[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Science, technology and education](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science) › [Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021) › c11 # Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c11: 7. Vāda in Modern Age Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c11 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c11.s1 Debates on India’s Identity: Relocating Her Global Image](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1) — 12 parts - [c11.s2 The Role of the Paṇḍit: Vāda Reformulated](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2) — 17 parts - [c11.s3 The Shift in the Debates](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3) — 13 parts - [c11.s4 Orientalism](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4) — 17 parts - [c11.s5 Romantic Shifts in the Debate](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5) — 12 parts - [c11.s6 Theological and Religious Debates](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s6) — 2 parts - [c11.s7 The Debates by Roy](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s7) — 8 parts - [c11.s8 The Vilification and Its Aftermath](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8) — 12 parts - [c11.s9 Debates on Social Issues](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s9) — 10 parts - [c11.s10 Debates of Arya Samaj](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s10) — 2 parts - [c11.s11 Satyārthaprakāśa: A Text on Debate](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s11) — 18 parts - [c11.s12 Refutations of Satyārthaprakāśa and Rejoinders](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s12) — 6 parts - [c11.s13 Dayananda’s Debates on Public Platforms](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s13) — 7 parts - [c11.s14 Ramabai](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s14) — 7 parts - [c11.s15 The Śāstrārtha Continues](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s15) — 6 parts - [c11.s16 Paramārthadarśanam](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s16) — 3 parts - [c11.s17 Creating Hermeneutics](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s17) — 6 parts - [c11.s18 The Dialogue Renewed](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s18) — 123 parts ### 7. Vāda in Modern Age ### [c11.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.1) Vāda in Modern Age ### [c11.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.2) THE colonial perspective has remained looming largely over the whole pursuits of the Oriental learning during the past two centuries. In India, this led to contradictions and dichotomies, as the British throughout their rule remained "strangers" in a sharp contrast to the Muslim rulers. They failed to be enlightened by the previous forms of governance, and had to sustain by the means of political ideas from West and their own history. This "intervention upon the actions of Indians whose conduct was determined by the autonomous economic, cultural and or religious regularities of social life" created distances between the British and Indians and chasms in Indian mind.¹ As the gap between political administration by the foreign rulers and indigenous social institutions widened, "the intellectuals began to think that they belonged to the communities united by common forms of social conduct that existed in a sphere distinct from the realm of political action". This produced tendencies of self-defence and revivalism, but also invigorated the debates on Indian customs, traditions and culture. Raja Rammohun Roy spoke of "the social institution of the Hindu community of Bengal" as an entity which needed to be protected.² The dichotomy between the state and the society on one hand and the interference of the political actors in social orders and lifestyles on the other led to opposition, sharp reactions and debates amongst Indian intellectuals. Discussions and debates on India's own social body were taken up. As a result, the concepts of \*swadeshi\* and \*svarāj\* emerged. ### [c11.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.3) Sanskrit \*pāṭhaśālās\* and \*tols\* functioned as sources for knowledge systems and produced \*paṇḍits\*. François Bernier, who resided in the court of Aurangzeb during 1659-69, described such institutions thriving profusely in the city of Banaras.³ ### [c11.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.4) The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries form one of the most fertile periods in the history of Indian intellectual discourses. Raja Rammohun Roy⁴ (1774–1833), Swami Nārāyaṇa (1781–1830), Debendranath Tagore (1817–1905), Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824-83), Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa (1834-86), Keshub Chandra Sen (1838-84), Chattambi Swamikal (1854–1924), Sri Narayana Guru (1857–1928), Swami Vivekananda (1862–1902), Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941), Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948), Sri Aurobindo (1872–1951) and Bhim Rao Ambedkar (1891–1956) are some of the names known for revolutionizing the vision and thought processes of the country. ### [c11.