom, founded by Vyankoji Bhosale – Shivaji‘s step-brother –

had always been in accordance with the Puranas. 121 The Sanatana Brahmins also pointed out the

marital alliances of the Bhosale family with other ―shudra‖ Maratha families – like Ghatge,

Pawar, Jadhav, More, Kadam, Shirke, Mohite, Gaekwad, and Nimbalkar – over centuries.

A few English-educated Brahmins like Chintamanrao Vaidya122 – a well-known Marathi

essayist and novelist, who was also trained in Sanskrit – refuted Lele‘s position and argued for

the historical continuity of the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas in Indian society. Although he agreed

with Lele that many contemporary Maratha households had ceased to perform the Vedic rituals

mandated for the Kshatriya Varna, he believed that it was entirely possible to re-establish these

rituals into the everyday practices of the Marathas. However, Krishnananda Saraswati and

Vaidya were among very few Brahmins who were willing to recognize the Kshatriya status of

the Marathas. Most of the Brahmins – priests and common grihasthas alike – including eminent

120
Krishnananda‘s letter dated February 1st, 1909, quoted in Phadke (1986: 54)
121
Dharma, September 7th, 1905.
122
C V Vaidya (1861-1935) had an honorary title Bharatacharya, meaning Indologist. Renowned for
various texts and essays – including the History of Medieval India in three volumes; a historical novel, Durdaivi
Rangu (the unlucky Rangu) and a series of essays titled Abalonnati Lekhmala (Essays for the empowerment of
women), Vaidya published another collection of essays in 1931, which was titled Hindu Dharmachi Tatve
(principles of Hinduism). It was a text designed to address the increasing atheism amongst young Hindus.

71
personalities like Lokmanya Tilak, historian V. K. Rajwade and educationist Vishnu Govind

Vijapurkar – were unhappy with the steps taken by Shahu Maharaj against the Brahmins, such as

the seizure of the inams of the priests and 50% reservations in education and employment for the

non-Brahmins. Tilak supported the position taken by Narayan Shastri Rajopadhye, Shahu‘s chief

priest and described Shahu‘s claim for the Kshatriya status ―a fad‖ in his editorials in Kesari123.

Along with Tilak‘s Kesari, numerous other Brahmin newspapers – such as Narayan Hardikar‘s

Brahmodaya, Vijapurkar‘s Samartha from Kolhapur; Pratod from Satara, Bhaushastri Lele‘s

Modvrutta from Wai; Kalpataru from Solapur; Arunodaya and Hindu Punch from Thane;

Gurakhi from Nasik – admonished Shahu for his Kshatriya quest as well as for introducing

caste-based reservations in Kolhapur state.

Simultaneously, it is important to recognize that the Brahmin orthodoxy‘s displeasure

was not limited only to demands of non-Brahmins. It was also directed at reformist Brahmin

writings. Being a Sanatana Brahman, Bhaushastri Lele was exceedingly cynical of Bal

Gangadhar Tilak‘s highly venerated Marathi text Gitarahasya, a 900-page commentary on

Bhagavad Gita. When Tilak published the text in 1915, it soon acquired a cult status within the

Marathi public sphere. It was also translated into various Indian languages as well.

Jyotirindranath Tagore, elder brother of Rabindranath, for example, translated it into Bengali.

But Lele was horrified by Tilak‘s audacity at challenging and critiquing the Shankaracharya in

Gitarahasya. In an attempt to refute Tilak‘s text at a meeting in Sadashiv Peth, Pune‘s center of

Brahmin orthodoxy, Lele Shastri went so far as to disregard Bhagavad Gita as a holy text

itself. 124

123
Kesari, 22 October 1901.
124
Lele also published his critique of Gitarahasya in a book form titled, Gitarahasya-Parikshan (Shastra
Sanjeevani) to refute the very premise of Tilak‘s book.

72
 Lele claimed that it was an error to consider Gita a sacred text. His point was that

although the Gita was a message from Lord Krishna, the receiver of the message was Kunti‘s

son Arjuna, who was not fathered by Kunti‘s husband Pandu, and therefore, could not have been

a true Kshatriya himself. According to Lele, since Arjuna could not have been a Kshatriya, he

was not entitled to receive the true knowledge of enlightenment. Since it was received by an

impure and undeserved man it followed that, Bhagavad Gita could not have been a true message

of God.125 The orthodox Hindu opinion of the age was deeply obsessed with the idea of purity –

of Jati and texts –which could only be preserved by maintaining the purity of the body.

Although the Vedokta controversy was all but over in 1908, the political and cultural

commotion it created continued to stir Marathi society long after. The animosity and struggle for

power between Lokmanya Tilak and his supporters and associates, and the non-Brahmin activists

patronized and funded by Shahu Maharaj went on for another decade until the death of both

Tilak (1920) and Shahu (1922). By the 1920s, a new line of thinking emerged amongst a section

of Brahmins, including Pundits as well as English-educated modern professionals. It stimulated a

rethinking about the status of Varna in modern Hindu society. It was partly a response to the

aggression of non-Brahmin activism, and partly the result of a reflection on the relevance of the

Dharmic texts in modern times. This new thinking was also a product of the void that

Maharashtrian Brahmin nationalist leadership, spearheaded by Tilak up to 1920, began to

experience in the Gandhian age.

The year 1920 indeed turned out to be the most significant for the Tilakites for several

reasons. In 1919, the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were announced, which opened up a new

political space for non-Brahmins. Elected local councils were set up in rural areas, and urban

municipal corporations were made more democratic. When Tilak died on August, 1 st, 1920, and
125
Narahar Raghunath Phatak (1972: 359)

73
Mahatma Gandhi launched the non-cooperation movement immediately after, many Tilakites

were dumbfounded. Non-cooperation involved abandoning the government schools and colleges,

banning courts and other government offices, resigning from government jobs and not running

for local government offices. Many of the Tilakites – most of whom were Brahmins – were

lawyers or professors and considered local elections as a space for capturing a slice of colonial

power. They regarded Non-Cooperation as a direct loss of employment and livelihood for them.

They also believed that the Maharashtrian way of guerrilla warfare – devised by the great

Maratha king Chhatrapati Shivaji and deployed effectively in the modern times by Tilak – would

need a certain cunning and diplomacy which, in their perception, Gandhi did not possess. Thus,

the 1920s indeed created a political and intellectual crisis for the Brahmin leadership in

Maharashtra. One of the outcomes of this crisis was the political imagination of modern –

inclusive, universal and rational – Hinduness (Hindutva). The best known exponent of this

Hindutva is of course V.D. Savarkar, but one of my goals in this thesis is to chart the many

different and frequently discordant notes within this imagination.

Mahadev Shastri Divekar‘s booklet Kshatriya Vaishyanche Shastrasiddha Astitva va

Prayaschitta (the existence of Kshatriyas and Vaishyas as per the Holy Scriptures and the

Penance Rituals), published in 1924, was one of the most significant texts that opened up ways

for debates around this modern Hinduness. Many other texts, published from the 1920s to the

1940s, also tried to address similar issues. A flood of such texts indicates the recognition of a

crisis in the idea of old Hinduism, and that it required a resolution. There certainly was a

recognition that the relationship between the center and the periphery in the Hindu social order,

or in other words, the Brahmins and the social margins of Hindu society, needed to be

restructured. Divekar‘s text, a short essay of about 24 pages published by the Pradnya Pathshala

74
of Wai, was the third part of a series of 4 small booklets. The first book was titled,

Asprushhodhhar Vichar (Thoughts on the redemption of the untouchables), the second book was

called, Dharmabrashthanche Shuddhikaran (Purification and readmission of those who have

fallen from the Hindu-fold), and the fourth book was named, Hindu Vidhvancha Dharma (Duty

of the Hindu Widows)

Mahadevshastri Divekar‘s four texts on the four margins of the Hindu society: the Untouchable,

the Converted, the Non-Brahmin and the Widow. (Published by Pradnya Pathshala in 1926)

In a preface written to Divekar‘s books, ‗Bharatacharya‘ Chintamanrao Vaidya remarked

that Divekar had discussed the problems that Hindu society was currently plagued by, and had

shown a method that no believing Hindu would be displeased with. Both Vaidya and Divekar

recognized that the old sacred texts would no longer keep the Hindu society united and they

would need new foundations for unity, new modes of conversations and new logics of

incorporation. However, they were unwilling to abandon the old texts and the social and the

epistemological hierarchies altogether; rather they hoped to work around these sacred texts and

75
old customs. 126 As evident from the title, Divekar argued for the continued existence of the

Kshatriyas and Vaishyas and the text was written primarily to defend the four-fold Varna system.

He pointed out that the claims made by orthodox shastris like Lele that there were no Kshatriyas

in the age of fall (Kali) would in effect mean the dissolution of Chaturvarnya. Therefore it was

imperative to refute this theory in order to re-establish Chaturvarnya, which he considered as

foundational to the Hindu social order.

After providing a brief background of the Vedokta controversy and its resolution within

the Hindu Dharmashastra domain, Divekar went on to systematically refute the argument that

Kshatriyas withered away in the kali yuga. By closely examining Vedic texts, Upanishads,

various Smritis – by Manu, Yajnavalkya and Parashara in particular – and the various Puranas,

Divekar showed that there was no evidence to suggest the decline of the two middle varnas. He

then considered the evidence of history – particularly, the Mahabharata to show that at the time

of the Mahabharata war, the age of Kali had already started and therefore, if one was to accept

Lele‘s theory, all the warriors and the Kings who lived after the Mahabharata war could not have

been Kshatriyas. By this logic, Divekar pointed out, the great kings like Samudragupta and

Harshavardhana and even Chhatrapati Shivaji could not be considered Kshatriyas. Divekar

revealed that the repercussions of Lele‘s theory would be disastrous to accept. Therefore, he

argued, that no sane person would agree with Lele.

The central thesis that Divekar tried to establish with his discussion of various textual and

historical pieces of evidence was quite remarkable.127 While discussing parts of the ‗Shanti

Parva‘ of Mahabharata, Divekar observed:

126
Although all the four texts by Divekar were deeply intertwined and overlap in terms of the central
argument, I will only discuss Divekar‘s book on the dharmic basis of the Kshatriyas, for my restricted purpose here.

76
 ―A close examination of these shlokas (from Mahabharata) would reveal a thesis that the

Brahmins and the Kshatriyas cannot exist without each other. Therefore, as evident in Shrutis,

Smritis and the Mahabharata, (as long as the Brahmins exist) the existence of Kshatriyas and

Vaishyas cannot be refuted.‖128

Divekar, therefore, reasoned for the interdependence of the three varnas for the existence

and preservation of the Chaturvarnya system. Divekar‘s refutation of Lele was also informed by

the larger context that shaped his theorizing of Dharma. Divekar Shastri was associated with

Samartha Vidyalaya, a school founded on the principle of Rashtriya Shikshan (national

education) in 1906 by Vishnu Govind Vijapurkar. The idea of national education was a

manifestation of the particular brand of nationalist politics that emerged through the works of

Vishnushastri Chiplunkar and Bal Gangadhar Tilak in the late nineteenth century Maharashtra. It

is to exploring this context that the chapter now turns.

Education, Nationalism and the Native Body

The spread of colonial education and the dissemination of print in Maharashtra, since the

early nineteenth century led to the growth of an educated middle-class and a vigorous public

sphere in Marathi. Since English education could lead to stable employment and elevate one‘s

socio-economic status in society, many students from the erstwhile scribal castes embraced it

wholeheartedly. This rise and spread of western education had two significant consequences. It

produced a middle-class that became the mediator between the colonial government and the

native society and this middle-class began to analyze the native society through categories that

127
This argument also comes up in a conversation between a Brahmin and a Satyashodhak activist in
Mukundrao Patil‘s Hindu Ani Brahman, where Patil‘s Satyashodhak character Yeshwantrao promptly rejects it.
128
Divekar (1924:8)

77
were made available to them by western education. But in the process, it was also cut off from

the wider illiterate and traditional society that lived outside the precincts of print.129

By the late nineteenth century, two contrasting and yet interdependent developments

within this middle-class can be observed. On the one hand, this class was dependent on the

colonial government for its livelihood and in the process had fashioned itself in the colonial

image; while on the other hand, it also became the vehicle of the emergent anticolonial

nationalist consciousness. This anti-colonialism had two central concerns regarding the impact of

colonial education on native society: a) that colonial education had decayed the bodies of the

young students and emasculated them; and b) that it had uprooted them from their Swadesh

(nation), Swabhasha (mother-tongue) and Swadharma (religion). In this section, I will discuss

both these concerns regarding the impact of western education that was deliberated by the

middle-class literati in the late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Marathi public sphere.

In the aftermath of the defeat of the Peshwas in 1818, the East India Company started

Hindu college in Pune to facilitate classical education – Sanskrit grammar, Nyaya, Veda,

astrology, etc. – for Brahmins in 1821. However, just over a decade later, directed by Macaulay‘s

minutes, the education policy titled heavily towards Western education where the English

language and the natural and social sciences were privileged. In 1844, the government declared

that only the students trained in western education would be admitted into the colonial service

which became detrimental for the growth of classical Indian education. 130 And, as Narsimha

129
While commenting on the character of this middle-class, renowned historian Vishwanath Kashinath
Rajwade noted: ―This white-collared class is quite capricious. They say something and they do something else. If
they believe in something today, there is no guarantee that they will act accordingly tomorrow. They would say that
English education is bad, and these same people would send their children to government schools. They would urge
you to use Swadeshi and then they would buy imported goods at that very moment. They would call the colonial
service ‗slavery‘ and would stick to it until their last breath. This is a spineless and leathery class.‖ Rajwade (1932:
155-56)
130
Bhave (2009: forty-three)

78
Chintaman Kelkar noted: ―henceforth, with every passing day, the importance of Shastris and

Pundits continued to diminish‖.131 With the establishment of Bombay University in 1857,

educational levels in Maharashtra were bifurcated along two lines: Marathi schools for primary

and lower secondary classes and exclusively English education at the matriculation and college

level.

As a consequence of this linguistic split within the western-educated middle class since

the early nineteenth century, English remained confined to more elite circles that overlapped

with the colonial state, while Marathi emerged as a more potent medium for public

conversations.132 After passing the seventh standard, students could choose to appear for either

matriculation – mandatory for those who want to go to college for further studies – or vernacular

final – for those who would seek employment after school. Most students would find

matriculation very difficult, and those who passed matriculation to reach college would take

another 5 to 7 years to finish graduation. Consequently, a very small number of students would

go on to complete their graduation. And, eventually many of these graduates would die young. 133

The problem of the early deaths of these graduates was widely recognized and debated in

Marathi public sphere, particularly in the last decade of the nineteenth century.

While speaking at the convocation ceremony of Bombay University for the year 1894-95,

Dr. Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar, the then Vice-Chancellor of the university, reflected on this

issue. Bhandarkar believed that decadent social customs like child-marriage and unhygienic

131
Kelkar (1923:57) it is also evident in the various public debates between the Shastris and the English-
educated Brahmins on the question of reforms. Also see, R. S. Walimbe (1962)
132
As Veena Naregal has rightly pointed out, this western-educated ‗underclass‘ which operated primarily
in Marathi was foundational for the development of the Marathi public sphere in the late nineteenth century. Naregal
(2001)
133
Some of the graduates who died young were: L R Vaidya; Justice Telang; Ravjishastri Tillu‘s son;
Wamanrao Apte, the first principal of Fergusson College; Gopal Ganesh Agarkar; Vishnushastri Chiplunkar, etc.

79
lifestyles of the natives were the primary reasons behind the early deaths of many of these

graduates. Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade, in reply to Bhandarkar, pointed out that social

customs such as child-marriages affected not just the graduates but the entire society. Ranade

thought that the excessive burden of studies and exams on the students was the real reason

behind their early deaths.134

The problem of the early deaths of the graduates was a recurrent subject of public

conversations in 1894-95. Mahadev Shivram Gole (1852-1907), professor of Physics and the

Principal of Fergusson College, Pune published a book titled Brahman Aani Tyanchi Vidya

(Brahmins and their (Colonial) Education) in 1895 to address the issue. Gole‘s text sought to

examine the impact of colonial education on native minds and bodies. Although the title of

Gole‘s book referred only to the Brahmins, he clarified that he considered all the scribal castes

including the four sub-castes of Maharashtrian Brahmins –Deshastha, Konkanastha, Karhade,

and Saraswat– along with the other traditional scribes such as Kayastha and Pathare Prabhu as

Brahmins in his book. According to Gole, colonial education was the root cause of the decaying

of the bodies and minds of the students.135 He believed that the spark that colonial education

created in the first generation of Indian students in the early nineteenth century had substantively

waned by the last decade of the nineteenth century. Gole held that colonial education – as if a

radioactive component – decayed the bodies of the native students. His concern for the native

(Brahmin) bodies was also evident from the titles of the chapters in his book: the decay of the

students‘ bodies; waning of the Students‘ minds; Brahmin students and the University; Physical

134
See, N G Chapekar‘s introduction to the second edition of Gole‘s book for a detailed discussion of these
arguments. (Gole, 1932)
135
Gole was so disillusioned with the colonial education system that after his retirement in 1902, he started
farming near Indore. He even discouraged his elder son Sadashiv from going to college and instead made him a
farmer as well.

80
Exercises; More thoughts on the causes of the mental and physical decay; the importance of

bodily strength, etc.

Gole‘s text was a mixture of a reformist gaze – with a strong critique of the Brahmins –

and a revivalist hope – of recovering Swaraj through building bodily and mental strength. Gole

strongly disagreed with many Brahmins, who considered the colonial period as a period of a

historical transition, and who hoped that once this phase would pass, India would attain its lost

glory once again. He observed:

―In the last twenty years, the average height of Brahmin graduates has
diminished by the ratio of two inches per ten years. Their bodily strength has also
reduced by one third. The same can be observed amongst the women. I have already
shown how society has attained old-age. Stern, determined, industrious and
masculine men are dying. Education and poverty have embraced one another. And
the breadth and the width of this country has become inversely proportional to the
abilities of its graduates…how can anyone claim that this transition is indicative of a
future renaissance?‖136

One of the solutions that Gole proposed for the resolution of the crisis triggered by the

colonial education system was by producing a network of ‗Graduate Ramdasis‘ or the Hindu

missionaries inspired by the teachings of Samartha Ramdas across the country. Gole‘s anxiety

regarding the decline of the Brahmins was a widely shared one. Bal Gangadhar Tilak reviewed

Gole‘s book across seven consecutive editorials in Kesari. Tilak largely agreed with Gole‘s

pessimistic view but argued that it was not just the Brahmins but the entire Maharashtrian society

suffered from this decay and that the colonial rule was the main reason behind this condition.

Although Tilak shared aspects of Gole‘s self-reflexive critique of the Brahmins, the late

nineteenth-century intellectual and political climate had already paved the way for a nationalist

imagination which sought to affirm the cultural and moral health of the Hindu society. The early

nineteenth-century insistence on reforming the Hindu society – evident in the writings and

136
Gole (1895; 3rd edition 2008:173) for similar anxieties about the impact of colonialism on native bodies
in the context of modern Bengal, see Partha Chatterjee, Our Modernity (1994), reprinted in Chatterjee (2010).

81
actions of intellectuals and activists like Gopal Hari Deshmukh and Jotirao Phule – had begun to

diminish by the late nineteenth century. Vishnu Shastri Chiplunkar, the self-proclaimed ‗Shivaji

of the Marathi language‘ declared in his Nibandhmala – a series of essays that launched this

paradigm shift in Marathi – that ‗there is nothing wrong with my country and its people‘. 137

Prachi Deshpande has noted:

―Chiplunkar‘s declaration that Hindu society was hale and hearty and did not need any

reform matched his unrestrained and colorful prose; the approach to social as an admission of

national weakness and the appeal of this defiant attitude to a younger generation in an

environment of heightened missionary criticism set the stage for the conservative, anti-reform

turn in nationalist politics in Bal Gangadhar Tilak, starting in the late 1880s.‖138

Tilak developed this anti-reform argument further. In a comment published in Kesari on

Vishnu Moreshwar Mahajani‘s public speech at Dharwad in 1903 – where Mahajani had argued

that reforming the familial and social spaces was a pre-requisite for Indian independence – Tilak

explained his position most clearly in the following words:

―I disagree with Mahajani. Consider Burma, for example. Burma has been
practicing all the customs that our social reformers desperately desire – Adult-
marriages, Widow-remarriages, one religion, women are allowed to educate
themselves, no caste system, and lack of restrictions on the consumption of food –
since long. But, in terms of the lack of virtues such as – industriousness; being proud
of one‘s creed, religion, and language; intense collective ambition to attain greatness
or the national aspiration to make the nation strong in terms of knowledge, strength,
valour and other accomplishments – the Burmese and the Indians are no different
from one another. Our reformers blame the lack of reforms in Indian society for the
absence of these virtues amongst us. But the Burmese situation tells us that the
causality that our reformers privilege – between social reform and national progress –
is incorrect and needs to be modified.
137
Chiplunkar‘s declaration first appeared in his often-cited essay ‗Aamchya Deshachi Sthiti‘ [the
condition of our country] published in the journal he edited: Nibandhmala (reprinted in collected Nibandhmala in
1888). The tremendous impact of the essay on the public mind is evident from the fact it was eventually banned by
the Colonial Government.
138
Prachi Deshpande (2007:113) Deshpande has shown with ample evidence that ‗History‘ was central to
this emergent nationalist imagination in late nineteenth century Maharashtra.

82
 Even if all the widows of Hindustan get remarried tomorrow, the material or
spiritual conditions of the country will not change. In short, national progress and
social reform are two very different things….this is the reason why I critique reforms
and their proponents despite not being averse to many of their ideas. I think Hindu
Dharma (Hindu religion) and Hindu Rashtra (Hindu nation) are more important than
social reforms; and whatever reforms we may need, will automatically take place
when we devote ourselves diligently to the task of creating national consciousness
amongst the people…‖139

Vishnu Govind Vijapurkar (1863-1926) – a professor of Sanskrit at Rajaram College

Kolhapur, the editor of the distinguished monthly Granthmala (1894-1906), the newspaper

Samarth (1898-1908), and another renowned periodical Vishwavrutta (1906-09), and a critic of

Shahu Maharaj‘s insistence on Vedic rituals – also reiterated Tilak‘s argument quoted above

many a time in his writings. However, Vijapurkar was not a political Tilakite; instead, he had

close ties with the moderate leader and Tilak‘s political rival Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Much like

Tilak, Vijapurkar was not traditionally orthodox himself in his personal life yet he politically

opposed many socio-religious reforms. He shared Tilak‘s belief that political freedom was the

master-key of all the socio-religious problems of India. In an article in Vishwavrutta, Vijapurkar

wrote:

―The greatest calamity is the political crisis, that is, our subjugation. We must
understand that all the other crises are caused by it. The social conditions of the
nation have deteriorated; terrible and irrational customs have gripped our minds; love
for truth has diminished from the society; the element of trust in one another has
vanished; our arts and our trade have sunk, and we have become gruesome are all the
consequences of the real sickness – that is the loss of the political power. And thus,
these outward symptoms of sickness should not be given more importance than the
root cause…‖140

This nationalist outlook envisioned by Chiplunkar and Tilak opposed social reforms and

paved the way for a new form of collective imagination in Maharashtra. Tilak and Vijapurkar

139
Bal Gangadhar Tilak (May 5th, 1903.) reprinted in Tilak (1976: 158-159) (emphasis is mine)
140
Vijapurkar (Vishwavrutta, year 1, issue 3, 1906)

83
were two of the key representatives of this form of nationalist modernism – which was non-

orthodox and yet anti-reform – of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and it was also

shared by many across political groupings. 141

One of the central concerns of this new imagination was the idea of Rashtriya Shikshan

(national education)142. In 1880, Chiplunkar, Tilak, and Agarkar started New English School at

Pune.143 In 1881, they also started two newspapers: Kesari (Marathi) and Mahratta (English). In

a written address to William Hunter in 1882, the directors of the school clarified its purpose in

clear terms: ―We believe a nation that has not taken its education in its own hands cannot soon

rise…and it was this thought that prompted us to open the New English School.‖144

Subsequently, the principal of the school, Vaman Shivram Apte, further specified their position

in his testimony in front of the Hunter Commission:

―The aim of the whole educational system as at present administered appears to me to

make the natives speak and write good English and not to enable them to be masters of their

mother tongue as if the object of the university were to send forth into the world every year a lot

of anglicized graduates instead of graduated natives.‖145

Broadly, the essential elements of this ‗National Education‘ that developed through the

initiatives of Chiplunkar and others were as follows:

141
The argument that political crisis – i.e. colonial rule – was the singular source of all the other problems,
stemmed from a peculiar position of the Brahmin elites, who on the one hand, wished to maintain their dominant
position within the Hindu hierarchy and on the other, they also claimed a certain form of cultural parity – as Aryans,
and the custodians of an ancient and great civilization – with the Europeans.
142
As noted by Ramachandra Kanade, the directors of the New English School specifically used the term
‗National Education‘. (Kanade 1928: 113)
143
In 1884 they created the Deccan Education Society. In 1885, the society established Fergusson College,
named after the then Governor of Bombay presidency Sir James Fergusson. Johnson, Gordon (1973: 68)
144
Kanade (1928:114)
145
Kanade (1928:115)

84
 a. The medium of instruction in school should be the mother tongue.

b. Natives should have control over the educational system.

c. The educational system should facilitate the growth in the sense of pride in

Swadharma (religion), Swabhasha (language) and Swadesh (country).

Thus, by the turn of the century, particularly by 1904-05 in the aftermath of the partition

of Bengal, when Lokmanya Tilak put up his ‗Four Point Programme‘ (Boycott foreign goods,

Freedom, Swadeshi, and National Education), the idea of national education began to be

practiced quite widely in Western India. Apart from the New English School, there also emerged

many other private institutions devoted to the idea of National Education.

The ‗Samarth Vidyalaya‘ (1906) was the pioneering effort in this regard. Later many

institutions, such as – Tilak Rashtriya Shala (Akola, 1921), Tilak College (Pune, 1921),

Rashtriya Path Shala (Ahmednagar, 1920), Tilak Rashtriya Vidyalaya (Jalgaon, 1921), Tilak

Rashtriya Pathshala (Nipani, 1921), Tilak Vidyalaya (Bhusaval, 1921), Tilak Vidyalaya (Yeole,

1921), Rashtriya Shala (Ratnagiri, 1921), Tilak Rashtriya Vidyalaya (Satara, 1921), Khandesh

Shikshan Mandal (Amalner, 1914) Swavalamban Rashtriya Pathshala (Chinchwad, 1921),

Mahilashram (Vardha, 1924) – mushroomed across Maharashtra after the death of Lokmanya

Tilak in 1920.146

Vijapurkar’s Samartha Vidyalaya:

As mentioned above, prof. Vijapurkar had close ties with Gopal Krishna Gokhle, and

with the legendary historian V K Rajwade, and he was deeply influenced by the ideology of

Swadesh-Swabhasha-Swadharma that was popularised by Chiplunkar. He started Samarth

Vidyalaya, an educational institution, to propagate and instil these values in the students.

Strength and power had been some of the most significant motivations for cultural nationalists.
146
Rairikar (2003:83-85)

85
The name that Vijapurkar chose for the school – and also for a newspaper he ran for about 10

years – Samartha (strong) – indicated this obsession with strength and also evoked the memories

of Samarth Ramdas, a saint-poet of the seventeenth century and most revered by the English-

educated modern Brahmins. It was from Samarth Ramdas that Rajwade derived the term

Maharashtra Dharma, which was deployed in a variety of ways across genres in Marathi print

materials, and from the physical exercise clubs to theatre and cinema to illustrate the explicitly

masculine character of Maharashtrian Hinduness. 147

The explicitly ‗Hindu‘ character of the national festivals that Tilak started in the 1890s –

the Ganapati festival and the Shivaji festival – were also manifestations of this obsession with

strength and power. The building of the body-politic of the Hindu nation was the essence of

celebrating Hindu deities like Ganesh and deity-like historical figures such as Chhatrapati

Shivaji. Kesari called these celebrations a tonic for the fragile nerves of the Hindu body

politic.148 In Rajwade‘s and other nationalists‘ writings, Chhatrapati Shivaji emerged as a core

symbol of both Hindu sovereignty and Maharashtra Dharma. Shivaji was projected as the

protector of cows and Brahmins and with the systematic cultivation and dissemination of the

myth of Samarth Ramdas as Chhatrapati Shivaji‘s guru – particularly by Rajwade and another

Samartha devotee Shankar Shrikrushna Deo – both from Dhule in Northern Maharashtra – the

specificity of Maharashtra Dharma was articulated in its masculinity and strength.

Tilak, in the later years, particularly from the first decade of the twentieth century became

a paramount symbol of this virile Maharashtra Dharma. He was imagined as the modern-day

Shivaji. Tilak‘s Gitarahasya had acquired a cult status and towards the end of his life, Tilak had

147
For a detailed discussion of the term and its uses in twentieth-century Marathi discourses see, Rajendra
Vora (in Wagle, 1999:23-30) and Prachi Deshpande (2007:128-133).
148
Kesari, 9th April 1901.

86
begun to be worshipped in various ways. As Damodar Narahar Shikhare observed, Gitarahasya

had become the most monumental literary and political event in Maharashtra of the early

twentieth century. Shikhare noted:

―At least for the next five years after that magnum opus was published in
1915, it completely ruled over Maharashtra‘s cultural climate. Everyone was
obsessed with it, not merely because there were innumerable followers of Lokmanya
who must have bought the book as a token of worship – many of whom probably just
kept it in their homes without reading it. But many read it word-by-word and a few
who even had it by-heart. There were serious scholars of Bhagwad Gita who had
read Gitarahasya some 20-30 times and they even traveled and lectured all across
Maharashtra to popularise the book. Never before did Maharashtra‘s religious life
experience such rejuvenation!‖ 149

A representation of Tilak as Lord Krishna was particularly popular, which Shahu

Chhatrapati unequivocally detested.

Tilak as Sri Krishna: delivering the message of the Gita to Arjuna

149
D N Shikhare in G B Sardar (1960:186)

87
 In a letter written immediately after the death of Tilak to Mr. C. G. Adam, a private

secretary to the Governor of Bombay, dated August 20 th, 1920, Shahu conveyed his grievances

in strong terms. He wrote:

―I send you herewith a copy of a picture published by ‗Sandesh‘ 150 of

Bombay. The picture had deified Tilak as ‗Shri Krishna‘, before whom Indian in the
form of ‗Arjuna‘ is shown to have been kneeling down in a most supplicant manner.
Everybody knows that both ‗Shri Krishna‘ and ‗Arjuna‘ were Kshatriyas of the same
caste to which the ancestors of the present-day Kshatriya Marathas belonged. The
idea of a Kshatriya meekly bowing down before a Brahmin is naturally grossly
insulting to the feelings of the Kshatriya Marathas…such pictures ought to be
condemned. To deify and make Tilak Krishna – Tilak whom all the loyalists and
most of the moderates associate with heinous offenses is the degradation of Shri
Krishna himself worse than that of Jesus Christ or Paigamber when his part is played
on stage in dramatic performances.‖ 151

The appeal of Tilak – and the specific brand of Maharashtrian masculinity and strength

that he represented – was so far and wide that most Maharashtrian activists – many of whom

would later become Gandhians or Marxists – began their political lives under the spell of

Tilak.152 After Tilak‘s death, various Tilakites came together to form ‗Lokmanya Seva Sangh‘

and established Tilak Mandir, an educational institute at Vile Parle in Mumbai in 1923. 153 The

Sangh reimagined the Dattatreya idol in a new form by using Ramdas, Shivaji, and Tilak as the

150
Sandesh was edited by Achyutrao Kolhatkar, a Tilakite. When Kolhatkar had publically shared his
differences with Tilak, Shahu Maharaj promptly offered his financial support for Sandesh. Although, Kolhatkar took
help from Shahu but despite his differences with Tilak, he remained a staunch Tilakite even after Tilak‘s death. The
entire issue of Sandesh after Tilak‘s death was filled by his editorial on Tilak. For a detailed account of Kolhatkar‘s
relationship with Shahu Chhatrapati, see Javalkar‘s obituary of Kolhatkar published in Tej (20th June, 1931),
reprinted in Javalkar‘s Collected works (ed. Y D Phadke, [1984] 2013:350)
151
Rajarshi Shahu Chhatrapati Papers, Vol. IX: 1920-1922 (2005:200)
152
Shripad Amrit Dange, who became one of the founding fathers of the Indian Communist Party, was
deeply influenced by both Rajwade and Tilak in his early career and that form of nationalism also shaped his version
of Marxism. For more details, see Chausalkar (2011) and Usha Dange (1970). Also, many staunch Maharashtrian
disciples of Mahatma Gandhi such as Seetaram Patwardhan and Pundalikji Katgade were deeply influenced by the
charisma of Tilak. Various stories are available in the archives that indicate this cult following of Tilak. Many
people stopped eating a certain vegetable, or stopped consuming sugar; a few even gave up using footwear after
Tilak‘s death. Also, see N S Phadke‘s novel Pravasi which explores the impact of grief after Tilak‘s death.
(discussed in chapter 4)
153
Lokmanya Seva Sangh was formed on 11th March 1923. http://www.lssparle.org.in/p/history.html

88
three heads of the deity. The three heads of one deity conveyed the message that while they

appear to be different from one another, they were, in fact one and also elevated these figures to

the level of the divine. This new trinity also symbolized the integration of a Kshatriya-Brahmin

model, the two varnas that represented the strength of Hinduness.

Tilak, Ramdas, and Shivaji: the Trinity of Lokmanya Seva Sangh, Mumbai (1923) 154

154
Photo courtesy: Sadanand More (2007: 514)

89
 Samarth (Ramdas) thus, was a recurring symbol of masculine strength, mental discipline,

and power as well as the representative of Maharashtrian Brahmins who viewed themselves as

the gurus of all the varnas. Vijapurkar‘s choice for the name of their new school was a deep-

rooted metaphor amongst the Brahmin intelligentsia of modern Maharashtra.

Samarth Vidyalaya began in 1906 in Kolhapur. In a public advertisement of the school, it

was mentioned that it was to be affiliated to the upcoming Benares Hindu University. However,

as Samarth Vidyalaya was already declared illegal by the British government in 1910 by the time

the Benares Hindu University started, this proposed affiliation never quite materialized. Soon

after its formation, Samarth Vidyalaya was shifted – first to Miraj, near Kolhapur, due to the

outbreak of Plague – and later to Talegaon, near Pune. Although Samarth Vidyalaya was based

on the idea of national education, which aimed to decolonize the content of education, it was not

a traditional Hindu Pathshala. It was a modern residential school that sought to incorporate many

modern subjects – such as History, Geography, Mathematics, Economics, Marathi, Drawing,

Sanskrit and Health Sciences – in its curriculum. The syllabus also had a component of religious

education, and though the institute was technically open to students of all religions, in practice

the content of religious education remained limited only to the sphere of Hinduism.

In an article published in Indian Review (April 1906), Vijapurkar expressed the necessity

of an institution like Samarth Vidyalaya.

―For the prevention from the decay of the vernaculars, for the proper training of the

morals and manners of young men of this country, and the imparting of scientific and technical

education in right European fashion, the institution of a Hindu University, independent of

Government control is an indispensable necessity in this land. The necessity of such an

90
institution is apparent also for the inculcation of political duties, rights, and responsibilities in the

mind of young India.‖155

Samarth Vidyalaya experimented with the scheduling of the school as well. Instead of the

standard 11 am to 5 pm, the school operated in two shifts: from 7.30 am to 10.30 am and from

2.30 pm to 5.30 pm.

7.30 a.m.-10.30 a.m. – Literary Studies, Social Sciences, mathematics, etc.

10.30 a.m.-11.30 a.m. – Lunch

2.30 p.m. - 5.30 p.m. – Industrial training

5.30 p.m. – 6.30 p.m. – Physical Exercises156

Also, apart from the subjects mentioned above, students were taught pottery, carpentry,

and knitting along with Indian classical Vocal and some basic training of other Indian languages

such as Kannada and Gujarati. The school was affiliated with a Swadeshi glass factory and the

students were sent there for training as well. 157 The syllabus at Samartha Vidyalaya also involved

texts that were actively circulated and widely read in Marathi print publics at the time, including

the works of Marathi saint-poets such as Samarth Ramdas‘s collection of poetry Dasbodha, and

Dnyaneshwari, a thirteenth-century Marathi commentary on Bhagwad Gita; selections from

Chiplunkar‘s Nibandhmala; and selected articles from historian Rajwade‘s work. The curriculum

also had a significant component of physical exercises and Indian sports. Also, the school only

admitted unmarried male students. Brahmacarya was one of the most important prerequisites for

admission.

155
Indian Review (April, 1906). Reprinted in Kanade (1928:190)
156
Rairikar (2005:94)
157
Many students eventually started their own glass factories.

91
 A trust named ‗Maharashtra Vidya Prasarak Mandal‘ was founded for administrating the

school with Bal Gangadhar Tilak as one of its trustees.158 Many Tilakite nationalist activists

came to the school as teachers, including J S Karandikar 159, Vaman Malhar Joshi, and Narahar

Balkrushna Joshi. And within six months of its formation, 75 students were studying at the

school. In 1910, before the school was closed, it had 150 students and 20 teachers, many of

whom had strong sympathies for revolutionary nationalism. The idea of Indian renaissance

ingrained in the project of national education did not involve traversing time backward or merely

romancing the imagined ancient past. Since the foundational idea was to achieve strength and

power, the values encouraged at Samarth Vidyalaya included an insistence on modern

technology, encouraging industriousness, building the body and valuing time. These values also

became essential aspects of all the other modernist projects aimed at building strength including

the works of Kirloskars, Maharashtra‘s iconic industrial group that had tremendous influence on

the contents of Maharashtrian modernity of the early twentieth century. 160

However, the political climate worsened in the aftermath of Tilak‘s imprisonment in

1908 and the assassination of Mr. Arthur Mason Tippetts Jackson (1866 – 1909), district

collector of Nasik, by Anant Laxman Kanhere. The nineteen-year-old Kanhere was a member of

Abhinav Bharat, a secret revolutionary group founded by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

Subsequently, various members of the secret collective were arrested including the Savarkar

brothers. Since many members of the Samartha Vidyalaya were known sympathizers of the

revolutionaries, the colonial government also conducted raids at the school and confiscated a few

158
The other trustees were: Tilak‘s close associate and renowned lawyer Daji Abaji Khare, Indologist and
Marathi essayist Chintaman Vaidya, and Lokhitwadi Gopal Hari Deshmukh‘s son Nanasaheb Deshmukh.
159
Karandikar (1875-1959). A staunch Hindutvaite who later also became an editor of Kesari (1933-46).
160
Kirloskar Group of industries also ran three important journals – Kirloskar (from 1916), Stree (from
1930) and Manohar (1936). The vitality of the Kirloskar project in the making of Maharashtrian progressivism is
discussed in the third chapter.

92
banned texts. These included Chiplunkar‘s sharply anti-colonial essay Aamchya Deshachi Sthiti

and the Marathi biography of the Italian revolutionary, Giuseppe Mazzini, written by V D

Savarkar. The institute, therefore, was declared as unlawful in 1910 and Vijapurkar and a few of

his colleagues including Vaman Malhar Joshi were sent away to jail. The case against Vijapurkar

was built around an article titled Vedic Prarthananchi Tejaswita (The glory of the Vedic Hymns)

written by Pundit Shripad Damodar Satwalekar and published in Vishwavrutta. Interestingly,

Satwalekar successfully avoided any punishment for the article. Satwalekar, himself was an

important commentator of the Vedic traditions in Marathi and contributed immensely to the

cultivation of pride in Hinduness.

