The nationalist movement as a response to colonialism began in Maharashtra in the middle of the nineteenth century, and from a number of studies, auto- biographies and accounts of it available in Marathi and English, it is clear that it went through several phases. It began as a liberal-nationalist organization, which believed in taking up reforms simultaneously in social, political and economic fields. Lokahitvadi (Gopal Hari Deshmukh 1823-92), M.G. Ranade (1842-1901), C.G. Agarkar (1856-95) and G.K. Gokhale (1866-1915) held that the social institutions should be reformed on the principle of individual liberty, and that representative institutions should be introduced only gradually. They were therefore known as moderates. The extremists in contrast opposed reforms in the Hindu social system, but demanded immediate reforms in political institutions. Such views appeared in the 1870s in the form of V.S. Chiplunkar’s (1850-82) Nibandhamala and developed into B.G. Tilak’s (1856-1920) politics. Also, while the moderates communicated in English, believed in the liberalism of the colonial rulers and could appeal only to the English-educated class, the extremists Communicated the message of Hindu nationalism in Marathi by using religious symbols, exposed the darker side of colonialism, and could mobilize to a large extent the lower middle class, as well as, occasionally, farmers and workers.
The extremism of Tilak’s party never went beyond organizing mass movements. Those who did not believe in parliamentary politics took recourse to violence. In particular, V.B. Phadke (1845-83), Damodar Chaphekar (1870- 97) andV.D. Savarkar (1893-1966) organized underground terrorist activities to overthrow the colonial regime.
When Gandhi appeared on the political scene, the nationalist movement in Maharashtra had become divided into two camps, the Gandhians and the Tilakites. The Tilakites, led by N.C. Kelkar (1872-1947), opposed Gandhi's programme of non-cooperation and Hindu-Muslim unity, and eventually founded the Hindu Mahasabha. The Gandhians, including Shankarrao Dev (1895-1974), Acharya Vinoba Bhave (1895-1982) and Acharya Javadekar (1894-1955), mobilized political support for the Satyagraha movement and prepared the philosophical justification of Gandhism in Maharashtra. However, as all these groups were said to be interested-primarily in mobilizing Brahman support as an avenue to political power, a non-Brahman party was also founded in 1920 to fight Brahman dominance. This movement, led by Shahu Maharaj'(1874-1922), is considered radical since it was inspired by Mahatma Phule’s (1827-90) idea of overthrowin ‘the caste-system (Omvedt 1976: 2).
Studies of the nationalist movement in Maharashtra have attempted to discern differences in approach. In particular, biographers and students of political thought have emphasized the distinctive nature of the groups to which their subjects belonged, and their rivalries. Much has been written, for example on the radicalism of the non-Brahman movement which separated it from Brahman nationalism. These debates have also been reproduced amongst the scholars them- selves. Indeed, this tendency has been carried to such an extent that significant areas of agreement between all these movements have been overlooked, and it is the purpose of this paper to find the common ground of the nationalist movement of Maharashtra. It is argued, in particular, that all schools of nationalism share a fundamental belief in Maharashtra Dharma. A close analysis of the ideas and actions of the leaders and ideologues reveals that, despite the diverse trends al] wanted to. establish a link between themselves and the dharma of the saint movement and in)the Maratha empire of the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- turies. This Maharashtra Dharma could be tentatively defined as varnashramdharma, wherein the Brahmans and the Kshatriyas are supposed to observe their own dharmas as well as provide leadership to the other two varnas, thereby defending Hindu culture and the Hindu nation (Agnihotri 1977: 193).
Each school of nationalism had tried to relate to Maharashtra Dharma or appropriate and interpret this pre-colonial form of national consciousness. Lokahitvadi, an eminent liberal nationalist of the pre-Ranade period, for instance, though that revolution only occurred once in India, under the leadership of Shivapi, a disciple of Ramdas (1608-81), who liberated Maharashtra from the Mughals (Priyolkar 1967: 29).The same Lokahitvadi, who was founder-presidenc of the Arya Samaj in Bombay, believed that the chaturvarna system of the Vedic period, based on function and merit, should be revived to take the place of the caste system. Lokahitvadi had a long association with the founder of the Arya Sainaj, Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824-83), and wrote a book on him in 1884 (Parikh and Parikh 1988: 13-14).
