Aspects of Lower Caste Hindu Mobilization and two strands of Hindu nationalism in Bihar[1]
Hitendra K. Patel

The manner in which different social groups understood and interpreted the ideology of nationalism, or visions of nation, has not been adequately researched.[2] Linked with this is the complexity involved in mobilisation if Hindus by Hindu nationalists. With the beginning of mass phase of national movement in India, Hindu nationalists had to evolve a new strategy to mobilise lower caste men to really represent the “Hindu political voice” of this country. Towards this, some leaders like Madan Mohan Malaviya had advocated a policy in which the lower caste men had been welcomed as Hindus. But, this move was resented by other Hindu leaders who reiterated the continuation of old social order. To this orthodox variety of Hindu nationalists, the Congress did not represent the Hindus and this community needed a Hindu political organisation at the national level. This paper seeks to narrate the story how these two strands stood Bihar in the 1920s and the thirties.
Hindu nationalists tried to organise Hindus of the backward castes in 1920s. Scholars have argued how ideologically and strategically Hindu nationalism proposed to confront the problem of mobilising the dalit and the backward castes without whose participation the idea of a Hindu nation, consisting of all Indians who were non-Muslims, non-Christians and non- Sikhs as Hindus, would not gain the necessary legitimacy and power.[3] By 1920s the Hindu ideological campaigns had been visible in different parts of northern India. For Hindu nationalists these campaigns were part of ongoing national movement. In Bihar, these Hindu communal campaigns and mobilisational efforts were aiming to unite Hindus.[4] This required a more flexible idea of Hinduism which had been in circulation for last five decades. In the period between 1870s and 1920s Hinduism was primarily defined by the orthodox Hindus, Sanatanis, in Brahmanical terms which advocated the observance of Varnashram dharma as the essence of Hinduism. But, as this article seeks to demonstrate, to mobilise Hindus in large numbers Hindu leaders had to change their approach towards backward Hindus. In this process the old notions of real Hindus got changed and adjusted to suit the needs of mobilisational schemes of Hindu leaders.
* * *
In the writings of the Intelligentsia of Bihar one can discern three tendencies working at the same time: First, a concern for their country; second, concern for their religion; and third, a concern for the safeguarding of age-old customs and traditions. The intelligentsia of Bihar had a close relation with influential writers based in Banaras and Calcutta. Among those who had a strong influence on the writers of Bihar the most important name was Bharatendu Harischandra. For Harischandra's generation[5] there was no intrinsic contradiction between the emerging national consciousness and communal identities. [6] These writings were also respectful of varnashram dharma, which accepted the caste system as the basis of Hindu society. This complexity makes the study of national regeneration a study of social transformation and a change of consciousness as well in the nineteenth century context.
There is an interesting instance of a writing of a Hindi writer of Bihar in which the caste sabhas and their activities are criticised, as those sabhas do not respect the norms of varnashram. The writer says: “ All those people who wish well for varnashram dharma should consider only those sabhas as national sabha which respects varnashram norms, and Brahmins are present” The writer believes that the organisers of the caste sabhas were afraid of dharma and they did not have any respect for varnashrama dharma. That is why they organised their sabhas in which Brahmins are absent. Criticising the Arya Samaj the writer says that they are also following the Brahmo Samaj in criticising Hindus and thus going downhill (adhogami).[7]
We find some references to the writings in which caste system was considered an obstacle for the national progress the writing of the period 1874 and 1900 overwhelmingly thought in caste terms. Ramdeen Singh, the man behind the Khadagvilas Press, the most influential press of Bihar, started a magazine called Khatriya Patrika in 1881. In its inaugural issue he wrote : “although this has taken birth in a Kshatriya’s home the Brahmins are revered. For fellow Kshatriyas the caste religion (jati dharma) is there. Vaishyas are obviously our associates and without the Shudras the superiority of all these castes cannot be established.” [8] All Hindus were welcomed to support this magazine, but the manner in which all castes were addressed is a clear indication of how the orthodox Hindu view, supportive of caste hierarchies, were at work.