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.5) The translations of \*Gītā\* by Charles Wilkins and \*Abhijñānaśākuntala\* by Sir William Jones strengthened the spirit of renaissance and awareness of world civilizations. \*Gītā\* was the first work directly translated from Sanskrit into English by Wilkins, followed by William Jones' translation of \*Manusmṛti\* under the title \*Law Book of Manu\* published in 1794 and \*Hitopadeśa\*, again by Wilkins (1795). ### [c11.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.6) In 1823 August Wilhelm von Schlegel published an edition of \*Bhagavadgītā\* with Latin translation. This caught the attention of philosophers and linguists like Humboldt and Hegel. Humboldt wrote: “It is perhaps the most profound and the most sublime that the world has on record.”⁵ German version of Manu’s law book was created from Jones’s translation. ### Debates on India’s Identity: Relocating Her Global Image ### [c11.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1.1) With the advent of the missionaries, there were rising controversies and debates between the upholders of Christianity and Hinduism. Both sides had to be prepared with the knowledge of textual material juxtaposing the two diverse traditions. The endeavours of Roborto Nobilii in seventeenth century provided further stimulus together with the contributions from W. Carry and W.H. Mill. But it was J. Muir who opened a way for conciliation and “adaptation”.⁶ The self-assertion by the advocates of Hinduism also received a boost. ### [c11.s1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1.2) Dara Shikoh’s translations of the Upaniṣads in Persian were translated into Latin in the beginning of the nineteenth century by a French Scholar Anquetil-Duperron under the title \*Oupnekhat\* and published from Paris in 1801-02 in two volumes. Duperon’s work created ripples that lasted for a century. It was also meant as an appeal to the “followers and opponents of profound Kant” to study the teachings of the \*Oupanekhat\* from a philosophical angle. These volumes were partly translated into German in 1808 by Th.A. Rixner.⁷ Through the Latin translation and the German renderings, German philosophers like Schelling and Schopenhauer were drawn to the Upaniṣads. Schopenhauer declared them as “the product of the highest human wisdom”. He used to worship the book of \*Oupnekhat\* before going to bed. He said: ### [c11.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1.3) There is no other book in the whole world, the reading of which is as rewarding and solemn, as that of this book, it has comforted me in my life and it will also comfort me while dying. ### [c11.s1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1.4) Winternitz says: ### [c11.s1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1.5) Starting from the mystic teachings of the Upaniṣads a thought current reaches the mysticism of the Persian Sufism, and the mystic theosophical logos-doctrine of Non-Platonists and the Alexandrian Christians right up to the teachings of Christian mystics Eckhart and Tauber and finally to the philosophy of great German mystic of nineteenth century — Schopenhauer.⁸ ### [c11.s1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1.6) Discussions and debates on the philosophy of Upaniṣads were carried on amongst a number of German and French philosophers. A sharp division of opinion between Hegel and Schopenhauer surfaced. India may have been the cradle of civilization and a land where most spiritual practices at the most sublime level were cultivated, but it lacks real philosophy — this was one stand; whereas there was a group of romantics who believed that Europe should return to Indian origins to emerge out of the chaos of modern civilization.⁹ The rift between a Euro-centric discourse and a revivalist discourse with romantic fascination towards the East kept on widening. ### [c11.s1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1.7) The remarks of I.A. Richards continue to echo as a stern warning ### [c11.s1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1.8) … to us the Western world is still the World (or part of the World that counts); but an impartial observer would perhaps say that such provincialism is dangerous. We are not yet so happy in the West that we can be sure that we are not suffering from its effects.¹⁰ ### [c11.s1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1.9) There were attempts at reconciliation and creating bridges. \*The Philosophy of Mythology\* by Hegel considered Indian traditions with a view to an intercultural and interreligious encounter. References to Kant in these discussions kept the possibilities of hermeneutics alive. B.K. Matilal continues to argue for Indian thought as scientific and analytical and truly “philosophical”. ### [c11.s1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1.10) Back in India, the responses of Schelling and Schopenhauer became helpful in the search for a new identity by the Indians like Raja Rammohun Roy and Keshub Chandra Sen. They were drawn to Christianity but found a ground on the Upaniṣadic soil itself for their faith. ### [c11.s1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1.11) In order to convince the Christian missionaries that the best of their teachings is already contained in Upaniṣads, Raja Rammohun Roy himself translated a large number of Upaniṣads and also edited the original Upaniṣadic texts. ### [c11.s1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s1.12) The debates between the followers of Advaita Vedānta and other schools of Vedānta have continued with the same vigour till now. Swami Chaitanya Bharati wrote a text \*Darśanasarvasvaṃ\* in refutation of Śūnyādvaita, Vijñānādvaita and Svatantrādvaita (Śaivamonism) upholding the Śaṅkarācārya’s philosophy.