The first attempt to revive the term Maharashtra Dharma in the new context of nineteenth century nationalism, however, was made by M.G. Ranade in his classic Ruse of the Maratha Power (1881). Ranade, the chief architect of moderate nationalism, interpreted the saint movement and the Maratha Empire as efforts to arouse the feeling of patriotism among the people, and establish a Hindu state in Maharashtra in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. According to him the rise of Maratha power was not an accident but a genuine attempt by Hindu nationality to form a ‘state animated by a common patriotism’. The history of the Marathas was particularly relevant then because it was the history of the formation of a true Indian nationality. Indians could think of establishing a Hindu Padshahi in Delhi due to the efforts of the Marathas. Like Lokahitvadi Ranade also identified Shivaji's endeavour as a political revolution (Ghurye et al. 1960: 4-5), preceded and to some extent caused by the religious upheaval of saints like Ramdas and Tukaram. Ranade gave special attention to Ramdas as he was Shivaji’s spiritual advisor and believed in the use of political means; it were his ideas, combined with the actions of Shivaji that led to the formation of Swaraj in seventeenth-century Maharashtra. Ramdas, indeed, was the ideologue of Maharashtra Dharma, which he distinguished from Hindu dharma; he wanted Sambhaji, son of Shivaji, to unite all Marathas in its realization. His Dasbodh (1659) was, according to Ranade, an encyclopaedia of political theory, which was essential to an understanding of Maharashtra Dharma (Ranade 1902: 321-9). Ranade also argued that the spirit of Maharashtra nationalist movement was not
born as late as the nineteenth century, since the Marathas regarded themselves as 3 distinct community since the days of Shivaji.
The liberal nationalist venture to revive Maharashtra Dharma nevertheless remained at the theoretical level of interpreting Maratha history. It 1s true that Ranade had convened a meeting in Pune in 1885 to petition the government for funds to restore the mausoleum of Shivaji. But nothing could be done in that connection afterwards, and it was left to the extremists to carry the torch. Tilak’s (1976: 955-62) assessment of Ramdas and Shivaji is not much different fom Ranade’s: he also felt that Ramdas had all the qualities that were essential for preparing Maharashtra for Swaray under Shivaji. He saw the relationship between these two men as parallel to that between Krishna and Asjun. Tilak considered Shivaji the incarnation of God (avatar purush), who created a sense of unity among people of diverse castes, so that all could take pride in the Swaraj established by him. Tilak put forward this interpretation because he, too, wanted to build a nation out of a heterogeneous, caste-ridden society. Thus there is little difference between his and Ranade’s interpretations. The latter had argued, for example, that the religious revival of the saints was non-Brahman in character and following, the joint work of all the castes. Shivaji too had followed the policy of giving due place to all the castes in his administration. Thus the unity of the Marathas was a goal stressed by both schools of nationalist thought.
More significant than Tilak’s writings were his efforts at establishing Maharashtra Dharma. Since the publication of Grant Duff's History of the Marathas (1826) the life and times of Shivaji had been an important topic of discussion in Maharashtra. But only Tilak grasped the importance of this hero as the symbol of extremist Hindu nationalism. He began to mobilize public opinion through the Kesari for a Shivaji memorial in April 1895. He called a public meeting in Pune on 30 May of the same year to discuss the issue. At the time of the Pune Congress Session in December 1895, he organized another meeting to explore the possibility of celebrating a Shivaji festival (Ahluwalia and Ahluwalia 1984: 60-80). The latter’s birth anniversary was eventually celebrated on 15 and 16 April 1896 at Raigad, his capital. From then on, the Shivaji festival, along with the Ganapati festival, became a part of the extremist nationalist movement, and fanctioned as a medium of mobilization for the cause of Swaraj, by evoking the glorious memories of the Maratha empire. .