In the nineteenth century literature most of the Brahmin writers had the tendency to present history in a way that gave centrality to the Brahmin’s role in Hindu society. Pratap Narayan Mishra wrote an article Nirnay Shatak in 1892, in which he said, “The Brahmins used to take all decisions about everything. In religious and social affairs even today they take the decisions. But, since Muslim rule began (and thereafter British rule) all political decisions were taken by them not the Brahmins.”[9]
All along, however, writers emphasised the need for the attempts to unite the Hindus so that a strong and organised Hindu nation could be formed. There were some tensions in this as many of the writers were strong supporters of the varnashram dharma and the unity of the Hindus demanded the devaluation of varnashram. This desire explains why so many articles were written in different Hindi newspapers against the continuance of the varna system as a divisive force in Hindu society. But we must also pay attention to the fact that in Bihar; Sanatan dharma supporters staunchly backed the caste system and were very critical of any attempt to disturb it. That is why they were against the reformists who were facilitating the upward mobility of the lower castes by giving them the authority to wear the sacred thread. What Saran Saroj, a respectable Hindi magazine published from Saran, wrote in December 1888 gives us an idea about how strongly the Sanatan Hindus felt about the social changes taking place at that time. It write that as a result of English education and reformist propaganda the lower castes were dreaming of being at par with their higher caste counterparts. This was undesirable and it was not considered beneficial and rewarding for the lower castes. It would ultimately leave them nowhere to fall back as they would be discarded even by their own castes.[10]
We find a number of articles and letters to editors that ridiculed and opposed any kind of “upper caste-isation” of the lower castes. In one letter a writer laughs at the wishful thinking of Koris (Koeries) and Chamars (low castes) to be vipra (Brahmins) due to their association with reformists.[11]
It would be misleading, however, to say that all writers had been supporters of caste or that they were against social reforms. Hindi Pradip wrote in 1889: “Without the annihilation of the caste system we and our country will not progress with all our efforts.” Using very strong language in condemning the system that was weakening our nationalism, it added: “Oh God! What wrong had we committed that we had to take birth in this, the worst kind of society where a caste system exists.” Towards the end the writer wished that in his next birth he could be born in any place, be it the deserts of Sahara, but not in this sinning society of Bharat.[12] But, these kind of voices were very rarely expressed. In most cases, the writers were emphasising the need to unite countrymen for the progress of the country. The problem was that their countrymen rarely included the non-Hindus. Radhacharan Goswami wrote that the country’s progress, the National Congress, social reform and women’s liberation were the dearest issues for him.[13] The order in which he listed the issues was probably similar to that of most other Hindi writers of his age. He wrote that Hindu is the name of the Nation in which Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, Antyaz, Chandal, Brahmo, Jains, Sikhs are all included.[14] His “all” did not include non-Hindus!
In the writings of nineteenth and early twentieth century writings of Bihar and north Indian Hindi writers there were efforts to emphasise the need of mobilising all Hindus under one head. The reference point was the nationalism of the European kind, which had proved to be so beneficial to them. A booklet[15] by Ayodhya Prasad ‘Hariaudh’ begins with these lines: “Sanatan Dharma is a very divine name. All those who are born of Hindu blood must feel proud hearing these words. Today attempts are being made to weaken and destroy this great Sanatan Dharma.”[16]He talks about the importance of our ancient texts. “Our ancestors were great people who could see the past, present and future (trikaldarshi). Now we do not have great souls like Manu or Yagyavalyakya nor are Vashistha or Vyas with us today. But, there are many great souls amongst our twenty crore strong Hindu nation who can guide us during this troubled and difficult time.”[17] Appreciating the likes of Bhagwandin, Pandit Tulsiram, Lala Lajpat Roy, Lala Hansraj for their services to the Arya Samaj he says, “These people might be great enemies of our Hindu dharma or Hindu nation but there cannot be any soul who would not appreciate their devotion to their own religion.”[18]
The regeneration of Hindus was clearly given prominence in a large number of writings of late nineteenth and early twentieth century Hindi writings. But, it should also be underlined that the terms of exposition were Brahmanical. The reforms movements, inter-caste social mixing and assertions of lower castes were frowned upon and generally looked upon as signs of degradation of great Hindu values. In Kalikal (Kaliyug) poem a poet says: “See the state of our Kaliyug/ Leaving varnashram, even the Bhangis are having ‘bhele’/ touching those people your father would have bathed/ assembling 6-7 in numbers in every village people are out to start a new religion/ These people are being treated as Brahmins by lower people- Bheel and Chamars.[19]
Even in those poems where the Congress-type reformist approach is evident in many poems, poets refrained to speak against the ideals of varnashram dharma. A poet, hailed as a “national poet”, lamented in his poem ‘Chaturvanya’ (Four Varnas): “Today the honour of Dwija has been lost and we all are like Shudras these days. The Kshatriya has lost its dharma… All Hindus should be proud of their culture. Organise yourself. Hindus would be liberated one day. On this rests the future of Hindutva.”[20]
These poems clearly reveal the Brahmanical Hindu mind of our national poet. In these poems in Bharat Bharati Maithili Sharan Gupta had taken up all issues which could be considered vital for the Congress-supporting nationalist people and the poet appealed to all concerned Hindus, Muslims, Christians, lower castes, supporters of the entry of lower castes into temples to come forward for the sake of national regeneration, but the terms of the exposition are such that the Brahmanical Hindu ideological moorings are quite clearly seen. Even the reluctance to criticise varnashram is evident. The poet was pained to see that low caste men were trying to be like their dwija (upper caste men) by wearing the sacred thread.