¹¹ ### The Role of the Paṇḍit: Vāda Reformulated ### [c11.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.1) The Western subjugation generated a new kind of \*vāda\* between the \*paṇḍits\* as informants and the colonizers as rulers. Even though this could not be carried out on an equal footing, the officers of the East India Company and the British judges in the law courts at Calcutta had to depend on the \*paṇḍits\* for understanding the social institutions under Hinduism. ### [c11.s2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.2) But then the Company started getting manuals of Hindu law prepared with the very help of these \*paṇḍits\* to break their monopoly. In fact, the attempts at compiling the legel digests from Sanskrit sources and getting them translated into English; or even preparing translations of philosophical and literary Sanskrit texts formed a part of the strategy of Orientalists to “out” the \*paṇḍits\*.¹² The origins of one of the most passionate and prolonged debates which the trial of Hastings involved are rooted in the image of India in the seventeenth century.¹³ ### [c11.s2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.3) Hastings could not find any scholar to translate \*Vivādārṇavasetu\* (A Bridge on the Sea of Litigation) from Sanskrit into English. It was first translated into Persian and then was translated from the Persian translation into English. The translation was printed in 1770 during Hasting’s regime under the title \*A Code of Gentoo Law\*.¹⁴ A German translation of the English rendering of the Persian version appeared in 1778. ### [c11.s2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.4) Winternitz names two different translators of \*Vivādārṇavasetu\* from Persian into English — Nathaniel Brassey Halhed and Rud Eric Raspe. ### [c11.s2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.5) Soon there was a flood of new texts on Dharmaśāstra by the \*paṇḍits\*. \*Vivādabhaṅgārṇava\* was authored by Jagannātha Paṇḍita during 1792-94, while Śrīdhara composed \*Vyavahāradaśaślokī\*. Paṇḍit Durgaprasad wrote a commentary on this work (1825) and A.C. Burnell translated it into English.¹⁵ ### [c11.s2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.6) It seems that the Company was availing the services of several \*paṇḍits\* for preparing the manuals like \*Vivādārṇavasetu\* and \*Vivādabhaṅgārṇavasetu\*. Michael Dodson refers to the employment of the well-known \*paṇḍit\* Bāṇeśvara Vidyālaṁkāra in 1773 to work for Company’s first legal digest, the \*Vivādārṇavasetu\*. He was hired from Maharaja Nabakrishna, a prominent merchant and bania to Lord Clive. Nabakrishna maintained a \*sabhā\* of \*paṇḍits\* and poets. Later Radhakanta Tarkavagish and Jagananth Tarkapanchanan were hired to prepare the second legal digest. Radhakanta Tarkavagish also composed \*Purāṇārthaprakāśa\* for Hastings.¹⁶ ### [c11.s2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.7) Warren Hastings also deputed Charles Wilkins to go to Banaras and learn Sanskrit from the \*paṇḍits\*. This resulted into the translation of \*Bhagavadgītā\* by Wilkins which was published in 1785. ### [c11.s2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.8) The debates on property laws with reference to ancient texts on Dharmaśāstra continued and also led to creation of new texts. Raja Rammohun Roy wrote his “Essay on the Rights of Hindoos over Ancestral Property”.¹⁷ William Jones started translating \*Vivādabhaṅgārṇavasetu\* under the title \*A Digest of Hindu Law\* which was completed by H.T. Colebrooke after his death and printed from Calcutta in 1798. The whole text is based on the commentary of Jagannātha Pañcānana, “the most widely respected Hindu jurist in eastern India during the late eighteenth century”.¹⁸ Distilling rules from the Dharmaśāstra a number of other texts were brought out.¹⁹ ### [c11.s2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.9) The \*paṇḍits\* also served as Hindu law officers to interpret the rules. Bharat Bhatta, one such officer in the case of Bhola Dhami vs. Nawaju, consulted and cited the prescriptions from \*Vīramitrodaya\*. There have been debates over the right of widows to inherit the property of their husband, and also over their right to adopt a child. Bhola Dhami was the adopted son of Nawaju, the widow of Krishna Chandra Dhami in 1780. After a few years, there were disputes between her and the adopted son. She disinherited him and went for a second adoption. Bhola Dhami sued her. The case was taken up in 1800 in Gaya court. On the basis of his consultations with local officers, the judge dismissed Bhola Dhami’s claim and upheld the second adoption by Nawaju. But the dispute continued for over twenty years. On the basis of commentaries on \*Vīramitrodaya\*, Līlādhara who was engaged as law officer this time from Gayā gave the \*vyavasthā\* (opinion) that the husband’s consent is inferred automatically.