When Samarth Vidyalaya was shut down, many of its members – students and teachers –

joined the Pradnya Math at Wai. Among them, a few, like Dinkar Shastri Kanade and Mahadev

Shastri Divekar were instrumental in the transformation of Pradnya Math into the Pradnya

Pathshala. These new people from Samartha Vidyalaya gave an impetus to a rethinking of the

educational structure at Pradnya Math. Apart from learning Sanskrit, the students were also

taught Marathi discursive and political texts. Pradnya Pathshala also began to build a library of

old hand-written texts in various languages. It was through this background, thus that the

Pradnya Pathshala, a traditional Sanskrit school at Wai, emerged as an important center for new

ways of interpreting the Vedic tradition and functioned as an intellectual node that had extensive

networks with people from widely different political affiliations including Lokmanya Tilak,

Mahatma Gandhi, Vinoba Bhave, Manabendranath Roy, and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. It was

also instrumental in the reimagination of modern Hinduness through interpreting old texts and by

creating new ones. Many scholars working in this school challenged the religious sanctions on

93
caste and untouchability, envisioning an egalitarian Hindu ethic or as they eventually called their

project: Neo-Hinduism (1934)161. Let us now look at this institution in detail.

Pradnya Pathshala: the epicenter of new thinking about Dharma

Wai, a small village in Western Maharashtra, was historically a renowned center for

studies in Indian philosophy and Sanskrit language, long before the establishment of Pradnya

Pathshala. The Shala was founded in 1916 by Narayan Shastri Marathe (1877-1956), who later

renamed himself as Kevalananda Saraswati after his Sanyasa in 1931. Narayan Shastri arrived in

Wai in 1898. He studied under various teachers there for about 6 years: Vishnu Shastri

Menavalikar taught him the Rig-Veda, and the six systems of Indian philosophy; Balambhatta

Ranade taught him Yajurveda and Smritis and Shrutis; Balshastri Dengvekar was his teacher for

the Nyaya and Bhagwada and swami Pradnyananda Saraswati (earlier known as Krushna Shastri

Paranjape) taught him Vedanta and influenced him the most. Narayan Shastri began teaching in

1904 after the death of his most revered teacher, Pradnyananda Saraswati and to commemorate

his guru, Narayan Shastri named his school Pradnya Math. Later, in 1916, Pradnya Math was

formally transformed into Pradnya Pathshala. With the arrival of Divekar Shastri, Kanade Shastri

and others from the Samarth Vidyalaya, and a few others from other traditional Sanskrit schools

– like the Konkar brothers from Pali-Siddheshwar who were earlier studying under a grammarian

at Sangli, Keshav Shastri Vipra from Anjanavati, Athale Shastri from Tembhu, Vishnu Paranjape

from Pen, Duttu Shastri Devdhar from Miraj, the Pradnya Pathshala began to reorient itself.

A pamphlet published on March 24th, 1917, by Dinkar Shastri Kanade to announce the

beginning of Pradnya Pathshala, noted that Narayan Shastri Marathe had been running Pradnya

Math for the last ten years.

161
Mahadevshastri Divekar published a book titled Nava Hindudharma (the New Hinduism) in 1934.

94
 ―Narayan Shastri decided to make Pradnya Pathshala an exemplary institution for the

teaching of our religious (swa-dharma) and cultural (swa-Sanskriti) traditions; for imparting

knowledge required for the changing times…with this idea, Pradnya Pathshala was formally

established last year, on October 6th, 1916.‖162

Thus, apart from the training in traditional Indian philosophy, Sanskrit Grammar, and

philology, Narayan Shastri also incorporated subjects like history, geography, and Marathi

discursive texts to empower his students for the modern times.

―Like the modern M.A. has little knowledge of Indian culture and religious
traditions, a learned Shastri also has little understanding of the modern world. In our
scheme of higher education, the idea is to ensemble the learning of the old and the
new world...We have designed the syllabus in such a way that the Pradnya Pathshala-
trained Pundits would change the world‘s opinion about classical shastris; they will
not follow the tradition blindly and instead synthesize reason with faith (Shraddha)
in their search for truth, and this search will seek to help the needs of the changing
times.‖163

Narayan Shastri and the new English-educated Shastris from the Samartha Vidyalaya

invited opinions from various scholars across Maharashtra on the appropriate curriculum for a

modern pathshala. And after deliberating on their responses, they designed a new syllabus for the

students.164 There were two main courses:

1. Higher course (Uccha Shikshan) for the training in a specific branch of Hindu theology

to become a Shastri (which would take about 10-12 years); and

2. The secondary course (Madhyamika Shikshan) for training religious teachers, public

speakers and common citizens.

162
Joshi, et al. (1996:34)
163
Pradnya Pathshala Mandal: Uddesh, Abhyaskram, aani Itar Mahiti, 1927: 37-38. [Pradnya Pathshala
Mandal: Motive, Curriculum and other Information]
164
The process that led to the designing of the curriculum at Pradnya Pathshala indicates that there were
conscious efforts on their parts to carve a distinct path from the other traditional Sanskrit Pathshalas. Pradnya
Pathshala Mandal: Uddesh, Abhyaskram, aani Itar Mahiti (1927:1-3), Hereafter, PPM. Also see, Patankar
(2000:129).

95
 For the secondary course, Pradnya Pathshala strived to bring together three different

knowledge traditions: Sanskrit, Prakrit-Marathi, and English. Sanskrit training involved general

information about religious rites, selected portions from the Vedas, selections from the Smritis,

Nirukta or one of the six auxiliary disciplines of Indian philosophy known as the Vedangas, the

Bhagwad Gita and the Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana, and selections from the Puranas,

Sanskrit literature and poetry, Mimansa philosophy, Vedanta, and the Dharma Shastras. Marathi

teaching was based on selections from modern prose and poetry, a knowledge of which was

deemed required for an efficient scholarly writer and public speaker. The level of English taught

was the equivalent of matriculation, and some of the other subjects covered included the history

of India, political systems of England and other European nations, geography, and mathematics

and basic calculations etc. as required for everyday transactions. 165

―After completing the above course, a student will become as wise as a modern B.A. and

will also be able to perform any religious or social duty asked of him.‖ 166

Although Pradnya Pathshala was experimenting with both the form and the content of

traditional Sanskrit education, it was not a radical institution by any means. Despite all its

modern-ness, the school admitted only Brahmin males as students for many years. The very first

rule it had regarding admissions was that ―the school is open only for the five Gauda and

Dravida Brahmins‖. 167 It began admitting non-Brahmin students much later in 1930.168 Its

intellectual genealogy can be traced, on the one hand, to the classical Indian philosophical

165
Laxman Shastri has mentioned in an interview that Narayan Shastri had himself studied sound and
electricity through books and he used to conduct classes on these subjects himself. (Josh et al., 1996:97)
166
Joshi et al. (1996:35)
167
PPM, 1927: 42.
168
S M Bhave‘s account of the history of Pradnya Pathshala (Pradnyaprabodh, 2016), mentioned that non-
Brahmins were admitted into the school in the year 1930 while Laxman Shastri Joshi stated in his narrative that the
school was opened for all castes only in 1942.

96
traditions; while on the other, it was organically linked to the fervor of cultural nationalism

inspired by Chiplunkar and Tilak in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Pradnya

Pathshala shared the same missionary zeal with which Chiplunkar, Tilak, and Vijapurkar

envisioned modern India. 169

In 1916, there were 60 students in the pathshala – 22 for the higher course and 38 for the

secondary course. With the rise and spread of the idea of national education, many who were

discontent with colonial education were drawn to the pathshala. Various lieutenants of

Lokmanya Tilak, notably from across different Marathi-speaking areas, like Govindrao Ogale,

editor of Maharashtra, a newspaper from Nagpur, Madhav Srihari Ane from Yawatmal,

Khaparde from Amravati, Wamanrao Naik of Hyderabad, Gangadhar Deshpande and Govindrao

Yalagi from Belgaum, etc. – sent students to the Pathshala. This underscores that its perceived

importance and attraction was not limited to a small coterie of traditionalists in a small town like

Wai170 In 1917, Vinoba Bhave also stayed in Pradnya Pathshala for six months to study

Shankaracharya‘s commentary on Gita.171 Although most of these Tilakites were orthodox in the

matters of religious views, the Pathshala increasingly leaned towards a liberal and reformist

position vis-à-vis Sanatana Dharma.

A spectrum of ideas of early twentieth-century nationalism – national education, concepts

of Swadesh and Swadharma – mainly popularized by Tilak and Tilakites, shaped the political

orientation of Pradnya Pathshala. It was evident even in the daily routines of students of the

169
Laxman Shastri mentioned that Chiplunkar‘s Nibandhmala was read and reread at Pradnya Pathshala
and had an enormous influence on its culture. (Joshi, et al. 1996:32)
170
Joshi et al. (1996:37-38)
171
When Vinoba finished his studies, three of Narayan Shastri‘s disciples, Laxman Shastri Joshi, Damodar
Shastri Konkar and Dhundiraj Deo ran away with him to Baroda. Laxman Shastri wanted to learn English for going
to America for further studies but Vinoba insisted that he must join Mahatma Gandhi‘s Ashram to learn Charkha in
Sabarmati. Disappointed with the idea, Laxman Shastri and the others left without a word and came back to Pradnya
Pathshala. (Joshi‘s interview by Rege in Joshi et al. 1996:136-137)

97
school. Every morning, between 5 am to 5.30 am, the students would recite their morning

prayers (Pratahsmaran), which included a Sukta from Rig-Veda, as well as Vinayak Damodar

Savarkar‘s poem Swatantryachi Bhoopali (A Song of Freedom).172 And in the early years, the

school was also influenced by the ideas of revolutionary nationalism. 173 At the very least, a few

members of this reformist-revolutionary Brahmin network like Kanade Shastri were complicit in

the violence-trade.174

The earliest annual report available today of the pathshala is of the year 1924, prepared

by Gangadhar Shastri Sohoni. This report provides interesting details about the school‘s

curriculum, student‘s routines, the various extracurricular activities of the school, and the

school‘s finances, etc. Pradnya Pathshala was a residential school, where disciplining bodies was

of vital importance. Maintaining personal and public hygiene, offering Seva (service) for the

sick, and upholding sexual and spiritual morality by sustaining Brahmacarya and remaining free

from any vices were essential aspects of the everyday conduct. The school also had an

agricultural land near Ashte, where a goshala (byre) was established.175 The report also notes

that a simulated parliament was organized at the Pathshala in 1924. Students were divided into

extremists, moderates, Swaraj party members, etc. and all of these groups produced hand-written

newspapers to endorse their respective political opinions. Another important activity of the

172
Joshi et al. (1996:46) Also, an eminent Marathi literary critic and social commentator, Dinkar Keshav
Bedekar has argued that Savarkar‘s poetry inaugurated the very discourse of patriotic poetry in Marathi. He regarded
Savarkar‘s poem Sinhgadacha Powada (1905) – written when Savarkar was only 22 years old – as the first patriotic
poem in Marathi. D K Bedekar (1948: 192-193)
173
Vedya Mana Talamalashi, an autobiographical account written by Wamanrao Kulkarni, a Royist and a
close associate of Laxman Shastri Joshi and other members of Pradnya Pathshala, presents an excellent account of
the nature of nationalism that influenced the pathshala. Kulkarni wrote that while he was in exile due to his
participation in revolutionary activities, he had handed over a few guns at Laxman Shastri Joshi's house. Kulkarni
(1989)
174
Kanade Shastri eventually left for America to participate in revolutionary activities.
175
In 1924, the school had Rs. 23744/- as its savings, which went up to Rs. 41995/- in 1925. This reflects
increasing financial support to the school as well as better management of resources by the school.

98
school was to divide the students into smaller groups and send them to different places on foot

during the holidays. For example, in 1924, one group was sent to Satara-Mahabaleshwar, another

one went to Bhor and the other one went to Pune-Talegaon. Every year students would walk for

hundreds of miles to different places across Maharashtra. They would also prepare their own

food with their meagre resources.176 The bodily discipline and qualities of austerity, physical

endurance and connections with the countryside through long journeys on foot that were

advocated, cultivated and prized in Gandhian nationalism were also, therefore, cultivated in the

Pathshala. Their philosophical foundations, however, were from a deliberate attempt at blending

Indic and Western education.

However, when the impact of the non-cooperation movement – and along with it the

significance of ‗national education‘ – began to wane, the number of students studying for the

secondary course also diminished greatly. When Shripadshastri Navre, one of the teachers at

Pradnya Pathshala and an activist in the national education movement, examined the balance-

sheet of the national education project, he found that the peak period for ‗national education‘ was

between 1920 to 1930 and even within that decade of success, people never trusted the ability of

‗national education‘ to secure a monetary future for their children. When Navre enquired about

the motives of the parents in sending their children to Pradnya Pathshala for the secondary

course, he was astonished by the results. Many parents had sent their brightest child to regular

government schools, while the weakest/least bright male child was sent to Pradnya Pathshala. A

few of the children were sent to save them from their stepmothers; a few delinquent children

176
It would be useful to compare and contrast the ‗picnics‘ of Ravikiran Mandal with the ‗long walks‘ of
the Pradnya Pathshala students. They were living in the same era, in proximate geography, engaging with the same
colonial modernity and yet their worlds were so far from each other. I believe that the important difference between
them was not in their respective forms of the romanticist/idealist vision that these two groups represented in their
perception, and understanding of the gendered aspect of indigenous modernity. (for a detailed discussion of
Ravikiran Mandal, an informal collective of Marathi poets, see chapter 4)

99
were sent to be reformed, and so on.177 This gap between the idealist intentions of the

programme and the pragmatic reception of it by the Brahmin society is another indicator of the

growing dissociation of the Brahmins from the nationalist cause. A partial explanation of the

context of such changes amongst the Brahmins has come in the discussion of Bhave‘s pamphlet

in the previous chapter and a few other aspects of it will be discussed in the fourth chapter.

Pradnya Pathshala, Wai – students and teachers‘ gathering for the 75th birthday of

Narayan Shastri Marathe, the founder of the school (21 st November 1952)

Pradnya Pathshala and the New Hinduness

Pradnya Pathshala also played a critical role in the advent of an anti-orthodox idea of

multi-dimensional Hindutva in the early twentieth century Maharashtra. A politics of consensus

about the notion of modern Hinduness was channelized through various intellectual reformist
177
Shripad Shankar Navre, ‗Rashtriya Shikshanache yashapayash‘ [Success and failures of National
Education] in Kevalananda Saraswati Abhinandan Granth, edited by Laxman Shastri Joshi (1952:258-59)

100
initiatives. Although the intellectual project in this regard that is most discussed in scholarship is

V. D. Savarkar‘s influential 1923 text Hindutva, it is important to note that it was not the only

one. There were many others undertaken during this period, such as the historically and

chronologically arranged encyclopedia of Hindu Dharmashastra [Dharma Kosha (began in

1931)] at Wai, a multi-volume History of Dharmashastras by Pandurang Vaman Kane (1930),

and an idea of ‗Neo-Hinduism‘ propagated by the Dharmanirnaya Mandal founded by Narayan

Shastri Marathe, Raghunath Shastri Kokaje and Mahadev Shastri Divekar at Lonavala (1934).

All of these efforts significantly contributed to the making of a new rationalist and modernist

cultural politics of Hindutva. The common institutional node that connected these concerted yet

diverse efforts, I wish to underline here, was Pradnya Pathshala.

Religious conferences to deliberate on the pressing question of reforms within the

Dharmashastra began to be organized in Maharashtra since the early 1920s. In these

conferences, the Sanatana position about a staunch belief in the divine status of the Vedas and

the Smritis as the codification of universal and absolute truth was explicitly articulated. It was

argued that the Smritis should be practiced to the letter. And even if the Smritis were to be

interpreted, they could only be interpreted in the light of the philosophy of Purva-Mimansa. In

1920, Hindu Dharma Parishad (a conference of Dharmashastra scholars) was organized in

Nasik, where the Pradnya Pathshala shastris – Marathe and Divekar, in particular – presented a

14-point program of reforming various Hindu beliefs and customs. Later, in January 1926, a

conference of Shastris and Pundits was organized by Keshavdutta Maharaj at Songir in

Khandesh, Northern Maharashtra. Santoji Maharaj Kukurmundekar presided the meet, where

many eminent shastris and religious preachers, including Acharyas of various Peeths as well as

the Kurtkoti Shankaracharya were in attendance. The conference led to a significant debate

101
amongst the Pundits. A group of shastris, such as Rajeshwar Shastri Dravid, Laxman Shastri

Dravid, Anant Krishna Shastri, etc. insisted on the continuance of absolute validity of all the

Smritis (the Dharmashastras) in the modern age. They demanded that all the Hindu religious

customs should be followed as dictated by the Dharmashastras without any changes whatsoever.

The reformists (parivartanvaadi) shastris from Pradnya Pathshala, on the other hand, stated the

necessity of adapting the Dharmashastra to the changing times.

Some of the points they made were as follows:

a. Dharma is not static. It underwent remarkable changes throughout history. Although

its essence will not change, its form will be open for new interpretations in the

changing times.

b. It is critical to understand the various transformations in Dharma historically. The

Vedas are not divine and were written by men. And Smritis and Puranas reflect how

Dharmashastras changed through time.

c. Although the Shastras do not allow converted Hindus to be purified and readmitted

into Hinduism, it must find a way to do so.

d. All four varnas exist in the Kali Yuga. To consider that the Kshatriyas and the

Vaishyas non-existent in the modern age (Kali Yuga) is gravely erroneous.

e. Hindus who have crossed the seas should not be asked to perform a penance ritual or

seek atonement of any kind anymore. 178

These and many other points put forward by the Pradnya Pathshala shastris were

intensely debated in the conference. Although the conference could not arrive at any decisions

regarding these issues, the irreconcilability between the two groups of Pundits was glaringly

articulated for the first time. The proposition that the Hindu Dharmashastra has changed over
178
Joshi et al, (1996: 51)

102
time and it should also change with the modern times was considered at best radical and at worst,

blasphemous by many. These same issues resurfaced in the next religious conference organized

at Hyderabad in 1927, and another set of heated debates followed. A Brahman Parishad

(Brahmin Conference) organized in Akola in the same year announced unequivocally that all

castes were equal vis-à-vis one another.179 The conference witnessed debates about two issues in

particular: the status of Hindu widows, and the inter-dining and inter-marriage between different

sub-castes of Brahmins. Narayan Shastri proclaimed in that conference that the widow whose

head had not been shaved (sakesha) should not be considered inauspicious and should be

allowed to participate in every religious ritual. He also strongly advocated inter-marriages

between different Brahmin sub-castes. He further claimed that all the Marathas and other

agrarian castes like Malis were Kshatriyas and should be allowed to access the Vedic rituals.180

In these conferences, the shastris from Pradnya Pathshala highlighted the importance of

historicizing the formation of the Hindu dharmic tradition, which led to the idea of Dharmakosha

(a project of the historical ordering of the various laws of the Smritis) – a project that began in

1931 under the editorship of Laxmanshastri Joshi and is continued till this date. Dharmakosha

was organized around the many aspects of Vedic religion – Samskaras such as Vivaha

(marriage), Varnashrama (the Varna system), Shuddhi (purification), Prayaschitta

(penance/atonement), etc. Each volume represented chronologically arranged vachanas

(laws/statements) that could be found across numerous Vedic texts – to present a historical map

179
Shripatrao Shinde, in an editorial in Vijayi Maratha (December 26th, 1927) commented on the Brahmin
conference at Akola. Disregarding any difference between the orthodox Pundits and the Pradnya Pathshala
collective, he argued that the willingness shown by the Brahmins to consider every caste as equal was only due to
the immense pressure put on by the Satyashodhak movement, which he called ‗the Bolshevik Party‘ born to destroy
the ‗Czarist regime of Brahminism‘. He claimed that if Brahmins – who if unleashed can even kick the God himself
– were now accepting everyone as their equal, it was only because of Jotirao Phule, ‗the Lenin of non-Brahminism‘.
Jaysingrao Pawar and Ramesh Jadhav (1993: 145-149)
180
Chapalgaonkar (2017:157)

103
of the changes that took place within the Vedic religious universe. The idea behind the

Dharmakosha was to examine the transformations within the various concepts, values, and

theories that were foundational to the Hindu society.

Interestingly, however, unlike many other projects of social reforms within the Hindu

religious domain – like Brahmo Samaj, Prarthana Samaj, etc. – which were inspired by the

European enlightenment tradition, the French Revolution and colonial education – the central

impulse behind this reformism instigated by Narayan Shastri at Pradnya Pathshala was

nationalism, more specifically the form of nationalism inspired by Lokmanya Tilak. Narayan

Shastri belonged to a class of people who were deeply troubled by the loss of political power of

the Marathas, which he attributed to the lack of national unity in the Maharashtrian Hindu

society. The principle of equality of all the Hindus vis-à-vis each other and vis-à-vis the divine

was what appeared to Narayan Shastri, a way out of this lack of national unity – not unlike the

non-Brahman thinker like Thakare. Through a close reading of the Bhagwata texts, he realized

that in the ancient period of Hindu history many people could change their varnas, which

convinced him that the caste-based, hierarchically arranged Hindu social order was not essential

to the conceptualization of Hinduness. He also found various other textual pieces of evidence for

the existence of adult-marriages, divorce, etc. in the ancient society, which prompted him to

argue that the societal aspects of religion could – and should – change according to the Desh

(land), Kaal (time) and Paristhiti (circumstances).181

This line of argument – historicizing the Dharmashastras, vindicating changes in

marriageable age for girl children, supporting widow remarriages, validating the continued

existence of all four varnas and even arguing for equality within them, and actively pursuing the

abolition of untouchability – was articulated by the Pradnya Pathshala Pundits in the various
181
Laxman Shastri Joshi‘s interview by Professor Meghshyam Rege in Joshi et al (1996:101)

104
debates regarding the socio-religious problems of the Hindu social order.182 Particularly, when

the question of untouchability had acquired momentous proportions in Indian politics in the early

1930s when Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Ambedkar had signed the Poona Pact, many shastris from

the Pradnya Pathshala circle – including Narayan Shastri Marathe, Laxman Shastri Joshi,

Raghunath Shastri Kokaje, Shridhar Shastri Pathak, and Keshav Shastri Daftari – provided

Gandhiji with the requisite pieces of evidence from the Hindu Dharmashastras and battled on his

behalf with the orthodox Pundits.

182
Details of the arguments intrinsic to the Dharmashastra can be found in a correspondence between
Narayan Shastri Marathe and Paramahansa Pradnyaneshwar Yati, published by Paramahansa Yati in 1928. Yati had
argued that dharma should be distinguished from mode of worship and claimed that Hindus can practice Islamic or
Christian mode of practice while remaining Hindu. The correspondence he had with Narayan Shastri revolved
around the status of Chaturvarnya and Upanayana.

105
 The Dharmashastra discourse in early Twentieth Century Maharashtra

Sanatana Pundits (orthodox) Pradnya Pathshala, Wai (reformers)

Bhaushastri Lele (Wai) Connections with the Tilak Network and

Bhagwanshastri Dharurkar (Pandharpur) influenced by Cultural Nationalism 183

Laxmanshastri Dravid (Benares)

Sanskrit/Vedic Tradition Revolutionary Nationalism Vedic Philosophy and Materialism

Narayan Shastri Marathe Samartha Vidyalaya Laxmanshastri Joshi

Mahadevshastri Divekar

Dharmanirnaya Mandal184 Dharmakosha Marxism/Materialism

Mahatma Gandhi

M. N. Roy‘s Radical Humanism185

Anti-untouchability reforms within the Dharmashastras186

183
The Pradnya Pathshala collective was deeply influenced by the late nineteenth century writings of
Chiplunkar, Tilak and Agarkar. The network they forged with other nationalists and Hindu reformers is of course
much larger.
184
The Mandal was devoted to organizing Hindus through reforms and advocated Savarkar‘s definition of
‗Hindu‘.
185
Laxmanshastri Joshi was a close associate of M N Roy since 1936 and was a prominent member of
Radical Democratic Party until its dissolution in 1948. It has been recorded in multiple sources that M N Roy
considered Laxmanshastri ‗the greatest product of Indian Renaissance‘. (see, R G Jadhav 1994:11; and Govardhan
Parikh‘s introduction to Joshi:1941)
186
Discussed in Chapter 3

106
 This position was concretized further through both individual and institutional efforts by

many of these shastris. Dhundiraj Shastri Bapat, a Pradnya Pathshala comrade, founded

Swadhyaya Mandir, an institution for teaching Vedas and Vedic rituals to the Marathas. In 1934,

‗Tatvanishtha Parivartanvaadi Mandal‘ – a society for the promotion of changes in

Dharmashastra – was founded under the leadership of Narayan Shastri at Lonavala near Pune. In

1937, its name was changed to ‗Dharmanirnaya Mandal‘. Some of the prominent members of

Dharmanirnaya Mandal were Dhundiraj Shastri Bapat, Shridhar Shastri Pathak, Justice Bhavani

Shankar Niyogi187, Pandurang Vaman Kane, N G Chapekar, and K L Daftari among others. But,

the two most significant activists of the Mandal were – Mahadev Shastri Divekar and Raghunath

Shastri Kokaje. Both Divekar and Kokaje traveled across Maharashtra to preach and popularize

their position on the Dharmashastras and deconstructed the older ritualistic tenets into an easy

and concise form. This neo-Hinduism, as Divekar called it a few years later, was based on the

principle of equality of all within the Hindu-fold. The various conferences that the Mandal

organized in its early years – at Thane, at Ahmednagar, at Akola, at Badlapur, at Vardha, at Pune

– articulated the Mandal‘s policies in clear terms, which can be summarized as follows:

1. The Mandal recognizes that it is imperative to change our customs and manners for

the prosperity of the Hindu society and the Mandal is committed to suggest such

changes in the light of the guidance from the Dharmashastras but these Shastras will

have to submit to the authority of reason.

2. Rationality – constituted of experience and logic – is the ultimate criterion in

determining true Dharma.

3. Dharma should be understood in its historicity.

187
Justice Niyogi later converted to Buddhism with Dr. Ambedkar in a famous ceremony at Nagpur in
1956.

107
 4. No caste should be considered superior or inferior to the other.

5. Every Hindu – including the women and the untouchables – has a right to claim

Dwija (twice-born) status, i.e. they have a right to Upanayana.

6. Untouchability by birth – attributed to a few castes – should be abolished at the

earliest.

7. The Mandal agrees that women and men have equal rights in the domain of Dharma

and society. Also, widows should not be considered impure or inauspicious.

8. The Mandal advocates a common prayer and a common mode of worship for all the

Hindus. 188

Later, in post-independence India, the Mandal upheld the idea of socialist democracy for

India, supported the Hindu code bill, and advocated the policies of political and economic

decentralization. The Mandal viewed the Hindu society – fragmented into innumerable castes

and communities – as lacking a sense of national unity, which they considered vital for making a

strong and modern Indian nation. Thus the Mandal – simultaneously religious and progressive

but nationalist at the core – envisioned a path of progress for the Hindu society that would be

guided by reason and yet would not abandon faith. The members of the Mandal wrote numerous

texts and delivered various public lectures across Maharashtra to propagate the necessity of

reforming Hindu Dharmashastra for enabling an imagination for new Hindu dharma. The various

texts penned by Mahadev Shastri Divekar explicitly laid out this imagination.

As mentioned earlier, Divekar‘s first set of texts was published by Pradnya Pathshala.

Some of his other published works include: Hindu Dharma Shikshan Pustak [A Children‘s

Guide to Hinduism] (1926); Hindu Samaj Samartha Kasa Hoil? [How would the Hindu Society

be Strong?] (1927); Arya Sanskruticha Utkarashapkarsha [Rise and Fall of the (Hindu) Aryan
188
Keshav Laxman Daftari in Joshi et al (1996: 62-66)

108
Culture] (1929); Dharmashastra Manthan [Essence of Dharmashastra] (1933); Brahmadnyan va

Buwabaaji [Spiritual Knowledge and Deceitful Practices] (1935); Govardhan Brahmanancha

Itihas [History of the Govardhan Brahmins] (1937); and Nava Hindu Dharma [New Hinduism]

(1942).

While the Pradnya Pathshala collective was articulating an inclusive and reformist –

which came to be called a Purogami (progressive) position against the orthodox Dharmashastra

Pundits – it was primarily necessitated by the fact that this collective was implicated in the

discourse of organizing and strengthening the Hindus. The Pradnya Pathshala collective realized

that the question that they were engaged with – that of the essence of Hinduness – was not

limited to the realm of Dharmashastras anymore and it had become an intensely political

question. The collective then endorsed V D Savarkar‘s definition of who can be considered a

Hindu and argued for disregarding the differences within the various divisions amongst the

Hindus. Much like Savarkar, they considered the Jains, the Buddhists, and the Sikhs as

Hindus. 189 They also produced a severe critique of traditional Brahmins and called for a new

egalitarian Hindu ethic.

And this was not an uncommon position even amongst the Brahmin intellectuals in

Maharashtra in the 1920s. Vasudev Govind Apte (1871-1930), a renowned Marathi essayist and

journalist – who translated collected works of Bankimchandra Chatterjee in Marathi in four large

volumes and also wrote the bestselling biographies of Chakravartin Asoka and Bhagwan Buddha

– argued for a reformulation of Chaturvarnya. He wrote in 1925:

―The Brahmins need to understand that the modern Brahmin-ness will not be
derived by birth but by the qualities and the actions of the person. Therefore, they
should be prepared to incorporate learned people with an exemplary character from
the non-Brahmin castes into the Brahmin fold. Brahmins should also treat everyone
equally and remain brotherly with all….the class that will behave accordingly will
189
R N Chavan in Joshi et al (1996: 77-94)

109
 emerge as the new Brahmin class and the old traditional Brahmins will be displaced
by them. The new Brahmins will be like Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Dayananda
Saraswati, Mahatma Gandhi, and Swami Vivekananda. Their Brahmin-ness will be
accepted by society and the old Brahmins will not be bothered about by anyone in
this modern age.‖190

Thus, there emerged a class of reformist Brahmins – a few trained in Dharmashastras

and many who were English-educated – who recognized the need to reformulate the old

hierarchically arranged Hindu social order where caste operated as fixed and given. They

envisaged a new category of political identity – Hindu – that would disregard the internal

hierarchies within the Indian society. This new discourse referred to Dharmashastra only as a

signifier of ancient glory and an occasional guidebook but would rather abandon the Shastras

whenever it created tensions within the political category Hindu. Although Savarkar‘s book

Hindutva, published in 1923, represented this position most clearly, it was the Pradnya Pathshala

collective that created the historical context for its consumption and wider acceptance in the

public discourse by providing evidence from the Dharmashastra for the historical

transformations within the Hindu social order. Mahadev Shastri Divekar‘s works were the most

significant in this regard. I will briefly explore the key arguments that he presented in Hindu

Samaj Samartha Kasa Hoil [How would the Hindu Society be Powerful?] published in 1927.

The question ‗How would the Hindu Society be strong‘ had such a wide mass-appeal that

it was also used in marketing. Here is an advertisement for an insurance company, directed by N

C Kelkar, the then editor of Kesari that used the exact phrase to urge the public to buy its

products.

190
V G Apte, ‗Navya Yugatale Bahman‘ in Masik Manoranjan, Book 31, Year 1, issue 362, August
1925:65.

110
 Advertisement for N C Kelkar‘s ‗The Commonwealth Insurance Company‘ 191

―How would the Hindu Society be Strong? – Obviously through Economic

Independence. And foundational to economic independence is Insurance. Ensure your lives

today at Maharashtra‘s very own Insurance company, presided by Kesari‘s editor N. C. Kelkar.‖

Divekar‘s book – divided into two parts with nine chapters each – was centrally

concerned with the problem of Hindu Sangathan or the organization of Hindus.

191
The advertisement was published in Hindu Samaj Darshan, a text by Laxman Balwant Bhopatkar
published in 1935. There was a flood of such texts – essays, serial publications in magazines, independent treatises,
etc. on the history and social organization of the Hindu society, particularly in the 1930s. See for example, Hindu
Dharmachi Tatve (Essentials of Hinduism, 1931) by ‗Bharatacharya‘ C V Vaidya; N C Kelkar‘s Tarun Hindu
Nagarik (The Young Hindu Citizens, 1934); Hindunche Samajrachana Shastra (The Hindu Sociology, 1934) by a
self-proclaimed sociologist Govind Mahadev Joshi.

111
 ―How to organize/unite Hindus is the fundamental question in front of the Hindus today.

The need to unite is not for violating the space of Indian Muslims, or the Christians or the

Parsees, instead it is needed for refraining any of them from invading the realms of the

Hindus.‖192

In reply to Mahatma Gandhi‘s plea for the Hindu-Muslim unity, Divekar argued that two

forces that were equal in every sense can reconcile and unite. He recalled and agreed with

Gandhiji‘s characterization of the two societies – Hindus as cowards and Muslims as insolent –

to point out the impossibility of this union.193 Only if the Hindus were organized, strong and

powerful, the possibility of Hindu-Muslim unity could be materialized. One of the most explicit

aims of his text was to counter the Muslim ―aggression‖ – which he reckoned as pervasive in

every aspect of the interaction between Hindus and Muslims. To make the Hindu society strong

and powerful, was the answer to the Muslim ―aggression‖ in Divekar‘s conceptualization.

But if the Hindus were divided across various castes, languages, gods, and religious

traditions, how would they be organized as one society? – Divekar‘s solution for that was to

inculcate a samashti-dharma (communitarianism) in every Hindu. Divekar believed that due to

the influence of the individualist notions of moksha (salvation) and karma (action) on the Hindu

mind, and due to the hierarchical division of society along the lines of castes, the Hindus have

lost the sense of deeper societal bonds between them. He argued that in comparison with more

organized religions like Islam, Hindus are far more individualist.

Divekar urged Hindus to transform the ideas of Punya (virtue) and Papa (sin), which

have been based on individual actions. He argued that action would be virtuous as long as it

192
Divekar (1927: 1)
193
Divekar believed that of all the paces in India, Hindu-Muslim unity is possible only in Maharashtra,
since the Marathas have shown their strength and valor to the Muslims here.

112
contributes to the communitarian strength of the Hindu society while the reverse would be true in

the case of a sinful act. He even advised them to abandon the laws of the Dharmashastra if they

lead to a socially sinful act, such as the practice of untouchability. He insisted that no new

temples should be built anymore, for the enlarged pantheon of Gods only lead to the dilution of

the purity of faith. He regarded that heaven should be seen on the earth in terms of social

happiness and prosperity of the Hindu society. He observed that the Hindus either remain

indulgent in the body or rush to God. ―But one must remember that desh (country/society) exists

between deha (body) and deva (God)‖.194

Divekar first provided a brief sketch of India‘s social and religious history to argue that

until the advent of Buddhism, the Vedic religion had constructed a united Rashtra (nation) out of

the plural and divided communities in India. But, due to the principle of excessive ‗Ahimsa‘ and

the idea that ‗desire is the root cause of evil‘, propagated by Buddhism, the solidity of the Indian

Vedic nation corroded, which led to the invasion of India by Islam. He urged the modern Hindu

to reclaim the assertive qualities of his Vedic ancestors and march forward in the modern age. He

then, considered the question of who can be called ‗Hindu‘ and discussed the various definitions

proposed – from Lokmanya Tilak to historian Rajwade –and declared Savarkar‘s definition of

‗Hindu‘ as the most appropriate one. In Savarkar‘s proposition – those who consider India, from

the Indus River to the Indian Ocean, as one‘s fatherland (Pitru-bhu), and those who share a

common culture or civilization (Sanskriti) composed of common history, religious law, literary

epics, art, architecture, and Samskaras (religious rituals) and consider India as one‘s holy-land

(Punya-bhu) –would be called Hindus.195 According to Divekar, Savarkar‘s definition of who is

a Hindu achieved two most important political goals – it included the various ‗other‘ Indian

194
Divekar, 1927: part 2: 121
195
Divekar, 1927: 15

113
religious communities like the Buddhist, the Jains, the Sikhs, the Lingayats, the Arya Samajists,

etc., and expanded the Hindu-fold, and simultaneously it excluded the ―non-Indian‖ religions

like Islam and Christianity.

Now once the definition of Hinduness was established, Divekar went on to identify the

hurdles in building a strong Hindu society. The primary problem he recognized was two-fold.

Firstly, the crisis of the Hindu mind: irrational and superstitious attitudes of the Hindus

concerning omens and forecasts, fate and fortunes, etc., their hope for the avatar (incarnation of

God), the deep influence of the Vedantic otherworldliness, casteism and the arrogance of the

Brahmins, untouchability, exploitation of women, etc. He then systematically went on to suggest

solutions for each of these issues. And he pleaded every Hindu to acquire a modernist, this-

worldly, materialist outlook to life. He also severely criticized the idea of Bhakti, which

according to him produced a saintly figure as a mediator between God and the common believer.

This, Divekar argued, led to the proliferation of countless deceitful Sadhus. 196 Divekar‘s

‗reformism‘ was at his best in the sections on ‗Brahmins and non-Brahmins‘; ‗the Hindu

women‘; and on ‗untouchability‘, while at other places, Divekar almost sought to quarantine

Hindus from everyone else. Divekar reiterated some of the arguments of the Pradnya Pathshala

collective, such as every Hindu – including the women and the untouchables – has a right to

claim the Dwija (twice-born) status; all castes are equal in status; every Hindu has a right to

access the Vedas, etc.

A few other points Divekar added were as follows:

a. Every Hindu should be prepared to live and die as a missionary of Hindutva

b. Every Hindu should become part of Hindu Mahasabha

196
Divekar constantly and vehemently wrote against such fraudsters in Kirloskar magazine, a collection of
essays was later published as Brahmadnyan va Buwabaaji [Spiritual Knowledge and Deceitful Practices] in 1935.
He also encountered serious life-threats due to his activism against Sadhus like Upasani baba.

114
 c. Hindus should avoid intermingling with non-Hindus in matters of religion, society,

and the household.

d. Hindu women should not entertain non-Hindu traders, particularly the Muslims who

sell bangles.

e. Hindus should not attend or worship at the non-Hindu religious festivals.

Divekar‘s text articulates the shift within the Hindu reformism – from the reformulation

of Dharmashastra for the changing times to distinguishing Hinduness by its separation from

other religious practices. It also indicates the increasing politicization of the category Hindu.

Also, rather than see Savarkar‘s text as the primary articulation of this category, Divekar and his

Pradnya Pathshala colleagues help situate Savarkar within a wider, on-going conversation about

Hinduness and help understand the rapid spread and absorption of his ideas even while he

himself was confined to Ratnagiri district throughout the 1920s and 30s.

The second problem that Divekar identified with the Hindus was the crisis of the Hindu

body. One of the key elements in Divekar‘s scheme of constructing the Hindu strength was

building the Hindu bodies. Echoing the concern of Principal Gole regarding the decaying of the

Hindu bodies in the age of University education, Divekar urged every Hindu child to take an

oath that he/she will never forget one‘s country, one‘s god and physical exercises. 197 Divekar‘s

anxiety regarding the Muslim ―insolence‖ also reoccurred in this discussion quite

overwhelmingly. Divekar even suggested that all Hindu parents should make their children –

male and female – masculine (Mard) and especially allow their female children to learn martial

arts to counter the potential Muslim aggression. Disciplining Bodies through Regimes of

Physical Training and Parading was a crucial element in Divekar‘s thinking.

197
Divekar (1927: Part 2: 5-6)

115
 Interestingly, this emphasis on physical exercises and regimenting a bodily discipline in

some manner or another was an idea that was widely shared across political camps in the 1920s.

Organization, discipline, and strength were some of the central themes in Indian politics since the

1920s. In 1923, Hindustani Seva Dal, an organization of volunteers to combat the colonial

atrocities was founded within the Indian National Congress under the leadership of Narayan

Subbarav Hardikar (1889-1975). The principle idea behind Seva Dal was to inculcate bodily and

mental strength among the satyagrahis. The idea of Satyagraha itself was based on disciplining

the body to develop the physical and mental ability to sustain without food or withstand torture.