This continuous support for varnashram dharma is also present in the statements of the leaders of Bihar in the 1920s. The meetings organised to mobilise the Hindu masses heard speeches by Hindu leaders like Madan Mohan Malaviya at the Gaya session in which varnashram dharma’s ideals were clearly accepted. Madan Mohan Malaviya was a Hindu leader who could be considered a liberal Hindu in the sense that he wanted Hindu unity, a goal which required a liberal approach towards lower caste men. Even he had to be very cautiously advocate the urgent need for Hindu unity. For him caste system was to be defended. At the Gaya session of the All India Hindu Mahasabha, he said: “Gentlemen! The Hindu nation is divided into four varnas who are assigned different duties. The Brahmins are given the job of the mind and it is their job to think and show the true path of religion to all. The Kshatriyas have been assigned the job related to force and the Vaishyas have the power of money and the Shudras are assigned the job of service to all others. All varnas are brothers and like different parts of the same body they cannot harm any other varna…There is nothing to fight about amongst us. Yet, we remain divided. We are organisationally weak. The census indicates that the number of Hindus is declining consistently. Diseases affect Hindus more. Whenever there is any natural calamity like the plague or cholera we Hindus get killed in large numbers. Muslims are poor too, but they eat well and remain fit. Whenever there is a riot the Hindus keep themselves behind closed doors. The rioters loot and we cowards allow them to do so. In this country of Hindus this is shameful. This is so because we are not united. … For us, religion should be more dear than our lives.”
Malaviya reminded the Hindus of Gaya that it is because of Hindu weakness that Hindus get killed in Malabar and elsewhere. After giving details of riots in which Hindus were killed and their women humiliated and molested he called upon the Hindu women to be strong enough to protect themselves like the Christian women of Europe. He even advocated the women should be trained to fight with guns, so that their attackers could be countered.
Up to this point he was saying what had been said for decades. But, in the 1920s the most important was the issue of Hindu unity for which lower caste men are to be mobilised. So, Malaviya also had to talk about the organisation of Hindus in every locality. He advised that Hindu organisation should meet at least once every fortnight. Even Bhangis and Chamars should be welcomed in this assembly of Hindus. He told the upper caste Hindus to be kind to the low castes as a sympathetic attitude would be sufficient to win their hearts. He did not forget however to add: “I do not say that the differences of marriage relations and food habits be removed. If the Brahmins are offered the high seats in the assembly then the Raidases ( people belonging to Chamar caste) should be allowed to sit below. But allow them to come and attend the meeting of the Hindus.” How he was conscious of maintaining the ideals of varnashram dharma can be understood by his narrating a story.