These interpretations of Maratha history were substantiated and supported by V.K. Rajvade (1863-1926), an eminent historian of Maharashtra. Rajvade pointed out that at the beginning of the seventeenth century the minds of the elites of Maharashtra were preoccupied with the idea of establishing Maharashtra Dharma ( Joshi 1967: 168-265). The difficult task of realizing this idea fell to Shivaji: it was not merely Hindu dharma, as its scope exceeded that of religion. The Hindus of Maharashtra were unlike their counterparts elsewhere who had tamely submitted to Muslim rule. In Maharashtra the overthrow of the Muslims became a part of the Hinduism of the people, so that dharma could be established COWS and Brahmans protected. But even the overthrow of Muslims was not sufficient: Swarajy was necessary. Rajvade thus believed that Maharashtra Dharma-a term first mentioned in the seventeenth-century Mahikavatichi bakhar (and subsequently popularized by Ramdas) consisted of Hindu dherma, the protection of cows and Brahmans, the establishment of Swaraj and the integration of the people and the leadership. Shivaji and his followers sacrificed their lives in the cause of Maharashtra Dharma, and the concept was central to the activities of the Marathas for almost a century and a half. In the eighteenth century Swaraj had been converted into the Hindupadpadshahi by the Peshwas, and the Marathas were attempting to carry Maharashtra Dharma into the rést of India sometimes under the leadership of the Maratha caste and sometimes under that of the Brahmans. While the Sikhs and the Bundelas had the same aim, they lacked the unity, determination and leadership that was required, and found only among the ‘Marathas. The latter not only had the personal qualities of bravery but were also united and inspired by the precepts of Ramdas. Like Ranade and Tilak, Rajvade viewed Ramdas as the ideologue of Shivaji, and the inspiration behind Maharashtrian nationalism and patriotism, which enabled the Marathas to carry on their struggle even after Shivaji’s death. Ramdas performed the invaluable task of restoring the chaturvarna system, and reestablishing morality, dharma and Swaraj, which had all degenerated under Muslim domination. Rajvade was also of the opinion that the other saints, Tukaram and Eknath were inclined towards morality and bhakti, neglecting nationalistic and political matters. Although these saints pointed out the shortcomings of the Brahman leaders of the chaturvarna system, they were incapable of showing the right path Indeed, by exposing only the dark side of Hinduism, they merely demoralized and split up the community. Ramdas had shown the right path. Once again, these views differ little-from those held by Raanade and Tilak. Later, nationalists - were also much influenced by Rajvade’s analysis of Maratha history. Terrorist nationalism also found its parallels in Maratha history. Vasudev Balwant Phadke, the first terrorist nationalist of Maharashtra was inspired by Shivaji's deeds (Phadke 1989: 25). Chaphekar and his friends were likewise inspired by the Shivaji. festivals organized by Tilak, and formed an organization to remove the obstacles.in the path of Hinduism (Ahluwalia and Ahluwalia 1984: 70). V.D: Savarkar, the principal philosopher of terrorism, published his Hindupadpadshahi in 1925, in which he also attributed the rising political fortunes of Hindus to the concept of Maharashtra Dharma as realized by Shivaji and Ramdas. In his. words, Maharashtra-Dharma was a new force ‘animatin gthe d in spirit: of the national life of the Hindu race’ during. Shivaji’s time. He (1947. 4.5) visualized a similar effort to establish Hindupadpadshahi under the leadership of Maharashtra in his time.
After the death of Tilak in 1920, N.C. Kelkar emerged as one of the most important Tilakite leaders. His early reluctance to follow Gandhi—whose en- trance led to the emerging all-India character of the nationalist movement and his subsequent independent stand could also be interpreted from the stand- point of Maharashtra Dharma. Apart from the need of Maharashtra to find its own leader, militant Hindu nationalism, which was.a reaction to the Muslim breakaway and to Gandhi's attempts at fostering communal unity, was also a contributing factor. Hence the Hindu Mahasabha leaders, Kelkar and Savarkar, projected Shivaji as a symbol of pan-Hindu unity, and attempted to break away — from Gandhi's secular all-India movement.