In 1925, Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

(RSS) in Nagpur, an organization that was explicitly formed to organize Hindus across the

country. The RSS was built around the notion of inculcating bodily and mental discipline

amongst Hindus and also had an overt fascination with military-like regimentation for the

organization. RSS‘s uniform involved Khaki shorts, a white shirt and a black cap along with a

lathi. Savarkar‘s elder brother Ganesh aka Babarao had founded Tarun Hindu Sabha in 1923 ‗to

awaken the young Hindus by presenting them with a constructive alternative to Gandhian policy

of appeasement of the Muslims‘198, which he merged with the RSS in 1931. Another militant

organization of the Hindus, ‗Mukteshwar Dal‘ which was founded by Narsimha Rajaram

Kulkarni, more famously known as Pachlegaonkar Maharaj, a saintly figure from Vidarbha, was

198
In 4-5 years, Babarao started 25-30 branches of the Tarun Hindu Sabha and enlisted some 500 youths
under its banner. The Tarun Hindu Sabha was open to any Hindu male from 16 to 40 years of age irrespective of his
caste and sect. The members would celebrate festivals such as the coronation day of Chhatrapati Shivaji. The
members would meet once a week and deliberate on issues facing the Hindus. They would prevent Hindu girls from
falling prey to the machinations of Muslim youth. They would receive training in lathis and march-past. The
members would start professions and businesses wherein non-Hindus had entrenched themselves. They would
participate in shuddhi and abolition of caste discrimination. The members would contribute eight annas (roughly
fifty paise or half an Indian rupee) on a yearly basis and thus take care of the finances. (The Biography of Babarao
Savarkar, 2008:87)

116
also merged into the RSS in 1934.199 Also, Dr. Ambedkar‘s Samata Sainik Dal (Social Equality

Army), founded on the anniversary of Satyashodhak Samaj, on 24th September 1924 was an

association of uniformed and disciplined activists. Anupama Rao has shown the difference

between Gandhian activism based on the principles of Ahimsa, and the disciplined scouts of the

Samata Sainik Dal. 200

Divekar‘s project – not unlike many of his contemporaries like Hedgewar and Hardikar –

was centrally concerned with building strength through social organization. However, not all the

Parivartanvaadi (progressive) Shastris of the Pradnya Pathshala collective were interested in the

social organization of all the Hindus. An important member of the Pradnya Pathshala collective,

Laxman Shastri Joshi (1901-1994) represented a different trajectory of engaging with the

question of modern Hinduness.

Unlike his guru Narayanshastri Marathe and his colleagues at the Pradnya Pathshala, like

Divekarshastri, who were swayed by the Hindu nationalism of Tilak and Vijapurkar,

Laxmanshastri Joshi, on the other hand, was deeply influenced by the critique of Hinduism put

forward by the early reformist writer Gopal Hari Deshmukh aka Lokhitwadi and the spirit of

individualism propagated by Gopal Ganesh Agarkar. The predilection for critique led him to first

align with Gandhiji‘s efforts to eradicate the practice of untouchability 201 and later join hands

with M. N. Roy at the Radical Democratic Party. Joshi was also one of the very few Vedic
199
This organization had spread around central and eastern Maharashtra, particularly in the districts of
Yawatmal, Washim, Khamgaon and Ahmednagar. Karandikar (1999: 203-204)
200
Rao further noted that the Samata Sainik Dal was formed to protect Dalits from physical attack and
intimidation. Members wore khaki half-pants, a red shirt, and a khaki strip around the shins in addition to a khaki
topi, signifying their military past. ―Drawing upon images of militarized masculinity as well as the status and respect
that Mahars derived from a military past, the Samata Sainik Dal provoked a completely different set of
associations—combat, armed resistance, virility—from those attached to nonviolent protest.‖ Anupama Rao
(2009:100-101)
201
I will examine the nature of Joshi‘s engagement with the question of untouchability in alliance with
Gandhi in the next chapter.

117
Shastris who worked closely with non-Brahmin intellectuals and activists like Vitthal Ramji

Shinde, Bhaurao Patil, Bhaskarrao Jadhav and Yashwantrao Chavan. 202 In fact, Joshi was

probably the only figure of twentieth century Maharashtra who had ties with all the significant

political domains of his time: Gandhism, Religious reformism, Marxism/Royism and the later

Non-Brahmin movement.

The Royists in Maharashtra, Solapur, 1949; Back row: V. R. Apte, D. P. Bhave, A. K.

Bhosale; Front Row: Govardhan Parikh, M.N. Roy, Ellen Roy and Laxmanshastri Joshi

As mentioned earlier, Pradnya Pathshala‘s political orientation was shaped by Tilak and

Tilakites, including Vijapurkar and his disciples. Most of these Tilakites were orthodox in the

matters of religious views and their willingness to reform was primarily motivated by their desire

to strengthen the Hindu society. Laxman Shastri, on the other hand, was motivated by the ethical

concern for equality and was channelized by his commitment to rationality. He sought to

202
Khandkar (1995: 118-119) Yashwantrao Chavan, the first chief minister of Maharashtra considered
Joshi as his political guru.

118
synthesize the nationalist political outlook of Tilak with the individualist reformism of

Agarkar.203 From the various texts and essays he wrote in his long career as a Marathi essayist

and a Sanskrit scholar, I seek to examine one of his most renowned works, a series of lectures he

delivered at Nagpur University in 1941, which were published under a title, Hindudharmachi

Samiksha [The Criticism of Hinduism] to illustrate his specific engagement with the idea of

Hinduness and how it departed from the one propounded by Mahadevshastri Divekar.

Joshi began his inquiry into the relationship between Hindu society and Hinduism in the

light of Marx‘s statement that the criticism of religion is the beginning of all criticism. He also

deployed the methods of historical sociology and historicism to review the definitions of religion

and religiosity by the philosophers of Hindu Dharmashastra. Joshi acknowledged at very

beginning that it was indeed difficult to criticize Hinduism as the Hindu/Indian nationalism

under the political dominance of Europe had become aggressive and developed many

superstitious about its past. He said:

―Our educated youth have lost the courage to examine one‘s own culture, religious

institutions and social history in an unbiased and critical manner. Only the rationalism that is

capable of a revolt against one‘s own tradition can bring about true radical changes in

society…Very few Indians have the ability to withstand a ruthless critique that would examine

the traditional values and beliefs and unhesitatingly bring the old institutions, old thoughts and

old customs under the scientific gaze…‖ 204

Joshi then claimed that his endeavor was precisely to embark on such an inquiry. He went

on to examine the various questions within the realm of the Dharmashastras in the light of

203
The only other political figure who appeared to be doing the same with radically different means and
with radically different results was Savarkar.
204
Joshi (1941: three)

119
western social sciences and philosophy – regarding the definition of dharma, epistemologies of

religious knowledge, and the relationship between religion and society. In agreement with the

epistemological theory of Hinduism put forward by one of the Parivartanvaadi (reformist)

scholars of Hinduism, Keshav Daftari, Joshi refuted the divine basis of Hindu scriptures but he

went a few steps ahead of Daftari to claim that since the scriptures were written by men, they

could be entirely discarded. He argued that many aspects of the Vedas contained foolish, childish

and illusionary ideas. He also severely admonished the various inhuman dictates of the Dharma

regarding the Shudras and the untouchables and concluded that ancient Hinduism – much like

any other religious system – reflect the interests of the ruling classes of the society which

produced it. The Vedic priestly classes and the twice-born castes attributed a divine status to the

Vedas to establish their hegemony over the Shudras. 205 Here Joshi came closer to the argument

made by Jotirao Phule about the irreconcilable contradiction between the Brahmins and the

Shudras. 206

He also refuted the definition of Hinduism provided by Lokmanya Tilak, which had

proposed the belief in the sanctity of the Vedas as a qualifying criterion. Joshi argued that nearly

70% of the people would be ineligible to call themselves Hindus as they do not believe in the

divinity of the Vedas. Also, quite like Dr. Ambedkar, Joshi claimed that Hinduism was nothing

but a collection of legal treatises, which he thought not only had become out-dated but also

lacked humanism. In conclusion, Joshi argued that Hinduism was not a religion but a collection

of good and bad religions. He urged that this religion needs to be dismantled in order to be able

to produce a higher form of social and spiritual life in India in the light of modern and scientific

205
Joshi (1941: 33)
206
Incidentally he also wrote a long essay on Jotirao Phule titled, Joti-Nibandha

120
values. The primary contradiction, so to say, for Laxman Shastri, was the contradiction between

religion and science or in other words, tradition and modernity.

This certainly was a hard pill to swallow for many, since it came from a renowned

scholar of Dharmashastra and Sanskrit. Hindudharmachi Samiksha created quite a stir in the

Marathi literary and intellectual circles at the time. Laxman Shastri‘s very close friend and

himself a great scholar of Dharmashastra and a member of the Dharma Nirnaya Mandal,

Pandurang Waman Kane wrote a long letter to Joshi in 1942, after reading his book, where he

wrote:

―The way you rely on rationalism is not possible for me to accept. We at the Dharma

Nirnaya Mandal also want to change the society but it is an evolutionary work; not revolutionary.

I feel that all of your writings have become quite one-sided.‖207

Thus, two – distinct yet entangled – modes of engaging with the idea of modern

Hinduness emerged from Pradnya Pathshala‘s endeavour of historicist reading of Hindu dharmic

scriptures that was oriented towards remaking of the Hindu social order. One mode was invested

in building the social and numerical strength of Hindus through constructing organizational

networks and by providing theoretical foundations for the possibility of an inclusive and modern

Hindu society. It was led by individuals like Mahadev Shastri Divekar and Raghunath Shastri

Kokaje and institutions like the Dharma Nirnaya Mandal and had intellectual transactions with

Savarkar‘s idea of Hindutva and also collaborated with the organizational efforts led by

Hedgewar and others. The other mode – equally invested in the idea of an inclusive and

modernist Hinduness – was envisaged by Laxmanshastri Joshi through an engagement with the

Gandhian project of annihilating untouchability and later as a Marxist-Royist intellectual/activist

who participated in the project of the secular democratic Indian nation-state.

207
Khandkar (1994: 82-83)

121
 Chapter 3: Science, Cow, and the Untouchability Question: Conversations on the Ethical

Hindu self

As I have demonstrated in the previous chapter, before embarking on his journey as a

Marxist- Royist intellectual, Laxmanshastri Joshi participated in the Gandhian project of

eradicating untouchability, though his tryst with Marxism and Gandhism began almost

simultaneously. As a member of the Pradnya Pathshala collective of the Parivartanvadi

(reformist) shastris, Laxmanshastri was positively predisposed towards a synthesis of political,

anti-colonial struggle with reforming the Hindu social order. He became actively involved in the

Gandhian movement and traveled across Maharashtra to deliver lectures to promote the Salt

Satyagraha in 1930.208 He was arrested at Kalvan in Nasik and was sent to Jail where he met

with Vasantrao Karnik, his future comrade in the Radical Humanist Party, with whom

Laxmanshastri began his first lessons in Marxism.

Later in 1932, Laxmanshastri was jailed at Dhule for his political activism for the

Congress Party. Joshi shared his cell with Sane Guruji, Vinoba Bhave, and Jamnalal Bajaj, a

Gandhian philanthropist.209 While being in Jail, Laxmanshastri taught the Upanishads to Madhav

Seth, from Calcutta, which also impressed Jamnalal Bajaj and Vinoba Bhave. Jamnalal also

became aware of the reformist orientation of Joshi and the Pradnya Pathshala. Joshi, after being

released from Jail, went back to Wai and resumed teaching at the Pathshala. 210 Around the same

time, after an intense round of negotiations with Dr. Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi had signed

the Poona pact with him. Although Gandhi claimed to be a Sanatana Hindu himself, he had

208
He delivered political speeches in Karad, Satara, Sangamner, Ahmednagar and Nasik. The first chief
minister of Maharashtra, Yashwantrao Chavan, who later became a close associate of Laxmanshastri, was deeply
influenced by Joshi‘s critique of colonial rule in his speeches at Karad. (Chavan 1984: 67)
209
In the same cell, Vinoba also narrated his renowned Marathi commentary on Bhagwad Gita, titled,
Geetai [Mother Gita] which was penned by Sane Guruji.
210
Arundhati Khandkar (1995:105)

122
publically condemned untouchability as a heinous crime against humanity in 1920, more than a

decade before the Poona pact. According to Gandhi, untouchability had served no useful purpose

and it suppressed a vast number of the human race, for no sin or fault on their part. Gandhi also

rejected the scriptural authority that untouchability claimed to have. In an editorial in Navajivan,

Gandhi had made his position quite clear:

―I have declared again and again that I believe in varnashrama. However, I have

steadfastly endeavoured to rid varnashrama of the taint of untouchability by pointing out that it

is sin to refuse to touch Bhangis and others, and this is my purest service to Hinduism.‖ 211

Soon after the Poona pact, however, untouchability became the central political and

social problem for Gandhi. Being a Sanatana Hindu, who accepted the authority of the

Dharmashastras, he was primarily interested in eradicating untouchability within that

theological framework. Therefore, on Jamnalal Bajaj‘s recommendation, Gandhi invited

Laxmanshastri Joshi to Pune to consult his opinions on ‗whether or not the Dharmashastras

sanction untouchability‘. Laxmanshastri and a few other reformist shastris including Narayan

Shastri Marathe, Keshav Laxman Daftari, Shridhar Shastri Pathak, and Siddheshwar Shastri

Chitrav went to meet Gandhi at Yerawada and on Gandhiji‘s request, the reformist shastris

agreed to release a manifesto for the eradication of untouchability which was published in

Harijan, a weekly that Gandhi started in 1933. A public declaration was drafted by

Laxmanshastri in consultation with Narayanshastri Marathe and it was published in the very first

issue of Harijan on 11th February 1933. The statement began with an acknowledgment that three

kinds of ‗untouchables‘ have been mentioned in the Hindu Dharmashastras:

a. Persons classed as untouchables by birth, i.e. progeny of the union of a shudra

with a Brahman woman (who were named as Chandals)

211
Navajivan, 25th January, 1920. (reprinted in CWMH, Vol. 19, Page 345)

123
 b. Persons guilty of any of the five heinous sins or of certain practices condemned in

Hinduism212, and;

c. Persons whilst they are in a polluted state, for example during menstruation.

It was, then, mentioned that none of the communities that were contemporarily classified

as untouchables could come under the first category. And as far as the second category was

concerned, it could not be applied to any specific community or a group as such. It would rather

apply to individuals in any and every community. It was also mentioned that those who were

guilty of practices rendering them untouchable (and might fall under the second category) can

also be free from untouchability by giving up such practices.

Concerning the third category, the statement mentioned:

―The third kind of untouchability which is caused by one‘s being in a polluted

state happens across castes and classes. There was no warrant in the Shastras for
considering tanners, bhangis, and others as permanent untouchables, merely because
of their occupation. Their untouchability is due to the external uncleanliness caused
by the nature of their work. All untouchability under the third category is cured by a
bath and a change of clean clothes at the due time.
Thus, it is necessary that rights common to the four varnas, e.g. entry into
temples, educational institutions, of use of public wells, ghats, tanks, rivers, etc.
should equally accrue to the untouchables so-called; and it is wrong to deprive them
of such common rights. This is provable from the texts, the fundamental principles of
and the spirit of the Dharma Shastras.‖213

The statement was signed in the following order:

Swami Kevalananda Saraswati,

Laxman Shastri Joshi,

Bhagwandas,

Anandshanker Dhruva,

212
The five heinous sins according to the Manu Smriti include: theft, killing, adultery, consumption of
liquor, and to support or justify people who have committed any of these four sins. (Manu Smriti, Chapter 11, verse
54.) also see, Mahadevshastri Divekar (1926: 10)
213
Harijan (vol.1, Issue 1, 11th February 1933, Page 6)

124
Keshav Laxman Daftari, and

P.H. Purandare.214

The statement issued by the progressive Shastris, thus, declared that except for the

Chandals, i.e. the progeny of the union of a shudra with a Brahman woman, all the other kinds of

untouchability mentioned in the Dharmashastras were not permanent, fixed or irremovable. And

since none of the communities contemporarily called untouchables could be classified as

Chandals, calling any community as permanently untouchable would not be justified by the

Shastras. In discussion with Gandhi, Joshi reasoned that since the sadharana dharma

(commonly practiced Hinduism) has allowed every Hindu – including all the varnas – the rights

to Moksha (salvation), it also meant that irrespective of one‘s jati (profession) every Hindu is

equally pure.215

This line of argument was accepted by Gandhi and he called upon many other learned

shastris and scholars of Dharmashastra to debate the scriptural basis of untouchability in March

1933. These include the Sanatana pundits – who had maintained that untouchability was an

essential aspect of Hinduism and eradicating it would be sinful – like Rajeshwar Shastri Dravid,

Anantacharya Krishnashastri and Vaidya Kavade Shastri. Many Pundits had arrived from

Benares, Madras, and Calcutta as well and the reformist pundits – who argued for the complete

annihilation of untouchability – mainly comprising of the Pradnya Pathshala collective including

Narayan Shastri Marathe, Shridhar Shastri Pathak, Keshav Laxman Daftari, and Laxmanshastri

Joshi – were also present.

214
Shridhar Shastri Pathak also participated in drafting of this statement; however, he did not sign the
document stating that he feared that he would have to face a backlash from the Brahmins. (Khandkar 1995: 109)
Laxman Shastri has also noted in an interview with Professor Meghshyam Rege that many of the people from his
village, who respected him earlier as a learned Brahmin, stopped inviting him to religious functions and public
lectures for his stand against untouchability. (Joshi et al, 1996: 149)
215
Khandkar (1995: 107)

125
 The Sanatana Position on Untouchability

Krishna Shastri Kavade, a Sanatana pundit and the secretary of Vedshashtrottejak

Sabha216 [society for the promotion of Vedic Shastras] from Pune had recently argued in October

1932 in a series of lectures delivered at the Sharadiya Dnyanasatra (an annual lecture-series)

organized by a renowned Sanatana Pundit, Ahitagni, aka Shankar Ramachandra Rajwade (1879-

1952) that ‗untouchability was an integral part of Hinduism, and it will collapse if untouchability

would be eradicated‘. Further, while commenting on the fast-unto-death by Mahatma Gandhi at

the Yerawada jail in Pune, Kavade Shastri had said that ‗I would not worry if Gandhi dies; it

would be good riddance‘. 217

This same Kavade Shastri was at the helm of the negotiations between the Sanatana

pundits and the Pradnya Pathshala collective. The Sanatana pundits demanded shabda-pramanya,

i.e. to regard the word from Shrutis and Smritis as the final authority and they also insisted on

disregarding the historicist reading of these texts. The reformists accepted this Samayabandh

[conditions agreed upon by both groups in a debate] and it was mutually decided that the

Sanatana pundits would demonstrate that untouchability was an integral aspect of Hinduism and

that the Shastras do not allow the untouchables to enter into temples, while the reformist group

would refute the case. And, Gandhi was to accept the verdict in accordance with the Shabda-

Pramana. When the Sanatana group arrived at the gate of Yerawada jail at about 10 in the

morning, they sent in their conditions on a paper – written in Hindi and Sanskrit – which was to

216
The Sabha was founded in 1875 in Pune by Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade to encourage Vedic studies
but by the early twentieth century it became the stronghold of the sanatana pundits. Kavade Shastri probably was
one of the most fundamentalist of the group.
217
To describe Mahatma Gandhi‘s possible death due to his fast, Kavade had a used a saying in Marathi,
―Mahar Mela ani Vital Gela” [A Mahar dies and with him goes profanity]. Nath Hari Purandare, Asprushyatecha va
devalaya praveshacha Vedic Hindu Dharmashastra drushtya Vichar [thoughts on untouchability and temple entry
from the point of view of Vedic Hindu Dharmashastra] (1932:1) Purandare was a reformist pundit who vehemently
argued that untouchability has no sanction in the Vedic texts.

126
be signed by Gandhi and the leader of the reformist group who would lead the debate on behalf

of the Mahatma. Laxmanshastri and Kevalananda Saraswati were already with Gandhi and after

reading the conditions put forward by the Sanatana pundits, Laxmanshastri made a slight

correction in their wording. The Sanatana group used the term ‗untouchables‘, which

Laxmanshastri changed to ‗those considered as untouchables today‘. 218 Gandhi urged the

Sanatana pundits to come inside and begin the debate but they refused to accept the change

suggested by Laxmanshastri. The paper was circulated with suggested changes back and forth

quite a few times, until five in the evening and eventually, the Sanatana Shastris left. 219

Reporting on the matter in Kesari on the next day, N. C. Kelkar blamed Gandhi and

Laxmanshastri for changing the wording claiming that it was deliberately done by Gandhi to

incapacitate the dialogue.220 Thus the debate between the two groups of Shastris, proposed by

Gandhiji, never quite happened.

But, another Sanatana pundit, Bhagwan Shastri Dharurkar, from Pandharpur, came to

Pune to challenge Gandhi‘s view on untouchability. 221 Dharurkar believed that the Vedic

Dharmashastras has justification for untouchability and Gandhi and his supporters like

218
The original term used by the Sanatana group ‗अस्पृश्यजातयः‘ was changed to ‗अद्य अस्पृश्यत्वेन
अभिमतानाम’ by Laxmanshastri Joshi. ( Joshi et al. 1996:114) The reason that Laxmanshastri made that subtle
change in the terms of the scheduled debate was because he was aware that many verses that justify untouchability
could be found in the Shastras, particularly in the Smritis. However, he believed that the communities that were
contemporarily called untouchables could not be categorized in that manner. He argued that the three categories of
untouchables mentioned in the Shastras which are acknowledged in the manifesto published in Harijan, would fall
short to accommodate any of the contemporary untouchable communities. If the Sanatana pundits were to argue that
‗today‘s untouchables‘ were Chandals, it would mean that today‘s Brahmin women were promiscuous. And as one
of the sanatana pundits confessed to Laxmanshastri, they also feared severe retaliation from the untouchables for
calling them ‗a progeny of adultery‘.
219
Later on the same day, Laxmanshastri was invited for an informal conversation with the orthodox
pundits at the residence of Kavade Shastri but it did not lead to any resolution as the orthodox shastris refused to
accept the change suggested by Laxmanshastri. (Joshi et al. 1996: 112-116)
220
Khandkar (1995: 108)
221
Dharurkar Shastri‘s discussion with Gandhi was recorded by his disciple Govind Kirkase in
Asprushyatechi Sashastrata [Scriptural Basis of Untouchability], which was published in 1934.

127
Laxmanshastri and Kevalananda refused to accept this fact. He met and argued with Gandhi on

December 7th, 1932. He was accompanied by other Sanatana pundits like Shankar Shastri

Kalbhairav, Vrundavanacharya Tonapi Shastri, Kashinath Shastri Umbarkar and Vishwanath

Shastri Tuljapurkar. Dharurkar explicitly pronounced what other orthodox pundits believed in

but were fearful of affirming, i.e. ‗the communities considered as untouchables today‘ were the

descendants of pratiloma sankar (the Chandals or the offspring of the most unholy union

between Brahmin woman and Shudra man). 222 He claimed that the untouchables were born as

such because of their karmas from the previous births and since the status of caste was fixed by

birth, so should the status of out-caste be. Shirolkar Swami, the twenty-second Shankaracharya

of the Sankeshwar Peeth, went even further than any of the other orthodox pundits. He declared

that even the Shudras, the people within the Chaturvarnya, should be treated as untouchables.

After his speech on December 7th, 1932, at Pune, organized by the Varnashrama Swarajya

Sangha, he began a tour of Maharashtra to support and justify untouchability. He was

accompanied by the members of the Sangha like Umbarkar Shastri, Gokulnatha Maharaj,

Keshavdutta Maharaj, and Pundit Devnayakachraya.223

In fact, the orthodox Hindu opinion was so much against Gandhi at this time that in June

1934 an assassination attempt was made on him at Pune. On June 25 th, 1934, Gandhi was to

deliver a speech at the Pune Corporation auditorium at 6 pm. Gandhi‘s motorcade got delayed

due to a signal at a Railway crossing but another car arrived at the auditorium at precisely 6 pm,

a bomb was thrown at the car from the gallery, which grievously injured the Chief Officer of the

222
Kirkase (1934:35-41) also see, Sadanand More (2007: 812-13)
223
P.S. Bhagwati (1934) Akhil Bharatvarshyiya Varnashrama Swarajya Sangha ka karya Vivaran (Hindi)
[A Report on the Work of the All-India Varnashrama Swarajya Sangha from January 1932 to December 1933]. The
report also provides correspondence of the leaders of the Sangh with Gandhiji and the British government. The
Sangh left no stone unturned to register its protest in strong terms against granting untouchables an entry into Hindu
temples.

128
Corporation, two policemen and seven others, including Laxman Balwant Bhopatkar, a Hindu

Mahasabha leader.224 In a press statement, given after this incident Gandhi said:

"I cannot believe that any sane sanatanist could ever encourage the insane act that was

perpetrated this evening. However, I would like the sanatanist friends to control the language that

is being used by the speakers and the writers, claiming to speak on their behalf.‖ 225

A little before the signing of the Poona pact between Dr. Ambedkar and Gandhiji which

took place on September 24th, 1932, Mahadev Shastri Chirputkar, of the Sanatana Dharma Sabha

published a series of dialogues regarding untouchability. A small booklet of about 32 pages

contained 12 questions, which Chirputkar went on to answer himself. Chirputkar‘s

Asprushyatesambandhi Prashnottare [Conversations on Untouchability] was a testament to a

fanatic insistence on purity. The questions, he asked included – Where are the untouchables

placed within the Chaturvarnya system?; If the caste-Hindus maintain some interaction with non-

Hindus like Muslims and Christians, should they not interact more closely with the untouchables,

who are their own?; Is it wise to push the untouchables away, particularly when the numerical

strength of Hindus is rapidly declining?; shouldn‘t the caste-Hindus be grateful towards the

untouchables for remaining Hindus despite being unwelcomed by caste-Hindus?; and is

untouchability a blot on Hinduism?, etc. Chirputkar, although not directly, was answering the

same questions that were raised by Mahadev Shastri Divekar in his discussion of untouchability

in Hindu Samaj Samartha Kasa Hoil, published a few years earlier in 1930, which I have

discussed in the previous chapter.

224
Narhar Vishnu Gadgil, a congress leader, has noted in his autobiography, Pathik [A Traveller] that while
boarding the railway compartment on his way back, Mahatma Gandhi said to him, "If they find the assailant, tell
him I have forgiven him." Gadgil (1964: 295)
225
D. G. Tendulkar, Mahatma, Vol.3 (1952: 340)

129
 Unlike Divekar, whose primary concern was the strengthening of the Hindu fold by

resisting the possible conversion of the untouchables outside Hinduism, Chirputkar was mainly

interested in protecting the pure – the Brahmins – from being contaminated. He divided the

public space into two categories: secular and religious. And since in the secular public spaces

like railways, roads, theatres, courts, the interaction between various people could not be

controlled, he argued for the religious public spaces like temples, pilgrimage centers, wells,

schools to be limited only for the use of caste-Hindus. He unhesitatingly declared that the

untouchables fall outside the Chaturvarnya and that although they are Hindus, they should be

kept away from contaminating the caste-Hindus. While Divekar had advocated that if a Muslim

or a Christian is allowed in your home, then you must allow the untouchable an inch further 226,

Chirputkar argued that intermingling with non-Hindus was itself a mistake that should be

abandoned at the earliest and that there was no question of interacting with an untouchable.

Chirputkar emphatically argued that instead of considering untouchability as a blot on Hinduism,

it should be regarded as its greatest virtue and evidence of its rationality. He wrote:

―Hinduism that distinguished between its members in terms of guna (qualities), karma

(actions), jati (caste), aachar (practices) sparshyasparsha (purity-pollution) is like a supermarket

which collects a variety of objects but keeps them in distinct and separate shelves. To call this

virtue a sin is to kill the very spirit of this great religion…Thus, untouchability is not a blot on

Hinduism; instead, it is a fence built to protect the inner core of Hinduness.‖ 227

When Gandhi was appealing to the sanatana pundits to distinguish between the letter and

the spirit of Hinduism for the eradication of untouchability, a sanatana shastri like Chirputkar

226
Divekar (1930: 49)
227
Chirputkar (1934: 29)

130
was deploying the same distinction to claim that untouchability was not only the letter but also

the spirit of Hinduism.

There was a mutual agreement amongst the orthodox pundits like Chirputkar, Dharurkar

and the members of the ‗Varnashrama Swarajya Sangh‘ that the problem of untouchability

belonged to the domain of Hindu religion – which they claimed the British had not interfered

with after the colossal event of 1857 – and it was distinct from the domain of politics. They were

angry with Gandhi for politicizing untouchability. In their perception, the sanctity of the

authority of Vedic texts was contaminated by the sphere of politics through the Gandhian

project.

Interestingly, Tilakites like Narsimha Kelkar had criticized Gandhi for bringing the

question of untouchability into the political domain in the 1920s. 228 Later, in the 1930s, when the

untouchability discourse was at its peak, Kelkar offered ‗an amicable settlement‘ to the problem

of granting temple-entry to the untouchables. He agreed that the untouchables should enter

temples on precisely the same terms as the caste-Hindus, but he feared that the public opinion

might not be ripe for it. Therefore, he suggested that the caste-Hindus should forego the rights

which the untouchables could not have, that is in his opinion, there should be a common barrier

set up in every temple beyond which only the priest should be allowed to go. In this way, Kelkar

argued, the caste-Hindus will have to give up the rights they have denied to the untouchables. 229

The 1930s witnessed a flood of texts on untouchability in Marathi – to justify it and to

promote its annihilation. Vitthal Ramji Shinde (1873-1944), a Rashtriya Maratha and a

missionary of Brahmo Samaj, who had a doctorate in Comparative Religion from Oxford

University and the founder of the Depressed Classes Mission, published his monumental study of

228
Kesari (June 10th, 1924)
229
Harijan. March 4th, 1933: 3.

131
Indian untouchables, titled Bharatiya Asprushyatecha Prashna [the problem of Indian

Untouchability] in 1933. Shinde showed that the untouchables were Buddhists who were

denigrated to the status of outcastes after the fall of Buddhism. Shripad Mahadev Mate (1886-

1957), who worked amongst untouchables for almost two decades from 1917 to 1937 and often

described himself as ‗orthodox-reformer‘230, also published a study in untouchability titled,

Asprushtancha Prashna, also published in 1933. Mate used the term Asprushta (untouched)

rather than Asprushya (untouchable). Mate was a Hindutvaite who supported caste reforms for

the strengthening of the Hindu Nation. Shridhar Shastri Pathak, a member of the Pradnya

Pathshala collective discussed the problem of untouchability within the Hindu theological

framework in a text titled, Asprushyatecha Shastrartha [Untouchability in Hindu Shastras] in

1934, in which Pathak argued that Dharmashastras allow the eradication of the custom of

untouchability associated by birth. He contended that the absolute impurity attributed to the out-

castes like Mahars and Mangs should be absolved and that they can be considered as ‗touchable‘

as some of the other lower castes like Nhavi [Barber], Dhobi [Laundryman], etc. He also

‗requested‘ the readers to recognize that he did not advocate the practices of inter-dinning or

inter-marrying between the caste-Hindus and these outcastes.231

A ‘Ticklish Problem’ of the cultured classes: Sanatana Dharma, Reformism and the

Modern Science

On the other hand, a tendency to find justification for various Hindu orthodox beliefs and

practices from modern western science was also apparent in the Sanatana discourse. Many

230
Dr. Ambedkar described such orthodox-reformers like Mate as worse than direct enemies like Bhaskar
Bhopatkar, the editor of the Brahmin journal Bhala. (B. R. Ambedkar. Bahishkrut Bharat, 20th May, 1927). Mate‘s
half-hearted efforts did not please Gandhi either. When Mate‘s ‗Asprushyata Nivarak Mandal‘ was promoting
temple-entry for untouchables, much like Kelkar, Mate was inclined to allow the untouchables to enter only up to a
demarcated space within the temple. When he had asked for Gandhi‘s blessings for his movement, Gandhi‘s reply
was, ―I wouldn‘t curse you, isn‘t that enough?‖ (More, 2007: 814)
231
Shridhar Shastri Pathak (1934: 3)

132
Sanatana Hindus – both Shastris and Grihasthas – referred to and quoted from various forms of

modern knowledge like Biology, Psychology, Eugenics, and Sociology to argue against reforms.

‗Ahitagni‘ Shankar Rajwade, a renowned sanatana pundit and an open admirer of Hitler and

Fascism, and a group of Shastris influenced by him actively advocated that the Chaturvarnya

system and other Hindu social customs and the various dictates of the Shastras were now proved

by modern western sciences. Ahitagni claimed that the Vedic system of hierarchically arranged

social structure was in accordance with the modern science of Eugenics and for protecting the

purity of the higher strata, it was necessary to segregate the lower ones.232

Like Kavade Shastri, discussed above, many orthodox pundits and various modern

‗B.A.s‘ used to participate in Rajwade‘s annual seminar to propagate and promote orthodox

Hinduism. Shripad Mahadev Mate (1886-1957) also attended a few of these lectures organized

by Rajwade in 1929. Around the same time, the Age of Consent Committee headed by Moropant

Joshi, was working towards the Child Marriage Restraint Act, which eventually fixed the age of

marriage for girls at 14 years and boys at 18 years. In the particular seminar, attended by Mate, a

few speakers argued against the recommendations of the committee and advocated the old

system of child marriage as morally superior. Their argument was when girls become ‗mature‘,

i.e. after menstruation, they begin to develop sexual fantasies about men and if this ‗spiritual

adultery‘ was to be avoided they should be married before attaining puberty. They also claimed

that the wisdom of the ancient Hindu law-givers, who laid down the system of child-marriage,

was being validated by modern western science of biology and eugenics. Some of them even

claimed to be experts in Psychology and Biology themselves but Mate was suspicious of both:

their knowledge of these disciplines and the authenticity of the claims they made on behalf of the

western scientists they talked about.

232
Ahitagni Rajwade (1979: 253)

133
 A fortress of the Sanatana Dharma: the executive committee of ‗Sharadiya Dnyanasatra‘

(Annual lecture series) organized by Shankar Ramachandra Rajwade (4 th from left on chair)

Thus, Mate wrote a letter to some of the scientists that were talked about at Rajwade‘s

seminar, including Professor A. M. Carr-Saunders, a psychologist from the University of

Liverpool, Professor William McDonald, of the department of Psychology from Duke

University, North Carolina; Havelock Ellis, a famous author of a multi-volume text ‗Psychology

of Sex‘ and, a renowned philosopher and public intellectual Bertrand Russell to ask if they

support the theory that child-marriage was morally superior. Mate‘s letter also posited the

foundation of this concern, which was the classic fear of varnasankara (intermarriages between

varnas), which he himself shared to a great extent. He wrote:

―Hindu society has been founded upon inequality by birth from top to toe,
and this arrangement has stood unadulterated for centuries and has given a stable

134
 footing to the myriad population that has lived under its protection…Now, however,
a rapid change is coming upon the Hindu society. Ideas are fast changing…because
of the principle of equality of opportunities. But while this principle exercises a
revivifying influence upon Hindu society, it is sure to throw together men and
women belonging to classes that have been, as far as culture and blood go, far
removed, and would do, according to the bulk of the public opinion, great harm to
the general well-being: for the cultured classes, which are in almost microscopic
minority will be easily swamped by those who are culturally as inferior as they are
numerically superior. Those, therefore, who wish that the masses should be freed
from agelong thraldom, but also that their cultural integrity should be maintained,
have a very ticklish problem before them.‖

In order to prevent this indiscriminate mixing up of the cultured with the

uncultured, orthodoxy suggests that communal bars which are already strong, should
be still more strengthened and they have the support of the educated few who claim
to be biologists. That orthodoxy should suggest such a remedy is quite consistent
with their ways of thinking; by strengthening communal bars, they insinuate early
marriage. But that the educated few who claim to have read modern scientific
literature should lend support to them is a little surprising. By early marriage, our
scientists mean marriage of a girl at the age of twelve, eleven or even less than that!
Is marriage at this tender age desirable and necessary biologically and
psychologically? Indian girls attain puberty at thirteen or even before…If they are
married, say at 16 to 18 or so will it affect their health or child-bearing capacity? For
the mere reason that they have attained so-called maturity, does it mean that if they
remain unmarried some two or three years more, they will be committing spiritual (!)
adultery by taking upon their mental tablets the impressions of the males in whose
company they happen to be? Our Biologists here contend that this sort of spiritual
adultery is quite possible according to biological and psychological researches
carried on in modern times and therefore girls must be married before they reach this
age.…Now all manner of sex literature from the West is flooding the Indian book-
stalls and a section of this literature…gives a horrid picture of the crumbling moral of
various European countries. Now, this also helps a good deal the contention of
reactionaries strongly supported by scientists! I beg you to state whether biologically
and psychologically marriages are desirable and necessary at the age of 13 or
preferably earlier…‖233

In reply to Mate‘s letter, many of these scientists unequivocally stated that neither

they nor the modern disciplines of biology and psychology advocate child marriage. Havelock

Ellis also commented that western science knew nothing whatever of the ‗spiritual adultery‘ of

young unmarried girls. When Mate published these responses along with their Marathi

translations in the May 1931 issue of Ratnakar, a magazine edited by Narayan Seetaram Phadke,
233
Nivadak Mate [Selected Works of S. M. Mate], volume 2. (2007:310-11)

135
it put the sanatana pundits in a spot of bother. Mate descried it as, ―these letters disturbed the

orthodoxy‘s endeavor of sprinkling drops of cool rose-water of modern scientific knowledge on

their sanatana brethren.‖ 234 The orthodox pundits certainly did not enjoy this tickle from Mate.

Apart from this tendency to use science to justify the orthodox opinion, political

Hindutvaites also sought to deploy science in their quest for building the Hindu strength. Mate

himself published Vidnyanbodh (1932), an edited volume on the teachings of modern science for

promoting the values of rationality and materiality as foundational for the making of a strong

Hindu nation and social progress. In the introduction, Mate appealed to his readers to embrace

the secular and materialist outlook for life. He wrote:

―The foremost proposition I wish to put forward here is that the educated people in

Maharashtra should devote themselves to the study of material sciences with zeal. The progress

that the world has witnessed in the last hundred years or so is entirely enabled by modern science

and technology. And considering the ways in which modern science is changing the world,

especially after the First World War, those who remain unacquainted with science would

certainly fall behind.‖235

Mate considered scientific temperament and rational thinking as instrumental in the

creation of technological advancements including household technologies like electricity and

superior armaments. He believed – in resonance with the argument propagated by historian V K

Rajwade a decade ago – that progress of any culture was directly proportional to the quality of

weapons it produced.236 He provided a brief sketch of the history of the development of science

234
Mate ([1957] 2010: 244)
235
Mate (1932: 1)
236
He invoked an immensely popular narrative about how Goddess Bhavani had given a sword to
Chhatrapati Shivaji to help him establish the Hindavi Swarajya and rhetorically hoped that the goddess should have
given Shivaji a gun or cannon instead of a sword. Mate (1932: 68)

136
and considered the modern age as the age of science. He argued that the classical Indian

philosophical belief that the material world was an illusion led to the downfall of the Hindu

civilization and they now need to embrace the scientific outlook with enthusiasm. Mate also

simultaneously assured the reader that the wider dissemination of scientific temper would not

lead to agnosticism or atheism; rather it would help the various religious ideas to be revitalized.

