(1) Came across a tirade against Chittaranjan Das, (abbr CRD),BPCC president, co-founder of Swarajya Party (with Motilal)- that he along with "Bose" was "hell bent" on "secular takeover" of Tarakeswar temple, which the "Brahman Sabha" thwarted. Lets see what actually happened.
(2) appears that original agitation ag the "mahanta" Satischandra Giri, was started by two sannyasis, Satchidananda and Viswananda - who founded a protest group named "Mahabir Dal" to counter the private army of the Mahant, "Birbhadra dal" and protest atrocities by the mahant.
(3) the ldrs of Mahabir Dal, sent a signed appeal to BPCC, explicitly alluding to Gandhi's exchange with Akalis (SGPC) in their bid to wrest control of sites from Udasi "mahants" going on at that time - to seek "permission" to carry out non-violent satyagraha to remove the mahant
(4) and stop various irregularities, in finance, extortion, repression on tenants& students, and sexual assault on women allegedly carried out under Mahant's watch. The Tarakeswar mahant, like their Punjab counterparts, had been accused/involved in such scandals in the past.
(5) it appears the entire BPCC wanted this issue taken up, and CRD responded by sending a fact-finding mission to Tarakeswar that inlcuded himself and his protege, "Bose", then also secy BPCC. They visited and meticulously noted the grievances of affected ppl on 8/4/1924.
(6) Bose, explicitly urged the "Hindu Sabha" to take up the matter and implied that if "Hindu Sabha" failed to take appropriate action, BPCC wd be compelled to take it up. Hindu Sabha, formed by Mukerjee& Lal in Punjab, 1909, can be looked up to check whether they wr "secular".
(7) This appears to be the end of mention of Bose in any leading role connected to the "Tarakeswar satyagraha" as its known. Committees formed that had BPCC input, does not include his name. So Bose had actually first wanted a self-declared "Hindu interest" outfit to take it up.
(8) Mahanta side tried apparently strong-arming the Mahabir Dal, to prevent it from neutralizing the mahant's chelas and hired "gurkha" mercenaries protecting usual extortionate practices on tenants and pilgrims. Rumours wr floated ag CRD that he was "compromising" for money.
(9) CRD assured "everybody that I shall be no party to any settlement which will not protect the people of Tarakeswar or those who stood by a true religious spirit against the Mohunt. The temple& the debutter property [god's property] must also be protected"[Bengalee, 9/5/1924]
(10) without going into details of the actions by mahanta's goons or "satyagraha" by the protesters, here lets focus on relevance of CRD. Its alleged that Gandhi had to "intervene" to stop CRD's "hell bent secular takeover". Gandhi appears first in connection to a tactical lie.
(11) One Subodh Krishna Basu, signing as the Secretary of "Hindu Temple Reform League" despatched a telegram to the Governor, Viceroy, Gandhi stating "after the publication of [CRD]'s message to adopt Satyagraha, riot and violence have started this morning in Tarakeswar temple"
(12) "Public apprehends repetition of Chauri Chauti. Pray immediate intervention and investigation through reliable agency". On inquiry he was found to be an aide of Mahanta. Makhanlal Sen of Ananda Bazar Patrika publicly (24/5/1924) assured Gandhi of falsehood of the message.
(13) CRD wasnt keen on displacing Mahabir Dal frm ledrship: on 30/5/24 he patched up internal split preventing Satchidananda frm resigning. His primary opposition was to Mahanta's claim of private ownership of entire property which gave him right to control access to pilgrims.
(14) The whisper campaign ag CRD wd be self-revealing as to who were behind it. CRD addressed each accusation, openly. ""I do not desire any friction between landlords and tenants. I have opposed the idea of such class war from public platforms."
(15) "The question of the repeal of Permanent Settlement is an undesirable question to raise and in my opinion whatever steps are taken must be taken after the attainment of self-Government and even then only as a matter of agreement between landlords and tenants."
(16) "I am not a Brahmo. I am a Hindu and I claim to be sincere. It is absolutely untrue that I want to take up Hindu shrines to finance my party. My point of view is the Hindu point of view. I want the shrines to be purified and reformed. I do not want to remove Mohuntship but"
(17) "to have a devout Mohunt appointed, so that the service in the temple may be properly supervised and income applied to the good of the pilgrims and the locality by establishing such educational and charitable institutions as may be required for the good of the people."
(18)"In my opinion this is not politics. But if it is so regarded I am not ashamed of it. Nor is it true that I want the Mohuntship to go to some Bengali instead of Hindi-speaking gentleman. I do not wish to interfere in the slightest degree with the traditions of the particular"
(19)"sect to which the Mohunt belongs''. So we do see all the usual suspect arguments used nowadays were very much in vogue then but nothing here can be used to bolster the claim of CRD's "hellbent on secular takeover". We will see as to who really went for "secular takeover".
(20) CRD's proposal was "abdication of Satishchandra Giri, the incumbent Mobanta, in favour of his Chela Prabhatchandra Giri [who]would remain under the control of the committee vested with the power to, if necessary, remove him from the seat of the Mohanta"
21)"The properties with a net annual income of over Rs.30,000/- and the ever increasing income accruing from the temple offerings would be left in charge of the committee for the purpose of necessary charities. The other properties with a net annual income between Rs.25,000/-"
22)and Rs.32,000/- wd be managed by the
Mohanta. The income would be utilised for the maintenance of whoever the Mohanta might be in future. Mohanta wd henceforward not claim any other sum for his maintenance and be subservient to the scheme of management devised by committee.
Mohanta. The income would be utilised for the maintenance of whoever the Mohanta might be in future. Mohanta wd henceforward not claim any other sum for his maintenance and be subservient to the scheme of management devised by committee.
23) The temple as well as the estate along with other properties wd be considered public properties,
managed by the committee. CRD demanded the worship of Laxmi-Narayanjiu be opened to public at the earliest. Note CRD had no place for gov but was proposing an independent trust.
managed by the committee. CRD demanded the worship of Laxmi-Narayanjiu be opened to public at the earliest. Note CRD had no place for gov but was proposing an independent trust.
24) Guess who opposed this settlement and pleaded for a government receiver? Satchidananda, and the "Brahman Sabha" who funded by Brajendra Kishore of Gauripur, proposed the control of the temple being entrusted to a committee of only "Brahmins".
25) Brit raj gleefully appointed a receiver. So in the end, "secular" control attempt - in what can be parallel to current drive of "takeovers" under government role in direct thumb on the finances of a temple: was pleaded for by a ldr of the Mahavir Dal, and "Brahman Sabha".
26) The rascal Lytton is quoted in support of tirade against CRD and Tarakeswar Satyagraha: Lytton thought the movement was a "hoax". Its the same Lytton who smirked that Indian village women complaining of rape by Brit police wr lying to smear police& had to withdraw his remark.
27)I know "bharatendu" is a careful selector of statements that seem to support his agenda and will carefully ignore all those that "problematizes" his agenda. But using the rascal imperialist Lytton as a truthful assessor of a nationalist or their movements, is beyond belief.