Kelkar (1938: 923-6), defines the religion of Maharashtra as pragmatic; it does not believe in extreme other worldliness. The saints of Maharashtra were pragmatic and, therefore, could arouse national consciousness. Marathas created a tide of freedom which at one time touched Delhi. It was from the Marathas that the English army had to conquer India.
Gandhism and these Mahasabhists were thus political rivals. However, belief in the former did not mean the abandonment of Maharashtra Dharma by ‘its proponents. The appeal of the leaders of the Mulshi Satyagraha (1921-4) was thus based on the idea that the lands about to be submerged by the Mulshi dam belonged to the Mavalas, followers of Shivaji, and the area was where Shivaji had made his earliest attempts to establish Swaraj. That volunteers from even remote corners of Maharashtra came to join the Mavalas in their struggle indi- cates that this appeal to Maharashtra Dharma on the part of Congress leaders had the desired mobilizing effect (Bhuskute 1968: 20-42). In a similar vein, Acharya Vinoba Bhave, a leading Gandhian, edited a monthly named Maharashtra Dharma in 1923, the publication of which was suspended because of the Satyagraha movement, to be resumed in 1927. The choice of title was due to the deep impact of the concept on the Acharya and his friends during their school and college days (Bhave 1984: 260). The purpose of the periodical was to ernphasize that it was wrong to separate politics and religion, since religion was at the core of individual, social and political life. In his article on V.K. Rajvade’s critique of such saints as Eknath and Tukaram, Vinoba Bhave (1958: 143-9) observed that such criticism, coming out ofa sincere concern for the nation, was understand- able. He also published a lengthy article on Tilak. Tilak by now had become a symbol to whom Gandhians had to, relate at a philosophical level, and Vinoba’s article (1958: 9-16) was an effort in this direction.
Acharya S.D. Javadekar was another important exponent of Gandhism 1n Maharashtra, as well as an ideologue. of the socialist movement which began in the 1930s within the fold of nationalism. He performed the theoretical exercise of reconciling Gandhism and socialism and, more than anyone else, could establish a ‘link between Tilak’s nationalism and the Gandhian movement in Maharashtra. He wrote a number of articles in the 1920s and 1930s in Marathi periodicals, attempting to appropriate the heritage of Tilak, the man who became known as the Ramdas of the twentieth century (Tilak 1976: 961). According to to Javadekar, there were three political parties in Maharashtra, the moderate (following Ranade and Gokhale), che extremist (following Tilak) and the terrorist (following Savarkar),and Gandhi represented a continuation of the second trend. Tilak had advocated non-violent revolutionary politics, and since Gandhi took over from him, Javadekar regarded Tilak the true father of Indian nationalism. Tilak’s Gitarahasya (a commentary on the Gita) explained the true nature of Hindu dharma, and his studies in English convinced the world of the antiquity of Indian civilization. He also democratized Indian politics and developed the spirit of nationalism by creating self-respect among the masses. He fought the colonial bureaucracy at the head.ofa popular movement. By starting-the Shivaji and Ganapati festivals, he also gave religious and historical support to nationalism and captured the minds of the people. The logical culmination to all these trends was to be found, in Javadekar’s view, in Gandhi’s movement (Javadekar 1946: 10-19)
Non-Brahmans likewise tried-to relate to Maharashtra Dharma from their point of view. The first to so utilize the Shivaji tradition was Mahatma Phule. His ballad published in 1869, painted Shivaji as a Shudra king, and under- muned the role of the Brahman saint Ramdas (Keer and Malshe 1969: 15). This assessment of the Maratha empire was followed by other non-Brahman leaders. The differences between Shivaji’s rule, which laid the foundations of Maratha power, and that of the Brahman Peshwas was also emphasized, though these later scudies maintained that Shivaji belonged to the Kshatriya and not the Shudra varna.