In fact, he argued that embracing the materiality of the world and the body was not atheism. He

cited the Bhagwad Gita itself as a philosophy of materialism. He argued that being a Kshatriya,

Arjuna‘s embodied dharma was war, which Shri Krishna prompted him to follow. Mate asked,

‗if the dharma resides in the body, how could the body be profane or illusionary?‘ 237 And thus,

he advised his readers to not be apologetic of bodily and worldly desires; instead, they should

embrace the materiality of samsara and should work to uncover its logic with the help of

science. 238

Acceptance of the materiality of existence that Mate endorsed was a widespread notion in

the Marathi discursive world in the 1930s. Mate‘s Vidnyanbodh did not lead to any actual studies

of science or investment in new laboratories or academic journals. Instead, it simply ignited

awareness amongst the educated middle classes about the ‗utility‘ of science in material

progress. Since Mate was careful enough to illustrate that this specific notion of progress was not

in contradiction with modern Hinduness, rather it represented a native modernity and a quest for

strength which was not alienated from the tradition, Mate‘s Vidnyanbodh – and many similar

contemporary texts on the relationship between science and Hindu culture such as Vidnyan-

Pranit Samajrachana [Scientific Basis of Society] by Purushottam Ganesh Sahastrabuddhe

237
Mate (1932: 75)
238
Mate (1932: 76)

137
(1936) – resulted in making the minds of the educated classes more pragmatic and ‗positivist‘. 239

Further, this desire to embrace materiality and science proclaimed by ‗orthodox-reformist‘s like

Mate and widespread dissemination of the religious reformism of Pradnya Pathshala, popularised

by Mahadev Shastri Divekar led to a distinction between religious practices and social customs

in the popular conceptualization, reflected in a range of public conversations on the relationship

between Hindu dharmic traditions and the secular and material progress of society. Divekar‘s

essays in the Kirloskar magazines on the widespread ‗irrational‘ devotion of people towards

various sadhus and swamis created quite a stir in the mainstream Marathi print public in the

1930s.240

Thus, there was an unmistakable recognition of the authority of ‗modern science‘ both as

a superior epistemology and a technology that has the power to transform reality by both the

orthodoxy as well as orthodox-reformers like Mate.241 While the Sanatana shastris, however

unsuccessfully, sought to use science to maintain an orthodox position, the Hindu nationalists

and reformers like Divekar and Savarkar, who were determined to build a strong Hindu nation,

sought to draw strength from science. They advocated departing from the tradition, wherever it

went against modern science, and instead proposed to build a rationalist and scienticist project of

modern Hinduness.

The ‘Kirloskar’ Magazines: Engineers of Maharashtrian Progressivism

The immensely popular and widely circulated Kirloskar magazines – Kirloskar (b. 1920),

Stree (b. 1930) and Manohar (b. 1934) – provided the discursive space for the production of the

239
G M Kulkarni and V D Kulkarni (1988: 29)
240
Divekar‘s essays were published in a book form titled, Brahmadnyan va Buwabaaji [Spiritual
Knowledge and Deceitful Practices] (1935).
241
Madhav Deshpande has argued that locating the present in the past, in such a non-linear manner or
reversing temporality is possible within traditional Hindu conceptions of time, allowing an elasticity of traditional
texts, by keeping them open-ended and continually relevant. (Deshpande, 1979: 1-28)

138
idea of Maharashtrian progressivism of the early twentieth century. The broad contours of the

notion of progress involved: religious reformism of Mahadev Shastri Divekar; the new

imagination of romanticised aesthetics popularised by Narayan Seetaram Phadke 242; promotion

of a new ethic, comprising of values like punctuality, industriousness, and material progress,

required for the emergent industrial society by the Kirloskars; and the articulation of Vinayak

Damodar Savarkar‘s rationalist and modernist Hindutva, through the many articles he wrote for

the Kirloskar magazines, in which he severely criticised various Hindu practices, such as cow-

worship in a distinctly sarcastic style. 243 Divekar, Phadke and Savarkar were three of the most

prolific writers for Kirloskar, from the 1920s to 1940s, and significantly contributed to the

fashioning of a new sense of Maharashtrian progressivism.

Laxmanrao Kirloskar (1869-1956) founded the Kirloskar engineering industries in the

early twentieth century. Their first product was a plough made of iron. They soon set up an

industrial town near Kundal in the princely state of Aundh in Western Maharashtra and named it

Kirloskar Wadi, in 1910. Ross Bassett, in his study of the relationship between the technological

quest of modern India and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has shown that as

early as in 1884, within two years of the formation of MIT, Tilak‘s Kesari had suggested that

MIT had something to offer to India. 244 The awareness that India needed to adopt technology had

manifested in the late nineteenth-century. While addressing the widespread concern that the

Hindus were not ‗a mechanical race‘245, Mahadev Moreshwar Kunte, a renowned public

242
Phadke was an immensely popular novelist and public intellectual. I have discussed his role in the
construction of literary and intellectual progressivism in greater details in chapter 4.
243
Savarkar‘s articles published in Kirloskar were later published in five large volumes, titled Savarkar
Sahitya.
244
Ross Bassett (2016: 4) Laxmanrao‘s son Shantanu Kirloskar also studied in MIT.
245
Richard Temple, the governor of Bombay had used that phrase in 1881, quoted in Bassett (2016: 2)

139
intellectual of the late nineteenth-century had advised his students in 1884, ―to travel from

village to village, taluka to taluka, district to district and start the activities of blacksmithy with

frantic haste and zeal.‖246 This concern was also evident in the project of late nineteenth century

nationalism, as envisaged by figures like Tilak and Vijapurkar. But apart from the aspiration to

modernize and achieve material progress, an equally important element of this desire for

mechanization was the growing ‗Brahmin‘ anxiety about their political future in independent

India. The Kirloskar project should be located within this broad context.

Shankarrao Kirloskar (1891-1975), son of Vasudevrao Kirloskar, a medical professional

and a nephew of Laxmanrao started Kirloskar Khabar [Kirloskar News] a small magazine

influenced by the ‗Ford Times‘ to distribute information about the products of Kirloskar

industries in 1916. While it originally started for publicizing the company‘s products, Kirloskar

Khabar was soon reoriented towards general readership since January 1920. The Kirloskar

magazines promoted a new social ethic and intellectual culture that would be conducive for

industrial and capitalist development. For example, the fifth issue published in May 1920, had a

short story translated in Marathi from a magazine named Efficiency, it also contained an article

titled, Utsah [energy] along with a small advisory note on ‗how to keep your house neat and

clean‘. 247 From the same issue, a slogan – a magazine for promoting Udyog [Industriousness],

Utsah [Energy] and Atmonnati [Progress] – began to appear on the cover page and another line

was added towards the bottom on the front page that ‗this magazine is not for ‗fiction‘.248

246
Kesari, June 3rd, 1884
247
Kirloskar (May 1920)
248
Mangesh Kashyap (2014:52)

140
 Kirloskar Khabar (August 1923): A Monthly to promote ‗Industriousness, Energy and

Progress‘

From 1921, a series to introduce successful industrialists began in Kirloskar. The

magazine also requested the readers to send their experiences on the theme of ‗How did I

become successful?‘ In 1927, Kirloskar appealed its readers to form a group – Utkarsha Mandal

– devoted to one‘s growth and success. It was meant for ‗those subscribers of Kirloskar who

wish to see their growth from the place they currently find themselves and those who desire

success‘.249 There were about 1000 members of Utkarsha Mandal in 1928. The members of the

Utkarsha Mandal were asked to commit themselves to ten wows:

249
Mangesh Kashyap (2014: 61)

141
 1. I will be successful;

2. I will always think positive, and feel energetic, happy and strong;

3. I will keep control on my mind and body;

4. I will continuously strive to utilize my time to develop my knowledge;

5. I will not depart from the path of truth, honesty and ethics;

6. I will always maintain the demeanour of a winner and will remain confident;

7. By following a health regime, I will live a healthy and long life;

8. While doing my business and acquiring wealth, I will also actively seek to help

society;

9. I will follow the principle of ‗help each other to help yourself‘; and

10. As far as possible, I will practice Swadeshi.250

In many ways, activities like ‗Utkarsha Mandal‘ represent the changing face of the

Maharashtrian middle-classes. And it was not a coincidence that this new ethic constructed for

the development of a spirit of Indian capitalism – by the middle-class, educated, Brahmin print-

publics – was taking shape at about the same time when the Brahmin literati were articulating

their growing concerns about aggressive non-Brahminism and the political and philosophical

crisis caused by Gandhian methods of political activism, as I have discussed in the case of

Vasudev Bhave‘s pamphlet in the first chapter. In a series of articles written in Kesari in 1926,

Bhave had warned the non-Brahmins that if the Brahmins feel that the road to the Swaraj was a

road to their annihilation, then the Brahmins would have to rethink about their participation in

the nationalist struggle. A few years later, on the eve of Indian independence, Shivram Pant

Damle also echoed a similar concern and asked the Brahmins to adopt a Vaishya-like attitude

and withdraw into a cocoon.

250
Shanta Kirloskar (1990: 16)

142
 Unlike Bhave or Damle, however, the Kirloskar ethic sought to build bridges between

castes and dreamt of a strong, modern, ‗efficient‘, and ‗technologically advanced nation. Terms

like progress, development, growth, industriousness, confidence, collective advancement, etc.

came into circulation in Marathi mainly because of Kirloskar which did not remain confined

within the Brahmin domains. Nandan Sakharam Kalekar, a Nhavi (barber) by caste, inspired by

the Kirloskar ethic, went to London in 1936 to learn the craft of hair-styling and published two

articles in Kirloskar about his experiences in London.251 Kalekar eventually published a book on

Hair-styling titled, Kesh-kartan Kala Arthat Keshbhusha Shastra ani Tantra in 1952.252

Shankarrao Kirloskar wrote an encouraging forward to the book. Kalekar‘s story is an indication

of a deeper connection between two seemingly independent processes that were active in the

early twentieth century. There was a growing political consciousness amongst the lower castes,

achieved through caste-conferences and caste-based organizations, as discussed in the first

chapter. These efforts contained both – a spirit of anti-Brahminism as well as a desire to reform

and upgrade themselves along the lines of the Brahmins. Kalekar was a product of this politically

charged environment. On the other hand, Kalekar was also influenced by the circulation of

capitalist ideals, promoted by Kirloskar, prompting a desire to embrace newness and achieve

success.

Kirloskar also reflected a certain fascination for ‗newness‘. There was however, very

little analytical reflection on the content of this newness on their part. A series of cartoon-

commentaries, created by Shankarrao Kirloskar and N. S. Phadke, and published in Kirloskar, is

a classic example of the use of this blanket term ‗newness‘. This newness was represented by

modern technological progress like Railways or medicine and at times with abstract notions of

251
June 1936 and February 1937
252
Kalekar (1952)

143
reforming religious ideas in Kirloskar as evident from these four sketches, published in

Takanchya Phenki (1935) by Kirloskar and Phadke – illustrating the fear of ‗newness‘ in the

minds of the old.

A shadow of a cat (representing reforms) An old man trying to stop the ‗Reform

looms large for the old, as he trembles in fear. Express‘, while the young man watches

144
 An elephant signifying the progressive path for the world is being led by a progressive

man who controls it with a goad of ‗independent thinking‘ while an orthodox Brahmin is trying

to pull the elephant back by its tail in vain.

145
 A sick old man (representing the Hindu society) is being treated by a doctor (representing

the ‗changing times‘) with the medicine of ‗modern thoughts‘

In 1924, Kirloskar Khabar had about 7000 subscribers, which increased substantially by

the 1930s. By 1933, Kirloskar‟s subscribers reached 12000 and its sister journal, Stree was

subscribed by more than 10000 people. 253 Later, on the advice of Savarkar, the Persian word

Khabar was deleted from the title of the monthly and it became Kirloskar in May 1929.

Mahadev Shastri Divekar began writing for Kirloskar in 1926 on themes related to modernizing

the various everyday practices of Hinduism. For example, a conversation on ‗whether or not the

widows should be allowed to wear Kunku (vermillion)‘ was initiated in the June 1931 issue of

Stree, to which Divekar shastri had responded and argued for the rights of the widows to apply

vermillion on their forehead. 254 The Kirloskar magazines carried many such conversations about

253
Shanta Kirloskar (1990: 28)

146
the issues that were at the heart of the everyday practices of the middle-classes and promoted a

modern rational outlook towards life. The preaching of this modernist outlook became even

sharper when Savarkar began to write for Kirloskar. Savarkar‘s articles consistently appeared in

the Kirloskar magazines during 1929 to 1937, which eventually were published in book form in

five large volumes, with a title, Savarkar Sahitya, [Savarkar Literature] in 1940. The topics he

covered varied thematically but were integrated by the sole concern of presenting a modernist

and secularized (i.e. de-ritualized, materialist, anti-metaphysical) vision of Hindutva.

A Discourse on Cow and Savarkar as ‘Karna’:

Savarkar was particularly critical of Hindu animalistic practices and considered these as

hurdles in the process of arriving in the age of science for the Hindus. In an article Cow: a useful

animal; not a mother; and definitely not a goddess!, written in 1935 in Maharashtra Sharada –

reprinted in a collection of essays titled, X-rays on Hinduism, published in 1950 – Savarkar

vehemently argued against the idea of cow worship prevalent amongst the Hindus. He thought

that a tendency to treat an animal as a holy object was primitive and must be dismissed at the

earliest.255 He lamented the fact that while an animal that eats garbage and sits in its own excreta

was elevated to the status of a goddess while scholars like Ambedkar were considered impure for

their low-caste status.

―I have seen many honest, renowned and ethical cow-worshippers who consider the cow

so holy and goddess-like that they drink her piss and eat her excreta openly and also sprinkle

some of it in a temple. But, a mere thought of touching – forget drinking – a glass of pure and

clean water from the Ganges, from the hands of a much purer and far superior man from the ex-

254
Stree, June 1931: 346. The conversation continued in Stree for more than 4 years. For a detailed account
of this conversation along with some of the correspondence published in Stree, see Swati Karve (2009: 141-146)
255
Maharashtra Sharada, April, 1935. However, he was quick to point out that this tendency, however
backward, was not limited only to Hinduism. (Savarkar, X-rays, 1950:13-15)

147
untouchable256 community like Dr. Ambedkar would make them run for a bath with a fear of

getting polluted. How much has religion corrupted our minds!‖257

He asked rhetorically that since the world is an illusion, according to the Shankaracharya,

why should one worship the cow, why not eat it, instead?...and what is the difference between a

donkey and a cow, then why shouldn‘t one drink the piss of a donkey, instead of that of the cow?

He further asked, ―If the Hindu Puranas have talked about a cow, they also have talked about

pigs in the form of (Lord Vishnu‘s) Varah Avatar. Then why not set up pig-protection groups on

the lines of Gau Rakshaks?‖258

The problem, as he saw it, was of a national tendency to unquestioningly surrender to

tradition. He wrote that the time has come for the Hindus to choose between a slavery of dead

texts and positivist scientific truth and stated that experimental science will win the contest hands

down.259 And, he continued, that he can bear the slaughtering of a few cows but not the

slaughtering of the country‘s buddhi (logical mind).260 The Hindu animalistic practices reflected

a lower stage of human consciousness for Savarkar, which he also considered as a significant

cause of their military defeats. Being concerned primarily with the interrelationship between

nation, science and Hinduness, he recounted a historical tale of when the Muslim armies attacked

northern India; the Muslim soldiers placed cows in front of the opposing Hindu forces, which led

to the defeat of the Hindus as they could not bring themselves to kill those cows. This concern of

256
Like Gandhi coined the term Harijan (God‘s people) for the out-castes, Savarkar used to refer to them
as Purvasprushya (ex-untouchables).
257
Savarkar, X-rays, 1950: 16)
258
Savarkar (X-rays, 1950: 17)
259
And as he wrote further, ―your cow-worship should be discarded if it did not withstand the test of
modern science (and it will not any way!)‖.
260
Savarkar (X-rays, 1950: 18)

148
Savarkar was equally present in ways in which Divekar and Mate seek to adopt modern science.

Aparna Devare has correctly argued that Savarkar‘s reading of the ‗cow‘ legend indicates that he

viewed a Hindu identity largely in terms of secular loyalty to the nation, and science and not

towards notions of the sacred or piety in a lived sense.261

Chourasi Devtaon Wali Gaay: Ravi Varma Press (1915) 262

Although Savarkar unequivocally critiqued the idea of cow-worship as backward and

barbaric, his critique was primarily oriented towards the cow as a symbol of both Hindu

261
Aparna Devare (2011: 179)
262
Christopher Pinney has discussed this picture in Photos of the Gods: The Printed Image and Political
Struggle in India. Page: 108. Savarkar‟s essay in a reprinted form used a similar picture of a cow. A descrption of
the image is as follows: "O Humans! Beware the meat-eaters of Kali Yuga." (Referring to the demon, who holds a
sword). The cow carries eighty-four gods within herself. The man in front of the cow is appealing to the demon by
saying, "Please don't kill! The cow is the life-source of all". The Sanskrit verses in Vasantatilaka meter and their
accompanying Marathi translation, above the cow, praises the cow for encompassing seven worlds (Sapta Lok) and
for being selflessness and admonishes the demon for slaughtering such a generous creature (Dhenu). Sitting beneath
the cow are: a few Hindus, a Parsee, an Englishman and a Muslim drinking its milk. The one distributing the milk, is
saying, ―Drink the milk and protect the cow!‖

149
religiosity and the fragile sense of their political identity. 263 Yet, at the same time, ‗the cow‘ was

also intricately related to the question of untouchability that did not capture Savarkar‘s attention.

The primary occupation of the various ‗untouchable‘ castes – such as Mahars, Mangs,

Chambhars and Dhors, etc. – and therefore the source of their untouchability, was related to

cattle: the meat of the dead cattle, tannery, production of various leather goods, etc. Despite of

the growing concern of the various organizations working to protect ‗Hindu‘ interests was about

new Hindu communitarianism, or ‗samashti-dharma‟, a phrase used by Divekar shastri, to

convey the importance of organizing the Hindus, the intricate relationship of the ‗cow‘ question

with untouchability was not recognized by the advocates of political Hinduism.

On the other hand, a fervent sanatana Hindu, whose entire life was devoted to the service

of cows, Chondhe Maharaj came into contact with many untouchables and worked amongst them

to propagate the ideas of abandoning cow-slaughter, reforming the eating habits of the out-castes

and employing some of them into the work of cow-cultivation. 264 Chondhe Maharaj, a Sanyasi of

Samartha Ramdas tradition, from Wai, started ‗Govardhan Sanstha‘ [society for the protection

and cultivation of cows] in 1905, for nurturing and protecting cows. He also started ‗Gorakshan

Dnyanprasarak Sangh‘ [Society for Dissemination of Knowledge regarding Cow-Protection] at

Thane in 1917; Gopal Vidyalaya in Thane; Tilak Dugdh Mandir, [Tilak milk house] at Thane in

263
For recent academic works on cow-protection and its relationship with the making of Hindu identity, see
Indian Secularism: A Social and Intellectual History, 1890-1950 by Shabnum Tejani (2008); and ―Cows and
Constitutionalism‖ by Rohit De in Modern Asian Studies (January 2019).
264
Ramdasi and Dole (1938:270-71) However, Chondhe Maharaj, being a devotee of Samartha Ramdas
and a staunch Sanatana Hindu, firmly believed in untouchability himself. In a debate with another swami from the
Ramdas cult, Shridhar Paranjape from Vardha, who had openly acknowledged that he ate with the untouchables,
Chondhe and Gulabrao Maharaj, a sanatana non-Brahmin saintly figure who had deep faith in varnashrama dharma,
condemned Paranjape for his inappropriate behavior as a Ramdasi saint. Ramdasi and Dole (1938: 483-488)
Gulabrao Maharaj (1881-1915), being a non-Brahmin, never claimed any rights to access the Vedic texts. He was
also a staunch go-bhakta (activist in the cow-protection movement).

150
1922 and ran a Marathi weekly named, Gorakshan since 1918.265 He was also instrumental in

establishing ‗Gorakshan Sanstha‘, a pan Indian institute for cow-protection at Pune in 1917.

Under his leadership, another network, ‗Sanatana Govardhan Mahamandal‘ was established in

the same year in Pune, wherein apart from Chondhe, Shivram Mahadev Paranjape, Vishnubua

Jog, a renowned Varkari figure, Masurkar Maharaj, a Sanatana Hindu Shastri, and Krishnashastri

Kavade, actively participated. Although Chondhe was a staunch sanatana Hindu, he could

collaborate with people with diverse political and religious inclinations. He invited Gadge baba

(1876-1956), an unorthodox non-Brahmin mendicant saintly figure who preached for sanitation

and against casteism through his Kirtans. He also worked with Mahatma Gandhi, who had

visited Gopal Vidyalaya in 1919 upon Chondhe‘s invitation. Gandhiji famously considered cow

‗a poem of pity‘. 266 Unlike Savarkar, Gandhiji‘s and Chondhe Maharaj‘s approach to the cow

question was embedded in a religion rather than science. However, Chondhe Maharaj – who

considered serving the cow was a higher form of spirituality – was against eradicating the

untouchability of his fellow humans. He also opposed the possibility of allowing the

untouchables to enter into the temples.

Chondhe Maharaj was unhappy with Savarkar‘s critique of cow-worship in Maharashtra

Sharada, but did not quarrel with Savarkar. He wrote to Savarkar that he only hoped that he will

reborn with the same mad desire to purify oneself with Cow‘s piss and cow-dung.267 But,

Chondhe‘s disciple Dhenudas Dole was so furious with Savarkar‘s critique of cow worship and

other ‗backward‘ Hindu animalistic practices that he published a book to counter the ‗Savarkar

265
Anantdas Ramdasi and Dhenudas Dole, Dharmabhushan va Gojivan Shri Chondhe Maharaj Yanche
Charitra, khand 1 te 5.[A Biography of Chondhe Maharaj in 5 volumes] (1938: 291-302)
266
M. K. Gandhi, Young India (October 6th, 1921: 6)
267
Savarkar (1950: 37)

151
Sahitya‘ [Savarkar Literature]. It was titled as ‗Avarkar Sahitya‘ [Enough of It!

Literature].268Savarkar‘s criticism of the sanatana Hindus who wanted to stick to the practices

that Savarkar deemed irrational, barbaric and unscientific was bitter in both its style and its

content.269 While replying to his critics, Savarkar pointed at the painting of the cow representing

the 84 gods within her, as portrayed by Raja Ravi Varma and argued that Ravi Varma‘s

depiction of the holiness of the cow is the true insult to Hinduness and not my critique of these

imprudent practices.270

Savarkar was as critical of untouchability as he was of cow-worship and worked in

various ways for its annihilation from the Hindu society. 271 A letter he had sent to Samata, a

monthly that was inspired by Dr. Ambedkar and was edited by Deorao Naik, in August, 1928

and the subsequent comment he received from Naik is worth exploring in this regard. Deorao

Naik, a comrade of Dr. Ambedkar, started Samata [Equality] a fortnightly in June 1928. Samata

was the mouthpiece of the Samaj Samata Sangh, an unusual network of caste-Hindus – mostly

Brahmins and Kayasthas – weaved around the individual charisma of Dr. Ambedkar in the late

1920s. The Samaj Samata Sangh [Equality League] was established on September 4 th, 1927,

soon after the Mahad Satyagraha, with Dr. Ambedkar as its president. Ambedkar published a

note in Bahishkrut Bharat, announcing the league, where he wrote:

268
Dhenudas Dole (1938). Also see, Sadanand More (2007: 623) Also, a Muslim named, M. Mohiyuddin,
being angry over Savarkar‘s critique of various irrational practices of Indian Muslims, appeared in the Kirloskar
magazines published a book titled, Barrister Savarkaranna Thappad [A slap to Barrister Savarkar] in 1936.
(Shankar Ganesh Date, 1944: 225)
269
See for example, his critique of the Varnashrama Swarajya Sangh in X-rays (1950: 48-50; 73-77)
270
Savarkar Manohar, July 1935
271
For a detailed account of Savarkar‘s discursive position on caste and science, see Savarkar,
Vidnyannishth Nibandh [Essays written from a Scientific Point of view] (1950) and Savarkar, Jatyucchedak
Nibandh [Essays on Annihilation of Caste] (1950).

152
 ―In principle, the Samaj Samata Sangh is not antithetical to Hinduism. Our honest

opinion is that if anyone can revive Hinduism today, it can only be the Sangh. And, therefore, we

request every Hindu to contribute to our cause and fulfil one‘s responsibility towards the

upliftment of Hinduism.‖ 272

Dr. Ambedkar‘s Samaj Samata Sangh (1927)273

Amongst the many caste-Hindus that came together in the Sangh – Gangadhar

Sahastrabuddhe, R. D. Kavali, P.P. Tamane, Deorao Naik, B. V. Pradhan and S.S. Gupte, etc. –

was Lokmanya Tilak‘s son Shridhar Tilak. Shridhar Tilak started the Pune branch of the Sangh,

and renamed the Sangh as anti-Chaturvarnya Samata Sangh, at his residence the Gaekwad Wada

which also housed the head office of Kesari.274 In a short span since the death of Lokmanya

272
Pradeep Gaekwad (2006: E)
273
Picture from Samata, June 29th, 1928: 6.
274
Khairmode (1968: v. 4: 13) Ambedkar called Shridhar Tilak, the true Lokmanya.

153
Tilak, Shridhar built strong connections with many non-Brahmin intellectuals like Keshavrao

Thakare, Dinkarrao Javalkar, and Dr. Ambedkar. Unfortunately, Shridhar Tilak committed

suicide very soon (1928) and the possible alliance across castes did not come to fruition. Tilak

wrote his last letter to Dr. Ambedkar, informing him of the suicide and hoped that he would be

reborn as a soldier in the fight against inequality. 275

A letter from Sant Ram, the president of the Jat Pat Todak Mandal was published in the

July 13th issue of Samata where he had provided messages from many prominent leaders

regarding the necessity of annihilating caste, including a message from Savarkar. In that

message, Savarkar had said that he is committed to breaking the chains of castes. An editorial in

Samata then criticised Savarkar for not walking the talk, to which Savarkar wrote a long letter to

the editor, which was published in the August 24th issue of Samata. Savarkar wrote:

―I believe that it is absolutely critical to annihilate casteism from Indian society. Caste

in any hereditary form is unacceptable and harmful for the national strength. Inter-marriages and

inter-dinning must take place within the Hindu society irrespective of the regional and caste

differences…of course, this applies only to the Hindu society.‖ 276

He then went on to provide multiple details about his anti-caste position and described his

active participation in the struggle against caste. He concluded his letter with the following

passage:

―Let me tell you that if ‗Muslim-ness‘ and ‗Christian-ness‘ are ready to shred their ‗ness-

es‘, then I will also dissolve my Hindu-ness into the vast ocean of human-ness and similarly, as

long as the German and the English nationalism exist, my Indian nationalism will have to stand

strong. But, even today, if I come across a true humanitarian, who lives above such identities, I

275
Shridhar Tilak‘s letter to Ambedkar, May 25th, 1928; reprinted in Samata, 29th June 1928.
276
Samata 24th August, 1928: 4

154
will treat him accordingly…Finally, one may criticise me for holding onto my Hinduness; I can

understand that critique. But to call me a supporter of caste would be unjustified…I declare my

full support to the Samata Sangh.‖ 277

When the editorial board of Samata read Savarkar‘s letter, many of them said, ―He seems

to be perfectly our man‖.278 The editor, Deorao Naik while commenting on this excitement of his

fellow members of the editorial board, wrote:

―Does Barrister Savarkar truly belong to us from his ‗heart‘, the way in which his ‗brain‘

appears to belong to us? – is the question our readers and especially the editors should think

carefully about. Personally, I think Barrister Savarkar, although appears ‗ours‘ by the brain, he

does not belong to us by heart….I would like to remind Savarkar – who proclaimed that the

place of religion is the heart and not stomach – that my dear sir, the place of ‗equality‘ is also the

heart and not the brain.‖279

Naik then compared Savarkar with Karna, the warrior from Mahabharata, the first of the

Pandavas who fought against them. Naik wrote,

―Barrister Savarkar is as brave as Karna; he also recognizes the sinfulness of casteism,

i.e. Duryodhana; but much like Karna, Savarkar is unable to break free from the Kauravas, i.e.

the Sanatana Hindus…I would very much like him to become truly our man, rather than sitting

in the camps of Brahminism….‖ 280

Samata was not the only group of people working against a caste to whom, Savarkar

appeared as ‗their man‘. On 19th and 20th May 1929, an education conference of untouchables

277
Samata 24th August, 1928: 4-5
278
Samata, 24th August, 1928: 5
279
Samata, 24th August, 1928: 6
280
Samata, 24th August, 1928:6

155
was organized at Malvan, in Konkan, where Dr. Ambedkar was to be the president. But, due to

the mill-workers‘ strike in Bombay, Ambedkar could not go for the conference and hence the

organizers invited Savarkar as their president instead. 281 Savarkar, the Karna of the ‗Hindu

Mahasabha‘, to use the metaphor deployed by Naik, could never become ‗Samata‘s man‘. After

Savarkar was free to resume political work in 1937, he joined and later became the president of

the Hindu Mahasabha and had to work with the very same sanatana people, whom he had

criticised as irrational, unscientific and archaic during his confinement in Ratnagiri from 1923 to

1937.

Becoming Harijan: Gandhism and Embodying an Ethical Subject

Deorao Naik‘s vocabulary of referring to the ‗place‘ of equality was quite a valid one, as

one can see Gandhiji using a similar language to explain his engagement with untouchability.

Gandhi‘s consideration of untouchability as sinful and a blot on Hinduism and his endeavor to

eradicate it had two essential aspects to it. On the one hand, much like the representatives of

political Hinduism like Mahadev Shastri Divekar, Gandhi was – at least mildly – concerned with

the possible conversion of the untouchables away from Hinduism282; while on the other hand, he

urged the caste-Hindus to atone for the sin of untouchability by allowing temple-entry for the

Harijans and by taking the ethical responsibility to cleanse Hinduism of this blot. While the

Sanatana pundits perceived the untouchable primarily as a representation of impurity caused by

the karmas of their previous births and as disruptive varna that was a product of an unholy sexual

union; pundits like Divekar Shastri on the other hand, viewed the problem of untouchability as a

problem of numerical value which could be added to the political strength of caste-Hindus.

Although, Gandhi perceived caste as a horizontal division of labour and religious duties, he

281
Sadanand More (2007: 467)
282
Harijan, Year 1, Volume 1, February 1933: 4

156
viewed the problem of untouchability from an ethical point of view. The untouchables did not

merely represent numerical strength or symbols of pollution, but as labourers, whose

generational labour has stigmatized them. In Gandhi, the untouchable became a paramount

ethical problem in front of the very ethical foundation of Hinduness. In the rest of the chapter, I

will discuss a few contours of the reimagination of this ethical Hindu self by examining the

project of Maharashtrian Gandhism.

As I have discussed in the first two chapters, the rise of Mahatma Gandhi was perceived

as a crisis by the Tilakites – most of whom were Brahmins – in Maharashtra since the death of

Tilak in 1920. Their fragile relations with Gandhi and the Congress continued for almost a

decade. During this period, the Tilakites themselves were divided into two factions: a faction that

steadfastly opposed Gandhi included N.C. Kelkar, Ganesh ShriKrishna Khaparde, Madhav

Srihari Aney, and B.S. Moonje, among others who eventually came together in Hindu

Mahasabha under Savarkar‘s leadership in the late 1930s; and the second faction was composed

of those who accepted Gandhi‘s leadership, including Gangadharrao Deshpande, Shivram

Mahadev Paranjape, Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar, and N V Gadgil among others.

The first group opposed Gandhi on multiple grounds: firstly, they regarded his

constructive programme as unrelated with the anticolonial struggle; secondly, they considered

his interventions into the untouchability question as disrupting of the Hindu social order and

thirdly, they felt that Gandhi‘s politics was based on intuition and superstition rather than

rationalism and pragmatism, the qualities they claimed that Maharashtra has internalised since

the time of Shivaji. N C Kelkar, the leader of the Kesari collective, articulated Maharashtra‘s

exceptionalism in a public speech he delivered at the Gandharva Mahavidyalaya, an institute for

teaching and promotion of Hindustani Classical music started by Pundit Vishnu Digambar

157
Paluskar in 1925. Kelkar said that due to the lukewarm response the Tilakites gave to Gandhi,

congressmen from other Indian regions called Maharashtra ‗crafty‘. But I take it as a

compliment, he said. ―Maharashtra knows the craft of politics. By calling us crafty they only

praise our political wisdom.‖ Kelkar presented Maharashtra‘s political tradition as constructed

through the Guerrilla tactics employed by Shivaji, Ramdas, and Tilak. 283

Gandhi‘s invocation of supernatural explanations for material events did not win him too

many supporters in Maharashtra, either. While commenting on an earthquake in Bihar which

took place in January 1934 and claimed more than 10000 lives, Gandhi blamed the sinful

practice of untouchability. He called the earthquake ―a divine chastisement for the great sin we

have committed against those whom we describe as Harijans‖ 284. This ‗irrational‘ causality

invented by Gandhi was criticised by many including Rabindranath Tagore. Savarkar ridiculed

Gandhi for his divine explanation of a natural disaster and published a small text titled, Gandhi

Gondhal [The Gandhian Chaos] in 1934.285 S. M. Mate also criticised Gandhi‘s logic or ‗the lack

of it‘, in the introduction to Vidnyanbodh.

Laxman shastri Joshi, Gandhi‘s lieutenant in the fight against untouchability with the

orthodox pundits, also became disillusioned with Gandhi. Joshi had been closely working with

Gandhi towards a resolution of untouchability within the domains of the Dharmashastras in the

early 1930s. He had also provided a scriptural justification for the marriage between Gandhi‘s

son Devdas (a Vaishya) and Rajagopalachari‘s daughter, Laxmi (a Brahmin) and solemnized the

marriage himself as a priest in 1933. As Laxman Shastri‘s daughter and his biographer,

Arundhati Khandkar puts it; Joshi began to drift away from Gandhi after 1934 as he was uneasy

283
Kelkar Samagra Vangmay, Khand 4 [Complete Works of N C Kelkar], volume 4. (1938: 566)
284
D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma Vol. 3: 247
285
Savarkar (Samagra Savarkar Vangmay, Khand Teen, 1964)

158
with Gandhi‘s traditionalism. 286 Joshi, being an integral part of the early twentieth century

Marathi intellectual culture which privileged reason over faith and science over tradition, began

to realise that his political views differed substantially from the Gandhian mode of thinking

about the social in an intuitive manner and a resistance to dismantling caste. And soon in 1936,

he met M.N. Roy and drifted further away from Gandhi. 287

The other faction that supported Gandhi accepted his political programme of non-

cooperation and participated in the reconstruction of the village economy, and yet most of them

also shared Kelkar‘s articulation of Maharashtra‘s political exceptionalism. The congress under

Gandhi grew exponentially only after the non-Brahmin movement joined Congress under the

leadership of Keshavrao Jedhe in 1930. However, despite becoming congressmen, the non-

Brahmin intellectuals did not cherish the Gandhian ideals of Brahmacharya, Charkha and

Ashram. Thus, there emerged a division between the political work of Congress and the

constructive programme proposed by Gandhi that stressed on Khadi, Charkha, prohibition,

village sanitation, Nai Talim or the new education and abolition of untouchability since the late

1920s.

Interestingly, those who could be considered true Gandhians by heart, who worked

incessantly for the implementation of the Gandhian constructive programme – such as Vinayak

Narhari aka Vinoba Bhave (1895-1982), Dattatreya Balkrushna Kalelkar (1885-1981), Shankar

Trimbak aka Dada Dharmadhikari (1899-1985), Acharya Sakharam Jagannath Bhagwat (1903-

1973) Acharya Shankar Dattatreya Javdekar (1894-1955), Seetaram Purushottam aka Appa

Patwardhan (1894-1971), Anant Vasudev aka Annasaheb Sahastrabuddhe (1897-1973) and

286
Khandkar (1995: 112-113)
287
Joshi, however, did not view Gandhi dogmatically, as is evident in his confession to professor Rege that
he was probably too quick to judge Gandhi in an interview for Navbharat.

159
Pandurang Sadashiv Sane aka Guruji (1899-1950) among others – were all Maharashtrian

Brahmins. 288 A fact that was recognised and reflected upon by one of them, Kaka Kalelkar, in an

introduction to the autobiography of Appa Patwardhan, where he wrote:

―From the beginning, all of us from Maharashtra who gathered together in Gandhi‘s

ashram were Brahmins and we made abolishing untouchability the mission of our lives by being

true to the spirit of our Brahman-dharma.‖289

Kalelkar‘s statement is a testimony to the fact that many of these Gandhians worked

against untouchability or participated in the programmes of constructing Gram Swaraj with an

ethical spirit that was derived from their religiosity, which enabled them to reimagine themselves

as primarily ethical subjects. Much like Kalelkar, Appa Patwardhan, also known as the Gandhi

of Konkan, worked on village sanitation and made various models of toilets appropriate for

village use. Here, however, I will only explore his engagement with the question of

untouchability in Ratnagiri, in coastal Maharashtra.

In 1936, Patwardhan attended a Harijan conference organized by the Harijan Sevak

Sangh in the Gandhi ashram at Charathe in Sawantwadi in Southern Konkan. At the conference,

many Mahars, influenced by Dr. Ambedkar, proposed that the untouchables should abandon

cutting up dead cattle as they viewed this labour as stigmatizing and a source of their

untouchability. Untouchables from Northern Konkan had already stopped it. Patwardhan spoke

passionately against the proposal. He argued that to draw leather from dead cattle is a useful and

288
Many of these Gandhian activists remained Brahmacharis and a few of them like Patwardhan lived in
total poverty. For a brief review of Maharashtrian Gandhian activists of the early twentieth century see an
introduction to Acharya Bhagwat Sankalit Vangmay [Selected Works of Acharya Bhagwat] volume 1: 1-2. Also see,
Indira Rothermund, ‗Maharashtra‘s Response to Gandhian Nationalism‘ in Region, Nationality and Religion, edited
by A.R. Kulkarni and N.K. Wagle (1999:69-93)
289
Kalelkar in Patwardhan (1971: 27)

160
necessary work, and if the imprudent caste-Hindus consider the work defiling, the wise Harijans

should have no reason to abandon their hereditary skills in this manner.

Patwardhan‘s attempt to differentiate the labour of skinning the dead cattle from the

stigma of caste was honest and genuine however, he did not seem to realize that his caste

position as a Brahmin allowed him to make that distinction in the first place. But Patwardhan did

not only make a theoretical attempt at the secularization of caste-based labour, he offered to

carry out the work himself. When the resolution that the untouchables should abandon their

hereditary and stigmatized work was passed in the conference with overwhelming majority,

Patwardhan made a public vow that he would openly skin at least one dead cattle within a year.

After this incidence, Patwardhan looked for an opportunity to fulfil his vow but the untouchables

in Ratnagiri, where he lived, did not entertain a ‗Brahmin‘s wish to pollute himself‘. He then sent

two of his comrades from Konkan, Baba Phatak and Bhaskar Suki, to Gandhi‘s ashram at

Vardha to learn the craft of dissecting the dead cattle and to collect its skin. Then he himself

went to Vardha and observed how to cut the dead cattle. When he came back to Konkan, he

came across one dead cattle in Dapoli and he finally underwent the labour himself along with a

colleague Pandu Marathe. He brought back the skin of the cattle and sold it to a Chambhar, who

paid him one and half rupees. This procession of carrying of the dead cattle‘s skin by a Brahmin

became quite a spectacle for the people, many of whom spat at him and cursed him for degrading

himself. 290

290
Patwardhan (1971: 418-422) An acquaintance of Patwardhan, an engineer from Dapoli, Mr. Dabke
ridiculed the whole exercise and said to him, ―I had heard that Gandhi could produce brave men from mud, but I
never knew he could also make pigs out of men.‖ (Patwardhan: 1971: 422)

161
 Appa Patwardhan, a bearded man, third from the left: Cutting a dead cattle

Patwardhan‘s – and Gandhi‘s – endeavor to eradicate untouchability involved inversing

the caste hierarchy to make untouchability a fluid category. They were determined to show that

the reimagination of an ethical Hindu self, i.e. to become Harijan, involved traversing through

bodily practices such as participating in a stigmatized ‗untouchable‘ labour. They sought to make

untouchability a contested political space within which the ethical limits of the Hindu self were

tried. Apart from participating in the untouchable labor, the Gandhian discourse in Marathi also

harnessed the idea of Seva (labor) as a secular form of bhakti. This practice of Seva was thought

to be the model for serving the nation (Desh Seva) and was deployed towards the eradication of

untouchability. ‗Senapati‘ Pandurang Mahadev Bapat‘s eight couplets ‗in praise poem on the

broom‘, published as a pamphlet in 1937, illustrates the theme of seva quite well.

162
 When Dr. Ambedkar published What Congress and Gandhi have done to the

untouchables, his critique of Gandhi‘s engagement with untouchability, in 1945, it troubled both

Gandhi and Gandhians to a great extent. In a letter written on June 24 th, 1946, to Sane Guruji,

Vinoba Bhave explicated the classic Gandhian view on the matter of eradication of

untouchability. Vinoba wrote:

―I believe that I have a deep understanding of how Hinduism and the mind of
the Hindu and Indian society evolved from the beginning until now because I have
been studying it for the last thirty-odd years…Every practice in Hinduism is a
product of continuous reformation…annihilation of untouchability would also
require the same process of reformation. I have also seen people who claim that they
have no sense of differentiation. They eat anything, fish or beef, cooked by anyone.
They say that they disregard any and all rules that their forefathers followed. This is
their annihilation of untouchability! If that term can be applied to this behaviour then
I think this is absolutely useless for the reformation of Hinduism.‖

―The only way of eradicating untouchability that resonates with the inherent
nature of Hinduism is for us to become Harijans. We need to experience the suffering
and the intense mortification involved in becoming Harijans. At times, it may involve
a fast-unto-death. But, I believe that the Hindu society is wise enough to avoid such
situations. Although the Hindu society made a Buddha, a Dnyaneshwar, and a Meera
to perennially suffer, none of them became a Socrates or a Christ.‖ 291

At around the same time when Sane Guruji received this letter from Vinoba, he was invited

to Pandharpur by Seetaram Choudhary who was fighting for allowing the untouchables to enter

the historic temple of Vitthal, widely recognized as the supreme deity of the Varkari cult.292

When Guruji went to Pandharpur, he felt deeply distressed about the behaviour of the orthodox

Hindus and announced a fast-unto-death until the Harijans were allowed to enter the temple.

When many people – including imminent public figures like Senapati Bapat, S.M. Joshi, and

Achyutrao Patwardhan – tried to dissuade him from implementing the idea, he postponed the

291
Aatmaram Walinjkar (2011: 194-195)
292
G. A. Deleury, a scholar of Marathi Bhakti tradition has called Pandharpur, the Jerusalem of
Maharashtra. See Deleury (The Cult of Vithoba, 1960)

163
Satyagraha for six months and decided to travel all-across Maharashtra to appeal to the Hindus to

open their hearts and their temples for the untouchables. Guruji began his tour on January, 7 th,

1947 and until the end of April, he had spoken in 400 public gatherings. The number of people

who attended these meetings is estimated to be 600000 and about 450000 people signed on a

petition for temple-entry. 293 Due to these meetings, about 225 temples were opened for the

untouchables. Many public wells, restaurants, and hair-cutting saloons were also opened for

them.

However, the Vitthal temple was not yet opened for Harijans. In a public statement issued

by Sane, it was mentioned that it has been fourteen years since Gandhiji had fasted unto death in

1932. Afterwards, a few temples and wells opened their doors for the Harijans. Harijan Sevak

Sangh was established, and many Harijan hostels also started. But when Vinoba asked for an

audit of the Gandhian efforts towards the eradication of untouchability, he became speechless. In

the various public speeches he delivered from January to April 1947, Sane Guruji made an

ethical plea in front of the Hindu society. He argued that untouchability cannot exist in the

independent, democratic and humanitarian society. He said that the doors of the temple will not

open until the minds of the people are closed. He was also against resolving the issue within a

legal or scriptural framework. He felt that ‗no religion is as liberal as Hinduism and no society is

as rigid as the Hindu society.‘294

Sane Guruji firmly believed in the ability of Hinduism to expand and absorb different and

at times discordant belief systems and he decided to put his very life at stake to test its elasticity.

It was this deep desire for martyrdom on part of Guruji, which led him to believe that either he

would prove that Hinduism recognizes and values the dignity of every Hindu or he will not live

293
Chaitra Redkar (2010: 97)
294
Walinjkar (2011: 246)

164
in the world. And, thus his fast-unto-death began in May 1947 in Pandharpur. In a candid

response to various questions thrown at him at the beginning of his fast, Guruji said that the

purpose of his fast-unto-death was to demonstrate that –

―The essence of Hinduism is Advaita [oneness] between nature and man; a belief that the

atman exists everywhere. Hinduism is not a bunch of legal treatises or a set of rules regarding

touch. Crores of my Harijan brethren have expressed their desire to quit Hinduism, doesn‘t it

disturb you? My fast is to invoke Hinduism‘s true liberal essence.‖ 295

The Vitthal temple at Pandharpur was very much central to the Maharashtra‘s bhakti

tradition. Even when Dr. Ambedkar was inclined towards temple-entry for the untouchables in

1920s, he had entertained the idea of a Satyagraha at Pandharpur. 296 And later, due to the bitter

experiences at the Kalaram Mandir temple-entry Satyagraha, at Nasik in 1934, Ambedkar was

disillusioned with the possibility of changing the heart of the Hindus. But, due to the immense

pressure created by Sane Guruji‘s Satyagraha in 1947, Kalaram Mandir was also opened for the

untouchables in 1947.297 In spite of the widespread commotion Guruji‘s Satyagraha created in

Maharashtra, Mahatma Gandhi was opposed to Guruji‘s Satyagraha. He sent a telegram to

Guruji and asked him to abandon the Satyagraha. However, Guruji categorically rejected

Gandhi‘s request and insisted on listening to the calling of his inner voice. 298 Guruji‘s fast began

on May 1st, 1947 and continued for 10 days until the doors of the Vitthal Mandir were opened for

the untouchables. Thus, the Gandhian answer to the untouchability question in the early

twentieth century was deeply embedded in the conception of religiosity and explored the

295
Walinjkar (2011: 253)
296
Khairmode, Vol. 3:13
297
Lokmanya (April 1st, 1947)
298
Walinjkar (2011: 291-293)

165
possibility of the production of an ethical society that would keep its umbilical cord with the

tradition intact.

The Gandhian discourse, by making the untouchable a fluid category, created a space for

the critique of untouchability within orthodox Hinduism. The Gandhian discourse, though

located the untouchable in terms of its labor, much like the radical dalit discourse of Ambedkar,

it viewed the caste system and its sacred dharmic foundation as an essential aspect of Hinduism

and remained committed to its preservation. On the other hand, the resolution of untouchability

proposed by Savarkar, rejected the sacred basis of untouchability much like Dr. Ambedkar, yet,

it did not engage with the forms of untouchable labor. Thus, though different from one another in

the interpretation of untouchability, and the caste system, these two theorizations of

untouchability – by Savarkar and Gandhi – envisioned a common trajectory for Hindu as a

modern political and discursive category.

166
 Chapter 4: Domesticity and Desire: Caste, Body, and Progressivism in Early Twentieth-

Century Marathi Literary Culture

On September 9th, 1923, Shridhar Ranade and his wife Manorama arranged Dr. Vasudev

Deshpande‘s marriage with Shantabai Kale, a widow who had a daughter from her first marriage.

The wedding was conducted with traditional Vedic marital rituals in Pune, in which an educated

Muslim girl participated as a karavali, or bridesmaid. Since the marriage was taking place

against the wishes of the Deshpande family, it was organized in secret by the Ranades, in

Gaekwad Wada, Lokmanya Tilak‘s house. The wedding was attended by both sons of Tilak –

Rambhau and Shridhar – and many other reformers.299 Although the presence of a Muslim girl as

a bridesmaid in a traditional Brahmanical wedding was indeed unusual, the remarriage of a

widow was not an exceptional incident in the third decade of the twentieth century in

Maharashtra. On the contrary, there were many English-educated and reform-oriented young

men who desired to marry a widow to establish an example for others. Madhavrao Patwardhan,

better known as the poet Madhav Julian, and who formed the core of the well-known informal

association of poets Ravikiran Mandal, had harbored a wish to marry a widow for years. 300

Although the Widow Remarriage Act was passed long ago in 1856, the most significant

advocate of social reforms in Maharashtra, Justice M G Ranade, had failed to act upon it himself.

In 1874, when Ranade was to be remarried after the death of his first wife, many expected him to

marry a widow since he was one of the chief proponents of the reform. However, under the

pressure of his orthodox father, Ranade married an eleven-year-old girl instead. Many

299
A detailed story is narrated by Vitthalrao Ghate who attended this marriage and was an active member
of Ravikiran Mandal, an association of poets which was officially founded on this occasion. Ghate, 1961: 344-45.
There are more accounts of this founding day of Ravikiran Mandal, each of which mentions ‗an educated Muslim
girl‘ without ever giving her name. see for example, D N Gokhale (1978: 182)
300
D N Gokhale (1978: 27)

167
intransigent followers of Ranade, such as Wamanrao Kolhatkar, father of a famous journalist and

a steadfast Tilakaite, Achyutrao Kolhatkar, married a widow just to make a point that the

reformists could withstand societal and familial pressures. 301 These other Ranades, Shridhar, and

Manorama, however, were more determined than Justice Ranade, in their stand for individual

choice in matters of marriage. They had a love marriage which was quite a novelty at that time in

an orthodox Pune society. They were both poets and also active members of many poetry circles

in Pune.

Many poetry circles were functional at the time, across Marathi-speaking areas in the

country and more so in Pune. A few of them – such as the Tutari Mandal (started by a very

influential yet short-lived poet and playwright Ram Ganesh Gadkari in 1911 in Pune);

Sharadopasak Mandal (Devas, 1920); Kavya Prasarak Mandal (Thane, 1923); Govindagraja

Mandal (Mumbai, 1923); Tambe Mandal (Ajmer, 1923); Veena Mandal (Pune 1921) Shri

Maharashtra Sharada Mandir (Pune, 1921) – initiated various events around poetry and poets

such as periodic public meetings of poets, collecting photographs and biographies of different

poets and they also started publishing poetry collections of new poets302. Shri Maharashtra

Sharada Mandir organized all-Maharashtra poetry meet in 1922. Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad

was already established in 1906 in Pune. In 1923, The Vidarbha Sahitya Sangha was formed in

Nagpur while Sharadashrama was founded in Yawatmal in Eastern Maharashtra in 1926.

301
V H Kulkarni (1979: 3) Wamanrao Kolhatkar‘s second wife was a child widow. And while he was an
English-educated, government official, his second wife was an illiterate who was raised in a small village near
Solapur. The sole purpose behind this uneven marriage was to set an example for people. And this was not a rarity
as many such cases could be found in the cultural history of twentieth century Maharashtra.
302
Ramesh Tendulkar (1991:19-20) D T Bhosale has also provided similar list of lesser known poetry
circles such as Kavyakaumudi Mandal (Dhule), Vangmayvihar Mandal (Nasik), Ajinkyatara Mandal (Satara),
Sahitya Saroj Mandal (Aundh), Kaviray Mandal (Solapur), Sahityasneha Mandal and Bharatkavi Mandal
(Kolhapur), Saraswat Seva Sangha (Belgaum), etc. See, D T Bhosale, Ph.D. thesis titled, Ravikiran Mandalachi
Kavita [The Poetry of Ravikiran Mandal, Marathi] submitted to Shivaji University, Kolhapur (1976: 82)

168
Following were the professed aims Shri Maharashtra Sharada Mandir:

1. We aim to channelize all efforts to popularise Marathi poetry amongst the masses;

2. To create a harmonious network between poets, writers, and readers;

3. To collect the writings, biographical materials, and artefacts related to Maharashtrian

poets;

4. To create a library of books related to poetry;

5. To publish new poetry collections;

6. To organize poetry meets;

7. To participate in all literary events, and movements as far as possible. 303

Although a few of these associations were short-lived, their emergence and proliferation

indicate an increasing institutionalization of literary life in Maharashtra. In the post-Tilak

political climate, literature emerged as a sovereign field in its own right. It was not merely a

means to propagate nationalist or reformist ideas anymore. And as I shall elaborate through this

chapter, this increasing institutionalization of literature and its emergence as an autonomous field

was directly proportional to a steady decline in the domination of Brahmins on Maharashtrian

social and cultural life since the 1920s.

Since early 1921, a few poets used to gather at the house of the Ranades before attending

a weekly literary meeting at Shri Maharashtra Sharada Mandir on every Sunday. They used to

discuss and debate poetry and read out and appreciated each other‘s poems. This informal

association was weaved around the threads of their shared love for poetry, spontaneity and

charming yet rebellious expressions of romantic love. The new aesthetics that appealed to them

was quite different from the one which these classical poetry circles adhered to. Soon they

realized that they represent a newness with an independent position on both the form and the
303
G M Kulkarni (1988: 51)

169
content of modern Marathi poetry and its aesthetics and they came together to form a poetry-

collective which they named Sunday Tea-club. On September 9th, 1923, when Dr. Deshpande

was getting married to a widow where a Muslim girl was a bridesmaid – clearly perceived as a

rebellious act for their time – was the day they chose to officially announce the formation of their

independent poetry collective. A Marathi name for the Sunday club became Ravikiran Mandal.

(Rays of the Sun Club) It went on to become a celebrated event in the history of modern Marathi

poetry.

Initially, there were 8 members in the Mandal: Madhav Patwardhan (penname: Madhav

Julian) a scholar of Persian and the most influential poet of the group; Mr. S B Ranade and his

wife Mrs. Manorama Ranade; G T Madkholkar, who later became a renowned novelist and

journalist; D. L. Gokhale, S. K. Kanitkar aka Girish; Y. D. Pendharkar, S. K. Garge aka Divakar.

But after the publication of their first collection of poems, Kiran (Rays), they met with an

outburst from the orthodox society of Pune leading to the exit of Garge from the group.

Eventually, V D Ghate joined them as the eighth member.

170
 Ravikiran Mandal

Sitting on chairs from the left: Yashwant, Madhav Julian, Madkholkar, Manorama Ranade;

sitting on the floor from the left: Girish, Divakar, D L Gokhle, and S B Ranade 304

They were all reformers by intent and attitude. And due to the love marriage of the

Ranades, the Mandal had acquired a romantic aura. Although both Sridhar and Manorama (née

Durga Hivargaonkar) were Brahmins, they belonged to different sub-castes and thus their

marriage was considered an inter-caste marriage and therefore was seen as a rebellious affair.

The Ranade couple was often thought of as Maharashtra‘s very own Robert and Elizabeth

304
Picture taken from Prabha Ganorkar, et al. (2004:610)

171
Browning and were celebrated as a symbol of romantic love. 305 The Mandal never had any

formal constitution. It functioned more like a group of friends who were connected by their

conceptions of poetry, shared desire to express novel forms of love, a care-free and romantic

attitude, and progressive ideas about domestic and conjugal life. They used to go for long outings

together, many a time they stayed awake all night to discuss poetry, walked in the rains together,

went for trekking and hiking, liked to have free conversations with similar-minded women on

equal terms, they were mad enough to try to catch the glimpses of the sunset from the same place

they had witnessed the sunrise, played tennis for hours, they celebrated each other‘s birthdays,

they supported every possible love marriage, and at times went around to distribute invitations

for such marriages. 306

In short, as V D Ghate, a member of the Mandal wrote in his autobiography:

―Ravikiran Mandal was a thought: about life and Poetics. It was an inspiration and an

experiment – social and cultural…we were all romantic fools, without ever knowing it. We were

poor but free. We were deeply engrossed in ourselves and each other.‖307

Though Ravikiran Mandal emerged out of other poetry circles, unlike any of them, it

achieved mythical status and generated novel poetic energy and influenced a generation across

Maharashtra. The poet became a mysterious and iconic figure through the efforts of Ravikiran

Mandal. It was a particularly significant event for understanding both the Marathi literary history

and the intellectual life of the middle-class Marathi society in Pune of the 1920s. Most of the

305
A member of Ravikiran Mandal, Shankar Kanitkar or poet Girish mentioned in the biography of
Madhav Julian that the Ranades themselves had hoped to follow in the footsteps of Robert and Elizabeth Browning.
(Kanitkar, 1965: 52) Also see, V H Kulkarni (1992: 130); Ramesh Tendulkar (1991: 22)
306
G D Khanolkar provided a rather long letter written by Patwardhan to his friend, Mr. Marathe, in Baroda
which describes many of these and other activities of this group in detail. (Khanolkar, 1965: 69) Also see, D T
Bhosale (1976: 14).
307
V D Ghate (1961: 338)

172
historical and literary accounts of Ravikiran Mandal including those written by some of its

members (S K Kanitkar, 1965; V D Ghate, 1961; G D Khanolkar, 1951) agree that Ravikiran

Mandal was a significant contribution to both the content and the narrative style of modern

Marathi poetry through its primary principles of dynamic ideas of friendship between men and

women, individualism, new notions of gendered interactions in society, and new aesthetics of

poetry.

Ravikiran Mandal‘s poetry, however, was not equally well received. In a review of its

first publication, Kiran (1923), Balkrushna Bhide wrote in Vividhdnyanvistar, a renowned

newspaper from Mumbai that most of these poems were sublime in their imagination, novel

ways of crafting and constructing literary ideas but its beauty was the beauty of a prostitute, its

attractiveness was poisonous, its intoxicating smell was that of wine. This poetry was an

invitation to lose oneself in bodily indulgences, evocative of the infamous last Peshwa, the

Bajirao II.308 But this critique by Bhide only led to an intensification of curiosity about this new

poetry.

Pralhad Keshav Atre, who later played various roles in Maharashtra‘s public life as a

journalist, a playwright, a filmmaker, and a political campaigner, wrote a collection of parody of

Ravikiran Mandal‘s poetry with a title, Zenduchi Phule (Marigold Flowers), which became an

overnight sensation after its publication in 1925. In the introduction, Atre wrote:

―After the death of Gadkari309 and Balkavi310 in 1918-19, darkness was

spread across Marathi poetry. In that darkness, a few poets came together
precariously and light a small bonfire. It was called Ravikiran Mandal. These poets
used to meet every Sunday to have tea and discuss poetry. Poetry circles had been
formed before but there was something quite novel about Ravikiran Mandal. One

308
Khanolkar (1951: 84-85)
309
Gadkari (1885-1919)
310
Balkavi (1890-1918)

173
 may even call it a co-operative society of poetry. But the real ‗Ravi‘ (Sun) among
them was Madhav Julian; all the others were Kirane (rays). Madhav Julian had
recently started teaching Persian in Fergusson College at that time. His language and
his persona were heavily influenced by Persian poetry which lent him a different
character from any of his contemporary poets. His influence on Ravikiran Mandal
and modern Marathi poetry was so strong that every new poet wanted to write like
him. This Persian fashion was terribly at odds with the practice of modern Marathi
poetry initiated by Keshavsut 311. How would a devotee feel if someone plays ‗God
save the King‘ during the aarti of Ganapati? I felt the same. The parody of
Ravikiran‘s poetry was my spontaneous reaction.‖ 312

Atre‘s position vis-à-vis this Persian fashion was not dissimilar from Bhide‘s review of

Ravikiran‘s first publication: Kiran [Rays]. They both – and indeed many others – felt that

Ravikiran‘s poetry was betraying the character of modern Marathi poetry. However, while Bhide

felt anxious about the centrality of body and romance in Ravikiran‘s poetry, Atre argued that

unlike Keshavsut, Ravikiran‘s rebellion was limited only to the use of language. He pointed out

Patwardhan‘s opposition to Tilak (which Atre equated with anti-nationalism) and how

Patwardhan himself had lost an opportunity to have an inter-caste love marriage. Atre was also

critical of Patwardhan for the radical transformation in him. Patwardhan, a scholar of Persian

who designed a Persian-Marathi dictionary and translated Umar Khayyam‘s poetry in Marathi,

who presented a well-argued critique of Savarkar‘s project of Bhasha-Shuddhi (purifying

Marathi of Arabic and Persian), completely turned around to become a staunch supporter of it.

He even rewrote his older Persianized poetry and widely campaigned to propagate the idea of

Bhasha-Shuddhi. Therefore, Atre claimed that Patwardhan was not a true Purogami

(progressive) and was unstable in his beliefs.

However, Atre failed to mention that this supposed opportunity of an inter-caste love

marriage had created a massive upheaval in Patwardhan‘s own life. His poetry was considered to

311
Keshavsut (1866-1905)
312
Atre (1925:3-4)

174
be blasphemous by many and his mythical status amongst the literary circles had invited several

prejudiced gazes at him. He was accused of having an affair with one of the students of

Fergusson College, Ms. Varada Naidu, where Patwardhan was a professor of Persian Literature.

Malicious rumors about them were in circulation. In an application sent by eleven life members

to the governing body of Fergusson College in 1923, Patwardhan was accused of three

misconducts: that his behavior with Varada Naidu was indiscreet which gave her false hopes of

marriage; that he allowed her to stay at his house overnight which was an irrational behavior on

his part and; that he allowed another married couple, Mr. and Mrs. Tole, to stay at his house

while no one else was present, and as Mr. Tole had night duty and his wife was alone at the

house at night, which gave rise to rumors about Patwardhan‘s moral character. 313

Patwardhan‘s biographer D. N. Gokhale had succinctly summarized the situation that

Madhavrao had found himself in the following manner:

―Madhavrao was immensely enjoying his public life ever since he had joined
the Ravikiran Mandal in July 1921 and was least bothered about the outside world
while indulging in the ‗romantic‘ acts. As he had himself said in a letter to a friend,
―It was a period of floating in the poetic dreamland without paying any heed to social
norms and living in the brave new world.‖ There was nothing unethical in his
behavior, but his actions were breaching the established conventions of social
interaction in the Pune society. The ways in which these poets roamed around in the
streets at nights, the unhindered exchanges between men and women in their circle,
their romantic monsoon picnics in the Borghats, the unfettered expression of
romantic and sensuous love in their poetry – all of these things were considered
eccentric by not just the typical orthodox but also by the liberal reformers. In
particular, Madhavrao had become a thorn in the flesh of the Pune society. ‗These
people don‘t belong to us, they have a cult of their own‘ was the general feeling
about them in Pune. Many had not forgotten his opposition to Lokmanya‘s
posthumous felicitation, while many were drunk by the nectar of romantic and
passionate Gazhals and love Sonnets he had penned. The whole situation was
perfectly ripe for murmurs and gossips. At that very hour arrived Varada Naidu, a
whitish beauty with a tennis racket in her hand and her plaits floating around, at this
colorful stage and gossips flourished all around. The middle-class of Sadashiv and

313
D N Gokhale (1978: 204)

175
 Shanivar Peths through their malicious idle-chatter weaved an intricate and fantastic
web of myths and legends around Madhavrao.‖314

Kanitkar aka poet Girish, another biographer of Patwardhan, which he aptly titled

Swapnabhoomi (Dreamland) echoed similar sentiments in his narrative of the Varada Naidu

controversy in Patwardhan‘s life:

―Patwardhan was completely innocent and his popularity among the students, and in the

literary circles, was the main source of this distress. His poetry has made him infamous. But

what was so dishonorable in it? These accusations were echoes of the old world, the dying

custodies of culture; and deep-seated jealousy.‖315

Patwardhan, in his testimony to the governing body of Fergusson College, reiterated

almost the same narrative. He claimed that he did no wrong. And that his only fault was to

remain unaware of the evil forces of Indian society working against him 316. This seemingly

trivial controversy went on for over a year and was put to rest in May 1924, when Patwardhan

was declared guilty of being ―very indiscreet‖ and was asked to go on two-years of unpaid leave.

Patwardhan indeed paid for the free-spirit he exhibited through his actions and his poetry. What

was even ironic was that the particular set of people in the governing body of the college that

conspired against Patwardhan – the Kanitkar fraction – was known as a group of progressives,

while the other group that wholeheartedly supported him – the Naik fraction – was a confessed

conservative one.

With the spread of co-education and an increasing number of girls studying at the college

level, the preeminent subject of this new widespread poetry was romantic love and a strong

314
Gokhale (1978:197)
315
Kanitkar (1965: 58)
316
D N Gokhale (1978: 205)

176
desire to free from social restrictions on interactions between men and women in public spaces.

But as can be discerned from the example of Patwardhan, this desire for freedom was being met

with stern reactions. Although ideas of romanticism and freedom were at the center of new

literature, a widespread influence of Victorian morality and ethical anxieties about the bodily

aspect of this romantic love were equally persistent. Ravikiran‘s poetry imagined love as a form

of worship, a form of death and martyrdom which at times were taken a little too seriously.

There is at least one recorded story about a friend of Ranade whose unsuccessful love led to a

suicide. He cut his wrists while reading out Ranade‘s poem Mrutyuchya Dadhetun (From the

jaws of death).317

But more than Ranade‘s poetry, his love marriage with Manorama was a matter of

fascination for the young people of Pune. A few other love-marriages in the early 1920s – such

as that of Kusumavati Jaywant and Aatmaram Deshpande (better known by his penname Anil)

and of Vimal and P Y Deshpande, all were from Nagpur but met and fell in love while studying

in Fergusson College at Pune – also became legends that were recounted in public conversations

and literary circles of the time. Love letters written by Kusumavati and Anil 318 to each other

from 1923 to 1927 – both became well-known poets and literary critics – were published later.319

Interestingly, the fact that in many of their early letters, both Kusumavati and Anil refer to one

317
Ghate (1961: 348)
318
Although Kusumavati belonged to a well-to-do Kayastha family, Deshpande was a relatively poor
Deshastha Brahmin.
319
Kusumanil (1972) The free and ornamental language of these letters show a dialogue on equal terms
which reflects a tremendous amount of changes in the pattern of gendered relationships particularly in the English-
educated upper caste urban literati of Maharashtra. A correspondence between Janaki Marathe of Ratnagiri and her
husband who was working in Pune was published from July 1897 to June 1898 in a Pune-based literary journal
Manoranjan, which was edited by a renowned novelist, Hari Narayan Apte. Janaki, who had recently learnt to write
always referred to herself at the end of each of her letters as ‗Your humble servant, Janaki‖. The language in
Kusumanil shows that the nature of intimate as well as public conversations between men and women at least in the
elite society had certainly evolved by the 1920s.

177
another as brother and sister reflect the influence of the idea of ‗platonic love‘ at the time. It was

important for them to underline that their friendship was without any element of sexuality. 320

This complexity in romantic feelings between the sexes was not limited to just Kusumavati and

Anil. In many more biographical and historical accounts of this period describe the intense

ambiguity towards romantic love and the inevitable physicality involved therein.

During his Baroda days, Madhav Patwardhan had intense emotions for Shanta Herlekar,

who had once told him that he reminded her of a character called Julian Adderley from Marry

Corelli‘s novel God‟s Good Man because like Patwardhan, he was also a diehard romantic.

Patwardhan was quick to take it as his pen name and became Madhav Julian. However, as

Herlekar herself wrote in her memoirs, she was a ‗Tom-boy‘ and had even started to write her

name as Shantaram instead of Shantabai. She wrote: ―I cannot think of marriage. Masculinity is

deeply enmeshed in my body.‖ 321 Another friend of Patwardhan, Laxmibai Choudhary, was

deeply attracted to this masculinity of Herlekar, which according to Herlekar, was not new for

her. As Herlekar recounted in her memoirs, much to her annoyance, multiple women were

attracted to her. And to complete the circle, both Choudhary and Patwardhan used to share their

feelings for Herlekar while also being attracted to each other. As all three of them also called one

another brother and sister, the multidimensional intricacy of this romance is indicative of both –

320
A few of these letters between Kusumavati and Anil could be found in a volume titled Striyanchee
Shatapatre edited by Swati Karve where she has reproduced hundred letters by women from 1850 to 1950 (2009:
352-361).
321
Herlekar later married to Baburao Kashalkar, a goldsmith by caste, in 1917. This marriage left Laxmibai
in deep distress and she eventually died within a year. Shantabai‘s mother, though a reformer herself, was against
this inter-caste marriage. In a letter written to Shantabai to dissuade her from the marriage, Kashibai wrote that it is
without doubt foolish to imagine that a Brahmin girl could be happy in a marriage with a non-Brahmin. (Mote 1972:
352)

178
how dealing with physicality was an intensely difficult activity for this generation and how the

materiality of romance had now become the central preoccupation of literary production 322.

Two of the biographers of Patwardhan – Khanolkar, and Gokhale – have narrated an incident

where Shanta Herlekar and Patwardhan shared an intimate moment but Herlekar called

Patwardhan her child. And though heartbroken, Patwardhan even wrote several poems on her as

his mother.323 Even in the case of Varada Naidu, who was the source of a lot of turmoil in

Patwardhan‘s life in Pune, their feelings for one another remained convoluted. In a letter to their

common friend, Shridhar Ranade, Varada had asked him to convince Patwardhan for marriage;

while in another letter written to Patwardhan during the controversy, she wrote:

―My good wishes would be always with you. If you call me ‗mother‘ (as you used to) my

blessings are with you my baby forever!‖ 324

Romanticism and the New Novel:

The contradictory pulls of romantic desire were significant not only in the lives of literary

people but also in the literary representations of heterosexual love in Marathi novels.

Particularly, the embodied nature of heterosexual romance featured prominently in the

immensely popular novels written by the most influential novelist of the time, Narayan Sitaram

Phadke (1894-1978) – who wrote more than 150 books, including more than 100 novels and 2

multi-volume autobiographies, published during 1917 to 1974.

322
D N Gokhale (1961: 49). In his classic biography of Patwardhan, Gokhale has provided many more
details about the complex relationship between Herlekar, Patwardhan and Choudhary from Herlekar‘s memoirs
which to this day has remained unpublished. (Gokhale, 1978: 47-52)
323
D N Gokhale (1978: 63-65), Khanolkar (52-54)
324
D N Gokhale (1978: 202)

179
 Narayan Seetaram Phadke (1894-1978): the most Popular Marathi Novelist of the early-

twentieth-century

It would be useful to take note of Phadke‘s overall position on the art of the novel here.

In a book dwelling upon the nature of literary genius, Pratibhavilas (1966) Phadke wrote:

―Some of us argue that literature should take note of the sorrows of the downtrodden

people such as the untouchables and the labor classes. Many now say that the lives of the

subalterns also produce different rasas that the pure literary sight should be able to capture. But,

let me ask if it is possible to write a grand novel on the life of an untouchable. One might be able

180
to write a novella on their lives but do their lives provide us with majestic and magnificent

elements required to paint the wide canvas of a novel? I do not think so.‖325

The fact that the writer of this text was undoubtedly the most popular literary figure

between 1920 and 1950, and that this was his opinion about grand literature and little lives in

1966, when Dalit literature had already stormed Marathi literary and cultural spaces, is indicative

of the caste-bias and intellectual limits of the literary and cultural taste of the so-called

mainstream of Marathi literary culture. Phadke‘s massive literary corpus shows that the real

meaning of the terms he used in this passage – such as ‗pure literary sight‘ and ‗the production of

rasas‘ –only refer to the rasa of romantic love and its bodily manifestations.

As Kurundkar, a renowned literary critic has pointed out:

―By the late nineteenth century, women‘s education had already started. A
few college-going women could be seen at least in Pune-Mumbai since 1900 leading
to the possibility of deeper interactions between men and women. This new reader
was not to be satisfied with narratives of love-at-first-sight which were central to the
novels written before the colossal event of co-education. Now the readers‘ dreams
were filled with imaginations of unexpected meetings with women, fashionable
conversations, flirting and falling in love with them. Since Phadke‘s novels met these
requirements most efficiently, he became the most popular novelist of the era.‖326

Phadke‘s novels provided a wide variety of circumstances, a range of geographical

settings, described various kinds of loves while essentially providing the same narrative of

falling-in-love, encountering a crisis and then finally reuniting and living happily-ever-after. This

crisis could be caused by any number of things: the lovers may belong to different castes (usually

the different sub-castes of Brahmins), or one of them has a psychological complex (For example,

in Uddhar (the Redemption) published in 1935, the heroine had a dream where she was raped

and then she began to believe that she was pregnant. Through the rest of the novel then, the male

325
N S Phadke (1966: 152)
326
Narahar Kurundkar (1971: 125)

181
protagonist resolves the knots of her mental complex to ―redeem‖ her.), or a gap between the

economic status of the two lovers (for example, Daulat (The Wealth), published in 1929) or the

heroine would be a widow, for whom a brave and progressive hero would emerge in the novel.

At times, Phadke also used patriotism as a source of this crisis in love. The patriotic hero of the

novel would be sent to jail because of his patriotism and a commitment to the Gandhian

movement and thus the hero-heroine would be separated. It is indeed fascinating to see how

Phadke deployed the death of Lokmanya Tilak to bring together a couple in Pravasi (The

travellers, 1937). In Pravasi, Raja and Uma were attracted to each other but due to the influence

of the idea of platonic love on them, they always maintained a certain physical distance between

them. But when they heard the news of Tilak‘s death, the sheer intensity of their grief melted the

physical distance between them and thus resolved the crisis in their love.

According to Kurundkar, Phadke‘s novels were textbooks in romantic love. It was as if

Phadke was telling his readers that if you want to experience the thrills of falling-in-love and

wish to learn the art of winning a woman‘s heart, then my novels will teach you all about it. 327 In

one of his more famous novels, Indradhanushya (The Rainbow, 1941) the drama was centered

around the female protagonists‘ insistence on platonic love and her denial of the physicality of

sex. Throughout the novel, the male protagonist was anxiously convincing her to embrace the

embodied nature of romantic feelings between sexes. And since both Phadke and his readers

were already convinced, the heroine surrendered to it finally. 328

Phadke‘s novels impressed upon the readers that romance and romantic feelings had a world of

their own and were above the mundaneness of human existence.329 It stressed that romance was

327
Narahar Kurundkar (1971: 129)
328
Phadke, 1941

182
the most cherished aspect of the relationship between men and women. The romance was what

made this life worth living and thus was worth paying any price for. And as Meera Kosambi has

shown, the romanticism introduced by Phadke initiated a far-reaching paradigm shift in Marathi,

so much so that even those who were opposed to his avowed ideology of ‗Art for Art‘s Sake‘

were impacted deeply enough by his vast popularity to deploy the same romantic tropes in their

literary narratives.330 Most literary historians have called the period of Marathi literary

production from 1920 to 1950: The Phadke age and not surprisingly therefore, they also agreed

to call is ‗The age of the Ordinary‘. 331 In the Phadke paradigm, narrative style overpowered

narrative content. Phadke‘s progressivism created a conscious distance from traditional social

norms of gendered relationships while ―reassuring the reader that the author‘s cultural umbilical

cord was intact‖, to use the phrase deployed by Kosambi. 332

The idea of progressivism in Marathi literary culture was contingent and produced

contesting meanings across time. The notion of progress and language of reform within the

Brahmin fold in modern Marathi thought from Gopal Hari Deshmukh (1823-1892) to Narayan

Sitaram Phadke (1894-1978) emphasized the preeminent existence of the material world over

the Vedantic or spiritualist orientation of Indian culture. In particular, this form of romanticism

that had an overwhelming influence on Marathi literary culture in the first half of the twentieth

century aimed to bring back the body at the epicenter of Marathi intellectual culture. However,

329
D K Sant (1957: 138)
330
Meera Kosambi (2012: 26)
331
See Kusumavati Deshpande (1950), G M Kulkarni (1988), D K Sant (1957). Renowned literary
historian G M Kulkarni has argued that a great difference could be discerned in the quality of the fictional writing of
the same person before 1920 and after 1920. In this context, his discussion of Waman Malhar Joshi‘s fictional
writing published before 1920 (Ragini) and after 1920 (Indu Kale ani Sarala Bhole) is noteworthy. (Kulkarni
1988:4)
332
Meera Kosambi (2012: 28)

183
this imagination of the body was primarily rooted in the romantic fantasy with the modern white-

collar clerk (pandharpesha) at its center; the processes of manual labor and alienation of modern

industrial life were hardly ever interrogated in this literary corpus.

The body in this romanticized universe was the sexed body rather than a laboring body or

an untouchable body that was central to the Dalit discourse or in the form of an embodiment of

the ethical subject imagined in the Gandhian worldview. Modern fiction in Marathi generated a

space for erotic fantasies and provided opportunities to recoil from the realities of the struggle

between tradition and modernity and the increasingly declining power of Brahmins over

Maharashtra‘s political life. It failed to grapple with the alienations produced in the processes of

industrialization of society that were fundamentally altering the landscapes of urban Indian lives

of the inter-war period. Literature thus became a space that could produce a romantic cocoon for

the literary soul. Many elements – such as the gradual but steady disintegration of older familial

forms, an emergence, and proliferation of the new species of white-collar clerks, gradual

decentring of the brahmins in the political and social sphere in the aftermath of the Montague-

Chelmsford reforms – contributed to the construction of this romantic cocoon. In this process,

literary and aesthetic cultivation of the educated, urbanized, Brahmin self was idealized. It was

the literary world of romantic ambiguities and adventures that provided some solace for this

class.

This literary progressivism also proposed to reorganize the gendered order of middle-

class public life. The principle unit it sought to modify was the family. The modern Marathi

society imagined in this hedonistic and romanticist vision was articulated through ideas of

nuclear and modernized family, individualism and new forms of heterosexual romance. The

central preoccupation for this romanticism thus became the construction of the modern woman –

184
liberated within certain constraints, with a refined literary taste and yet someone who wouldn‘t

cross the cultural boundaries demarcated for her. A figure of this modern woman was essential

for the modern, literate and cultivated man to fall in love with. This new woman was a

prerequisite for the kind of romance that the early twentieth century Marathi fiction was

producing.

Modern literature in Marathi since the late nineteenth century emerged within the urban

cosmos of Pune and Mumbai. It was produced for and enabled by the wide circulation of print

culture and patronized by the new species of white-collar workers and young students and

therefore, it was centered around the variety of possibilities of heterosexual romance, its physical

and psychological manifestations and the ideas of conjugality, domesticity and desire. Since

every romance needed to be legitimized by marriage, different forms of marital unions became

the central preoccupation of this literary corpus: child marriage, widow remarriage, arranged

marriage, love marriage, inter-caste marriage, inter-religious marriage, conditions for divorce,

etc. A noted literary historian G B Nirantar concluded his history of Marathi novels between

1914 and 1944 on the following note:

―It appears that all our social thoughts are focussed upon the life of the modern woman.

And her marital bliss seems to be our only concern and the bodily pleasure as the only dimension

of conjugality that we think so much about. It is all that we ever paint in our literature.‖333

Conjugality and Body: Anxieties of the Cultured Classes

Novels written by women novelists, such as Kamalabai Bambewale [Bandhamukta,

(Unconstrained, 1924)] and Shantabai Nashikkar [Lagnacha Bazar,(The Marriage Market,

1929)] also revolved around the topics of marriage, divorce, and romantic love but as Vinaya

333
G B Nirantar (1944: 140)

185
Khadpekar has shown quite meticulously, their ways of seeing the nature of gendered relations in

society went a lot deeper than the male novelists. At the end of Bambewale‘s novel

Bandhamukta, the female protagonist, Sudha, who had earlier converted to marry her lover and

to escape from her abusive husband, cursed Hinduism‘s brutal treatment of its women. That was

too much of a leap for any of the male fiction writers.

On the other hand, many were defending the traditional gendered norms. Kesari, the

newspaper started by Lokmanya Tilak, which steadfastly remained a stronghold of

conservatives, was writing as late as in 1930:

―Love marriage is a curse. Europe has seen its negative effects. More often than not, love

marriages lead to divorce.‖334

A conservative yet very popular novelist, Vitthal Hadap, depicted an unfortunate journey

of a woman into prostitution in a novel, named Behakleli Taruni (the Fallen Woman, 1924). A

year later, he published the sequel of that novel, aptly titled, Nivaleli Taruni (The Reformed

Woman) in which the fallen woman was shown to have been redeemed by abandoning the ideas

of freedom that led to her fall. Another popular novelist, Dwarakanath Pitale aka Nath Madhav,

wrote in a preface to his novel Premveda (Madly in Love, 1908):

―Devotion to her husband is the true ornament for a woman. It is said somewhere that a

woman has no god but her husband, no religion but to serve him, to meditate on his wellbeing is

her enlightenment, to think of his virtues is her moksha.‖335

Thus, when novelists like Phadke and P Y Deshpande were dreaming of breaking of the

social restrictions in search of romance, Pitale and Hadap among others were seeking to re-

334
Kesari (18th January, 1930)
335
Nath Madhav (1908:3)

186
establish the older order of domesticity. On the other hand, there were other women fiction-

writers like Malati Bedekar, more famously known as Vibhavari Shirurkar, whose first

publication, a collection of short stories, Kalyanche Nishwas (The Sighs of Buds, 1933) was

considered to be a rebellion against the gendered norms. In a pre-publication review of this book,

sociologist Dr, Ketkar considered it a revelation and wrote that it needed a woman to elucidate a

woman‘s mind. Shirurkar presented a drastically different view of the central preoccupations of

male novelists – romance, beauty, love marriage, sexuality – in Kalyanche Nishwas was truly a

revelation for not only Ketkar but for the entire Marathi literary discourse.

Since Vibhavari Shirurkar was a pen name, there were attempts to uncover the real

person behind the text. Many speculated that the text was written by a man with a female

pseudo-name; many others who thought it was written by a woman, tried to guess the precise

caste of the writer. Ketkar himself had thought that Ms. Shirurkar must have been a Kayastha

and not a Saraswat Brahmin that was claimed by the publisher Haribhau Mote.336 Shirurkar

published a few more books soon including a novel, Hindolyavar (On the Swing,) which also

became popular and controversial. In 1949, a collection of essays and reviews of her works was

published with a title, Vibhavariche Tikakar (Vibhavari‘s Critics, 1949). Similarly, other female

novelists like Shakuntala Paranjape, Geeta Sane, and Prema Kantak also presented revelations of

their own, through a considerable body of literary fiction, for the reader who was blinded by the

fog of romanticism of the Phadke age.

Novelists like Phadke, Khandekar, and Varerkar sketched the life of Konkan and Western

Maharashtra; while S. V. Ketkar, P. Y. Deshpande and G. M. Madkholkar‘s novels were usually

based in Vidarbha (Eastern and Central Maharashtra). And since most of their novels were

336
D B Karnik and B M Nadkarni (1949)

187
directed at the transformation of gender relations and domestic life in modern Maharashtra, it

indicates the breadth and scope of the changes brought about in Maharashtrian society at large by

the 1920s. However, it would be useful to sketch a broad literary map of Pune city, since it was

very much the heart of Marathi literary activities in the early twentieth century. Literary historian

G M Kulkarni has argued that literary activities in Pune were centered around the middle-class

suburbs such as Sadashiv Peth, Shanivar Peth, and Narayan Peth, and a slightly upper-middle

class locality of Deccan Gymkhana – in all of these places Brahmin population was

concentrated. Kulkarni further separated these localities into two segments: the middle to the

lower-middle-class segment of the Peths and the upper-class locality of Deccan Gymkhana,

divided by the Mutha River. The more affluent Deccan Gymkhana was represented in the

writings of Madhav Julian and N S Phadke, while the short stories of Y G Joshi or the poetry of

Yashwant were rooted more firmly in the Peths 337.

As Marathi literary culture was overpowered by the concerns of the numerically

insignificant yet culturally hegemonic Brahmin middle class, it was described and ridiculed with

the term: Sadashiv Pethi culture. One of modern Maharashtra‘s finest historians and social

critics, T S Shejwalkar reflected upon the character of this Sadashiv pethi culture in a classic

essay on Vibhavari Shirurkar, published in 1949. As we have seen earlier, when Malati Bedekar

started publishing under the pen-name of Vibhavari Shirurkar, there was a great amount of

anxiety and curiosity about her true identity. In this essay, published after the true identity of

Shirurkar was revealed, Shejwalkar pointed out some of the limitations of Malati Bedekar

(Balutai Khare before marriage) aka Vibhavari Shirurkar due to her Sadashiv Pethi (i.e.

337
G M Kulkarni (1988: 43)

188
Brahmanical) social location.338 Shejwalkar aptly pointed out that Shirurkar‘s literary rebellion

was ultimately reduced to the romantic desire to ‗conquest happiness‘. Shejwalkar wrote:

―It was because the Sadashiv pethi culture that she grew up in was not an appropriate
land for the fruition of her rebellion. The Brahmanical culture that is extremely
calculative and afraid of any form of newness could not provide any space for
rebellious dreams…Sadashiv pethi culture is based on the idea of individualistic
cosmos, composed of self-centered, selfish, and insolent individuals. Individuals
within that culture might well be able to achieve intellectual heights and people could
even attain domestic happiness but it can never be inclusive and universal. How,
then, the female characters of Shirurkar‘s literary works who lived in the cultural
climate of Sadashiv Peths could hope to fly away in search of new horizons?‖ 339

Shejwalkar identified three philosophical tendencies in Marathi culture which he

arranged hierarchically through using the Indian terminology of gunas. According to him, the

Gandhian philosophical approach was the sattvic propensity, the communist worldview was the

rajas inclination and the Sadashiv Pethi character was the tamasic tendency. 340 He further

dwelled upon the character of modern Maharashtra‘s cultural and political life in a small yet

remarkable essay, published in a Diwali issue of Shabdaranjan in 1962, on the ethics of

intellectual and educated class of Maharashtra:

―Has Maharashtra‘s social ethics decayed? I cannot help but answer in the
affirmative to this question without any doubt whatsoever. I would go even further to
argue that social ethics has vanished from our people entirely. And the educated and
intellectual class is primarily responsible for this condition…. I genuinely believe
that their intellectual leadership turned out to be severely harmful to Maharashtra,
particularly for social ethics. Not only that their approach to Swaraj was unscientific
and regressive but socially also this class was self-centered, selfish and insolent.
Since their only focus had steadfastly been on their intellectual development, they
were intellectually tall but their minds had become narrow and insolent. They
remained aloof to the idea of a productive relationship with the Bahujan masses. On
the contrary, they had an engorged pride of being a greater people than the general

338
Although technically Balutai Khare was from Nagpur and not from Pune, the term Sadashiv Pethi
principally referred to any and all things Brahmanical. In the late 1970s, a new phrase, ―the culture of Three and a
Half percent‖ to indicate Brahmanical culture was popularized by a Dalit activist and writer, Laxman Mane that
overlapped with the old term.
339
T S Shejwalkar (1977: 430)
340
T S Shejwalkar (1977:432)

189
 public. The fact that the contemporary ‗educated‘ Maharashtra is incapable of any
socially productive initiative is mainly because of the ‗Sadashiv Pethi‘ leadership it
had for the last seventy-five years.‖341

With the rise and expansion of print, principles of individualism, rationality, and freedom

were widely in circulation among the urban literary elites, mostly from the Brahmin caste.

Particularly, the principle of individualism was taking root at the same time when the dominance

of Brahmins in the political sphere was steadily in decline in the aftermath of Tilak‘s death in

1920. The conditions of the new Brahmin household and specifically of their women were

always significant for the reformist gaze but the scope and character of reformism directed at the

Brahmin household significantly transformed in the inter-war period. The spaces of domesticity

were now being imagined in terms of pleasure, desire, and happiness. A respectful and equal

relationship between men and women, particularly between husband and wife, enabled only

through an educated woman with a literary and artistic taste became more desirable, and all print

mediums – poetry, novels, plays, journals, essays, advertisements of different products –

imagined and popularized an image of an educated and thus, liberated woman.

Though some of the early conversations about women‘s role in society were primarily

directed at her conjugality, they initiated a discursive production of the notions of the modern

woman and her place in the society which was undergoing tumultuous transformations. Gender,

sexuality, and domesticity were the key concepts against which both the progressivism and the

modern Hinduness of Maharashtra were tried. ‗How should an ideal wife be?‘ was one of the

most frequently asked questions in some of the early twentieth century Marathi periodicals

which were produced for and read mostly by women.

341
T S Shejwalkar (1977: 279-281)

190
Between 1901 to 1930, about three hundred and fifty magazines were in circulation in Marathi of

which at least fifteen were run for women and mostly by women 342, including Maharashtra

Mahila (ed. K R Mitra, 1901), Prachiprabha (ed. Saraswati Vaidya, 1909) Gruhini Ratnamala

(ed. Seetabai Sawant, 1916), Grihalaxmi (ed. Tara Tilak, Piroj Anandkar, 1926) Pragati (ed.

Malati Kulkarni, 1929), Manorama (ed. P K Atre and Indumati Naik, 1929). The changes in their

slogans also indicated the pace with which the ideas about domesticity were transforming. We

could see an arc from ‗A magazine run by and for women from respected households‘

(Maharashtra Mahila) to ‗an enlightened and free woman represents power, prosperity, and

beauty of the human race‘ (Grihalaxmi).343

The early discussions about a good wife reflect a conflict about the transformations

brought about in the traditional roles of women due to multiple factors. The ideal wife should be

educated and yet should confine herself to the limits drawn by the traditional household was the

clear desire or hope that could be gauged from these early conversations. In one such early

conversation in a male magazine about the duties of the ideal wife, it was poetically argued that

the wife‘s duty to her husband was ―To make homes dearer and dark skies clearer. To bring

heavens nearer is a wife‘s work.‖344 This idea was contested in strong terms by Banutai

Sahastrabuddhe. She wrote that only those women who are truly aware of their individuality and

rights, who have an equal relationship with their husbands, who could even question their

342
Vinaya Khadpekar (1991: 7)
343
Swati Karve (2017: 46-47)
344
A letter from an imaginary character Sugruhuni (an ideal housewife), a Saraswat sister published in a
column in Manoranjan, December 1913.

191
husbands about his ways and those who know how to raise their children scientifically – should

be called ideal wives.345

Domestic and conjugal life remained at the center of these conversations. Relationships

between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law, the impact of English education on marriages,

Dowry, methods of organizing marriages, love marriage, were some of the key topics of

discussions. The content and the idea of an ideal wife further changed significantly over the

years. In the post-1920s, we could see the conversations were increasingly moving from ‗ideal

wife‘ towards ‗ideal marriage‘. Prachiprabha magazine carried a column of imaginary letters

between two sisters-in-law on the idea of a ‗marital bliss‘. Another imaginary correspondence

was published in Bhagini (Sisterhood) magazine, between two fictional characters: Sulabha and

Anutai on the topic ‗Sulabha‘s attitude towards marriage‘, where Sulabha suggested the idea of a

marriage club where young women and men could meet and choose their partners 346.

This preoccupation with conjugality and domesticity, however, was not just limited to the

fictional universe in Marathi. Malini Panandikar, a granddaughter of a renowned Indologist and a

liberal reformer Dr. Bhandarkar, married Mr. Gulabkhan Bashiruddin Khan, a Muslim by

religion, on 27th June 1927 in Pune. At the time when love marriage was a distant idea, it was

difficult for the orthodox community of Pune to accept an inter-religious marriage of a Hindu

woman of a renowned family. It created a massive stir amongst the Maharashtrian orthodoxy.

Many organizations and associations across Maharashtra – such as the Pune based Hindu

Charcha Mandal and Tilak College Vidyarthi Sabha, the Yawatmal Mahila Samaj from

Yawatmal, Panvel Siddharaj Prasadik Sangeet Mandal, Panvel and many other public groups

from Dharwad and Chalisgaon – organized public meetings to register their protests. When

345
Banutai Sahastrabuddhe (Manoranjan, July 1914)
346
Karve (2017: 54)

192
Dnyanprakash, the newspaper associated with the reformist creed in Pune, welcomed the

marriage and congratulated the couple, its copies were burnt publicly in Pune.

Dr. S V Ketkar, a Cornell-trained sociologist and the architect of the first Marathi

encyclopedia, who himself had married Edith Victoria Cohen, a German woman of Jewish origin

by converting her to Hinduism, and was severely criticized for it by the Pune orthodoxy,

supported Panandikar in a lukewarm manner. Mr. Shridhar Tilak, son of Lokmanya Tilak,

however, published a letter supporting Mr. and Mrs. Khan on July 10, 1927. He urged the public

of Pune to embrace the progressive couple and celebrate the principle of the individualism which

was at the root cause of this union.

Malini Panandikar wrote a long letter to the editor of Grihalaxmi as her full public

statement on the matter. It was published in the July 1927 issue of Grihalaxmi. Panandikar was

remarkably brave in standing her grounds amidst a wide public criticism and yet quite judicious

in her arguments about her rights:

―My marriage with Mr. Gulabkhan Bashiruddin Khan on the 27 th June of this
year (1927), under the civil marriage act, led to a controversy that I never expected.
Since it was my private matter which has now turned into a public controversy, I find
it necessary to provide my full testimony in front of the people.

The most important objection regarding my marriage was religious. I do not

believe that religion should interfere with matters of the heart. Marriage is a result of
true feelings of one‘s heart, where religion, caste, and economic status should have
no place. I was a Brahmo Samajist before marriage and even today I remain the
same. Because of this, there never was a question of conversion for either of us. The
other objection was about my father‘s approval. My father, being a Brahmo Samajist
himself and a true liberal in all matters, was never against my wishes. Those who
know that my father himself had remarried and suffered severe public criticism for it
would never raise this objection.

Mr. Khan and I were engaged to be married about a year ago, a fact well-
known to my family and friends is a testimony that it was not a rushed decision. It
also discredits the rumor about my marriage that it happened under some undesirable
pressure put on me. There never was any question of transferring my property to Mr.

193
 Khan, since I do not own any considerable property. Also, the gossip that Mr. Khan
was already married is utterly baseless and malicious.‖347

Though Panandikar‘s fierce defence of herself against the public outrage she witnessed

was admirable and indicative of the individuality of modern women in urban Maharashtra,

remarkably, her articulation of ‗matters of the heart‘ resonated entirely with the modern

novelists‘ depiction of the same. These inter-religious marriages were thorny affairs for everyone

involved. As mentioned earlier, Dr. Ketkar‘s marriage was met with criticism, even though he

was seeking to convert Ms. Edith Victoria Cohen into Hinduism through a ritual known as

Vratyastoma, which according to conservative pundits, such as Ahitagni Rajwade, was only

applicable for a Shuddhi or purification of a converted person who was previously Hindu. In

their universe, Hinduness (and by extension, caste) could only be attained by birth. Dr. Ketkar,

himself a Hindutvaite, however, found another priest in Yashwant Ramakrishna Date to facilitate

the conversion of Ms. Cohen into Hinduism and she was renamed as Sheelavati Ketkar on March

21st, 1920.348

Interestingly, Gajanan Vaidya, a non-Brahmin Hindu Missionary, who was a leading

proponent of Shuddhi and reconversion of Hindus from other religions, refrained from taking any

part in Mrs. Ketkar‘s conversion. Partly, due to his distrust of the Pune Brahmins and partly due

to the fear that the renaissance of old methods from Vedic texts to convert non-Hindus would

347
July 1927, Grihalaxmi, Page 49-50.
348
Another Ketkar is a case in point regarding how the interreligious marriages were not taken kindly by
the Brahmin orthodoxy. Gajanan Ketkar, grandson of Lokmanya Tilak, a staunch Hindutvaite and the editor of
Kesari from 15th August 1947, who wrote aggressively in Kesari to defend Savarkar and Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh (RSS) against all odds in the case of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, was imprisoned in independent
India for his editorials. In the prison, he met with Elva Redmond, a Christian nun who visited the prison to pray for
the Christian prisoners. They fell in love and married soon after and Elva Redmond became a Hindu and was
renamed as Amla Ketkar. However, Ketkar‘s marriage was such a blasphemous act that he was forced to resign
from the editorship of Kesari.

194
make his new methods redundant.349 While soon after the marriage of Ketkar, Y. R. Date, who

conducted the marriage as the priest, was severely condemned by the Pune orthodoxy. The Pune

Brahmins convinced Shankaracharya to issue an order against Date and his colleague Karve,

leading to Karve‘s eviction from his home. 350

As the white-collared middle-class literati cocooned themselves in their literary world they

lost track of the larger societal question of emancipation. Marathi literature that was so self-

avowedly progressive failed miserably to voice questions of alienation of the blue-collar

industrial worker or the wretched condition of the population displaced in the process of uneven

urbanization of modern India. Thus, while by embracing the materiality of the physical world as

opposed to the Vedantic inclination to consider it as an emblem of the unreal, the Marathi upper-

caste progressive intellectual brought the notion of the body at the center of the literary

imagination, this body, however, remained centrally preoccupied with pleasure and desire. They

indulged in the idea of the body that would distract them from the alienating tensions produced

in the everyday reproduction of modernity. The body of the untouchable or the question of the

subaltern body was far away from any attention from these writers at this point.

The Brahmin Body: Masculinity and Physical Culture

After the Panandikar-Khan marriage in 1927, Laxman Pangarkar, an orthodox kirtankar

and an editor of Mumukshu, a spiritual magazine, was very distressed. His wholehearted appeal

to the Brahmin young men was to arise and awake to stop the Brahmin women from marrying

into another religion. He urged them to build their bodies and become more masculine. 351 On the

349
D N Gokhale (1959: 117)
350
It is the same duo of Date and Karve who compiled a massive bibliography of Marathi print materials of
almost two hundred years into several volumes and who were the pillars of Ketkar‘s megaproject of Marathi
Dnyankosh (encyclopedia).
351
L R Pangarkar (Mumukshu: August, 1929)

195
other hand, he was furious with fellow-Hindutvaites like Vinayak Damodar Savarkar for

supporting inter-dinning between Brahmins and untouchables, and Balkrushna Shivram Moonje

who vociferously advocated the consumption of non-vegetarian food. On the other hand, Moonje

was also angry with Panandikar. A public meeting was organized in Nagpur under his

chairmanship to protest her inter-religious marriage, on July 24th, 1927, where Moonje openly

asked young Hindu men to use their wrists and their fists if their sisters do anything shameful

again. His appeal to the ladies was that they were the custodians of Hindu culture and should

remain faithful to it.352

Since the body was foundational to maintaining caste purity and social status, it was also

demarcating the differences between caste bodies and non-caste bodies, Hindu and non-Hindu

bodies. While Hindutvaites like Pangarkar and the Kesari group wanted to retain the distinction

between bodies, another set of Hindutvaites was striving to bridge the gaps between them. But

despite these differences, what the spectrum of Hindutva discourse was centrally concerned with

was the construction of Hindu masculinity and physical culture.

While a section of brahmins such as the romantics like Phadke who confined themselves to

the realms of culture and art by imagining literature as a sovereign space, were primarily

interested in Eros and the sexed body, on the other hand, the more politically inclined sections of

the Brahmins, such as the Hindutvaites, were obsessed with the notion of ‗power‘. A masculine

body of a Hindu man and a strong powerful body of the Hindu nation were the main objectives

of Hindutva politics, where both food and bodily exercises became paramount concerns.

Although Pangarkar‘s means were different from Savarkar‘s or Moonje‘s, his main concern was

the same: the state of bodies of the Hindu (Brahmin) men. All of them also ridiculed the

352
Balshastri Hardas and Veena Hardas (1989:220)

196
Gandhian idea to view the body as a labored body, and an ethical body, which in their view was

simply emasculating the Hindu social and political body.

Phadke also published a few articles on eugenics and a book titled, Sex Problem in India

(1927) 353 in English, to advocate that the national goals of development, progress and

modernization were being endangered on account of irresponsible sexual ―breeding‖ among

India‘s poor and marginal social groups. As Sanjam Ahluwalia has shown, by combining

eugenic and neo-Malthusian positions, Phadke made a case for spreading the knowledge of birth

control to improve Indian physiques. He believed that the use of new contraceptive technologies

would ensure healthy males for the development and modernization of the embryonic nation.

Phadke also argued that eugenics was not a western import but rather an idea indigenous to

India. Ahluwalia has shown that Phadke argued strongly that eugenics was indigenous to Indian

thinking and intellectual traditions. He asserted that eugenics was not a Western importation into

India. According to Phadke, the Upanishads and Sutras (ancient Hindu philosophical and

prescriptive texts) provided elaborate discussions of methods that, if practiced, would make

women mothers of warriors.354

Although, Ahluwalia has correctly pointed out that within the middle-class ambiguity vis-

à-vis projects of improvement that drew as much from ―Western‖ as from indigenous traditions

is evident in Phadke‘s writings on birth control and eugenics in colonial India, however, he has

wrongly attributed Phadke‘s project as Gandhian, due to Phadke‘s brief participation in the civil

disobedience movement. Ahluwalia argued that Phadke cited from Brahmanical canonical texts

because within the Gandhian nationalist context, Phadke did not want to be accused of importing

353
For a detailed account of Phadke‘s position on birth control and his advocacy of eugenics, see Sanjam
Ahluwalia, 2004: 183-205; and 2008.
354
Ahluwalia, 2008: 33

197
―foreign‖ ideas such as eugenics or birth control from the West.355Phadke‘s project was quite

opposite of Gandhian and in fact was part of the wider Hindu nationalist concern for physically

fit and modernizing nation as was also evident in Dr. Moonje.

Dr. Moonje was obsessed with the idea of the Hindu supremacy which he imagined

through physical power, numerical strength, and political aggression. Although a medical doctor

himself, who had fought in the Boer war in South Africa, he was convinced that vegetarianism

was a curse for the Hindus. In reply to Savarkar‘s assertion that the chief reason for the weakness

of the Hindus was the disarming of the Hindu society by the colonial regime, Moonje pointed out

the aggressive nature of Indian Muslims. If the Hindus and the Muslims were both disarmed then

why did it not tame the Muslims, was the question, Moonje asked. The answer he discovered for

that was meat-eating. He believed that the difference in eating habits between the Hindus and the

Muslims was the sole reason for the difference between their temperaments. He then proceeded

to inquire if any scriptures allowed or even encouraged Hindus to eat meat. After collecting

evidence from a few old scriptures, he delivered a public speech at Brahman Sabha in Mumbai,

where he advocated meat-eating for the Brahmins. This proposition shocked the orthodox

Brahmins to a great length. His long-held desire to start a military training school came to

fruition in 1936, when a military school, named after Chhatrapati Shivaji was established in

Nasik.

Laxmanrao Bhopatkar, another fierce advocate of disciplining the body for the building of

a strong Hindu society, wrote multiple books on physical culture, exercises, and Kusti

(wrestling). His English text My Systems of Physical Culture was one of the first attempts to

systematically historicize and theorize the importance and necessity of creating a physical culture

355
Ahluwalia, 2008: 33

198
for the Hindus356. Bhopatkar was the chairman of the Maharashtra Vyayam Prasarak Mandal and

in Richard Cashman‘s words, ―relished the heroic role of a Kshatriya Brahman with its related

attributes of courage and self-discipline.‖357 His text Physical Culture was one of the first

attempts to systematically historicize and theorize the importance and necessity of creating a

physical culture for the Hindus 358.

Physical Culture (1928) and Striyanche Vyayam (1932) by L. B. Bhopatkar

Dattatreya Chintaman Mujumdar, son in law of the King of Aundh, who himself was an

ardent advocate of Surya Namaskar, a popular form of physical culture in Maharashtra, ran

Vyayam, an exclusive Marathi journal for bodily exercises and physical culture for more than

356
L B Bhopatkar (1928)
357
Richard Cashman (1975:188)
358
L B Bhopatkar (1928) Bhopatkar also published a Marathi book titled Physical Exercises for Women
(1932)

199
three decades from Baroda.359 He also edited and published a 5000-page gigantic encyclopedia

of physical exercises in ten volumes, titled as Vyayam Dnyankosh, published between 1936 and

1949.360

The first volume of Vyayam Dnyankosh (Encyclopaedia of physical Exercises), edited and

published by Dattatreya Chintaman Mujumdar in 1936. At the center is the image of the

Monkey-god Maruti from Ramayana – renowned for both Bhakti (devotion) and Shakti

(strength).

Narayan Hari Apte‘s (1898-1971) immensely popular novel Sukhacha Mulmantra (The

Happiness Sutra), was serially published in Vyayam in 1915 and was eventually printed in a

359
For a detailed discussion of the journal Vyayam, see, Namrata Ganneri (2012: 121-143)
360
D C Karandikar (Mujumdar) edited and published the first volume of the encyclopedia of Physical
Culture in 1936. The whole project was completed with the publication of the tenth volume in 1949.

200
book-form in 1924.361 In the novel, Apte emphasized the importance of physical exercises for

children and young adults in a preliminary yet exceedingly effective plot. Sukhacha Mulmantra

was based in a town that was tied to a new form of temporality – the clock – through two modern

means: Railway and the English school, both of which have brought the town into modernity.

Apte portrayed two very contrasting characters which he pitched against one another: Balwant

Sahastrabuddhe, an 18-year-old nationalist boy who performs 500 Surya Namaskar every day

but failed his matriculation exams twice, while Mukund Joshi was shown as a smoker, addicted

to tea, and who frequently eats at restaurants. Mukund is also a fan of George W M Reynold‘s

novels, poetry, and theatre. Balwant rises early while Mukund is usually awakened by the rays of

high noon. Through Balwant, Apte promoted the significance and even the inevitable necessity

of maintaining and cultivating the body. The two lives of the central characters were depicted

with various details of such contrasts and the novel ends with the transformation in Mukund

when he donates 500 rupees to the movement for physical exercises and agreed to deliver

lectures on the effects of bad habits on the body based on his own experiences.

Sukhacha Mulmantra was a literary implication of an enormously popular theory

amongst the early twentieth-century Maratha-Brahmins that the Brahmin saint-poet Ramdas was

the political guru of the Maratha warrior Chhatrapati Shivaji. In Apte‘s novel, Balwant

Sahastrabuddhe (the first name ‗Balwant‘ would instantly remind the reader of Balwantrao

Tilak) was called a ‗modern Ramdas‘ by one of his friends and Balwant, in response, decided to

start the ‗Maharashtra Vyayam Mandal‘. (Maharashtra Institute for Physical Exercise) to teach

Maharashtra the significance of cultivation of the body and spotless character much like Ramdas

361
Narayan Hari Apte (1924)

201
did in the seventeenth century.362 Incidentally, Captain Shivrampant Damale started Maharashtra

Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, a major center for physical exercises in Maharashtra on Tilak road in

Sadashiv Peth in Pune city in 1924, in the same year in which Sukhacha Mulmantra was

published in a book form.363 The Brahmin community was clearly at the center of the novel,

which elaborately displayed their belief that it was their duty to be perfect in this world. Their

ideal was to be the teachers for the emergent nation. The novel also reflected subtle fears of

emasculation along with the sense of bitterness about their decline in the society amongst the

Brahmins.

―The sketch of the brahmin community in Sukhacha Mulmantra showed two distinct

tendencies: on the one hand, there was frustration due to their deep-rooted belief that they were

deliberately being neglected, and their anger against those who they felt were responsible for it:

the Colonial regime and the Muslims who were emboldened by that regime.‖ 364

In summary, the thrust of Apte‘s message was to cultivate the body through physical

exercises and sexual control for maintaining and building a strong Hindu nation.

362
One of the aims of the Mandal was ―to train persons in the science and technique of all forms and kinds
(western and eastern) of physical exercises, athletics, games and sports, and to establish a museum of all instruments
and weapons of offence and defence‖. However, as Ganneri has argued, its explicit aim was ―to train only Hindu
boys and youth‖ to the exclusion of other communities. (Ganneri, 2012: 134)
363
S M Bhave (2009:179)
364
Ibid: 182

202
 Members of the Maharashtra Vyayam Prasarak Mandal

Top row from left to right: B V Damle, S V Damle, N V Thatte, L G Talwalkar, G M Angul;

Middle row (Sitting): S. L. Dravid, L. B. Bhopatkar, S. R. Joshi; Bottom row: B. L. Dravid, C. L.

Bhopatkar, N. V. Sane.365

As discussed in the second chapter, Mahadev Shastri Divekar‘s book Hindu Samaj

Samartha Kasa Hoil? (How would the Hindu society be Strong?), published in 1930, contained a

chapter titled, ‗Thoughts on Bodily Strength‘, where he made a public appeal to every Hindu

parent that they should make a resolution that they will never forget the God, the country and

365
Picture from Bhopatkar‘s text Physical Culture; reprinted in a photo-essay by Namrata Ganneri titled,
Pahalwan Portraits: Manly Consumers of Physical Culture in Western India.
http://www.tasveergharindia.net/essay/pahalwan-portraits#_ednref36

203
physical exercises. 366 Rashtriya Vichardarpan, a book written by Balkrushna Kadhe, an activist

of Hindu Mahasabha provided a long list of things that caused the decline of Hindu society: tea,

coffee, cocoa, soda, lemon, tobacco, bidi, cigarette, cheroot, hotel, non-vegetarian food, drama,

cinema, dance, tamasha (folk theatre), and erotic literature particularly the new novels. 367

Prachi Deshpande has correctly argued that the revival of interest in physical fitness from

the 1920s displayed not only a more centralized and bureaucratic nature than the earlier Akharas

but also a much stronger interest in Hindu communitarian politics. Organizations like

Maharashtriya Mandal, Maharashtra Vyayam Shala, the Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal,

and similar associations appeared in many towns across Maharashtra, most of which were

patronized and run by Tilakites like Bhopatkar, Hedgewar, and Moonje, which prepared the

groundwork for the development of Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak

Sangh.368

Thus, body, sexuality, and gender were at the heart of the modernist Marathi Hindu elites

– including the Hindutvaites and the romantics – between the inter-war periods. The body was

the central trope for literary fiction in Marathi, and it was equally significant in the real lives at

the urban centers of Marathi modernity, particularly since 1920.

Art, Ethics, and Obscenity: Oleti and other debates

The principle of Individualism grew quite rapidly amongst the English-educated,

urbanized, white-collared class of Marathi literati. This individualism quickly turned into self-

centric hedonism and a desire to maximize one‘s pleasure and happiness at all times. In the new

paradigm, unleashed by N S Phadke, where the romanticism of Ravikiran Mandal was

366
Mahadev Shastri Divekar (1930: 6-7)
367
Sadanand More (2007:920)
368
Deshpande (2007: 190-91)

204
transformed into a more indulgent hedonistic idea of physical love. Purushottam Yashwant

Deshpande‘s novel Bandhananchya Palikade (Beyond Restraints, 1927) appropriately

represented the sentiments and desires of this class.

However, the shackles and the restrains here signified merely those social obstacles that

stood in the way of maximizing an individual‘s romantic and material desires. For the orthodox

Marathi reader and the literary critic, this new literature was clearly ‗unethical‘. It is important

to note here, that the term ethics in Marathi literary and intellectual discourses in this period,

primarily referred to the social norms about heterosexual romance and the physical act of sex.

And since the control over heterosexual romance was a key to retain clear distinctions between

castes, sexual morality was also caste morality and therefore was termed ‗ethical‘. Thus, when

an orthodox critic or a newspaper columnist or even a common reader was calling this new

literature ‗unethical‘, what they primarily meant was that this literature promoted breaching the

gendered values of caste.369

In this atmosphere, Thakur Singh‘s painting Oleti (A Drenched Woman) was printed as a

cover page for Ratnakar, a literary magazine in June 1930. Oleti was a portrayal of the backside

of a recently bathed woman. She was shown to be wearing a thin cloth that was tightly clinging

to her drenched body. It was a colored painting in the style of photographic realism. Oleti was

very controversial in the Marathi public sphere throughout the 1930s and led to a great number

of debates about the relationship between art and obscenity, where the central concern was not

the quality of the artistic expression but the moral anxiety about the depiction of female sexuality

through the works of art.

369
Kale dissuaded Madkholkar from publishing the poetry of Patwardhan in the supplement of
Dnyanprakash as he was afraid that it will affect the morality of his daughters.

205
Oleti, of course, was not the only controversial painting of that time. Earlier Thakur Singh‘s

another painting, originally titled, Letter Hit, renamed in Marathi as Pranayinicha Manobhanga

(a disheartened lover) was used as a cover page of Ratnakar (July 1928), was also widely

debated in Marathi. The painting showed a woman from the front, lost in her thoughts and

standing near a bed with a corner of her sari in her hand.

Pranayinicha Manobhanga (A Disheartened Lover) by Thakur Singh, the cover page of Marathi

literary journal Ratnakar, July 1928.

Another painting by P R Shirur, titled Odha Olandtana (while crossing the stream),

published on the cover of Stree (Diwali 1928) was also condemned by many as obscene. Shirur‘s

206
painting showed a man carrying a woman while crossing a stream, which was considered

immoral by many. Of course, there were many literary pieces – poems, stories, plays, and novels

– that were also considered sexually explicit or alluring. But Oleti was probably the most talked-

about artistic expression in the context of the early twentieth-century debates about obscenity in

Marathi.

207
Oleti (After the Bath) by SG Thakur Singh published on the Cover page of a Marathi monthly

Ratnakar (June-July 1930)

208
 Gangadhar Kanitkar, an educationist from Jabalpur wrote an article condemning the

painting. He argued that Oleti was an abuse of art which will have a perverse effect on the minds

of young adults. Kanitkar‘s essay, Disgraceful Art and the Oleti painting in Ratnakar, originally

published in Dnyanprakash, was reprinted in Ratnakar, where Oleti had first appeared, to invite

more discussion about such artistic works. Kanitkar considered Oleti as an obscene painting and

believed that it strayed away from the pure path of the Aryan culture. According to him, Oleti

portrayed womanhood in a derogatory manner and it did so because the artist was heavily

influenced by western forms of art. While discussing whether obscenity lies in the eyes of the

viewer, Kanitkar argued that obscenity lies both in the painting and in the eyes of the spectators.

His thrust was on the motive of the artist, as he argued further: the artists who drew the half-

naked or naked portraits of women were never motivated by the desire to serve art, but they

usually have commercial interests at heart which then derogates the woman in particular, and

womanhood in general.

The other articles invited by Ratnakar included: Art, Oleti and Ratnakar by P S Kale;

Disgracing Oleti by P. K. Atre; Art, Artist and Character by Srinivasrao Pant Pratinidhi, the

ruler of the princely state of Aundh; Oleti and Women by Rani Thakar; and An unwarranted

ignominy of Oleti by an ‗art-enthusiast‘.370 Most of these articles attempted to defend the

painting. The common argument there was that the painting in itself could not harm the moral

character of the spectator. Many of these articles pointed out the traditional Indian sculptures at

Ajanta and Khajuraho and the modern paintings by Ravi Varma to argue that the ‗Aryan‘ culture

had also been portraying what Kanitkar would find inappropriate. Atre claimed that the artist did

not mean to evoke erotic emotions because if he had wanted to do that he would have portrayed

the lady from a different angle. Though most of these articles defended Oleti, generally the entire
370
Rameshchandra Patkar (2009: 108)

209
discussion remained confined to the perception of the female body as a sexed body and as a

source of moral anxiety for society.

Being unhappy about the discussion in Ratnakar, Kanitkar wrote a letter to T S

Shejwalkar, renowned historian, social commentator and editor of a respected journal, Pragati

(Progress) on 14th November 1930. In the letter, Kanitkar mentioned that he had initiated a

debate about art and obscenity in Ratnakar and that he had also appealed to women readers to

respond to the concerns he had raised. But he would also like an opinion from an independent

and fierce thinker like Shejwalkar on the matter in his journal Pragati.371 Shejwalkar

characteristically discussed the difference in the degree of modernity absorbed in centers like

Pune/Mumbai and places like Jabalpur, where Kanitkar lived. Shejwalkar pointed out that a

staunch traditionalist like Pant Pratinidhi‘s justification of Oleti was indicative of the acceptance

of modern forms of life in the centers of Maharashtrian modernity. By referring to John Flugel‘s

work The Psychology of Clothes, published in the same year, Shejwalkar wrote that in the

modern world the terminology of morality was being continuously transformed and he suggested

that Kanitkar should accept the ways of the rapidly changing world 372.

However, an imminent poet and literary critic, B R Tambe, from Indore, another

periphery of Maharashtrian modernity, defended Oleti in a literary address he delivered in poetry

meet at Ujjain in December 1931.373 In an essay titled, Kala Aani Niti (Art and Ethics), Tambe

laid out the ‗Arts-for-Art‘s-sake‘ argument with special reference to Oleti. Tambe argued for a

seemingly contradictory position on the relationship between art and ethics. He began by stating

that there never was or should ever be any relationship between art and ethics and yet his central

371
Shejwalkar (Pragati year 2nd, issue 28, December 1930; reprinted in Shejwalkar 1940: 185)
372
Shejwalkar (1940: 191)
373
B R Tambe (published as a small booklet in 1932)

210
argument was that it is art, where true ethics originate. Interestingly, his terminology for ethics

was taken from the Hindu spiritual language (the same terminology was applied by a Gandhian

thinker, S D Javdekar to quite an opposite goal) and yet, it did not surrender to the traditionalist

notions of sexual morality. By ethics, Tambe – and indeed most of the Marathi literary critics of

his times – referred primarily to the sexual morality of society. After affirming that there is no

relationship between art and ethics, he went on to provide examples to justify his case: music,

dance, and sculpture.

―Had a sculptor ever been successful in changing the heart of a promiscuous man? Had

the Taj Mahal ever reformed a drunkard? Had a musician ever taught a lesson in morality?‖ -

were the questions Tambe raised in his essay. Then he turned his attention to two other forms of

art: literature and painting. After providing a range of passages indicating to the breaching of

conventional sexual morality from the works of Shakespeare and Byron to Kalidasa and

Shudraka, Tambe definitively asserted that art never did and should not preach ethical values.

Tambe imagined art in the form of a beautiful young woman wandering like breeze – unchained

and free from the burden of ethical codes. For Tambe, Art was also free from any ends or goals,

free from the mundane functioning of this world. Here Tambe visualized art in the form of a

beautiful flower that blossomed without a cause and spread joy without asking for returns. The

true character of art for Tambe was to remain self-indulgent while being detached from the

dialectic of ethical and unethical.

―Much like the way children play games, art should also exist for the sake of self-

expression. However, since art is the betterment of material reality, like the flower depicted in art

is as beautiful as the real flower but also free from its thorns and the flies that move around the

real material flower. The flower in art pleases us more than the real flower…In the real world,

211
ethics are distorted, truth is contaminated by falsity and beauty is polluted by unpleasantness but

in art, one can witness an absolute truth, absolute morality, and absolute beauty.‖ 374

The example Tambe chose to illustrate his argument about the nature of art was Oleti.

―The feelings that may be aroused by seeing a real drenched woman would not emerge by seeing

a painting of Oleti. Because the real woman is ‗real‘ and that materiality is absent in the painting.

The artistic expression is composed of ethereal elements. The real woman may cause an earthly

desire but the painting will only lead to an expression such as: ―oh! What a beauty!‖ Since the

material body which is the place of origin of desire, is absent in artistic representation, the

experience of art will not be contaminated by sinful desires.‖ 375

This experience is what Tambe called ‗Sahaj Samadhi‟ (entrancement). But, this

entrancement, he further argued, will not be possible if it is a photograph of the drenched

woman.

―Undoubtedly, photographs are contaminated by desire as they are copies of reality.

Since photography is a mechanical act and not real art, it cannot transform reality into an ethereal

experience. Photography is a realistic imitation while art is an idealistic re-creation and it is in

this re-creation, art gives birth to absolute beauty and absolute truth and absolute ethics.‖ 376

Tambe thus had imagined a parallel universe of art where the embodied subjectivity of

the spectator was either transported to the artistic universe or was nullified altogether. And

though Tambe imagined art to be entirely independent of social morality, his discussion of it

remained confined to the framework of the religious universe as evident from his usage of terms

like sinfulness, transcending the materiality of the body and the idea of entrancement.