²⁰ ### [c11.s2.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.10) The case was finally heard in the highest Bengal appeal court (\*Sadr Diwani Adalat\*) in 1831. This time the \*paṇḍits\* took a different stand and reversed the whole verdict. ### [c11.s2.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.11) The concept of \*vyavasthā\* as discussed earlier (see Chap. 5) generated more debates. Convention and precedence played greater role than the textual rules for reaching at the \*vyavasthā\*. ### [c11.s2.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.12) It was at Bengal that the East India Company first settled and it was in Calcutta that the Asiatic Society was founded by Sir William Jones. Bengal and particularly the city of Calcutta provided platforms for the new dialogues between the traditional scholarship and the Western scientific orientations. There was a section of Sanskit \*paṇḍits\* who wanted a new educational institution to be established at Calcutta for providing teaching in English and sciences. They held a meeting at the house of Hyde East, magistrate of the Supreme Court of Calcutta on 14 May 1816 for establishing this kind of institution “conceived by the orthodox Hindus and established by the orthodox Hindus, for the orthodox Hindus”. R.C. Majumdar has shown that Raja Rammohun Roy had least to do with the establishment of Hindu College which came into inception as a consequence of this meeting. Rather, the persons assembled in the meeting insisted that the Raja will not be involved in starting this institution and no donation from him will be accepted. The participants of the meeting started collecting donations on the spot itself and were able to raise a handsome amount of one lakh rupees then and there. Majumdar concludes that associating Raja Rammohun Roy with the inception of this college was a fabrication and a part of the sustained process of making him a mythical figure.²¹ ### [c11.s2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.13) The process of dialogue with literary traditions of Sanskrit classics was accelerated during the beginning of the nineteenth century and more and more translations of Sanskrit classics were appearing. In Bengal, Mrityunjaya Vidyalankar Bhattacharya published \*Batris Simhasan\* in 1802, \*Hitopadeśa\* and \*Rājā Bali\* (both in 1808) in Bengali. ### [c11.s2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.14) Even the Western scholars and missionaries started preparing new texts in Sanskrit. Revd William Yate’s \*Elements of Natural Philosophy and Natural History\* was rendered into Sanskrit under the title \*Padārthavidyāsāra\* and was published by the Calcutta School Book Society in 1828.²² ### [c11.s2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.15) With the continuity of pre-colonial knowledge systems and institutions in colonial period, the \*paṇḍits\* serving as native informants also participated in the administrative process, and even served as advisers and philsophers for the East India Company and the British rulers later. They actively contributed to building bridges between diverse polarities and creating knowledge systems.²³ ### [c11.s2.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.16) The emphasis in the new writings during 1850–1947 in Sanskrit was shifted to the presentation and the interpretation of history and contemporary society with a global perspective. Vasudev Sharma Latkar wrote the biography of Shahu Rajaram (1874–1922) in \*Śāhucaritam\* (1939). Madhusudan Tarkalankar wrote a grammar book of English in Sanskrit — \*Iṅglaiṇḍīyavyākaraṇasāraḥ\* (1835). Pt. Vinayak Bhatta in \*Aṅgrejacandrikā\* (Madras, 1801) and \*Itihāsatamomaṇiḥ\* produced books of history in the modern sense of the term. Attempts to create an understanding of European wisdom were made by the \*paṇḍits\*. One Sanskrit \*paṇḍit\* translated Bacon’s book under the title \*Bekanīyaśāstravyākhyānam\*. \*Principles of Human Knowledge\* by Burkley was translated under the title \*Jñānasiddhāntacandrikā\*; Locke’s \*Essays Concerning Human Understanding\* was translated under the title \*Mānavīyajñānaviṣayakaśāstram\*. Even the English missionaries started writing in Sanskrit for the propagation of Christianity. Rozario published a monograph on dialogue between a brāhmaṇa and a Catholic entitled \*Brāhmaṇaromanakaitholikasamvādaḥ\*. Ram Roy Basu vehemently criticized Hinduism in his \*Īśāīvivaraṇāmṛtam\* and \*Jñānodaya\*. Around two dozens of translations or adaptations of Bible came out during the nineteenth century. ### [c11.s2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s2.17) The missionaries in India attempted the early translations in Sanskrit. These translations were obviously from the religious texts. Thus in the first decade of the nineteenth century, William Carry, attached to the Baptist church in Shrirampur in Bengal, rendered the Bible in Sanskrit in three parts which was brought out between 1808-11. K.P. Urmis translated the \*Sermons on Mountain\* under the title \*Girigītā\*. ### The Shift in the Debates ### [c11.s3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.1) The very purpose of legal institutions became a bone of contention for debates. But then these exercises stimulated a dialogue between traditions and modern civilization. The view of law as “a rule prescribed by superior power” was challenged by William Jones who wanted the law to discern the people’s will through local customs and traditions.