Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: July 22, 2008
As Delhi courts grapple with a petition seeking
a ban on the publication and distribution of Arya Samaj founder Swami Dayanand
Saraswati's magnum opus, Satyarth Prakash, it may be pertinent to recall Sri
Aurobindo's tribute: "In the matter of Vedic interpretation I am convinced
that whatever may be the final complete interpretation, Dayananda will be
honoured as the first discoverer of the right clues. Amidst the chaos and
obscurity of old ignorance and age long misunderstanding, his was the eye
of direct vision that pierced to the truth and fastened on that which was
essential. He had found the keys for the doors that time had closed and rent
asunder the seals of the imprisoned fountains."
While acknowledging that there is much that even Hindus and Jains, not to
mention Muslims and Christians, could legitimately dispute in Satyarth Prakash,
Aurobindo's homage hits the eye of the fish. The lasting legacy of Swami Dayanand
Saraswati (1825-1883), for which he deserves the undying gratitude of succeeding
generations, is that he told an enslaved and demoralised Hindu society to
seek inspiration and rejuvenation in its Vedic civilisational roots. Whatever
the merits of his own rather literal style of interpreting religious texts,
the call to return to the Vedic Gangotri was sheer genius.
It is a timely warning for our age, when westward-looking
sanyasis are conniving to erode the Vedic roots of Hindu civilisation by forcing
a peculiar monotheism upon society, with the Bhagwad Gita serving as a sort
of 'Hindu Bible' This undermines the primacy of the Vedas and destroys the
pre-eminence of Sri Ram.
Gujarat-born Dayanand Saraswati had crystal
clarity in this regard: "I hold that the four Vedas-the repository of
knowledge and religious truths -- are the word of god. They comprise what
is known as the Samhita-Mantra portion only. They are absolutely free from
error, and are an authority unto themselves... they do not stand in need of
any other book to uphold their authority. Just as the sun (or a lamp) by its
light, reveals its own nature as well as that of other objects of the universe,
such as the earth, even so are the Vedas. The commentaries on the four Vedas,
viz., the Brahmanas, the six Angas, the six Upangas, the four Up-Vedas, and
the eleven hundred and twenty-seven Shakhas, which are expositions of the
Vedic texts by Brahma and other great rishis -- I look upon as works of a
dependent character... they are held to be authoritative in so far as they
conform to the teachings of the Vedas. Whatever passages in these works are
opposed to the Vedic injunctions I reject them entirely."
This is a precise summation of the Hindu quest
in the colonial period for the true meaning of its tradition, depressed under
centuries of Muslim rule. President S Radhakrishnan said Swami Dayanand would
occupy pride of place among makers of modern India: "At a time when there
was spiritual confusion in our country, when many of our social practices
were in the melting pot, when we were overcome by superstition and obscurantism,
this great soul came forward with staunch devotion to truth and a passion
for social equality and enthusiasm, and worked for the emancipation of our
country, religious, political, social and cultural... Swami Dayananda Saraswati
was one who was guided by the supremacy of reason and he made out that the
Vedic scriptures never asked us to take anything on trust but to examine everything,
and then come to any kind of conclusion... So he was a social reformer who
had a crusading zeal, a powerful intellect and a fire in his heart when he
looked at the social injustices. He tried to sweep them away with a drastic
hand. This is also what the country requires today... In that way he emphasized
the rule of reason and pointed out that there is one Supreme god. He also
gave freedom of conscience."
Currently, Mr Usman Ghani and Mr Mohammad
Khalil Khan of Sadar Bazar, Delhi, are seeking a perpetual injunction against
Satyarth Prakash on grounds that it hurts their religious feelings. Their
specific objections pertain to paragraph 143 and 159 (English edition). To
expound upon the merits of their pleas would be to unilaterally engage in
comparative religion, which may polarise communities without resolving the
issue scripturally or academically. This is not the first attempt to ban this
135-year-old text; hitherto courts have given short shrift to attempts to
communalise established texts.
Instead of misusing contemporary constitutional
provisions to ban a text that has played a major role in India's historical
and political awakening, inspiring freedom fighters like Lala Lajpat Rai to
lay down their lives for the country; it may be rewarding to understand the
context in which Satyarth Prakash was written. Religious scholars generally
agree that Swami Dayanand did not have a complete understanding of the religious
traditions he critiqued, though there was some merit in the faults he found
therein, including Hindu dharma. Arya Samajis have not sought a ban on religious
texts containing passages abhorred by Swami Dayanand (and many lay citizens);
nor have other Hindu groups sought a ban on Satyarth Prakash for finding flaws
in their religious practices.
One may specifically mention Swami Dayanand's
critique of image worship, once zealously embraced by a generation of Hindus
in north India, as renunciation of image worship negated the colonial-missionary
attack on 'idolators' and revived collective self-esteem during the freedom
struggle. However, as the need for such dissimulation is now over, Arya Samaji
women coyly admit that moorti-pooja is no longer frowned upon so vigorously,
and practices like nazar (warding off the evil eye on children) are making
a quiet comeback. I mention this because many Hindu spiritual leaders with
foreign disciples are defensive about 'idolatory' in the Hindu tradition and
even today seek to interpret dharma in terms consistent with monotheistic
traditions.
The petition against Satyarth Prakash is not
a technical issue of freedom of speech (Article 19) of either side. Indeed,
there are no sides here, because the intention of the author was to critique
with a view to energise a half-dead people to national consciousness, and
not to wound religious sentiments. It is in this context that the petitioners
should understand the book and withdraw their petition.