He said: “There is a story in the Puranas that once a king was passing through a village when he saw that a katha, a religious one, was taking place in a house of Ahirs. The Ahirs requested the king to come and attend the katha and offered him the Prasad ( offering). The king did not accept the Ahirs’ prasad and returned. When he reached his home he found that all his sons had fallen sick. The moral of the story (according to Malaviya) was that the devotees of God must not be disrespected.” During the entire speech he was passionately advocating the unity of Hindus but without disturbing the ideals of varnashram dharma.[21]
The ideals of varnashram dharma and the regeneration of Hindus were two important motifs of the speech delivered by Darbahnga Maharaj, another well known leader of Hindu nationalists. He delivered a lecture on 10 January 1923 in Bombay on the theme: ‘The ways for the development of Sanatan dharma’. He said: “Let us think over the issue which is becoming a life and death question for the Hindu nation. As I can see it, resolving this issue is the crux of our problem. That crucial question is the question of our varnashram dharma and our social organisation.”[22] He declared that, “If a Hindu gets the highest post by losing Hindutva he deserves no respect from me.” Elaborating on his views he added that Western education and influences had adversely affected the social organisations of the Hindus.
In this age, which he describes as “the age of commercialisation”, if the Hindus did not try hard, their Hindu nation and Hindutva would be in grave danger. To defend the ‘national individuality’ (used in the text) he advocated respect for language, dress and feeling (‘bhasha’, ‘bhesh’ and ‘bhav’). He added, “To those people who believe that varnashram dharma and the caste system are hurdles in the path of the progress of national consciousness, I want to say that if we progress in commerce and political fields by ignoring our national (here implying caste) identities that progress would not be the progress of Hindu Bharat.”[23] He advocated the formation of a Defence Association of Hindus (“along the lines of the Salvation Army of the Christians”), which he called “the fauj (soldiers) of Sanatan dharma”. In this army of Sanatan dharma he wanted millions of sanyasis, who could not fight without leadership. Through these types of Sanatan dharma sevaks he hoped the country would progress. He also mentioned that there was a need to educate young boys for which there were no real arrangements, to instruct them on their history through education.[24] He called for young people to join the army of the Sanatan dharma Sena. He also wished to see a close collaboration between all Sanatan dharma organisations including Bharat Dharma Mahamandal. All these Sanatan dharma organisations were urged to elect only Sanatan dharma followers in any election.[25]
Here, one can clearly see that there was a sharp difference between the approaches of Malaviya and that of the Maharaja. The former had realised that the need of the hour was to accommodate the lower caste men in Hindu mobilisational schemes whereas the Maharaja had been following the old path.
Since the late nineteenth century, Sanatan dharma supporters had taken the reformist efforts of the Arya Samaj and other organisations as threats to weaken the Hindu unity. When Malaviya kind of approach came it was also taken as a wrong path. To the votaries of old varnasharmi supporters there was no need to change their attitude towards the lower caste men. We find the continuation of this kind of attittude of the Sanatan dharma supporters was common in mid 1920s also. At times, the Sanatanis took the Malaviya approach as a degradation. The Sanatani magazines were particularly severe at the Arya Samaj for bringing disorder into Hindu society. Criticising the Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj, Priyajan Sankhyatirtha wrote some extremely damaging pieces in Sanatan Dharma Pataka in 1926. The attitude of the Sanatan dharma supporters can be understood by studying their criticism of even Hindu leaders like Madan Mohan Malaviya whom they considered akin to the Arya Samajis in their reformist attitudes. In Chhapra there was a shashtrartha (discourse) between the Sanatan dharma supporter, Pandit Kaluram Shastri, and the Hindu Sabha leader Babu Chandrika Prasad. Pandit Kaluram Shastri was furious to see that his opponent was citing ancient religious texts to prove that one could mix with the Shudras for the broader solidarity of Hindus. While he was not against the development of the Shudras he could not accept the ideals of Hindu dharma, which he equated with varnashram dharma being violated. He quoted extensively from Parashar Smriti to say that: “If a dwija take water from a chandal (untouchable) he should vomit the entire intake to be pure. He should do praysachit.”[26] He also quoted Manusmriti to say this: “Chandals should be allowed to live out of the village and they should be allowed to possess as wealth dogs and donkeys only. Their clothes would be the left over of the dead or the old ones. During the time of any religious occasion do not see, talk or interact with them at all. They should interact and marry among equals. They must not wander at night in village or cities.”[27]
