VEDOKTA MOVMENT

‘Vedokta’ refers to ‘Vedic religious rites which were claimed to be the right of all twice-born Kshatriyas and Brahmins’, as opposed to the Puranic or ‘Puranokta’ rites which all Shudras were entitled to perform. (Traditionally, even the Vaishyas were included in the ‘twice-born’ category.

This controversy had raised its head in Maharashtra for the first time in the nineteenth century in 1837, when Pratap Singh was the ruler of Satara. To put an end to the vexed question about the permissibility of the Kshatriyas to perform Vedic rites, he summoned a meeting of both he castes, since the Brahmins had been arguing that they alone were eligible to perform the Vedic sacrifices and rituals. The orthodox Brahmins contended that there were only two castes in the Kaliyuga, Brahmins and Shudras, and so they refused to assign Kshatriya status to the Marathas. According to them, only Brahmins were entitled to perform Vedic rites, while other castes were allowed to perform the other rites as prescribed by the Puranas, thus assigning to them a lower status.

The outcome of the meeting was that the Brahmins lost their case. Aristocratic Maratha families, such as the Bhonsles, Ghatges, Mahadiks, were now officially declared as the Kshatriyas. Their right to perform Vedic rituals and sacrifices was confirmed with documentary evidence.

The controversy reappeared in 1896 in Baroda where rituals in the Palace of Maharaj Sayajirao Gaikwad used to be conducted in ‘Puranokta’. Under the influence of Jyotiba Phule, Gaikwad decided to adopt the Vedic religious rites as was being done in the ruling houses of Rajputana. When he ordered that the Vedic religious rites be followed with effect from 15^th October 1896, orthodox brahmins vehemently opposed the move. Surprisingly, Lokmanya Tilak and his paper ‘Kesari’, also criticized the Gaikwad’s decision and an inter caste conflict dominated the society.

The Kolhapur Incident

While the Vedokta controversy was raging in Baroda and arousing the Brahmins of Kolhapur as well as of other parts of Maharashtra to agitate against the Gaikwads action, another similar controversy, but of greater intensity, broke out in Kolhapur. In 199, a dispute arose when the ruler of Kolhapur, Chatrapati Shahu Maharaj, discovered that his hereditary priest int eh service of his Palace was performing only ‘Puranokta’ rites for him, instead of Vedokta rites. On inquiry, the priest explained that since he was a Shudra, he was entitled only to the ‘Puranokta’ sacrifices they were performing. Provoked by their arrogance and also by their declaration that he was a Shudra, and therefore not entitled to Vedic rites, Shahu Maharaj ordered that all rituals in his court should be performed according to the Vedas. Thus, began a fierce inter caste conflict which gave a great fillip to the Non Brahmin Movement in Maharashtra.  

The high priest of Shahu, the Rajopadhya, refused to comply with the orders of his King to perform Vedic rites. Hence, the Maharaja confiscated his ‘inam lands’. The Shankaracharya supported the Palace High Priest against Shahu. The enraged ruler of Kolhapur ordered the confiscation of the hereditary lands of the Shankaracharya in Kolhapur.

Behind the ‘Vedokta’ controversy, there was the burning question of political and social equality. It was felt by the Marathas, that the Brahmins were trying to sow seeds of dissension in the Maratha community and were trying to split the royal families. But the leaders of the Brahmin community cleverly sought to convert the conflict between them and the Marathas of Kolhapur into a problem affecting the entire Hindu community. They demanded that Shahu should treat the Vedokta controversy in that light and solve it, keeping in mind that his decision would affect the entire Brahmin community in India. However, he was not in a mood to compromise on the issue.

At this juncture, Tilak entered the fray, taking the side of the Brahmin priests. Tilak was prepared to allow Shahu Maharaj the Vedic rites, not because he was a Maratha, but because he was a Chatrapati, the head of the state. Tilak explained his position, as under, in response to R. P. Paranjpe’s allegations against him in 1919: “As for the Vedokta, I supported the extension of it in the case of the Kolhapur chief and never objected to extension of it to non brahmin classes. Mr. Paranjpe had utterly misunderstood the question. The extension of the Vedokta ceremony was not the bone of contention. The question was whether an orthodox Brahmin priest should be coerced and compelled against his wish, on pain of forfeiture of Inams granted to him under the old system to perform Vedic rites in non-brahmanical families as a whole. The very principle of personal liberty, on which Mr. Paranjpe lays so much stress would be violated if we answer the question in the affirmative. I know that every community can freely resort to Vedokta rites if it chooses, but no one can justify the forfeiture of ancient Inams granted by old rulers and under different understandings”.

But in two articles in the Kesari of 22^nd and 29^th October 1901, Tilak had adopted a traditional view that the Marathas as a caste were not entitled to perform Vedic rites. There was a clear split in the Maharashtrian society on this issue. Orthodox brahmins and their Shastris and Tilak and the Marathi press under the control of the orthodox brahmins were on one side, and Chatrapati Shahu and his non brahmin followers and the Satyashodak Samajists were on the other. The British government, though posing as neutral, were on the side of Shahu and against Tilak and the Brahmins, who were troublemakers to them. All the petitions of the priest sent to the British authorities were rejected on the grounds that the government did not wish to interfere in religious matters.

There was a section of liberal brahmins who supported Chatrapati Shahu’s stand and sympathized with him. Rajaramshastri Bhagwat (1851-1908), a staunch reformer, come out openly to support the Kshatriyahood of the Marathas. The historian C. V. Vaidya and later Mahadev Shastri Divekar were among those who sympathized with the Chatrapatis cause.

It was natural that the Chatrapati should react strongly to the Brahman agitation. He was a liberal ruler. He declared that half the seats in the services of his state would be reserved for the backward classes. That added fuel to the fire. The Brahmin press stepped up its attack on the Chatrapati. The stand taken by Tilak and the orthodox Brahmins in the controversy sowed the seeds of the later non Brahmin movement. It was a blunder on the part of Tilak to join the issue and take side against the Marathas. It was squibbling of words to say that only the Chatrapati was entitled to Vedokta and not the Marathas as a caste. He antagonized the Marathas, who not only remained aloof from the nationalist movement, but opposed Tilak to the last day of his life. As a counter move against the Brahmin priest, Chatrapati Shahu instituted the seat of Kshatriya jadguru – the Universal Priest of Kshatriyas.

Immediately after the Vedokta controversy, Shahy began to bring non brahmins into the administration of Kolhapur and in many other ways he sought to weaken the position of the Brahmins. The Maratha nobility was happy to see ‘Brahmin nationalism’ reeling under the blows of Shahus reforms. But, as Gail Omvedt points out, ‘the non brahmins, who had come into administration were non aristocratic persons. They began to pay attention to the message of secularism and equality, and ceremonies to be held without any Brahmin at all. That was being spread by the Satyashodak Samaj. However, within a decade, a compromise with the Vedokta atmosphere was worked out in Kolhapur when many ceremonies of the Maratha community involved use of the sacred thread as one of the aspect of the claim to Kshatriya status. But, inspite of this compromise, these ceremonies were significant. They were conducted in defiance of Brahmin priests by trained non brahmin priests.

The issue of the Vedokta involved social, religious and political angles. At the root it was the question of social and religious equality. The target of Brahmin criticism was the Maharaja of Kolhapur and as the Maharaja was toeing the line of the British government, the issue took an evil turn ending in political bifurcation – the Maharaja ad his non brahmin followers versus Tilak and his nationalist followers. As a matter of fact, nothing would have been lost by conceding the Vedokta rites to the Marathas. The Marathas also did not consider it as a special gain. They used it as a tool to oppose the brahmins. As Bhaskarrao Jadhav, a prominent leader of the non brahmin movement stated later in his evidence before the chirole case commission: “I do not see any significance in the Vedokta affair. We demanded the right only because the Brahmins opposed it”.

The shadow of he Vedokta Movement (affair) was hanging over Maharashtra politics for many years.

According to some historians, Vedokta Movement was started by Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur. Its origin was on an unhappy incident in the life of Shahu Maharaj.

Shahu Maharaj was a pious Hindu who believed in traditional rituals. He employed Narayan Bhat to sing Ved Mantra especially when Shahu would take bath in River Panchganga. Once in 1899, when he went to the river, he took Rajaram Shastri, a guest at his darbar with him. Rajaram Shastri brought to the notice of Shahu that his bhat was not singing ‘Ved Mantra’ but was singing ‘Puranokta Mantra’.

The difference between Ved Mantra and Puranokta Mantra is that Ved Mantra were sung only for Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas and Puranokta Mantra were simplified to be sung for non upper castes. In reality there were no disputes between the two but the reply given by Narayan Bhat or Rajo Padhye, or for that matter all bahmins, that Bholse’s being ‘lower class’ had no right to sing Ved Mantra, they were permitted to sing only Puranokta Mantra.

This thought of treating Bhosles as lower class was not tolerated by Shahu. He became so angry that he stopped the grants which were given to Narayan Bhat and to all other Brahmins. Shahu became Anti-brahmin and criticized them as and when he got a chance. Anti-brahmin movement that followed gave a turn to the social history of Maharashtra.