²⁴ ### [c11.s3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.2) Rani of Jhansi, Rulers of Mysore as well as several other princes and kings of various states fought legal battles regarding disputes on the inheritance and property from 1770 till the end of British rule in India. These legal fights created a political consciousness together with an awareness of civil rights. ### [c11.s3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.3) A celebration on the occasion of the second anniversary of the proclamation of constitutional government in Portugal was organized in Calcutta Town Hall in August 1822. The event was reported in two newspapers — \*Bengal Hurkaru\* and the \*Calcutta Journal\*. Raja Rammohun Roy attended this event.²⁵ Speakers referred to struggles for liberty in other places. Roy hosted similar celebrations in Calcutta Town Hall for the Spanish, Portuguese and Latin American Revolutions between CE 1820-23.²⁶ He learned Vedānta and Upaniṣads from good \*paṇḍits\* like Mrityunjaya Vidyalankar Bhattacharya (1762–1814) who was well known for his all-round scholarship of Śāstras. Mrityunjaya Vidyalankar however became one of the staunch opponents of Roy and it is believed that he had authored the \*Vedāntacandrikā\* — a text in refutation of Roy’s propositions on Hinduism and Upaniṣadic philosophy.²⁷ ### [c11.s3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.4) Anti-\*satī\* movement was already getting momentum. when Rammohun Roy took up its cause. In fact, before Roy brought out his first tract against the practice of \*satī\* in 1818, Mrityunjaya Vidyalankar had already recorded his views on \*satī\* in his official capacity as a \*paṇḍit\* in the Supreme Court. He had “anticipated most of the arguments later advanced by Raja Rammohun Roy”.²⁸ ### [c11.s3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.5) In 1822, Rammohun Roy published \*Modern Encroachments on the Ancient Rights of Females according to the Hindu Law of Inheritance\* showing that “it was the corrupt and defective understanding of Bengal’s Dāyabhāga (laws of inheritance) that resulted in the practice of widow burning”. He also argued that “India had a constitution and it was the decline of this constitution and its checks and balances that had sunk India into backwardness”.²⁹ “Locating Indian history within the wider realm of international constitutional liberalism",³⁰ he further argued in favour of the reform of Parliament and for switching over to the medium of Indian languages for official and judicial purposes.³¹ He employed the term “separation” to suggest the end of British rule and also demanded equal status of Indians in the international fraternity, demanding change in regulation to allow his countrymen to serve in high offices. ### [c11.s3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.6) It was time when Spencer was launching his protest against British imperialism in England itself. He was also being jeered as unpatriotic. A decade later Spencer was commemorated by the radical Indian nationalist Shyamji Krishnavarma, who instituted the first Herbert Spencer Lectureship at the University of Oxford in 1904. ### [c11.s3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.7) Shyamji Krishnavarma had already made up his mind to fight againt British imperialism when he arrived in London in 1897. He served as a Sanskrit assistant to Monier-Williams. Before going to Britain, he had worked ceaselessly under the reform movement of Swami Dayananda, and served as Swamiji’s “literary legatee”. He then joined with Michael Davitt in support for the movement of the Irish Home Rule Ideologues and also stood in support of Mustafa Kamal Pasha. He edited \*Indian Sociologist\* and in one of his papers paid tributes to Spencer with a staunch criticism of British imperialism. ### [c11.s3.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.8) In this scenario, the idea of \*svarāj\* emerged as a dynamic conceptual framework. The prefix “sva” indicated the self and \*rāj\* got linked with the idea of freedom at political, social and psychological levels. After Shyamji Krishna Varma, the idea of \*svarāj\* was to unfold in Gandhi’s criticism of Spencer and liberation of the inner soul of man. \*Ātmano mokṣārthaṁ jagad hitāya ca\* (for one’s own liberation and for the welfare of the world) this saying of Vivekananda became a central principle of Subhas Chandra Bose. ### [c11.s3.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.9) This was the time when India was re-emerging and redefining herself in the wake of global debates. Berhamji Malabari approached Spencer for an opinion on the age of consent in marriage. Spencer refused to join the controversy.³² Berhamji Malabari then sought the support of Max Müller which the later willingly provided. ### [c11.s3.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.10) After the British defeated the Mysore ruler in 1799, constitutional debates raged. Ram Raz assaulted British misrepresentations of Indian history in \*An\* \*Essay on the Architecture of Hindus\* published from London in 1834.³³ He used the term \*panchayat\* which was taken up as a symbol in Gandhi’s idea of “Panchayati Raj”. ### [c11.s3.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.11) Rammohun Roy is regarded as “the father of modern India” who produced the first identifiable “canon” of modern Indian political thought.³⁴ Silk Buckimgham was a co-proprietor of the \*Calcutta Journal\* started by him. Buckimgham was against British despotism and fought with the East India Company. After his deportation to England, he continued supporting the \*Calcutta Journal\* and its movement.³⁵ ### [c11.s3.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.12) In his formative years Rammohun Roy was greatly influenced by the eighth-century group of Arabian thinkers — the Mutazilas. Mutazilas was a rationalist movement founded by Wasil Ata and Amir Ubaid who lived in Basra and Baghdad. They believed in monotheism, denied any resemblance between god and man and human actions resulted out of man’s free will.³⁶ Rammohun Roy wrote and published \*Tuhfat-ul-Muwahhiddin\* (Gift to Monotheists) in Persian with Preface in Arabian in 1803. ### [c11.s3.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s3.13) In the process of finally abolishing \*satī\* by legislation, Governor- General Lord William Bentinck “consulted several persons, one of whom was naturally Rammohun Roy who was known to be a great fighter against the evil. But to Bentinck’s utter surprise Rammohun opposed the proposal to stop the evil by legislation”.³⁷ Roy perhaps did so because he was confident in the inherent capability of Hinduism to resuscitate and reform itself. ### Orientalism ### [c11.s4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.1) Orientalist discourse had two faces right from the beginning. Edward Said has rightly portrayed its one face: ### [c11.s4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.2) If the knowledge of Orientalism has any meaning, it is being a reminder of the seductive degradation of knowledge, of any knowledge, anywhere, at any time. Now perhaps more than before.³⁸ ### [c11.s4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.3) But then, Said’s analysis, reveals only one side of Orientalism, and his “concept of Orientalist discourse is too monolithic and homogeneous”.³⁹ ### [c11.s4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.4) On the other hand, the contributions of Orientalist like William Jones and Max Müller helped in the process of a national reawakening. This was the view the intellectuals in India were holding during the last decades of the nineteenth century projected by nationalist journals like the \*Indian Mirror\*: ### [c11.s4.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.5) The advent of the English found us a nation low sunk in the mire of superstition, ignorance and political servitude. The advent of scholars like Sir William Jones found us fully established in a rank above that of every nation as that from modern civilization could be distinctly traced. It would be interesting to contemplate what would have been our position if the science of philology had not been discovered. We should know that it is to the study of the roots and inflexions of Sanskrit that we owe our national salvation. . . . Within a few years after the discovery of Sanskrit, a revolution took place in the history of comparative science. Never were so many discoveries made at once, and from the speculations of learned scholars like Max Müller, the dawning of many truths are even now visible to the world. . . . Comparative Mythology and Comparative Religion are now terms altogether in the world.⁴⁰ ### [c11.s4.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.6) During the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries, Orientalism was griping the West, particularly Germany. Raymond Schwab gave an encyclopaedic description of this sweeping impact from 1765 to 1850 in his \*La Renaissance Orientale\*: “there was a virtual epidemic of orientalia affecting every major poet, essayist and philosopher of the period”. Schwab’s notion that ### [c11.s4.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.7) Oriental identifies an amateur or professional enthusiasm for everything Asiatic, which was wonderfully synonymous with exotic, the mysterious, the profound, the seminal was a later transposition eastwards of a similar enthusiasm in Europe for Greek and Latin antiquity during High Renaissance.⁴¹ ### [c11.s4.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.8) West moved beyond the “Biblical orient”. The first initiative was by Abraham Hyacinthe Anqueil-Duperron (1731–1805), who was ### [c11.s4.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.9) an eccentric theoretician of egalitarianism, a man who managed his head to reconcile Jansenism with orthodox Catholicism and Brāhmanism, and who travelled to Asia in order to prove the actual primitive existence of a chosen people and the Biblical genealogies. Instead he overshot his early goal and travelled as far as Surat, there to find a cache of Avestan texts, there also to complete his translation of Avesta.⁴² ### [c11.s4.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.10) He finished the translation of Avesta in Surat in 1759 and the translation of Upaniṣads in Paris in 1786. “He has dug a channel between the hemispheres of human genius, correcting and expanding the old humanism of the Mediterranean basin.”⁴³ He started comparative studies between Greek and Persian. ### [c11.s4.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.11) Friedrich Schlegel declared even before he learnt Sanskrit that it was in the East that the Europeans must look for the highest Romanticism. He stated his conviction more emphatically after having learnt Sanskrit in his \*Uber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier\* (On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians) in 1808. Nirad C. Chaudhury called it a manifesto of a new Renaissance for Europe from India.⁴⁴ ### [c11.s4.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.12) An awareness about the intellectual and cultural India was dawning in the West. The renderings of the Upaniṣads from their Persian translation had also come out before Max Müller started his work. The German philosophers like Schelling and Schopenhauer were attracted to the Upaniṣads. Schlegel’s edition and translation of \*Bhagavadgītā\* attracted linguists and philosophers like Humboldt and Hegel.⁴⁵ The responses of Schelling and Schopenhauer became helpful in the search for a new identity by the Indians like Raja Rammohun Roy and Keshub Chandra Sen. They were drawn to Christianity but found a ground on the Upaniṣadic soil itself for their faith. ### [c11.s4.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.13) It is true that Orientalism initially served the colonial masters, but it is also true that the Orientalists in Germany, England and other European countries tried to establish contacts with the \*paṇḍits\* in India and quite often also depended on them for original sources. This also led to a process of dialogue and sometimes debates between the Orientalists and the \*paṇḍits\*. William Jones appreciated “the superior accuracy of their scholarship” and accuracy and authenticity with which they helped.⁴⁶ The Orientalist scholars from the West to a large extent worked for the empowerment of colonial rule, but their correspondences with Indian scholars and Sanskrit \*paṇḍits\* gave an opportunity to the \*paṇḍits\* to develop their own vision to compete with the Orientalist discourse. ### [c11.s4.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.14) Like William Jones, H.H. Wilson also learned Sanskrit from the \*paṇḍits\*. He had forged relationships with Indian scholars. It was with their help that he could produce a translation of \*Meghadūta\* in 1814. Wilson was an influencial figure; he served as a secretary to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta from 1811, and in 1823 became the secretary to the Government’s Central Committee of Public Instruction, where he was a leading advocate for the promotion of Sanskrit education in India. He wanted to encourage Sanskrit learning for uplifting of the Indian society. He pleaded for encouraging Sanskrit studies, to enable the Indians to better understand their own culture and literature. He utilized his stay at the Banaras Sanskrit College during 1819-20 to prepare for the Bodon Professorship and also acknowledged that the Oriental \*paṇḍits\* of the city “afforded him valuable opportunities for improving (his) knowledge of Sanskrit”. Wilson’s \*Dictionary of Sanskrit and English\* was translated and amended and an enlarged version of the original compilation prepared by “Learned Natives for the College of Fort William”, under the supervision of Pt. Raghumani Bhattacharya. ### [c11.s4.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.15) It was because of Sanskrit and the intrinsic values which it imbibed, the Orientalist carried with them a feeling of illumination amounting sometimes to euphoria. ### [c11.s4.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.16) In 1867 Max Müller had published an advertisement in \*The Pundit\* of Banaras inviting subscriptions to his edition of \*Ṛgveda\* with an explanation of the whole scheme of translation. The advertisement drew sharp reactions from traditional scholars. Responses from several \*paṇḍits\*, including the rejoinder by Pt. Shiv Prasad in Sanskrit were subsequently published in \*The Pundit\*.⁴⁷ ### [c11.s4.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s4.17) During the last decades of the nineteenth century, Kāśī and Calcutta became centres of vigorous intellectual exercises provoked by the onslaught of Orientalism. Pramadādāsa Mitra was one of the most vocal members of these groups. He came from a Bengali merchant family settled at Banaras and had served as Assistant Anglo-Sanskrit Professor in Banaras College teaching English through the medium of Sanskrit to the traditional students there. Working in close association with R.T.H. Griffith, the Principal of the college and other European scholars there, he was instrumental in revising the English translation of \*Sāhityadarpaṇa\* by J.R. Ballantyne. However, he developed sharp differences with the European Orientalists later much to their chagrin. When George Thibaut proposed to introduce the techniques of modern Orientalism for improvement of Sanskrit studies in the college, by introducing the works of John Muir, Max Müller and H.T. Colebrooke in the syllabus, Mitra launched an angry protest. He wrote that “even a most confident and learned European Sanskritist will not deny that he has yet to learn a good deal about the numerous philosophical systems of India” and for a deep understanding of texts these scholars were still dependent upon the \*paṇḍits\* of “the true India type”,⁴⁸ Thibaut criticized Pramadādāsa for being overly partial to the \*paṇḍits\*. Mitra also refuted the view of Āryanization and European scholars view of Vedic deities in his letter to the editor of \*The Pundit\* (November 1876). ### Romantic Shifts in the Debate ### [c11.s5.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5.1) Sir William Jones (1746-94) came to India in 1783 to assume the charge of a superior judge in Fort William. Jones was a poet, jurist, polyhistoric classicist and indefatigable scholar “whose powers would recommend him to such as Benjamin Franklin, Edmund Burke, William Pitt and Samuel Johnson.”⁴⁹ Before Jones left for India in 1783, he had mastered Arabic, Hebrew and Persian. “The figure of Jones functioned — and continues to function — as a reassuring vindication of British rule.”⁵⁰ ### [c11.s5.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5.2) He completed the translation of Kālidāsa’s play \*Abhijñānaśākuntala\* on 17 August 1788; and in 1789 his edition of \*Abhijñānaśākuntala\* (\*Sacontala or The Fatal Ring: An Indian Drama\*) with an English translation was published. The publication heralded the dawn of a new era termed as the “Śakuntalā era” by a French writer, Raymond Schwab in his \*Oriental Rennaissance\*. It created a furore all over the world and had to be reprinted in five impressions immediately. It is with reference to Jone’s \*Sacontala\* that Herder wrote to one of his friends: ### [c11.s5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5.3) Do you not wish with me that instead of these endless religious books of the Vedas, Upavedas, and Upāṅgas, they should give us the more useful and more agreeable works of the Indians, and especially their best poetry of every kind? It is here that the mind and character of a nation is best brought to life before us, and I gladly admit that I have received a truer and more real notion of the manner of thinking among the ancient Indians from this one Śakuntalā, than from their Upāṅgas and Upavedas.⁵¹ ### [c11.s5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5.4) Forster, a political activist, who created the German version of \*Abhijñānaśākuntala\* on the basis of William Jone’s translation was visualizing a hidden bond between \*Śakuntalā\* and Europe through his rendering. ### [c11.s5.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5.5) Kālidāsa reached Goethe via William Jones and Forster. Goethe’s enchantment with \*Śakuntalā\* remained undiminished throughout his life. Forty years after the composition of his poetic tribute to \*Śakuntalā\*, when the French scholar Chézy sent him his \*Editio Princeps of Śakuntalā\* (1830) with translation and notes and bearing the citation of Goethe’s poem also, Goethe thanked Chézy and wrote back to him that “\*Śakuntalā\* has been a start for him that made night more pleasant than day and it had marked an epoch in his life”. \*Abhijñānaśākuntala\* became an exemplification of new human values and romanticism in France. ### [c11.s5.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5.6) In India, this rediscovery of Kālidāsa did cast an impact on her socio-political fabric. During the one hundred years after the publication of William Jones’ translation of Kālidāsa’s play, the image of Śakuntalā as a lady seeking freedom from age-old inhibitions gets somehow connected to the idea of freedom. On the other hand, performances of \*Abhijñānaśākuntala\* on Parsi theatre were catering to popular taste. The vulgarity and uncouth nature of these performances generated debates on Indian identity in theatre and performing arts. In northern India, a very significant role in these debates was played by Bharatendu and Jai Shankar Prasad, two eminent figures in India’s literacy history.⁵² ### [c11.s5.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5.7) Sixty years after the publication of \*Abhijñānaśākuntala\* by Jones, Max Müller started publishing \*Ṛgveda\* with \*Sāyaