Hanuman Prasad Poddar and Mahatma Gandhi

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- [e-mail];

[e-mail]

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

 

 

Hanuman Prasad Poddar and Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

Hanuman Prasad was a freedom fighter and an associate of Mahatma Gandhi. He guided many freedom activities in guidance of Mahatma Gandhi. He was born in Rajasthan. He was founder of Gita Press Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh. He lived here. He was writer and wrote many Hindu epics.

1 and 2. We must believe in God if we believe in ourselves. If living beings have existence God is the sum total of all life and this in my view is the strongest proof.

3. The denial of God is injurious in the same way as denial of us. That is to say, to deny God is like committing suicide. The fact remains that it is one thing to believe in God and quite another to realize God emotionally and act accordingly. Truly, no one in the world is an atheist; atheism is merely a pose.

4. One can realize God only by ridding oneself totally of attachment, aversion, etc., and in no other way. I hold that one who claims to have realized God has not truly done so. Realization can be experienced, but is beyond description. Of this I have no doubt.

5. I can live only by having faith in God. My definition of God must always be kept in mind. For me there is no other God than Truth; Truth is God. 1

In answering question on spiritual matters it is an advantage to keep in mind the particular inquirer. To write for newspapers is a difficult task for me. My mind has turned almost blank upon learning that you have asked the questions with a view to publish them in Kalyan. It does not mean that the public gains nothing from what I write for the papers. I am simply explaining my own point of view. That is why I have reiterated many a time in Young India that it was not a journal for me but a weekly letter meant for friends. And the spiritual matters discussed in Young India and Navajivan have been almost invariably written with a certain individual in view. It has a reason behind it. I am not well-versed in the Shastras. Although I make use of reasoning often enough the mainspring of my talks and writings is not the intellect but the heart. And the outpourings of the heart cannot be presented in the form of an essay . . . . Finding no alternative expression I had used “disciplined faith”. But is does not express all I mean and at present no other expression occurs to my mind. What is meant is that faith should not be ignorant, devoid of discrimination and blind. For example in a matter where reasoning too applies someone asserts, “I take resort to faith and shall persist in doing so no matter what the reason indicates.” There is no discipline in this kind of faith. To determine whether the earth is round or flat is a matter of intellect. Despite this someone may say that his faith suggests the earth to be flat. This is not disciplined faith. 2 

I shall not feel anxious about Devdas since you are there. Moreover Devdas had written to me that you treated him in a very loving manner. The doctor is really a good man. I shall always expect to receive letters from you from time to time. The man who resorts to falsehood with a view to acquiring worldly goods or for some other reason in full of attachment and hatred; he cannot possibly reach God. And I consider the other example you have cited as impossible. To tread the path of truth and at the same time to remain aloof from worldly affairs, i.e., from pravritti is a thing which is impossible like a flower in the sky. How can one tell what path one follows who keeps away from pravritti? To tread the path of truth in itself involves entrance into pravritti. Without pravritti there is no occasion for treading or not treading the path of truth. The holy Gita in its several verses has made it clear that a man cannot exist even for a moment without pravritti. The difference between a devotee and one who is not a devotee is this, that the first remains in pravritti with an eye to the highest good and while living in pravritti never lets go his hold upon truth and weakens attachments and aversions, while the other lives in a state of infatuation with pravritti and does not even try to remain aloof from such demoniac actions as falsehood, etc., while pursuing his object. These worldly affairs are not a thing to be looked upon with contempt. It is only through worldly affairs that a vision of the Lord is possible. Those worldly affairs that create infatuation deserve to be looked upon with contempt and always shunned. This is my firm opinion and experience. 3

It does not matter that it is long. I shall make good use of it. What you write about Devdas becomes you. I still stand by my statements which you have quoted from Navajivan. To understand what I say one needs to understand my conduct for I try to avoid saying anything that contradicts my conduct and doing anything contrary to what I say. And I admit my own weakness whenever my conduct is inconsistent with the opinion I express. Here I do not see any inconsistency between my profession and my conduct. Those who taunt and slander sanatanists commit himsa and undoubtedly injure the cause of the removal of untouchability. This whole work is purely religious and should be performed in a religious spirit. Those sanatanists who see untouchability as a part of religion should not be subjected to attacks of any kind. They have as much right to stand firm on their belief as we have to stand on ours. Even in inter-dining, cleanliness and some code of conduct are always desirable. It is a sin to use coercion in this matter or to despise those who refuse to inter-dine. Similarly to force one’s way into the temples against the wishes of the trustees is an act of sin. And even if the Harijans should manage to enter the temples in this manner and some Hindus should inter-dine with them, I would never accept it as removal of untouchability. Rather than be a witness to such reform I would prefer death, because I am convinced that compulsion can neither remove untouchability nor safeguard Hinduism. Let me make myself clear: I am not opposed to inter-dining in any way and I consider it adharma for anyone to refuse to eat in the company of a person out of contempt for him or on account of his birth. Assuredly it would be an exaggeration to assert that dining together necessarily promotes friendly feeling. But to refuse to dine with someone who is clean and is a vegetarian because he follows another religion or he belongs to another province or is an untouchable would be adharma.

It cannot be considered proper to attribute to the untouchables as such insanitation and such other defects and to refuse to dine with them. We must bear in mind one thing if we are to consider the question in a religious spirit. The caste Hindus, having created a class of outcastes, have up to the present day been treating them in a most irreligious and brutal manner. This has caused uncleanliness and other vices to creep in among them. Sooner or later the Hindus have to atone for it. The time has now come when we can no longer deprive them of temple-entry, etc., by attributing to them vices of which we ourselves were the cause. Our atonement consists in meeting them as they are, allowing them to enter the temples and behaving decently with them. We must have the faith that our contact will exercise a purifying influence on their habits and that they too will make an effort to that end. There is no other way of reforming them and of the caste Hindus doing atonement. It is essential to remember that uncleanliness and similar short-comings found in Harijans are common to lacs of other Hindus who are not prevented on that account from entering the temples or joining other public institutions. Why should we sit in judgement on the Harijans? Ultimately to whom does God belong? Does He belong to the meritorious and the rich or to the sinners who can hardly lisp His name? We must not judge others. Our duty is to judge ourselves. Read and ponder calmly over what I have written and if still there is anything to ask, do not hesitate to ask me. I want to satisfy you, and that from self-interest for I expect a great deal of work from you in this cause. To me the question is purely a religious one and I want full co-operation from religious minded people like you. How long will you be in Ratangarh? 4

As for death, it is a companion of birth and very faithful one. It never fails. Why should one worship God only when nearing death? What I regard as worship goes on every moment. The best worship of God is to serve God’s creation in a spirit of devotion to Him. Today it has to be tuned to tena tyaktena bhunjitha. Why do you wish that your dream may prove false? Even if I live to be a hundred it will seem too short to my friends. Then what does today or tomorrow matter? And as for worship, let us ever be doing it, both the young like you and the old like me. 5

 

References:

 

1. LETTER TO HANUMAN PRASAD PODDAR, April 8, 1932
2. LETTER TO HANUMAN PRASAD PODDAR, June 21, 1932
3. LETTER TO HANUMAN PRASAD PODDAR, July 21, 1932
4. LETTER TO HANUMAN PRASAD PODDAR, November 5, 1932
5. LETTER TO HANUMAN PRASAD PODDAR, February 18, 1937