Since ancient times, India has predominantly been a religious country. All aspects of Indian culture – such as tradition, morality, social structure, politics and administration – have been determined and conducted from a religious perspective since Vedic times. The supremacy of dharma in the Indian society was protected even during the rule of the Muslims and the British. However, after India attained independence, dharma has declined very rapidly, to an extent that has not been seen for thousands of years.
On 27 July 1956, a proposal to control Hindu sadhus and sannyasis was brought to the Loka-sabha of the Indian parliament. The rationale behind this legislation was that the behaviour of sadhus and sannyasis was becoming more sinful, and that their lifestyle was becoming increasingly contrary to the interests of society at large. Furthermore, there was an increase in incidences of begging. It was thought necessary to control this, and the intention was to use legislation to protect the reputation of true sadhus and purify society.
At that time, paramaradhyatama Acarya Kesari was residing in Sri Kesavaji Gaudiya Matha in Mathura. When he was informed about this legislation, he protested with a lion-like voice. “The Indian Penal Code has ample regulations to suppress sinful behaviour and activities opposed to society,” he said. “What is the need for this separate law? And why not pass a law on Muslim mullahs, Christian popes and ministers, Buddhist mendicants and Jain mendicants? Why cause an uproar about Hindus and no one else? Before any legislation against Hindu sadhus is presented in the Loka-sabha, it should be publicized throughout the whole country. Only then should the debate be conducted in the Loka-sabha. It is improper in all respects to neglect this procedure and make some law secretly.”
Acarya Kesari started a forceful campaign, protesting strongly against this legislation. He wrote a letter of protest, printed it in Hindi, Bengali and English, and sent it to prominent politicians, social leaders and leaders of religious societies. A copy of the letter was sent to Sri Nehruji, who was the prime minister at the time, and also to the members of the Loka-sabha. The result was that the people became so awake to the situation that the Loka-sabha quickly rejected the legislation. The following is a copy of the protest he wrote.
“The laws, rules and regulations of India are all defined according to sastric law; no legislation can be accepted in India which is separate from sastric law. No person or society can control sadhus and sannyasis; they are only controlled by sastra. We find evidence to support this statement in all the Puranas and other sastras. In Srimad-Bhagavatam (4.21.12) it is said:
sarvatrāskhalitādeśaḥ
sapta-dvīpaika-daṇḍa-dhṛk
anyatra brāhmaṇa-kulād
anyatrācyuta-gotrataḥ
Maharaja Prthu, who was the sole emperor of the entire world, very firmly applied his system of law and punishment to everyone except for rsis, brahmanas and acyuta-gotriya visnu-bhaktas (Vaisnavas).
“Saints are India’s pride and charming beauty. People from all over the world are attracted to this beautiful ornament of India and are ready to construct their own spiritual and social lives in accordance with them. Indian sadhus and sannyasis are very peace-loving. That is why the whole world looks to India for peace. It is extremely improper and completely illegal to check religious conduct by politics.
“It was declared in the Indian constitution that India is primarily a secular state. This attempt by the Indian Loka-sabha to try to restrict one religion and not others is therefore completely against the constitutional law. If this legislation were passed, the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and other laws would also have to be changed and revised in many fields.
“There is no need to make a new law to control misbehaviour separately. If it is necessary to prepare a separate law to control the misconduct of so-called sadhus, then it is also necessary to prepare a separate law to control the misconduct, sinful behaviour and anti-social activities of the Congress party and other political parties. It is more essential to control the political agents than it is to control the acaryas, the most prominent, of the sadhus and sannyasis. Another point is that so far there are no laws prepared to control the black market and other anomalies in society.
“Only sadhus and sannyasis can understand the activities of other sadhus and sannyasis. How can anyone recognize a sadhu if he is not a sadhu himself, and has never had the association of sadhus and sannyasis, or even been near them? How can he judge who is a sadhu and who is not? We need laws which apply to everyone. At present there is no arrangement to control non-sadhus, yet non-sadhus are tightening their waist-belts and jumping to their feet to control sadhus. This is the age of voting, and there are more non-sadhus than sadhus; that is why they can present laws to condone atrocities against sadhus. The majority is creating an atrocity against the minority. We can never call this a good rule.
“Nowadays sadhus are the object of malice and violence. Non-sadhus are becoming degraded and ashamed because of their misconduct in society. They feel abandoned and disrespected by sadhus, and in revenge are presenting bills to control them. This is befitting the age of Kali. The proposal to register sadhus will give all the non-sadhus of India a golden opportunity; they will be able to validate their immoral character by entering their names in the register of sadhus. Actual sadhus do not want to be called sadhu and would feel ashamed to be identified as a registered or licensed sadhu. Some sadhus will not even register their names at the government office. Besides, if the licensing officer is anti-Hindu, how can one rely on him to judge who is and who is not a sadhu according to Hindu scripture?
“Here is another point. Is a householder (grhastha) considered a sadhu or not, according to the proposed definition? If they are excluded from the sadhu category then householders who are actually very elevated will be called non-sadhus. This will be an offence under Section 352 of Indian Penal Code, or else a case of defamation under Section 500 of the same. If some grhastha wants to adopt a virtuous way of life or to become a sadhu, then he will also have to take a license or get his name registered. Suppose a highly posted official in an office or a law court wants to lead a religious life. Must he certify his goodness with some district magistrate who may be immoral or even vicious? And will that district magistrate have the power to cancel the licence and punish that virtuous official?
“The constitution of India has passed the ‘Widow Marriage Act’ and the ‘Sarada Child Marriage Act’ proposed by the honourable Isvara-candra Vidyasagara, but the Indian public has not accepted them. These laws are lying in some corner of the library of the Indian constitution. This present law will certainly face the same sorry plight if it is forced on the general public against their wishes. We are totally against such a law. We humbly request the members of the Loka-sabha to reject this bill. We also request all Indian newspapers and their readers to oppose this blind law with all their power. Indeed, we request the entire society, especially the sadhus and sannyasis of India, to unite and raise their voices against this law.”
[CC-by-ND GVP]