374
B R Tambe (1932: 22-23)
375
B R Tambe (1932: 23-24)
376
B R Tambe (1932: 31)

212
 Literature in early-twentieth-century Maharashtra, with the English-educated urban

middle class as both the producer and the consumer of it, was imagined as a sovereign field. The

Marathi public sphere that emerged through the advent of print culture in the nineteenth-century

has not only widened its influence numerically but also transformed its ethical character. The

‗sovereignty‘ of literary activity was to declare independence from the ethical burden of the

Prabodhan period (the enlightenment project) imagined through the works of Lokhitwadi and

Phule to Tilak and Shahu Maharaj. The romanticized view of literature desired to be free from

the pressures of ethics and morals. It was largely the Brahmin class which was at the center of

this literary production. They were charmed by the ‗style of narration‘ rather than the content of

it. And the literary value was then imagined to be independent of other aspects of the social.

Following James Whistler, the leading English proponent of ‗Art for Arts‘ sake‘, it was argued

that the basic objective of art and literature was not to preach ethical values or to exhibit great

scholarship but to lay bare the truth and beauty for the reader.

Though this idea of literature as a sovereign space emerged since the 1920s, novelist N S

Phadke first systematically argued this position in Pratibhasadhan, published in 1930.Soon after

the publication of Pratibhasadhan, Phadke was accused of plagiarism by R P Kanitkar. In an

article in Dnyanprakash, published on October 14th, 1932, Kanitkar claimed that Pratibhasadhan

was heavily copied from Clayton Hamilton‘s Manual of the Art of Fiction, originally published

in 1918. Phadke replied in the next issue of Dnyanprakash that he only had taken three

paragraphs and twelve sentences from Hamilton. The accusation, however, became a public

debate and eventually led to the establishment of a 15-member committee including renowned

literary and academic figures such as Shripad Mahadev Mate, P. K. Atre, and Datto Vaman

Potdar among others to investigate the truth of the matter. Phadke published the first of his

213
autobiographies, ‗The memories of my service to literature‘ in 1943 where he tried to downplay

the whole affair. Then Shankar Devbhakta ran a series of articles with a pen name

‗Adhijyadhanva‘ in Vividhdnyanvistar with a title, ―Phadke Thapa Maru Naka!‖ (Phadke, stop

your lies!) 377. Marathi literary world of the early twentieth century was full of such meaningless

and inconsequential fights and debates.378 This tendency of ‗bickering and indulging in egoistic

battles‘ through periodicals and newspapers was also an indication of the self-absorbed and

autistic nature of the Marathi literary world.

But, Pratibhasadhan also led to probably the most famous debate in mid-twentieth

century Marathi literary history on the relationship between art and ethics leading to the creation

of two opposing fractions: ‗art for arts‘ sake‘ and ‗art for life‘s sake‘. Phadke was the leading

proponent of the first position and many others such as V S Khandekar and Gandhian activists

like S D Javdekar were on the side of ‗art-for-life‘. Much like the earlier late nineteenth-century

debate between Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Gopal Ganesh Agarkar about favoring internal social

reform or anti-colonial political struggle, this debate also did not lead to any meaningful

resolution. An examination of a well-known debate between Phadke and Javdekar on what

constitutes progressive literature would give us a clearer idea of the arguments of both sides.

Acharya Shankar Dattatreya Javdekar spoke as a president at the Mumbai Suburban annual

literary meet on 17th August 1941, where he stressed on the organic link between life and art. N

S Phadke wrote a series of articles in Zankar and invited Javdekar to respond. Their discussion

was later published in a book form with a title, Purogami Sahitya (Progressive Literature).379

377
For more details on this controversy, see Pratibhalanchhan by Shankar Devbhakta (1944).
378
See for example, the Atre-Mate controversy, the Atre-Phadke controversy, the Atre-Varerkar fight, the
Phadke-Khandekar debate, the Atre-Bhave fight and countless more.
379
Javdekar (October 1941)

214
Javdekar‘s central thesis was that art was essentially and organically connected to ethics,

spirituality, and psychology, wherein spirituality should be given the highest importance. Since

art, knowingly or not, present a philosophy of life, the duty of the modern artist was to propose a

new ethic and be prepared to be condemned for it until that new ethic was accepted by society.

The work of the artist should aspire to transform the world. As ethical ideals of society were

historically contingent, they should be transgressed by artists to propose a more appropriate

ethical code, which would allow the artist to transform society through his artistic talent and

moral character. Thus, the artist should not consider himself above the moral realm of society.

By critiquing the Phadke paradigm, Javdekar proposed the renewal of idealist literary values.

In Javdekar‘s words:

―There were attempts to awaken the soul of Maharashtra between 1880 and
1920, and as a result, idealist works of literature were produced. But since then, the
idealism was thrown away by the intellectual classes to endorse pragmatism. The
newspapers run by them ridiculed the ideals of Gandhism and the fiction produced
by this class used Freudian theories of the mind to justify the bodily desires. And
they mocked the idea that the soul should overpower these desires. Then the
revolutionary theory of Marxism emerged, which again was pitched against
Gandhism to disdain the ideals of dharma and spirituality. Slogans such as
‗promiscuity is no sin‘; ‗Brahmacharya as Adharma‟ and ‗absolute ahimsa is a sin‘
came up. They argued that literature should be ‗realistic‘ and politics should be
‗pragmatic‘. But realistic literature and pragmatic politics do not mean the
degradation of our ideals. In fact, the realism in literature and of the revolutionaries
has never been antithetical to idealism but to romanticism, which has heavily
influenced Marathi literature since 1920…Our contemporary literature has
preoccupied itself with the subconscious desires of the mind and longings of the
body without ever describing the attempts of the soul to overpower them. This
literature, though it calls itself Purogami (progressive), in my opinion, is utterly
regressive. Human history is the history of the battles for freedom of the mind and
the body. The literature that inspires us to strive for these battles to win over our
desires and to awaken the soul is the true revolutionary, and therefore, progressive
literature.‖380

380
Javdekar (1941: 22-25)

215
 Javdekar‘s argument was grounded in the idea of the four Purusharthas: Dharma, Artha,

Kama, and Moksha. He considered dharma and moksha as the true ends of human life and

should be hailed as such by the artists. He refuted the modern materialist view of Phadke that

was grounded in Kama and Artha and denied any space for Dharma and Moksha. For Javdekar, a

culture based only on the ideals of Artha and Kama was essentially an animalistic culture, as

only the ideals of dharma and moksha could lend a human character to a culture. Javdekar

argued that there were two ways of thinking about Dharma: progressive and regressive. The

regressive way was delimited by the authority it accorded to the supremacy of the word, while

the progressive way contended that for the true development of self and society, certain moral

principles were essential which Javdekar termed as Dharma, while Moksha for him was a way of

being selfless in the service of this world. He insisted that his usage of these terms was not

metaphysical and otherworldly but grounded in the materiality of public life. 381At the end of his

speech, Javdekar referred to the famous Marxian dictum about the point of changing the world

and reframed it in the Gandhian language to assert that the changing of the world begins with

changing oneself. He concluded by urging Maharashtra to synthesize the ideals of nationalism,

democracy, and individualism, established by Tilak and Agarkar, with that of social equality to

build democratic socialism.

In response to Javdekar‘s speech, Phadke wrote four articles in Zankar. In the first two

essays, after providing a neat summary of Javdekar‘s arguments, Phadke refuted Javdekar‘s

central thesis that ethics and art are organically linked. Through the example of how Socrates

was condemned by the then existing social morality of the Greeks, Phadke argued that social

ethics and truth may contradict each other and therefore truth should never surrender to public

381
Javdekar (1941: 15-22)

216
morality. By reducing Javdekar‘s notion of ethics for social transformation to popular notions of

morality, Phadke distorted his argument to claim the sovereignty of art and literature.

In the other two essays, Phadke argued that Artha and Kama are foundational to human life and

that both the ancient Hindu idea of considering Artha and Kama as Purusharthas and modern

western philosophers like Freud and Marx had proposed the same. According to Phadke, both

ancient Indian and modern western wisdom believed that Artha and Kama are necessary but

should be regulated; however, this regulation should not be done by spiritual notions of dharma

and moksha. Phadke dismissed Javdekar‘s belief that there was a progressive way of thinking

about dharma. He argued that there was absolutely no possibility of the existence of the idea of

dharma from Marxian-Freudian analysis. In light of the true materialist progressivism, the ideas

of dharma and moksha were redundant for Phadke. Ultimately Phadke called Javdekar a

Purogami (progressive) much like himself and also agreed with Javdekar‘s definition of

progressive literature minus the notions of dharma and moksha and claimed that Javdekar

remained just outside of the den of the Purogami writers and if had abandoned the notions of

dharma and moksha then he would have even entered it.

Javdekar‘s reply to Phadke‘s criticism was titled, ‗A philosophical refutation of Phadke‘s

critique‘, although it was more academic than philosophical. He discussed a range of writers

from Will Durant, Leo Tolstoy, M G Ranade, Mackenzie and Keynes to Keshavsut, Eknath and

Dnyaneshwar to again elaborate on the argument he had made earlier that ethics is the source of

art and knowledge.

R D Karve, the famous activist for birth-control, a fierce rationalist and a commentator

with an uncompromising language, also severely criticized Javdekar for his speech in his journal

Samajswasthya in a column named ‗Sharada‘s Letters‘. He called Javdekar‘s speech a rare piece

217
of garbage. He wrote that since Brahma and Moksha were absolute deceptions, to consider these

terms scientific was a greater fraud. To put it in Karve‘s own words:

―Javdekar said that the artist should transgress the ethical norm to propose a more

appropriate ethical code, which would allow him to transform society through his moral

character. Has Javdekar himself understood the meaning of this statement? The artist, who

transgressed the established ethical code of the society, would be called characterless, how then

would he be able to transform society through his moral character?... I pity Javdekar‘s ignorance,

but what else could be expected from a disciple of Gandhi?‖ 382

At the end of Purogami Sahitya, a letter from Phadke was published, where he restated

his older objection that no rationalist would be satisfied with Javdekar‘s explanation wrapped

under the foggy language of spirituality. Narayan Seetaram Phadke ended his letter with the

following note:

―Javdekar‘s desire to call himself a progressive by naming us regressive is so drastically

in contrast with his earlier self-effacing confession in his speech that he was ready to accept the

label of a regressive. And it makes me wonder if this whole exercise was Javdekar‘s attempt at

humor.‖383

Phadke‘s was a question worth asking about manifold aspects of Marathi literary culture

of the early twentieth century.

As I sought to demonstrate through this chapter, the interplay between sexuality, caste,

and power was central to the early twentieth century Marathi literary culture. A range of

characteristics – an emphasis on materiality and body, rationality and a conscious individualism

– all of which came to be associated with the idea of Maharashtrian progressivism became

382
R D Karve (Samajswasthya, October 1941; reprinted in Karve, 2010: 93-94)
383
Javdekar (1944: 154)

218
apparent in the literary and intellectual culture during this era. Romanticism – popularized by

poetry circles and novelists like Phadke – paved the way for a new moral aesthetic, with a new

conception of body and gender relations, and cultivated a new sense of social self that was based

upon romanticized (caste) aesthetics. It also cultivated an idea that literary and aesthetic

emancipation was to be the desired goal for the educated, urbanized, upper-caste elites. And as

the various conversations on the relationship between art and obscenity have shown, the

materiality of the sexed body, its romantic and sensual fervor was at the center of this new

literary culture in the post-Tilak age.

219
 Conclusion

Prabhakar Padhye, a renowned intellectual and S. R. Tikekar, a journalist, published an

edited volume titled, Aajkalcha Maharashtra: Vaicharik Pragati [Contemporary Maharashtra: an

Intellectual Progress], in 1935. The first line of the text was, ―They say that nothing grows in

Maharashtra except rationality.‖ 384

This self-image that was cultivated in Marathi intellectual culture, particularly in the

early twentieth century was central to the construction and wide dissemination of the narratives

of progress in Maharashtra. It is also important to note the all-encompassing nature of this

progressivism which was internalized across Marathi intellectual culture. Bhargavram Varerkar

(1883-1964), a prolific Marathi novelist and playwright, whose work Sanyashacha Sansar, we

have cited in the context of Kshatra Jagadguru in the first chapter, translated many Bangla novels

particularly of Sarat Chandra Chatterjee, in Marathi. In the introduction to his thirteenth

translation of Sarat Chandra, a novel called Biraj Bau, titled as Viraj Vahini in Marathi,

published in 1943, Varerkar wrote:

―The contemporary reader might find this story a little orthodox. And, it indeed is. But,

we need to remember that in comparison with Maharashtra even contemporary Bengal is far

more conservative in its social customs. The fearless progressivism portrayed in Marathi literary

corpus is very rare in Bangla literature. It would be wise if the Marathi reader, accustomed to the

continuous elongating of the limits of progressivism in Maharashtra, recollects his conservative

imagination while reading this melodramatic saga of a Bengali family.‖385

384
Prabhakar Padhye and S R Tikekar, (1995:3)

385
Varerkar, B V Viraj Vahini (Mumbai: Navbharat Prakashan Sanstha, 1943: pp. 3-4)

220
 As we have seen through this dissertation, narratives of Maharashtra‘s progressivism and

a complex multi-centered notion of modern Hinduness co-produced one another through the

course of an intellectual and cultural history of the early twentieth century Maharashtra. This

progressivism produced through manifold discursive and literary texts also incorporated a

parallel production of a modernist and masculinized idea of Hinduness. The Kirloskar magazines

– whose most prolific writers were Divekar Shastri, V D Savarkar and N S Phadke – which

functioned as vital producers of the recipe of Maharashtrian modernity with ingredients like

rationalism, empiricism, a form of agnosticism, and a masculinized sense of Maharashtra‘s

historical self, etc. and yet retained its deep ties with tradition, would be another case in point. It

is also important to note here that the common thread between the many representatives of

Maharashtra‘s anti-Gandhism – Tilakites, Sanatana Pundits, Savarkar and Savarkarites,

Ambedkar and Ambedkarites, Marxists and rationalists like R. D. Karve – was formed out of this

specific modernism.

Ironically or otherwise, Nathuram Godse was also a product of this fabric of

Maharashtra‘s exceptionalism and progressivism. In his last testament presented to the court

after being sentenced to death for assassinating Mahatma Gandhi, Nathuram Said:

―Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion,

Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism
as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking, unfettered by any
superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked
actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth
alone. I openly joined RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all
Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be

221
 considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a
particular caste or profession.‖ 386

If the name of the speaker of these sentences was hidden, these would fit seamlessly into

any narrative of Maharashtra‘s progressivism.

After the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Godse, an anti-Brahmin rioting began

across Maharashtra in 1948. Many Brahmin households were burnt and their properties were

looted. These riots further reinforced the sentiments amongst the Brahmins, expressed by the

Brahmin intellectuals like Shivram Pant Damle and Vasudevrao Bhave as we have seen in the

first chapter, to withdraw from political activities and engage in individualist economic welfare.

Gajanan Madkholkar, a renowned novelist and a former member of Ravikiran Mandal (which

was dissolved by then) also suffered heavy losses. He wrote a comprehensive account of his

experiences in a book form titled, Eka Nirvasitachi Kahani [Story of a Displaced]. Madkholkar

was a staunch critic of Gandhi but was shocked to hear the news of his assassination and his

house was attacked while he was penning a passionate obituary of Gandhiji. 387

When Nathuram Godse read Madkholkar‘s book in jail, he wrote a letter to him on

November 14th, 1949, a day before the execution of his death sentence. In that letter, Godse

explicated his reasons for assassinating Gandhi, the chief amongst them being Gandhi‘s pro-

Muslim policies. He narrated a rather lengthy tale of the various atrocities took place particularly

on Hindu women during partition and even asked Madkholkar to imagine his wife to be one of

them. He requested Madkholkar to write a novel on the subject as well. Towards the end, he tried

386
Nathuram Godse: 'May it Please Your Honour': Why I killed Gandhi (1948: 1) Nathuram Godse
assassinated Gandhiji on 30 January 1948. The trial began on 27 May 1948 and concluded on 10 February 1949. He
was sentenced to death.

387
Madkholkar (1949: 1-5)

222
to justify killing the Mahatma by blaming him for the mayhems of partition. His last sentence

was:

―Gandhi is immortal; but Gandhism is on its deathbed. The days of falling prey to

blackmailing and coercion are about to be over. With Gandhi‘s death, the dawn of rationalism is

finally arriving.‖388

This phrase that Godse used, ‗a dawn of rationalism‘ is a testimony to the intensity of the

interconnected nature of the relationship between the narratives of Maharashtra‘s progressivism

and a complex phenomenon of modern Hinduness.

388
Nathuram Godse‘s letter to Madkholkar was first published in a Marathi monthly Sobat in October
1970; it was republished in Gopal Godse‘s Panchavanna Kotinche Bali [The Martyrs of Fifty-five Crores] (2012:
177)

223
 Bibliography

Note: Archival materials, newspapers, journals, magazines, pamphlets and private papers

are listed below under ‘Primary Sources’. All secondary works and dissertations in

Marathi and English are listed separately below under as ‘Works Cited’. Marathi titles are

followed by their English Translations.

Primary Sources

Newspapers/Journals/Magazines [Marathi]

Bahishkrit Bharat

Bhala

Dharma

Dnyanodaya

Granthmala

Grihalaxmi

Jagruti

Karamnuk

Kesari

Kirloskar

Lokmanya

Maharashtra Dharma

Majur

Manohar

Muknayak

224
Mumukshu

Prabodhan

Samajswasthya

Samarth

Samata

Stree

Vijayi Maratha

Vividhdnyanvistar

Vyayam

Newspapers/Journals/Magazines [English]

Harijan

Indian Opinion

Pamphlets/Booklets [Marathi]

Author unknown. Shrimant Tukojirao Pawar, Rajesaheb Devas, Thorali Pati, Yanche

Kshatriyatvacha Nirnaya [The Decision on the Kshatriya Status of Tukojirao Pawar, the

ruler of Devas (Marathi version of the order of the Dwarka Peeth, Acknowledging the

Kshatriya status of the Devas ruler)] Kolhapur: Jainendra Press, 1908.

Bhave, Vasudev Krishna. Brahmanetar Vadache Swaroop va Brahman Jatichi Sadyasthiti

[Nature of Non-Brahmanism and the contemporary condition of Brahmins]. Pune:

Shankar Ramachandra Date, 1926.

Chirputkar, Mahadev Shastri. Asprishyatesambandhi Prashnottare [Conversations on

225
 Untouchability]. Mumbai: Sanatana Dharma Sabha, 1932.

Kevalananda Saraswati Yanchi Panchyahattaravi Varshyapurti: Vrittanta ani Jamakharcha

[75th Birth Anniversary of Kevalananda Saraswati: A Report and an Audit]. Wai:

Pradnyapathshala Mandal,

Landage, Sitaram Babaji. Parvati Satyagraha va Sanatani urf Saitani Sprishya [Parvati

Satyagraha or the satanic Caste-Hindus]. Pune: Sugava Prakashan, 1932.

Papers (English and Marathi)

Rajarshi Shahu Chhatrapati Papers, edited by Vilas Sangave, Vol. III. (Vedokta Controversy)

Shahu Research Center, Shivaji University: Kolhapur, 1985.

Rajarshi Shahu Chhatrapati Papers, edited by Vilas Sangave, Vol. VIII. (Impetus to Social

Legislation and Non-Brahmin Movement) Shahu Research Center, Shivaji University:

Kolhapur, 2001.

Rajarshi Shahu Chhatrapati Papers, edited by Vilas Sangave, Vol. IX. (Installation of Kshatra

Jagadguru and End of an Epoch) Shahu Research Center, Shivaji University: Kolhapur,

2005.

Secondary Sources

Ph.D. Dissertations [Unpublished]

(English)

Jasper, Daniel Alan. Commemorating Shivaji: Regional and religious identity in Maharashtra,

226
 India. Ph.D. Dissertation, New York: New School University, 2002.

Keune, Jon Milton. Eknath Remembered and Reformed: Bhakti, Brahmans, and Untouchables in

Marathi Historiography. Ph.D. Dissertation, New York: Columbia University, 2011.

Palshikar, Shreeyash S. Breaking Bombay, Making Maharashtra: Media, Identity Politics and

State Formation in Modern India. Ph.D. Dissertation, Chicago: University of Chicago,

2007.

Vajpayee, A. Politics of complicity, poetics of contempt: A history of the Sudra in Maharashtra,

1650--1950 CE PhD Dissertation, Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2004.

(Marathi)

Bhosale, D.T. Ravikiran Mandalachi Kavita [Poetry of Ravikiran Mandal]. Ph.D. Dissertation,

Dept. of Marathi, Shivaji University: Kolhapur, 1976.

Bhosale, S.S. Marathi Kadambari ani Pritibhavna, 1857-1971 [Marathi Novels and Romantic

Love]. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Marathi, Shivaji University: Kolhapur, 1972.

Gapate, Namdev Vikram. D. K. Bedekar: Vicharvant va Samikshak [D K Bedekar: the

Intellectual and the Literary Critic], Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Marathi, Shivaji

University: Kolhapur, 2012.

Sardesai, Anjali. Vibhavari Shirurkar: Ek Chikitsak Abhyas [Vibhavari Shirurkar: a Critical

Study]. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Marathi, S.N.D.T. University: Mumbai, 1994.

Savale, Shweta Dnyaneshwar. Chitramay Jagat Masik: Ek Rajkiya, Samajik, ani Sanskritik

Abhyas, 1910-1968 [Chitramay Jagat Magazine: A Political, Social and Cultural Study,

1910-1968]. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of History, Tilak Maharashtra University: Pune,

2019.

227
Nerkar, Raosaheb Bhimrao. Pundit Shridhar Shastri Pathak, Vyakti ani Karya: Ek Chikitsak

Abhyas [A Critical Study of Pundit Shridhar Shastri Pathak].Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of

History, Tilak Maharashtra University: Pune, 2012.

Patil, Khaserao Himmatrao. Maharashtratil Brahmanetar Chalval ani Dinkarrao Javalkar: Ek

Mulyamapan [Non-Brahmin Movement in Maharashtra and Dinkarrao Javalkar: a

Critical Evaluation] Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of History, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

Marathwada University: Aurangabad, 1995.

Texts Cited and Consulted [Marathi]

Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Lekhan ani Bhashane, Volume Nineteen:

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Yanchi Patrakarita, 1920-1928 [Dr. Ambedkar Writings and

Speeches, Volume Nineteen: Ambedkar‘s Journalism, 1920-1928] Mumbai: Government

of Maharashtra, 2005.

Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Lekhan ani Bhashane, Volume Twenty:

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Yanchi Patrakarita, 1929-1956 [Dr. Ambedkar Writings and

Speeches, volume Twenty: Ambedkar‘s Journalism, 1929-1956] Mumbai: Government

of Maharashtra, 2005.

Apte, Dattatreya Vishnu et al. Eds. Kesari Prabodh [Selected Kesari] Pune: Laxman Balwant

Bhopatkar, 1931.

Apte, Narayan Hari. Sukhacha Mulmantra [The Happiness Sutra (a Novel on the importance of

Physical Exercises)] Koregaon: N.H. Apte, 1924.

Atre, P. K. Jhenduchi Phule [the Marigold Flowers (poetry)]. Pune: Navbharat Prakashan

228
 Sanstha, 1925.

_______. Karheche Pani, Atmacharitra [Waters of the Karha River (autobiography)]. 5 vols.

1967; reprint Mumbai: Parchure Prakashan, 1998.

Bagal, Madhavrao. Ed. „Hunter‟kar Khanderao Bagal Yanche Nivadak Lekh [Selected Writings

of Khanderao Bagal, the editor of ‗Hunter‘]. Kolhapur: Madhavrao Bagal, 1974.

Bagul, Yogiraj. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar ani Tyanche Dalitetar Sahakari [Dr. Babasaheb

Ambedkar and his Non-Dalit Associates]. Mumbai: Granthali Prakashan, 2015.

Bapat, Senapati. Senapati Bapat Samagra Vangmay, Khand Char [Collected Works of Senapati

Bapat, Volume four]. Mumbai: Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, 1988.

Bedekar, D. K. Samyukta Maharashtra [United Maharashtra] Pune: Chitrashala Press, 1947.

Bhagwat, Durga. Rajaram Shastri Bhagwat: Vyaktichitra ani Vangmay Vivechan [Rajaram

Shastri Bhagwat: Life and Literature]. Mumbai: Swastik Publishing House, 1947.

_______. Ketkari Kadambari [Ketkar‘s Novels]. Mumbai: Mauj Prakashan, 1967.

Bhagwat, Achyut. Ed. Acharya Bhagwat Sankalit Vangmay [Selected Works of Acharya

Bhagwat] volume 1. Mumbai: Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, 1983.

Bhat, Bhaskar Vaman. Maharashtra Dharma Arthat Marathyanchya Itihasache Atmik Swaroop

[Maharashtra Dharma or the Spiritual Essence of Maratha History]. Dhule:

Satkaryottejak Sabha, 1925.

Bhave, Savita. Kalapudhati Char Paule [Four Steps ahead of the Time: Biography of

Shantanurao Kirloskar]. Pune: Continental Prakashan, 1979 (2 nd ed., 1994)

Bhave, S.M. Jirnoddhar [the Revival]. Mumbai: Lokvangmay Griha, 2009

_______.Ed. Pradnyaprabodh [History of Pradnyapathshala]. Wai: Pradnya Pathshala, 2016.

Bhopatkar, Laxman Balwant. Striyanche Vyayam [Physical Exercises for Women] Pune: L.B.

229
 Bhopatkar, 1932.

_______. Hindu Samaj Darshan [Glimpses of Hindu Society]. Pune: L.B. Bhopatkar, 1935.

Bhosale, S.S. Krantisukte: Rajarshi Shahu Chhatrapatinchya Bhashnancha Chikitsak Abhyas

[Critical Study of the Speeches delivered by Shahu Chhatrapati]. Kolhapur: Kolhapur

Municipal Corporation, 1975

Boda, Sudha. Sane Gurujincha Pandharpur Mandir Pravesh Ladha [Sane Guruji‘s struggle for

temple-entry for Untouchables] Baroda: Sudha Boda, 1997.

Chapalgaonkar, Narendra. Sangharsha ani Shahanpan: Maharashtrachya Samajitihasatil Kahi

Adhyay [A few Chapters in Maharashtra‘s Social History]. Mumbai: Mauj Prakashan

Griha, 2017

Chausalkar, Ashok. Com. Shripad Amrit Dange [Comrade S.A. Dange: biography]. Kolhapur:

Comrade Govind Pansare Amrut Mahotsav Samiti, 2011.

Chavan, R.N. Gramin Maharashtrachi Shikshan Parampara: Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil ani

Shikshananand Bapuji Salunkhe [Educational Tradition of Rural Maharashtra:

Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil and Shikshananand Bapuji Salunkhe]. Pune: Ramesh Chavan,

2012.

Chavan, Yashwantrao. Krishna Kath [At the banks of river Krishna (Autobiography)]. Pune:

Prestige Prakashan, 1984.

Chitnis, G. Y. Majhya Athavani [Memoirs]. Mumbai: Popular Book Depot, 1955.

Daftari, Keshav Laxman. Dharmarahasya [Secrets of Dharma] Mumbai: Maharashtra Rajya

Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, 1965 (original edition, 1930)

_______. Dharmavivadswarup [Contentious Issues in Dharmashastra]. Mumbai: K.R. Kashikar,

1934.

230
Date, Shankar Ramchandra. Hindu Mahasabhechya Karyacha Itihas [History of the Hindu

Mahasabha]. Pune: S. R. Date, 1975.

Deshmukh Kashirao Bapuji. Kshatriyancha Prachin Itihas [Ancient History of the Kshatriyas].

Amravati: K.B. Deshmukh, 1929.

Deshpande, Gangadharrao. Majhi Jeevangatha [the Story of My Life]. Mumbai: Mauj

Prakashan, 1960

Deshpande, P.Y. Navi Mulye [Literary Essays on Modernism in Marathi]. Nagpur: Nagpur

Prakashan, 1948.

Deshpande, Rosa and Bani Deshpande. S. A. Dange: Ek Itihas [S.A. Dange: a History]. Mumbai:

Vichar Bharati Prakashan, 2016.

Devagirikar, T. R. Vasukaka Joshi va Tyancha Kaal [Vasukaka Joshi and his Times].Pune:

Chitrashala Prakashan, 1948

Devbhakta, Shankar Krishna. Pratibhalanchhan [A Blot on Artistic Ability (criticism of N. S.

Phadke‘s book ‗Pratibhasadhan‘)]. Pune: Y G. Joshi Prakashan, 1944.

Dhere, Aruna. Vismritichitre [Faces of the Forgotten Past] Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1998 (3rd

ed., 2018)

Divekar, Mahadevshastri. Kshatriya Vaishyanche Shastrasiddha Astitva va Prayaschitta [The

Existence of Kshatriyas and Vaishyas according to the Dharmashastras].

Pradnyapathshala Mandal: Wai, 1924.

_______. Pahili Char Pustake [The First Four books]. Wai: Pradnyapathshala Mandal, 1926.

_______. Brahmanatil Potjatinche Ekikaran [Unification of the Brahmin sub-Castes] Wai:

Mahadevshastri Divekar, 1927.

_______. Hindu Samaj Samartha Kasa Hoil? [How would the Hindu Society Be Powerful?].

231
 Wai: Mahadevshastri Divekar, 1930.

_______. Dharmashastra Manthan. [The Dharmashastra Discourse]. Miraj: Mahadevshastri

Divekar, 1933.

_______. Brahmadnyan va Buwabaaji [Spiritual Knowledge and Deceitful Practices]. Miraj:

Mahadevshastri Divekar, 1935

_______. Akhil Hindunkarita Nava Hindudharma [New Hinduism for all Hindus]. Miraj:

Mahadevshastri Divekar, 1942.

_______. Kritadnyata va Aanrunya [Gratitude and Debts: Autobiographical Account]. (For

Private Circulation): Mahadev Shastri Divekar, 1958.

Gadgil, Narhar Vishnu. Pathik [a Traveller (autobiography)]. Pune: Venus Prakashan, 1964.

Ghate, V.D. Divas Ase Hote [Those Were the Days (Autobiography)]. Mumbai: Mauj Prakashan

Griha, 1961.

Ganorkar, Prabha et al. Sankshipta Marathi Vangmay Kosh, Arambhapasun 1920 paryanta [A

Brief Encyclopaedia of Marathi Literature, from the beginning to 1920] Mumbai: G. R.

Bhatkal Foundation, 1998.

_______. Sankshipta Marathi Vangmay Kosh, 1920-2003 [A Brief Encyclopaedia of Marathi

Literature]. Mumbai: G. R. Bhatkal Foundation, 2004.

Godse, Gopal. Panchavanna Kotinche Bali [Victims of Fifty-five Crores]. Kolhapur: Riya

Publications, 1971. (Mass Edition, 2012)

_______. Fashi ani Nathuram Godse [Nathuram Godse and the Death Sentence] Kolhapur: Riya

Publications, 1975 (Mass Edition, 2012)

Gokhale, D. N. Doctor Ketkar [Biography of S V Ketkar] Mumbai: Majestic Book Stall, 1959

(2nd ed., 1981)

232
Gokhale, D.N. Dr. Patwardhan urf Madhav Julian [Biography of Madhav Julian]. Mumbai:

Mauj Prakashan, 1978 (2nd ed., 2013)

Gokhale, S. P. (ed.) Bhalyachi Phek [Selected Articles published in ‗Bhala‘]. Pune: Kesari

Prakashan, 1978.

Gole, Mahadev Shivram. Brahman ani Tyanchi Vidya [Brahmin and Their Education]. Pune:

Varada Prakashan, 1895 (3rd edition, 2008)

Gundekar, Shriram. Satyashodhaki Sahityacha Itihas [History of Satyashodhak Literature], Vol.

1 and 2 Latur: Satyashodhaki Sahitya Prakashan, 2013.

Hardas, Balshastri. Dharmaveer Dr. B.S. Munje Yanche Charitra (Bhag Pahila) [Biography of

Dr. B.S. Moonje, volume One]. Pune: Kaal Prakashan, 1966.

Hardas, Veena Balshastri. Dharmaveer Dr. B.S. Munje Yanche Charitra (Bhag Dusra)

[Biography of Dr. B.S. Moonje, volume Two]. Pune: Kaal Prakashan, 1977.

Jadhav, Bhaskarrao. Dnyanbhaskar [selected writings of Bhaskarrao Jadhav]. Ed. Shyam

Yedekar. Kolhapur: A. B. Jadhav, 1981.

Jagtap, Ram. Ed. Madhyamvarga: Ubha, Aadva, Tirpa [Analytics of the Middle Class]. Pune:

Rajhans Prakashan, 2017.

Javdekar, Shankar Dattatreya. Purogami Sahitya: Professor N.S. Phadke Yanchi Tika va tiche

Khandan [Progressive Literature: Refuting the Critique of Professor N.S. Phadke]. Pune:

Sandhya Prakashan, 1941.

_______. Lokmanya Tilak va Mahatma Gandhi [Tilak and Gandhi]. Pune: Rajhans Prakashan,

1946.

Jog, V.S. Marxvad ani Marathi Sahitya [Marxism and Marathi Literature]. Nagpur: Vijay

Prakashan, 1981

233
Joshi, Govind Mahadev. Hindunche Samajrachana Shastra [The Hindu Sociology]. Pune:

Vishwanath Mahadev Joshi, 1934.

Joshi, K.B. Maharashtra Vyapari Parichay [Commerce in Maharashtra]. Mumbai: Hindu

Bhandar, 1942.

Joshi, Laxman Shastri, Hindu Dharmachi Samiksha [Criticism of Hinduism].Wai:

Pradnyapathshala Mandal, 1942. (1st ed., Nagpur University Press: Nagpur, 1941)

_______. Vedic Sanskriticha Vikas [Development of Vedic Culture]. Wai: Pradnyapathshala

Mandal, 1951.

_______. Ed. Kevalananda Saraswati Abhinandan Granth [Felicitation Volume for Kevalananda

Saraswati]. Wai: Pradnyapathshala Mandal, 1952.

_______ et al. (eds.) Pradnyapathshala Ani Tichi Parampara [Pradnyapathshala and Its

Tradition]. Wai: Pradnyapathshala Mandal, 1996.

Kalekar, Nandan Sakharam. Keshkartan Kala, Arthat Keshbhusha Shastra ani Tantra [The Art

of Hairstyling]. Mumbai: Raghuveer Nandan Kalekar, 1953.

Kamble, Dharmapal. Prabodhankar Keshav Seetaram Thakare: Vyaktitva, Karya, Sahitya

[Prabodhankar Keshav Seetaram Thakare: the Man, his works and Literature]. Pune:

Prerana Prakashan, 2003.

Kanade, Ramchandra Govind. Professor Vishnu Govind Vijapurkar: Charitra, Karya va

Athavani [Professor Vishnu Govind Vijapurkar: Biography, Works and Memories]. Pune:

Chitnis Vangmay Mandal, 1928.

Kane, Pandurang Waman. Dharmashastra Vichar [Thoughts on Dharmashastra]. Mumbai:

Pandurang Mahadev Bhagwat, 1935.

Kanitkar, S.K. Swapnabhoomi [Dreamland]. Pune: Venus Prakashan, 1965

234
Kantak, Prema. Satyagrahi Maharashtra [Gandhian Maharashtra]. Pune: Sulabh Rashtriya

Granthmala, 1940.

Karandikar, Janardan Sakharam. Shri Ganeshotsavachi Saath Varshe [Sixty Years of the

Ganapati Festival]. Pune: Karandikar, 1952.

_______. Krantikarak Tilak ani Tyancha Kaal [Tilak, the Revolutionary and his Times] Pune:

Kaal Prakashan, 1969.

Karandikar, V.R. Teen Sarsanghachalak [The Three Chiefs of RSS] Pune: Snehal Prakashan,

1999.

Karnik, D. B. and Nadkarni, B.M. Vibhavariche Tikakar [Vibhavari‘s Critics]. Mumbai: Bakul

Prakashan, 1949

Karve, Raghunath Dhondo. Santati Niyaman: Vichar ani Aachar. [Birth Control: Thoughts and

Practice]. Mumbai: R.D. Karve, 1925.

_______. Nivadak Sharadechi Patre [Selected Letters of ‗Sharada‘] Ed. Anant Deshmukh. Pune:

Padmagandha Prakashan, 2010.

_______. „Samajswasthya‟ Madhil Nivadak Lekh [Selected Articles of R. D. Karve from

‗Samajswasthya‘] Ed. Anant Deshmukh. Pune: Padmagandha Prakashan, 2010

Karve, Swati. Striyanchi Shatapatre: 1850 te 1950 [Hundred Letters by Women: 1850-1950].

Pune: Pratima Prakashan, 2009

_______. Stree- Parishadancha Itihas: 1850 to 2000 Maharashtrachya Maryadet [History of

Women‘s Conferences: 1850 to 2000]. Pune: Abhijeet Prakashan, 2015.

_______. Striyanchya Niyatkalikancha Itihas [History of Women‘s Magazines]. Diamond

Publication: Pune, 2017.

Kashikar, Chintamani Ganesh. Vedashastrottejak Sabha, Pune: Shatasanvantasarik Itihas, 1875-

235
 1975 [Hundred Years of Vedashastrottejak Sabha, Pune]. Pune: Vedashastrottejak Sabha,

1976.

Kashyap, Mangesh. Kirloskariya: Kirloskar Masik; Samajik ani Vangmayin karya [Kirloskar

Magazines: A Social and Literary Study]. Pune: Nandini Publishing House, 2014

Keer, Dhananjay. Lokhitkarte Babasaheb Bole [Biography of Babasaheb Bole]. Mumbai:

Popular Prakashan, 1978.

_______. Rajarshi Shahu Chhatrapati: Ek Samaj Krantikarak Raja [Rajarshi Shahu Chhatrapati:

a King and a Social Revolutionary]. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 1979.

_______. Ed. Krishnarao Arjun Keluskar: Atmacharitra va Charitra [Krishnarao Keluskar:

Biography and Autobiography]. Aurangabad: Saket Prakashan, 2014.

Kelkar, Dattatreya Keshav. Vadali Vare [Essays on Rationalism]. Pune: M.M. Kelkar, 1940.

Kelkar, Narsimha Chintaman. Kelkar Samagra Vangmay, Khand 4 [Complete Works of N C

Kelkar], volume 4. Pune: Y.N. Kelkar, 1938.

_______. Gatagoshti Arthat Majhi Jeevanyatra [Autobiography]. Pune: Yashwant Narsimha

Kelkar, 1939.

Keluskar, Krishnarao Arjun. Sanvaya-Sartha-Satik Shrimadbhagvadgita [Bhagwad Gita with

commentary and translation] Pune: Varada Books, 1992 (original edition, 1895)

Ketkar, Gajanan Vishwanath. Marmabhed [The Bull‘s Eye: Selected Editorials written for

Kesari from 1947 to 1950]. Pune: N.R. Athavale, 1950.

Khadpekar, Vinaya. Streeswatantryavadini: Visavya Shatakatil Parivartan [Women‘s Freedom:

Twentieth century History]. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 1991. (2 nd edition, 2007)

Khairmode, Changdeo Bhavanrao. Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar [Biography of Dr. Ambedkar],

Vol. 1. Pune: Sugava Prakashan, 1958 (2nd ed., 1990)

236
_______. Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar [Biography of Dr. Ambedkar], Vol. 2. Pune: Sugava

Prakashan, 1958 (2nd ed., 1991)

_______. Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar [Biography of Dr. Ambedkar], Vol. 3. Pune: Sugava

Prakashan, 1963 (2nd ed., 1990)

_______. Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar [Biography of Dr. Ambedkar], Vol. 4. Pune: Sugava

Prakashan, 1968. (2nd ed., 1989)

_______. Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar [Biography of Dr. Ambedkar], Vol. 5. Pune: Sugava

Prakashan, 1988

_______. Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar [Biography of Dr. Ambedkar], Vol. 6. Pune: Sugava

Prakashan, 1985 (2nd ed., 1998)

Khandkar, Arundhati. Tarkatirth: Ek Pradnya Pravah [Biography of Laxman Shastri Joshi].

Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1995.

Khanolkar, Gangadhar Deorao. Madhav Julian Yanchi Jeevan Katha. [Madhav Julian: a life].

Mumbai: Swastik Publishing House, 1951.

_______. Ed. Dr. Shridhar Venkatesh Ketkar Yanche Vangmay Vishayak Lekh [Literary Essays

by Dr. Shridhar Ketkar]. Mumbai: Marathi Sanshodhan Mandal, 1974

Kharat, Shankarrao (Ed.). Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkaranchi Patre [Letters of Dr. Babasaheb

Ambedkar]. Pune: Indrayani Sahitya Prakashan, 2010.

Khasgiwale, Anant Harihar. Vet ani Kusti [Cane and Wrestling]. Pune: A. H. Khasgiwale, 1929.

Khole, Vikas (Ed). Sane Gurujinche Nivadak Nibandh [Selected Essays of Sane Guruji]. Pune:

Pratima Prakashan, 1999.

Kirkase, Govind. Asprishyatechi Sashastrata [Scriptural Basis of Untouchability], Pandharpur:

Kirkase, 1934

237
Kirloskar, Shankar Vasudev. Takanchya Phenki [Cartoons and Commentaries]. Kirloskar Wadi:

Kirloskar Press, 1935.

_______. Yantrikachi Yatra: Adya Maharashtriya Karkhandar Shri. Laxmanrao Kirloskar

Yanche Charitra. [Journey of a Machinist: Biography of the first Maharashtrian

industrialist Shri Laxmanrao Kirloskar]. Pune: Kirloskar Press, 1958.

_______. Shanvakiya [Autobiography of Shankarrao Kirloskar]. Pune: Shankarrao Kirloskar

Smarak Samiti, 2011. Original Edition, 1974

Kirloskar, Shanta. Goshta Pasashtichi [The story of 65 Years of Kirloskar Magazines]. Pune:

Shankarrao Kirloskar Smarak Samiti, 1990.

Kokaje, Raghunath Shastri. Dharmaswarupnirnaya [Discussion on Hindu Law]. Lonavala:

Raghunath Shastri Kokaje, 1933.

_______. Nava Achardharma [New Hinduism for Practice]. Pune: Raghunath Shastri Kokaje,

1936.

Kothari, W.R. Junya Athavani [Memoirs]. Pune: Sankalp Prakashan, 1973.

Kulkarni, G. M. and Kulkarni, V.D. Marathi Vangmayacha Itihas [History of Marathi

Literature], Volume six, part one. Pune: Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad, 1988.

Kulkarni, G.M. ―Gandhivad ani Marathi Sahitya‖ in Amachi Shrivani, February-March, 1996.

Kulkarni, V.H. Achyut Balwant Kolhatkar: Charitra ani Vangmay [Achyut Balwant Kolhatkar:

Biography and Literature]. Pune: Venus Prakashan, 1979.

Kulkarni, Wamanrao. Vedya Mana Talamalashi [autobiography]. Pune: Srividya Prakashan,

1989

Kurundkar, Narahar. Dhar ani Kath [The Stream and the shore (Critical Survey of Marathi

Novel)]. Pune: Deshmukh ani Company, 1971 (5th edition, 2010)

238
Lad, Ramchandra Narayan. Marathyanche Dasiputra athva Paypos Kimmtiche Peshve [The

Bastards of Marathas or the Worthless Peshwas]. Ed. M.M. Deshmukh. Nagpur:

Shivbharat Prakashan, 2000 (original edition, 1927)

Lele, R. K. Marathi Vruttapatrancha Itihas [History of Marathi Newspapers]. Pune: Continental

Prakashan, 1984 [3rd ed., 2009]

Lokurkar, Y.D. Ulatleli Pane [Memoirs of a Journalist]. Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1984.

Madkholkar, Gajanan Trimbak. Eka Nirvasitachi Kahani [Story of a Displaced]. Nagpur: J.M.

Vachasundar, 1948.

Mali, Gajmal. Ed. Satyashodhak Samaj Parishad: Adhyakshiya Bhashane va Karya Vruttanta

[Satyashodhak Samaj Conferences: Presidential Speeches and Reportage]. Aurangabad:

Rajmudra Prakashan, year unspecified.

Mate, Shripad Mahadev. Asprushya Vichar [Thoughts on Untouchables] Pune: Sadashiv

Krishnarao Shindkar, 1922.

_______. Asprushtancha Prashna [Question of the Untouched]. Pune: S.M. Mate, 1933.

_______. Vidnyanbodh [Lessons from Science]. Pune: S.M. Mate, 1934.

_______. Shri Samartha Ramdas Swaminche Prapancha Vidnyan [Ramdas Swami‘s Science of

Samsara]. Pune: Continental Prakashan, 1998 (3rd edition.) [1st ed., 1956]

_______. Chitrapat: Mi va Mala Dislele Jag [Stream of Pictures: I, and the World as I saw it

(Autobiography)]. Pune: Deshmukh and Company, 1957 [2 nd ed., 2010]

_______. Nivadak: S.M. Mate [Selected works of S.M. Mate]. Volume One and Two. Pune:

Deshmukh and Company, 2007.

More, Sadanand. Lokmanya te Mahatma [From Lokmanya to Mahatma]. Volume One and Two.

Pune: Rajhans Prakashan, 2007

239
_______. Ed. Jagritikar Palekar [Selected Works of Bhagwantrao Palekar]. Pune: Mahatma

Jotirao Phule Samata Pratishthan, 1996.

Mote, H.V. Ed. Vishrabdha Sharada [Selected Letters from eminent people from Maharashtra‘s

social and cultural Life]. Volume One. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 1993. (2 nd edition)

[1st ed., 1972]

Nalawade, M. D. Vijayi Maratha Agralekh: Brahmanetaranche Vichardhan [Editorials of Vijayi

Maratha: The Wealth of the non-Brahmans] Pune: Choice Book Stall, 1993.

Narayan Rao, V.S. (Translated by Sunita Gadgil). Adhunik Bharatache Shilpkar: N.S. Hardikar

[Makers of Modern India: Dr. N.S. Hardikar]. New Delhi: Publication Division,

Information and Broadcast Ministry, 1997

Nirantar, G. B. Marathi Vangmayacha Paramarsha: Arambhapasun te 1874 Paryanta [Analysis

of Marathi Literature: From the beginning to 1874]. Pune: Venus Book Stall, 1949.

Padhye, Prabhakar and Tikekar, Shripad. Aajkalcha Maharashtra: Vaicharik Pragati

[Contemporary Maharashtra: Intellectual Progress]. Mumbai: Karnataka Press, 1935.

Palkar, Narayan Hari. Dr. Hedgewar [Biography of Dr. Hedgewar]. Pune: Hari Vinayak Datye,

1960.

Palekar, Bhagwant Balwant. Navya Manutala Maratha [the Marathas in the New World:

Selections from ‗Jagruti‘]. Baroda: Subhash Palekar, 1966.

Patankar, R.B. Apurna Kranti [an Unfinished Revolution]. Mumbai: Mauj Prakashan Griha,

1999

Pathak, Shridhar Shastri. Asprushyatecha Shastrartha [The Hindu Theological Discourse on

Untouchability]. Dhule: Vyankatrao Randhir, 2009. (1st ed., 1934)

Patkar, Rameshchandra. Marathi Niyatkalikantil Drushykala Vichar [Thoughts on Visual Art in

240
 Marathi Periodicals]. Pune: Jyotsna Prakashan, 2009.

Patil, Mukund Ganapat. Hindu ani Brahman [Hindu and Brahmin] Mukundrao Patil: 1914

_______. Samagra Vangmay [Complete Work of Mukundrao Patil]. Mumbai: Maharashtra

Rajya Sahitya ani Sanskriti Mandal, 1990

Patil, Pandurang Chimnaji. Majhya Athavani [My Memories: Autobiography]. Mumbai: Mauj

Prakashan, 1964.

Patwardhan, Appa. Majhi Jeevanyatra [The Journey of My Life]. Mumbai: Meghshyam

Tukaram Aajgaonkar, 1971.

Pawar, G. M. Maharshi Vitthal Ramji Shinde: Jeevan va Karya [Vitthal Ramji Shinde: Life and

Works]. Mumbai: Lokvangmay Griha, 2004.

Pawar, Jaysingrao. 2001. Rajarshi Shahu Smarak Granth [Rajarshi Shahu Memorial Volume].

Kolhapur: Jaysingrao Pawar, 2001.

_______. Ed. Kshatra-Jagadguru: Vichar Darshan [Selected Articles by Kshatra Jagadguru].

Kolhapur: Shahu Sanshodhan Kendra, 2013.

Pawar, Jaysingrao and Jadhav, Ramesh (eds.) Nivadak Vijayi Maratha [Selected: Vijayi

Maratha]. Kolhapur: Vijayi Maratha Prakashan, 1993

Phadke, Narayan Seetaram. Majhya Sahityasevetil Smriti [Memoirs of my Service to Literature].

Pune: Continental Book Service, 1943.

_______. Indradhanushya [the Rainbow, a novel]. Pune: Maharashtra Granth Bhandar,

_______. Pratibhavilas [Essays on Aesthetics]. Pune: Vishwakarma Prakashan, 1966.

_______. Na. Si. Phadke Samagra Vangmay, khand 14: Atmacharitra [N.S. Phadke Complete

Works, volume 14: autobiographical writings]. Pune: N. S. Phadke Foundation, 2010.

Phadke, Yashwant Dinkar. Ed. Ketkar Lekh Sangraha. [Selected writings of S.V. Ketkar] New

241
 Delhi: Sahitya Academy, 1977.

_______.Vyakti ani Vichar [People and Thoughts]. Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1979.

_______. Keshavrao Jedhe [Biography of Jedhe] Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1982.

_______. Shodh Savarkarancha [In Search of Savarkar]. Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1982.

_______ (Ed.) Dinkarrao Javalkar: Samagra Vangmay [Complete Works of Dinkarrao

Javalkar]. Sangli: Nag-Nalanda Prakashan, 1984 (3rd edition, 2013)

_______. Shahu Chhatrapati ani Lokmanya [Shahu Chhatrapati and Lokmanya]. Pune: Srividya

Prakashan, 1986 [2nd ed., 2018]

_______. Annasaheb Latthe [Biography]. Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1989.

_______. Visavya Shatakatil Maharashtra [History of Twentieth Century Maharashtra], Vol.1 –

2. Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1989

_______. Ambedakari Chalawal [Ambedkarite Movement]. Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1990.

_______.Visavya Shatakatil Maharashtra [History of Twentieth Century Maharashtra], Vol. 3.

Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1991

_______.Visavya Shatakatil Maharashtra [History of Twentieth Century Maharashtra], Vol. 4.

Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1993.

_______. Shodhta Shodhta [While Searching the Archive]. Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1995.

_______. Visavya Shatakatil Maharashtra [History of Twentieth Century Maharashtra], Vol. 5.

Pune: Srividya Prakashan, 1997.

_______, Keer Dhananjay and Malshe, S. G. Mahatma Phule Samagra Vangmay [Collected

Works of Mahatma Phule]. Mumbai: Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, 2006.

(1st ed., 1969)

Phatak, Narahar Raghunath. Lokmanya [Biography of Lokmanya Tilak]. Mumbai: Mauj

242
 Prakashan Griha, 1972.

Priyolkar, Anant Kakba. Doctor Bhau Daji: Vyakti, Kaal va Kartutva [Dr. Bhau Daji Lad: the

Man, his Times and his Achievements]. Mumbai: Mumbai Marathi Sahitya Sangh, 1971.

Purandare, G.N. Sharirik Shikshanacha Itihas [History of Physical Education]. Mumbai:

Majestic Prakashan, 1992.

Purandare, Nath Hari. Asprushyatecha va Devalaya Praveshacha Sanatana Vaidic Hindu

Dharmashastra drushtya Vichar [Thoughts on Untouchability and Temple-entry From

the Perspective of Hindu Dharmashastra] Pune: Asprushya Sevak Samaj, Maharashtra

Prantik Mandal, 1932.

Rairikar, Aparna. Nirmohi Karmayogi [Biography of Professor Vijapurkar]. Talegaon: Nutan

Maharashtra Vidya Prasarak Mandal, 2005.

Rajwade, Shankar Ramachandra. Ahitagni Rajwade Aatmavritta [Autobiography]. Pune:

Srividya Prakashan, 1980.

Rajwade, Vishwanath Kashinath. Rajwade Lekha Sangraha [Selected Articles of Rajwade] Pune:

Chitrashala Press, 1932.

Ramdasi, Anant and Dole, Dhenudas. Shri Chondhe Maharaj Yanche Charitra [Biography of

Shri Chondhe Maharaj]. Pune: Shankar Dhenudas Dole, 1938.

Redkar, Chaitra. Sane Guruji: Vyakti and Vichar [Sane Guruji: the Man and his Thoughts].

Pune: Hermis Publication, 2010.

Sabade, B. R. Eka Nangarachi Kahani [History of the Kirloskar group of Industries].Pune:

Pratima Prakashan, 1989.

Sahastrabuddhe, Purushottam Ganesh. Vidnyanpranit Samajrachana [Scientific Basis for

Society] Mumbai: Madhuvan Granth Prakashan, 1988. (Original edition, 1936)

243
Sane, P. S. Mandir Praveshachi Bhashane va Itar [Speeches during the Temple-entry

Satyagraha] Kolhapur: Riya Publications, 2011.

Sant, D. K. and Gadgil, S.R. Kala Niti Vad [the Debate on the relationship between Art and

Ethics] Pune: Swadhin Sahitya Sanstha, 1951.

Sant, D.K. Marathi Stree [Marathi Woman: Study of the transformation in the depiction of

Women in Marathi Novels]. Pune: Padmagandha Prakashan, 1983 [Original edition,

1957]

Sardar, Gangadhar Balkrishna. Maharashtra Jeevan: Parampara, Pragati ani Samasya [Life in

Maharashtra: Tradition, Progress and Problems], Vol. 1. Pune: Joshi-Lokhande

Prakashan, 1960.

Sardesai, Govind Sakharam. Majhi Sansar Yatra [Autobiography]. Mumbai: Keshav Bhikaji

Dhavale Prakashan, 1956.

Sathe, Makarand. Marathi Rangabhoomichya Tees Ratri: A Social and Political History [Thirty

Nights of Marathi Theatre: a History of Marathi Plays]. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan,

2011.

Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. Sangeet Ushaap [Mitigating a Curse, a musical play]. Mumbai:

Saraswat Printing and Publishing Company, 1927.

_______. Savarkar Sahitya (1-5) [Savarkar Literature, volume 1-5]. Kirloskar Wadi: Kirloskar

Press, 1937.

_______. Jatyucchedak Nibandh [Essays on Annihilation of Caste]. Kamal Rajaram Bapat:

Mumbai, 1950.

_______. Vidnyannishth Nibandh [Essays promoting scientism]. Pune: Mangal Sahitya

Prakashan, 1950.

244
_______. Ksha-Kirane [X-rays]. Pune: Godbole Granth Bhandar, 1950.

_______. Samagra Savarkar Vangmay Khand Teen: Nibandh [Complete Works of

Swatantryaveer Savarkar, volume three: essays]. Pune: Maharashtra Prantik Hindu

Sabha, 1964.

Shah, Mrinalini et al. Eds. „Prabhat‟kar W. R. Kothari: Vichar ani Karya [W.R. Kothari: His

Thoughts and Works]. Pune: W. R. Kothari Janmashatabdi Samiti, 1993.

Shejwalkar, T S. Shejwalkaranche Lekh, Pustak Pahile [Essays by Shejwalkar, the first book].

Mumbai: H.V. Mote Prakashan, 1940.

_______. Nivadak Lekha Sangraha [Selected Essays]. Ed. H.V. Mote. Mumbai: H.V. Mote

Prakashan, 1977.

Shinde, Vitthal Ramji. Bharatiya Asprushyatecha Prashna [The Problem of Indian

Untouchability]. Pune: V.R. Shinde, 1933.

_______. Majhya Athavani va Anubhav [My Memories and Experiences]. Pune: G. L. Thokal,

1958.

_______. Shinde Lekha Sangraha [Selected Essays by V. R. Shinde]. Ed. M.P. Mangudkar.

Pune: G. L. Thokal, 1963.

Shinde, Arun. Satyashodhakiya Niyatkalike [the Satyashodhak Journals]. Solapur: Krishna

Sanshodhan va Vikas Academy, 2019.

Shinde, Madhavrao. „Vijayi Maratha‟kar Shripatrao Shinde [Biography of Shripatrao Shinde].

Aurangabad: Yuvraj Prakashan, 1973.

Sinha, Rakesh. (Translated by Sudhir Joglekar) Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar [Biography of

Dr. Hedgewar]. New Delhi: Publication Division, Information and Broadcast Ministry,

2004

245
Sumant, Yashwant and Punde, Dattatreya. (Eds.) Maharashtratil Jatisansthavishayak Vichar

[Thoughts on Caste-System in Maharashtra]. Pune: Pratima Prakashan, 1988

Tambe, Bhaskar Ramachandra. Kala Ani Niti [Art and Ethics]. Pune: Sakharam Nashikkar, 1932.

Tarkunde, Seetaram Raghunath. Brahmanetar va Marathe hyanchya Chalavalicha Purveitihas

ani Marathyanchi Purvapithika. [Prehistory of the Non-Brahmin Movement]. Pune: S. R.

Tarkunde, 1922.

_______. Brihan-Maharashtratil Kshatriya Gharanyancha Itihas [History of the Kshatriya

Families of Maharashtra], part one. Pune: S. R. Tarkunde, 1928

_______. Brihan-Maharashtratil Kshatriya Gharanyancha Itihas [History of the Kshatriya

Families of Maharashtra], part two. S. R. Tarkunde: Pune, 1931.

Thakare, Keshav Seetaram. Prabodhankar Thakare Samagra Vangmay, volume One

(Autobiography). Mumbai: Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, 1997 [original

edition, 1973]

________. Prabodhankar Thakare Samagra Vangmay, volume Three (Plays). Mumbai:

Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, 1999

_______. Prabodhankar Thakare Samagra Vangmay, volume Four (Hindutva). Mumbai:

Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, 2000.

________. Prabodhankar Thakare Samagra Vangmay, volume Five (Historical Texts) Mumbai:

Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, 2007.

Tendulkar, Ramesh. ―Kavya‖ in Marathi Vangmayacha Itihas, Khand Saha, Bhag Don [History

of Marathi Literature, volume six, part two], ed. G. M. Kulkarni and V. D. Kulkarni, 1-

143, Pune: Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad, 1991.

Tilak, Bal Gangadhar. Samagra Lokmanya Tilak, Khand Pach: Samaj ani Sanskriti [Complete

246
 works of Lokmanya Tilak, Volume Five: Society and Culture]. Pune: Kesari Prakashan,

Urdhvareshe, Prabhakar. Ed. Navya Disha [New Directions: Selected articles published in the

Kirloskar Magazines from 1920 to 1960]. Pune: Kirloskar Press, 1961.

Varerkar, Bhargavram. Majha Nataki Sansar [My Theatrical World: an autobiography].

Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 1959 (2nd ed., 1995)

Velankar, V.R. Karkhandar Kasa Jhalo? [How did I become an Industrialist? an Autobiography]

Sangli: V.R. Velankar, 1956.

Vijapurkar, V. G. Professor Vijapurkar Yanche Lekh [Selected Writings of Prof. Vijapurkar] Ed.

M.G. Deshpande. Pune: Continental Prakashan, 1963.

Walimbe, Ramchandra Shankar. Ekonisavya Shatakatil Maharashtrachi Punarghatna (1800-

1845) [The nineteenth century reformation of Maharashtra, 1800-1845]. Pune: R.S.

Walimbe, 1962.

Walinjkar, Aatmaram. Sane Guruji ani Pandharpur Mandirpravesh Chalvaliche Adhyatma.

[Sane Guruji and the Spirit of temple-entry at Pandharpur]. Vasai: Dimple Prakashan,

2011.

Yati, Paramahansa Pradnyaneshwar. Chaturvarnya-Vichar va Upanayana: Narayanshastri

Marathe ani Paramahansa Pradnyaneshwar Yati Yanchya Madhil Patravyavahar

[Chaturvarnya and the Upanayana: correspondence between Narayanshastri Marathe and

Paramahansa Pradnyaneshwar Yati]. Pune: Shankar Ramachandra Date, 1928.

Texts (Hindi)

P.S. Bhagwati. Akhil Bharatvarshyiya Varnashrama Swarajya Sangha ka karya Vivaran (Hindi)

247
 [A Report on the Work of the All-India Varnashrama Swarajya Sangha from January

1932 to December 1933]. Kashi: All-India Varnashrama Swarajya Sangha, 1934

Texts (English)

Ahluwalia, Sanjam. ―Demographic Rhetoric and Sexual Surveillance: Indian Middle-class

Advocates of Birth Control, 1902-1940s‖ in Confronting the Body: the Politics of

Physicality in Colonial and Post-colonial India, edited by James H. Mills and Satadru

Sen. London : Anthem Press, 2004, pp. 183-205

_______.Reproductive Restraints: Birth Control in India, 1877-1947. Urbana: University of

Illinois Press, 2008.

Ahmed, Manan. ―Introduction‖, the Indian Economic and Social History Review, 49, 4 (2012):

455–57

Alter, Joseph. Gandhi‘s Body: Sex, Diet and the Politics of Nationalism. Philadelphia: University

of Pennsylvania Press, 2000.

_______. Moral Materialism: Sex and Masculinity in Modern India. New Delhi: Penguin Books,

2011.

Armitage, David Foundations of Modern International Thought New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2013

Bakhle, Janaki. Two Men and Music: Nationalism in the Making of an Indian Classical

Tradition. Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2005.

_______. ―Country First? Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966) and the Writing of Essentials

of Hindutva‖ In Public Culture, (2010) 22 (1): 149–186

_______. ―Savarkar (1883–1966), Sedition and Surveillance: the rule of law in a colonial

248
 situation‖ In Social History, Vol. 35, No. 1 (February 2010), pp. 51-75.

Bassett, Ross. The Technological Indian. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,

2016.

Benei, Veronique. Schooling passions: nation, history, and language in contemporary western

India. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2008.

Bhatt, Vamanrai, A. The Harijans of Maharashtra. New Delhi: Harijan Sevak Sangh, 1941.

Bayly, Christopher A. Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British

Expansion, 1770-1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

_______. Empire and Information: Political Information and Social Communication in North

India. Cambridge: CUP, 1996.

_______. Recovering Liberties: Indian Thought in the Age of Liberalism and Empire,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011

Bayly, Susan, Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern

Age, the New Cambridge History of India, vol. 4.3, Cambridge: CUP, 1999.

Bose, Sugata and Kris Manjapra (eds.) Cosmopolitan Thought Zones: South Asia and the Global

Circulation of Ideas. Chippenham and Eastbourne: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Cashman, Richard. The Myth of the Lokmanya: Tilak and Mass Politics in Maharashtra.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. ―Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who speaks for ―Indian‖

pasts?‖ In A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986-1995. (Ed.) Ranajit Guha, 1997

_______. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton,

N.J: Princeton University Press, 2005

_______. The Calling of History: Sir Jadunath Sarkar and his Empire of Truth. Chicago: The

249
 University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Chakravarti, Uma. Rewriting History: The Life and Times of Pandita Ramabai. New Delhi:

Zubaan, 2013.

Chandra, Shefali The Sexual Life of English: Caste and Desire in Modern India Durham: Duke

University Press, 2012

Chatterjee, Partha Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World. New Delhi: OUP, 1986

_______. The Nation and its Fragments. New Delhi: OUP, 1993

_______, and Raziuddin Aquil, eds. History in the Vernacular. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2008.

_______. The Black Hole of Empire: History of a Global Practice of Power. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 2012.

Cohn, Bernard Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1996

Dalmia, Vasudha. The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions: Bharatendu Harischandra and

Nineteenth Century Banaras. Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 1997.

_______, and Heinrich von Stietencron. Eds. The Oxford India Hinduism reader. New Delhi:

Oxford University Press, 2007

_______.Fiction as History: The Novel and the City in Modern North India. Ranikhet:

Permanent Black, 2017.

Deak, Dusan and Daniel Jasper. Eds. Rethinking western India: the Changing Contexts of

Culture, Society and Religion. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan, 2014.

Deshpande, G. P. Dialectics of Defeat: the Problems of Culture in Postcolonial India. Calcutta:

Seagull Books, 2006

_______. Talking the Political Culturally and Other Essays. Kolkata: Thema, 2009.

250
_______. The world of Ideas in Modern Marathi: Phule, Vinoba, Savarkar. New Delhi: Tulika

Books, 2009

Deshpande, Madhav and Peter Edwin Hook. Eds. Aryan and non-Aryan in India. Ann Arbor,

Mich.: The University of Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, 1979.

Deshpande, Madhav. ―The Arctic Home in the Vedas: Religion, Politics, and the Colonial

Context‖ in Political Hinduism: The Religious Imagination in Public Spheres. Ed. Vinay

Lal. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Deshpande, Prachi. ―Caste as Maratha: Social categories, colonial policy and identity in early

twentieth-century Maharashtra‖ Indian Economic & Social History Review, 2/2004,

Volume 41, Issue 1, P. 7-32.

_______. Creative Pasts: Historical Memory and Identity in Western India 1700-1960.

Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2007

Devji, Faisal and Shruti Kapila eds. ―The Bhagavad Gita and Modern Thought‖, Modern

Intellectual History 7, no. 2 (2010): 269-457

Dirks, Nicholas B, the Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Dirks, Nicholas Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the making of Modern India. Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press, 2001

Feldhaus, Anne ―Maharashtra as a Holy Land: A Sectarian Tradition‖ Bulletin of the School of

Oriental and African Studies 49 (3), (1986): 532-548

Fukazawa, Hiroshi. The Medieval Deccan: Peasants, Social Systems and States, Sixteenth to

Eighteenth Centuries. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Ganeri, Jonardon. Philosophy in Classical India: The Proper Work of Reason New York:

251
 Routledge, 2001

_______ The Lost Age of Reason: Philosophy in Early Modern India 1450-1700 New York:

Oxford University Press, 2011

Ganneri, Namrata. ―The Debate on ‗Revival‘ and the Physical Culture Movement in Western

India (1900–1950)‖ in Sports across Asia: Politics, Cultures, and Identities. Eds. Katrin

Bromber, Birgit Krawietz, and Joseph Maguire. New York: Routledge, 2013, 121-143.

_______.―The Hindu Mahasabha in Bombay (1923-1947)‖ in Proceedings of the Indian History

Congress, Vol. 75, Platinum Jubilee (2014), pp.771-782.

_______. ―Whither Hindu Unity?: Unravelling the RSS-Hindu Mahasabha Relationship:

Perspectives from Maharashtra‖ In Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 76

(2015), pp. 467-480.

_______. Pahalwan Portraits: Manly Consumers of Physical Culture in Western India.

http://www.tasveergharindia.net/essay/pahalwan-portraits#_ednref36

Geetha, V. and S.V. Rajadurai. Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to

Periyar. Calcutta: Samya, 2008 (1st ed., 1998)

Glushkova, Irina. ―A Philological Approach to Regional Ideologies.‖ In Region, Culture and

Politics in India, ed. Rajendra Vora and Anne Feldhaus. Delhi: Manohar, 2006, 52-83.

Goswami, Manu. Producing India: From Colonial Economy to National Space. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 2004.

Gould, William Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in late Colonial India

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004

Guha, Sumit. Beyond Caste: Identity and Power in South Asia, Past and Present. Brill: Leiden,

Boston, 2013.

252
Gupta, Charu. The Gender of Caste: Representing Dalits in Print. Ranikhet: Permanent Black,

2016.

Gupta, Swarupa. Notions of Nationhood in Bengal: Perspectives on Samaj, c. 1867–1905.

London: Brill, 2009.

Hansen, Thomas Blom. The saffron Wave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

_______. Violence in Urban India: Identity Politics, „Mumbai‟, and the Postcolonial City. New

Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001

Hawley, John Stratton ed. Krishna's Mandala: Bhagavata Religion and Beyond Delhi: Oxford

University Press, 2009.

_______.A Storm of Songs: India and the Idea of the Bhakti Movement. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2015.

Jaffrelot, Christophe. Ed. The Sangh Parivar: a reader. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005

_______. Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analysing and Fighting Caste. London: Hurst &

Co., 2005.

_______. Ed. Hindu Nationalism: A Reader. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.

_______. India‟s silent Revolution: the Rise of the Low Castes in North Indian Politics New

Delhi: Permanent Black, 2003

Kapila, Shruti (ed.) an Intellectual History for India, New Delhi: Cambridge University Press,

2010

_______, and Faisal Devji. Political Thought in Action: Bhagavad Gita in Modern India.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010,

Kaviraj, Sudipta The Unhappy Consciousness: Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay and the

253
 Formation of Nationalist Discourse in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998

_______. ―Marxism in Translation: Critical reflections on Indian Radical Thought‖ in Political

Judgment: Essays for John Dunn edited by Richard Bourke, Raymond Geuss.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

_______. The Invention of Private Life: Literature and Ideas. Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2014.

Ketkar, S V, History of Caste in India: Evidence of the Laws of Manu on the Social Condition in

India during the Third Century AD, Interpreted and Examined, with an Appendix on

Radical Defects of Ethnology. Jaipur: Rawat Publishers, 1979 (original ed., 1909).

Keune, John The Intra- and Inter-Religious Conversions of Nehemiah Nilakantha Goreh Journal

of Hindu-Christian Studies 17 (8) (2004): 1-10

Kosambi, Meera. Ed. Intersections: Socio-cultural trends in Maharashtra. New Delhi: Orient

Longman, 2000.

_______. Crossing thresholds: Feminist Essays in Social History. Ranikhet: Permanent Black,

2007.

_______. Women Writing Gender: Marathi Fiction before Independence. Ranikhet: Permanent

Black, 2012.

_______. Mahatma Gandhi and Prema Kantak: Exploring a Relationship, Exploring History.

Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2013.

_______. Gender, Culture and Performance: Marathi Theatre and Cinema before Independence.

New Delhi: Routledge, 2015.

Koselleck, Reinhart Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time New York: Columbia

University Press, 2004

_______. The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts Stanford,

254
 Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2002

Kumar, Ravinder Western India in Nineteenth Century: A study in Social History of

Maharashtra. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968.

Kumbhojkar, Shraddha, N. Nationalism, Literature and Creation of Memory: Maharashtra in

the Nineteenth Century. Pune: Sugawa Prakashan, 2008.

Lal, Vinay. Ed. Political Hinduism: The Religious Imagination in Public Spheres. New Delhi:

Oxford University Press, 2009.

Latour, B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2005

Latthe, Annasaheb. Memoirs of His Highness Shri Shahu Chhatrapati, Maharaja of Kolhapur.

Volume One. Bombay: Times Press, 1924.

Lederle, Matthew. Philosophical Trends in Modern Maharashtra. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan,

1976.

Lorenzen, David. Who invented Hinduism: Essays on Religion in History New Delhi: Yoda

Press, 2006

Matilal, B. K. The word and the world: India's contribution to the study of language. New Delhi:

Oxford University Press, 1990

_______. The Character of Logic in India, eds. Jonardon Ganeri and Heeraman Tiwari. New

Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Mir Farina. The Social Space of Language: Vernacular Culture in British Colonial Punjab.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010.

Mitchell, Lisa. Language, Emotion, and Politics in South India: The Making of a Mother

Tongue. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009

255
Moyn, Samuel and Andrew Sartori. Eds. Global Intellectual History, New York: Columbia

University Press, 2013.

Mukharji, Projit Bihari. Nationalizing the Body: the Medical Market, Print and Daktari

Medicine. London; New York: Anthem Press, 2009

Mukul, Akshaya. Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India. Noida, U P: HarperCollins

Publishers India, 2015

Nagappa Gowda K. The Bhagavad-Gita in the Nationalist Discourse. New Delhi: Oxford

University Press, 2011.

Naito, M., I. Shima, and H. Kotani. Eds. M rga: Ways of Liberation, mpowerment, and Social

Change in Maharashtra. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 2008.

Nandy, Ashis. A disowned father of the nation in India: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the

demonic and the seductive in Indian nationalism. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 2014, Vol.

15, No. 1, 91–112.

Naregal, Veena. Language Politics, Elites and the Public Sphere: Western India under

Colonialism. Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2001

Nemade, Bhalachandra. 2009. Nativism (Desivad). Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Studies

Nicholson, Andrew J. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History.

New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.

Novetzke, Christian Lee Religion and Public Memory: A Cultural History of Saint Namdev in

India New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

_______. The Quotidian Revolution: Vernacularization, Religion, and the Premodern Public

Sphere in India. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016.

O‘Hanlon, Rosalind, Caste, Conflict and Ideology: Mahatma Jotirao Phule and Low Caste

256
 Protest in Nineteenth Century Western India, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

1985.

_______ .‗What makes People Who They Are? Pandit Networks and the Problem of Livelihoods

in Early Modern Western India‘ in Indian Economic and Social History Review XLV.

No. 3, July-September 2008. With C. Minkowski.

_______. At the Edges of Empire: Essays in the Social and Intellectual History of India.

Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2014.

Omvedt, Gail. Cultural revolt in Colonial Society: The Non Brahman Movement in Western

India: 1873-1930. Bombay: Scientific Socialist Education Trust, 1976.

_______. Dalits and the Democratic Revolution: Dr. Ambedkar and the Dalit Movement in

Colonial India. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1994.

Orsini, Francesca. The Hindi Public Sphere 1920-1940: Language and Literature in the Age of

Nationalism. New Delhi; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Palshikar, Sanjay. Evil and the philosophy of Retribution: Modern Commentaries on the

Bhagavad-Gita. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Pandey, Gyanendra. The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India New Delhi:

Oxford University Press, 2006.

Pandian, M.S.S. Brahmin and non-Brahmin: Genealogies of the Tamil political present.

Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2007.

Perlin, Frank. ―State Formation Reconsidered.‖ Modern Asian Studies 19, no.3 (1985): 415-480.

Phadke, N.S. ―Eugenics in India‖ in Birth Control Review, IX, 1925.

_______. Sex Problem in India. Bombay: D. B. Taraporevala, 1927.

Pollock, Sheldon, ―The Cosmopolitan Vernacular‖ The journal of Asian Studies, 57(1) (1998): 6-

257
 37

_______.―Cosmopolitan and Vernacular in History‖ Public Culture, 12 (3) (2000): 591-625

_______.Ed. Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia. California:

University of California Press, 2003

_______. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture and Power in Pre-

modern India. Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2006.

_______.―Pretextures of Time.‖ History and Theory, 46, (2007): 364–381

_______. (Ed.) Forms of knowledge in early modern Asia: explorations in the intellectual history

of India and Tibet, 1500-1800 Durham [N.C.]: Duke University Press, 2011.

Prakash, Gyan. Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1999.

Raghuramaraju, A. Debates in Indian Philosophy: Classical, Colonial, and Contemporary. New

York: Oxford University Press, 2007

_______. Enduring Colonialism: Classical Presences and Modern Absences in Indian

Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009

_______. Modernity in Indian Social Theory. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2011.

_______. Philosophy and India: Ancestors, Outsiders, and Predecessors. New Delhi: Oxford

University Press, 2013.

Ramaswamy, Sumathi. Passions of the Tongue: Language Devotion in Tamil India, 1891-1970.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982

Rao, Anupama. Ed. Gender and Caste. New Delhi: Kali for Women and Women Unlimited,

2003.

_______. The caste question: Dalits and the politics of modern India Berkeley: University of

258
 California Press, 2009

Rao, V. N., David Shulman, and Sanjay Subrahmanyam. Textures of Time: History Writing in

South Asia, 1600-1800. New York: The Other Press, 2003.

Ray, Baren. Ed. Gandhi's campaign against untouchability, 1933-34: an account from the Raj's

secret official reports. New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation, 1996.

Ray, Rajat Kanta. Exploring Emotional History: Gender, Mentality and Literature in the Indian

Awakening. New Delhi; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Rege, Sharmila Writing caste/Writing gender: Narrating Dalit Women‟s Testimonies. New

Delhi: Zubaan, 2006.

Sartori, Andrew Bengal in Global Concept History: Culturalism in the Age of Capital. Chicago:

University Of Chicago Press, 2009

Seth, Sanjay. Marxist Theory and Nationalist Politics: The Case of Colonial India. New Delhi:

Sage, 1995.

Sharma, Jyotirmaya. Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism. New Delhi: Penguin,

2003.

Skaria, Ajay. Hybrid Histories: Forests, Frontiers and Wildness in Western India. Delhi: Oxford

University Press, 1997.

_______. Unconditional Equality: Gandhi's Religion of Resistance. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press, 2016.

Sontheimer, Gunther-Dietz. Biroba, Mhaskoba and Khandoba: Pastoral Deities in Western

India. Trans. Anne Feldhaus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

_______.ed. Folk Culture, Folk Religion, and Oral Traditions as a Component in Maharashtrian

Culture. New Delhi: Manohar Publications, 1995.

259
Sturman, Rachel. The Government of Social Life in Colonial India: Liberalism, Religious Law,

and Women's Rights. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Tejani, Shabnum. Indian Secularism: A Social and Intellectual History, 1890-1950 Bloomington

and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2008

Trautmann, Thomas R. Aryans and British India. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Vaithees, V. Ravi. Religion, caste, and nation in South India: Maraimalai Adigal, the Neo-

Saivite movement, and Tamil nationalism, 1876-1950. New Delhi, India: Oxford

University Press, 2015.

Varma, Mukut Behari, History of the Harijan Sevak Sangh, 1932-1968. New Delhi: Harijan

Sevak Sangh, 1971.

Vora, Rajendra. “Maharashtra Dharma and the Nationalist Movement in Maharashtra‖ in

Writers, Editors and Reformers: Social and Political Transformations of Maharashtra,

1830-1930, ed. N.K. Wagle. New Delhi: Manohar Publications, 1999, 23-30.

Wagle, N. K. "Ritual and Change in Early Nineteenth Century Society in Maharashtra: Vedokta

Disputes in Baroda, Pune and Satara, 1824-1838." In Religion and Society in

Maharashtra, edited by Milton Israel and N. K. Wagle. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 1987, 145-177

Wagle, Narendra K. "Hindu-Muslim Interactions in Medieval Maharashtra." In Hinduism

Reconsidered, edited by Gunther-Dietz Sontheimer and Hermann Kulke, 51-65. Delhi:

Oxford University Press, 1991.

Wakankar, Milind Subalternity and Religion: The Prehistory of Dalit Empowerment in South

Asia. London: Routledge, 2011

Wink, Andre. Land and Sovereignty in India: Agrarian Society and Politics under the Maratha

260
 Svarajya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

White, Hayden Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1985.

Zelliot, Eleanor. From Untouchable to Dalit: Essays on the Ambedkar Movement. New Delhi:

Manohar, 1996

_______.―Chokhamela and Eknath: two Bhakti Modes of legitimacy for Modern Change‖ in

Subordinate and Marginal Groups in Early India. Ed. Aloka Parasher-Sen. New Delhi:

Oxford University Press, 2004.

261
 Appendix A: A Note on Transliteration

Non-English words are marked in italics, except for names, primary sources, and places. I

have employed the transliteration of names, places, and other Marathi terms using the Marathi

pronunciation, rather than adhering to the Sanskrit convention. For example: Ramdas instead of

Ramdasa. But by and large, I spelt the Marathi words as per the conventional pronunciation in

their usage in Marathi. For example, since Asprishya (untouchable) is pronounced as Asprushya

in Marathi, I have used the spelling Asprushya throughout.

262