Any review of the Hindi papers and magazines of the 1920s reveals that faith in varnashram dharma was strongly asserted by writers. Faith in the greatness of the Brahmins was asserted. The anti-Brahmin speeches of the Arya Samajis were criticised. In Madhuri of 1927 Ramsevak Tripathi counters the accusations against Brahmins made by Santaram of the Jat Pat Torak Mandal in Lahore. He says, “ They (Brahmins) have always kept themselves engaged with knowledge selflessly. They have never bowed before the Muslims. Brahmins have given power to Kshatriyas and commercial power to Baniyas. These days we all are blindly following the West.”[28]
The appeal of varnashram dharma did not lose its appeal even in the writings of such reputed authors like Shivapujan Sahay. He wrote an article ‘Siksha Paddhati aur Sanatan Dharma’ (Education System and the Sanatan Dharma) in which he advocated the teaching of history in a proper manner, in which the greatness of Hindus, Sanatani Hindus, comes through. He observes: “These days the kind of education given to students is so poisonous that it kills the deeply imbibed and rooted ancient, sacred Hindu sanskara in their hearts. They forget the greatness of their forefathers. They take no pride in the greatness of their great ancient civilisation. They do not know how many jewels our civilisation has produced. They do not know how developed we Hindus were centuries ago.”[29]
Deeply suspicious of the content of the histories taught in educational institutions he
says: “In the name of history what is being taught to them is not fit to be called history at all. That is a curse (kalank) in the name of the Hindu nation (jati). That informs us that Hindu civilisation is merely a two or two-and-half thousand-year old civilisation. It tells us that we are not the original inhabitants of this country. We came from outside… Can this kind of history give any pride in history to the students who study it?”[30] About varnashram he says: “About varnashram what is taught is condemnable and ignoble. Students learn that varnashram never existed. As the Aryas were not civilised their necessities were minimal. As their requirements grew they started doing things which were required for their convenience. … As a result those who did the work of priests became Brahmins, those who were militant became Kshatriyas and the traders became Vaishyas and the servants became Shudras. This is how society got organised and the Aryas became civilised.” To Shivapujan Sahay this was all illogical, absurd and wild imagination.
Shivapujan Sahay wanted Hindu boys to be taught the history of their civilisation in such a way that they could feel proud of their history. He says: “ If Hindu boys learn history the way Muslim boys learn their history, that their ancestors had established rule by conquest and by force of their military strength they would not have remained so pale (nistej). When the history of the Muslim and British period is taught the version of only one side is taught. Hindus are depicted in a poor light and as objects of ridicule. If they had been taught that their ancestors had fought so bravely for the pride of their religion then the Sanatan dharma would not have fallen into such difficult days as it has today. Unless the polluted education system is not rectified, its destructive impact will not stop working on the minds of Hindu boys. The faith in Sanatan Dharma cannot be restored without this.”[31] In conclusion, Shivapujan Sahay said that students should be taught the stories of the Vedic and Puranic ages and the stories of the great heroes of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Unless the stories of great heroes like God Ram, Krishna, Bhishma, Arjun, Pratap, Shivaji, Ramtirtha, Vivekanand and the great heroines like Sita, Rukmini, Savitri, Damayanti, Anusuyya and Mirabai were not taught to Hindu students they would not get to know how great their Sanatan Hindu civilisation was.[32] These ideas actually led him to write stories like ‘Mundamal’ in which the greatness of a Rajput lady and the bravery of a Rajput king are dramatically narrated.[33]
Shivapujan Sahay was not alone in preaching this faith on the virtues of Sanatan dharma that was being polluted by modern education. The Sanatan Dharma ideals can be seen as dominant in the ideas of many contemporary writers.[34] The most striking names in this category would include Ishwari Prasad Sharma who had edited three important journals—Manoranjan, Lakshmi and Hindu Punch between 1912 and 1927.

The biggest obstacle in the path of Hindu organisational unity at this stage was the conflict between the traditional orthodox Sanatanis and reformists like the Arya Samajis. Hardcore Sanatanis were so hostile to any change in their rituals and social practices that they were more critical of the Arya Samajis than of the Muslims. When they discovered that the Hindu Sabha was also supporting some reformist demands they became very critical of the Sabha as well. The debate over the status of untouchables must have disheartened Hindu Sabha leaders.
They wished to see the untouchables and lower castes of Bihar coming to their meetings whereas for the Sanatan dharma supporters it was anti-religion. The organ of Sanatan dharma supporters had consistently opposed the reformist inclination of the Hindu leaders. As they saw in the activities of Hindu Sabha shades of the Arya Samaj they described the Hindu Sabha as ‘virtually Arya Sabha.’[35] The main objections of the Sanatan supporters were that the Hindu Sabha did not respect varnashram dharma, the backbone of the Hindu religion. For Sanatan dharma leaders the battle lines were very clear. They considered Congress leaders, including Gandhi, as people who were bent on weakening the solidarity of the Hindu Samaj by weakening the social organisation of Hindu society. They also condemned Madan Mohan Malaviya for his inclination to be open to both sides, Gandhi and Darbhanga Maharaj.
To be able to make a compromise between these two was for them an attempt to make the North Pole meet the South Pole.[36] In a write-up that sums up the approach of the Sanatan dharma supporters we find these words: “Some cynical reformists have made Malaviya agreeable to some anti-religion proposals. First the Arya Samajis have organised a party by provoking the Christians and the untouchables. Now, the Hindu Sabhaites are out to create permanent tension between the Sanatanis and the untouchables by raising some unavoidable issues.”[37] The differences between the approaches of the Sanatanis and the Hindu Sabhaites are clearer in the shashtrartha (discourses) held at Chhapra between Babu Chandrika Prasad of the Hindu Sabha and Pandit Kaluram Shastri of the Sanatan Dharma.[38] This debate clearly demonstrates how any type of mixing with the untouchables was unacceptable to the Sanatanis, whereas the Hindu Sabha had been advocating the inclusion of Dom-Mehtars into the fold of Hindu jati for the solidarity of Hindus. Kaluram Shastri quotes ancient Hindu texts to say this: “Brahmanees ke sath Shudra ke sansarg se jo santan hoti hai uska nam chandal hai. Wah lohe ke aur sheeshe ke zevar pahine , gale mein baddhi bandhe, kankh mein peti rakhe din ke poorvardha mein nagar ka mal (pakhana) saf kar de uttarardha mein phir nagar mein na jaye ye ikatthe hokar nagar ke bahar rahein. Aisa na karein to dandaneeya hain.”[39]He also quotes from Parashar Smriti, in which it is said: “Yadi chandal ka darshan ho jaye to Surya ka avalokan karo aur yadi chandal ka sparsha ho jawe to pahire hue vastron ko dhowo aur snan karo. Yeh dharma shashtra ki aagya hai.”[40] When countered strongly by Babu Chandrika Prasad who quoted ancient texts in support of receiving water and food from the homes of Shudras, Pandit says: “Aap itna bhi nahin jante ki shudron ke sath Hindu jati ka kya vyawahar hai. Sat shudra, asat shudra, antyaj, chandal, swapach shudron mein paanch bhed hain. Shastra mein pancon ke sath prithak prithak vyawahar hai. Hum sat shudron ka pani bhi peete hain aur unka anna bhi le sakte hain.wahan shudron ka vivid nahin hai kewal chandal aur swapachon ka hai.”[41]
This debate summed up the situation for modern Hindu nationalists like Malaviya who had been conscious of the need to widen the scope for Hindu national mobilisation. To his discomfort, the old Sanatanis had not waken up to the new realities which demanded a new approach to bring in the lower caste support.

[1] I am grateful to Majid Siddiqi and Rajsekhar Basu for their comments.
[2] Adapa Satyanarayana, ‘Nation, Caste and the Past: Articulation of Dalit-Bahujan Identity, Consciousness and Ideology’ (Sectional President’s Address), Proceedings of the Indian History Congressi, 65th Session, Bareilly, Delhi, 2005, p. 420.
[3] For a very persuasive article forwarding this view see Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, Caste, Culture and Hegemony
(New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2004), pp. 192-95.
[4] To get an idea of Hindu political mobilization in Bihar see Hitendra K. Patel, ‘Aspects of Hindu Mobilisation in Modern Bihar’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 65th Session, Bareilly ( Delhi: Indian History Congress, 2005), pp.798-824.