Shahu Maharaj (1874-1922), a Maratha ruler of Kolhapur state, and the most imporcant leader of the non-Brahman movement, also tried to assert his right as a Kshatriya, especially after he came to know that the religious ceremonies _ of his palace were performed according to Puranic rather than Vedic rites. However, Brahmans refused to regard him a Kshatriya king, and treated him as a Shudra. These initiated a controversy about vedokta (rites prescribed in the Vedas) which lasted from 1901 to 1905 (Phadke 1986: 62-100). Unlike Phule, who rejected the Vedas, the Puranas and the chaturvarna system itself, Shahu believed in the Vedas and in the pre-eminence of Kshatriyas. He rejected Phule’s more radical principles which were followed by the Satya Shodhak Samaj founded in 1873, and followed instead the ideals of the Arya Samaj. He started a branch of this organization in Kolhapur in 1916. He also brought educational institu- cions in his state under the management of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and used Dayanand Saraswati’s Satyartha Prakash as a textbook in some of the schools. Shahu presided over conferences on the Arya Dharma in 1918 and 1920, and the All-India Kshatriya conference held at Kanpur in 1919, While Phule totally rejected priesthood, Shahu appointed Sadashiv Patil Benadikar as kshatrajagatguru (high priest) in 1920 and instituted a Kshatriya Vedic Patshala in Kolhapur in 1921. In his article on the founder of the Arya Samaj he argued that the ideal Vedic varna system should replace the caste system (Shahu 1922: 122).
Non-Brahman periodicals throw more than sufficient light on the fact that the non-Brahmans, especially the Marathas, believed in a Maharashtra Dharma which gave the leading role to the Kshatriyas. Rashtraveer, a Maratha paper published in Belgaum expressed its concern over the status of non-Brahmans in the Hindu Dharmashastras (26 February 1922), which relegated all of them to the scatus of Shudras in the Kaliyuga. In the same article the Marathas demanded religious rituals appropriate to their status as Kshatriyas. When a statue of Shivaji was erected in Pune (in 1921), the non-Brahman papers took care to remind people of the Peshwas’ betrayal of the Chhatrapati and of the ability of the Maratha community to produce great leaders like Shivaji. In 1932, the Rashtraveer supported the cause of separate electorates for Hindus, and observed that the Hindu Mahasabha could have represented all the Hindus, were it not for the domination of that organization by Brahmans (4 October 1932).
Marathas also celebrated their Kshatriyahood by observing the Shravani (reaffirmation of twice-born status by the ceremony of the sacred thread), annually. A book entitled Kshatriyanche Vedokta Shravani Puran (Phadke 1986: 281) had acquired fame in the 1920s, and several others emphasizing Kshatriyahood emerged in the same period, their announcements and advertisements being carried in the non-Brahman papers of the day.
Some of the followers of the Satya Shodhak Samaj made a feeble attempt at distinguishing between their radicalism and contemporary non-Brahmanism. However, this argument did not appeal to the non-Brahman leaders, who main- tained that Phule himself had been a strong supporter of Hinduism, and could not tolerate the criticisms of the latter by missionaries. He had believed that the Hindus became spineless due to the slavery imposed on them by the Brahmans; anti-national Brahmanism was in fact the ruin of Hinduism. Phule was thus, according to this school of thought, devoted to regenerating rather than abol- ishing the Hindu religion, and the Satya Shodhak Samaj was not a distinct sect but an organization devoted to this aim. Indeed, according to Dinkarrao Jawalkar (1898-1932), Phule fought for all Hindus, while Tilak represented only the Brahmans. He also felt that Ramdas had tried to take over Shivaji’ state as bhiksha that was due to him; just as in ancient times King Bali was deceived by ‘Waman; as in the middle ages Ramdas tried to deceive Shivaji, so in recent times Tilak played against the interests of King Shahu (Phadke 1984: 110-13).
Another non-Brahman leader, Keshav Sitaram Thakare, published a weekly, Prabodhan, which carried articles on Hinduism and on the activities of Hindu organizations and conferences. He was a Chandrasentya Kayastha Prabhu, particularly interested in the role of his own caste through history, (though, like Shahu and Jawalkar, he also tried to establish a spirit of Kshatriyahood within the fold of varnashramadharma, instead of criticizing the whole setup of Hinduism). If we compare the speeches of these leaders to their non-Brahman audiences with the speeches of Savarkar to the Brahmans, the common ground regarding Hindu society and politics in Maharashtra becomes immediately apparent.
Maharashtra Dharma was thus another name for Maharashtrian nationalism, and was rooted in the historical experience and cultural traditions of the people of Maharashtra. Maharashtra Dharma enabled the newly emerging middle class Brahman and non-Brahman to assert his place in society, as it preserved the ancient and medieval social system, and through it regulated the relationship of this class to the masses on the one hand and to the colonial overlords on the other. This class could not forget its regional roots even during its participation in the nationwide nationalist movement. However, cosmopolitan Mumbai could not accept such an ideology, and the more embracing form of nationalism was strongly supported by Parsi and Gujarati businessmen. Gokhale, dependent upon the city’s support, could never project himself as a viable representative of Maharashtrian nationalism. Gandhi, likewise, found his support in Mumbai, rather than in the followers of Maharashtra Dharma, which included miost of the Maharashtrian middle class, who particularly objected to Gandhi's policy towards Muslims. Even those who joined Gandhi did not wish to lose the identity of Maharashtra Dharma in the all-India movement. It is not, therefore, surprising, that after the transfer of power this ideology re-emerged in the form of demands for a Marathi-speaking state, and also sought to continually protect the interests of the emerging dominant class composed of Marathas and Brahmans.
REFERENCES
Agnihotri, D.H., 1977, Maharashtra sanskritiche tatvik adnisthan, Nagpur: Suvichar Prakashan.
Ahluwalia A.K. and S. Ahluwalia (eds.), 1984, Shivaji and Indian Nationalism, Delhi: Cultural Publishing House.
Bhave, S.N., 1984, Vinboba jeevan darshan, Mumbai: Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya ani Sanskriti
Mandal.
Bhave, Vinoba, 1958, Madhukar, Pavnar: Gram Seva Mandal.
Bhuskute,V.M., 1968, Mulshi satyagraha, Pune: Dastane Ramchandra.
Ghurye, G.S. et al. (eds.), 1960, Rise of Mavatha Power and Other Essays by M.G. Ranade, and Gleanings from Maratha Chronicles by K.T. Telang, Mumbai: University of Bombay.
Javadekar, S.D., 1946, Lokamanya Tilak va Mahatma Gandii, Pune: Rajhansa Prakashan.
Joshi, L.S. (ed.), 1967, Rajvade lekhasangraha, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.
Keer, D and S. Malshe (éds.), 1969, Mahatma Phule samagra vangmaya, Mumbai
Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal.
Omvedt, G., 1976, Cultural Revolt in a Colonial Society: The Non-Brahmin Movement in Western India: 1873-1930, Mumbai: Scientific Socialist Education Trust.
Parikh, G. and I. Parikh (eds.), 1988, Lokahitwadt samagra vangmaya, Mumbai: Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya ani Sanskriti Mandal.
Phadke, Y.D., 1984, Dinkarrao Javalkar samagra vangmaya, Pune: Shrividya Prakashan. 1986, Shahu Chhatrapati ani Lokamanya,Pune: Shrividya Prakashan 1989, Visavya shatakatil Maharashtra, Pune: Shrividya Prakashan.
Priyolkar, A.K. (ed.), 1967, Lekahitavadikrit nibandhasangraha, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.
Ranade, R. (ed.), 1992, Nyaymurti Ranade yanchi dharmapar vyakhyane, Lonavala: Ramabai Ranade. .
Savarkar, V.D., 1942, Hindupadpadshahi, Mumbai: Manohar Granth Mala.
Shahu Maharaj, 1922, ‘Bahiskritoddharak Rishi Dayananda’, Prabodhan 1: 122-3.
Tilak, B.G., 1976, Samagra Lokamanya Tilak, vol. 6, Pune: Kesari Prakashan.
--------------------------------------------------
Writers, Editors and Reformers ( ) मध्ये प्रकाशित