[5] Bharatendu Harishcandra (1850-1884); the greatest writer of nineteenth century Hindi literature who acquired iconic status as a renaissance man and ‘father of modern Hindi’ among Hindi writers from Rajasthan to Calcutta; by lineage linked with great trading family of Jagat Seth who spent all his financial and intellectual resources for the promotion of Hindi; had very good contact with Rajendra Lal Mitra, Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, Bankimchandra Chatterjee and other leading Bengali writers; besides writing great masterpieces, editing leading literary journals and promoting a number of young Hindi writers he also tried to raise public issues like the question of swadeshi, drain of wealth, use of Hindi as official language, cow-protection etc.; Ballia speech delivered in the last phase of his career is hailed as one of the most significant speeches of the nineteenth century writers. The period between 1874, when he started his famous paper Kavi Vachan Sudha (Banaras), and 1884, the year of his death, is referred as Bharatendu ‘yug’ (era). In Hindi literary history the period up to 1900 is referred as Bharatendu era.

[6] Sudhir Chandra, ‘Communal Elements in Late Nineteenth Century Hindi Literature, Occasional Paper XV’, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi.
[7] Saran Saroj, June, 1888.
[8] Kshatriya Pataka, Bankipur, Patna, editorial, 1881, p.31.
[9] Brahman, February 1892.
[10] Saran Saroj, December 1888, pp.5-7.
[11] Saran Saroj, June 1889.
[12] This remarkably radical piece appeared in Hindi Pradip, April 1889.
[13] Radhacharan Goswami, Radhacharan Goswami ki Chuni Hui Rachnayein, Karmendu Shishir (Allahabad: Parimal Prakashan, 1990), p.24.
[14] Bharatendu, 1 March, April, May, June, 1891.
[15] Hariaudh wrote a booklet in support of Sanatan dharma. The title and year of publication is not given in the brittle copy which was consulted at National Library, Calcutta. In the text there is a mention that this booklet was written on the sixtieth year of Annie Besant which means the year of publication should be 1907. (Annie Besant was born in 1847).
[16] Ibid, page number is not clear.
[17] Ibid, p. 20.
[18] Ibid, p. 21.
[19] “ See how Kaliyug has changed people as people are ignoring the norms of varnashram dharma . Bhangis are having good time. Your fathers would have had bathe after those people (Bhangis). Very few people come together and dare to start a new religion.” See, Sanatan Dharma Pataka, 1926, p.34.
[20] ‘Shakti Sanchay’ (poem).of Maithilisharan Gupta in Hindu, 1987(1912),p.174,

[21] See the reproduction of his speech’s in Brahman Sarvaswa, January 1923. This meeting was held at Gaya during the annual Congress conference. It was delivered on 30 December 1922.
[22] This speech was reproduced in the different Indian newspapers. For a complete text of his speech see ‘Sanatandharmoddhar ka upay’ in Brahman Sarvaswa, January 1923, pp.58-63.
[23] To get the real feel of his speech it is imperative to read his speech in the language he delivered it. On this point he remarks: “By merging ourselves with other nations and religions we can gain much. But, we should try to progress along the path of Sanatan dharma. Only that can be considered the real progress.”
[24] On this point he says: “If any body or any nation has done something extraordinary it is only due to his religion. Remember the jehad of seventh century byMuslims, crusades in the eleventh century by Europeans and the religious movement of sixteenth century Germany. These are burning examples how religion can inspire even ordinary people to achieve extraordinary things.] ”
[25] This obviously is a remarkable summary of the approach of a leading person of Bihar who was a revered and acknowledged supporter of nationalism and the Hindu cause throughout Bihar.
[26] Sanatan Dharma Pataka, year 26, No.9, p.11.
[27] Ibid, p.13.
[28] Madhuri, year 6, khand 1, Sankhya 1, p.164.
[29] Shivapujan Sahay, Bharat Mitra, 9 July 1925,Calcutta.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] In this story the newly-wed king is so fond of his new bride that he goes to the battlefield with a divided mind. Sensing her husband’s weakness of the brave queen cuts her own head and sends it to the beloved husband as a mark of their togetherness even in death. Dividing her blood-filled long hair into two halves the king hangs her head on his neck like a garland and moves ahead to the battlefield. This story was taught in the schools of Bihar for many years.
[34] To appreciate the kind of ideas some of the writers followed one can see the life sketches of the prominent writers in Hindi Sahitya aur Bihar Vols. II, III and IV.
[35] For an article of Sanatan Dharma Pataka see its issue of 1926, No 2, pp.27-34.
[36] Ibid., p.29.
[37] Ibid., p.31.
[38] See Sanatan Dharma Pataka, 1926, No. 9.
[39] Ibid, p.8.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid, p. 10.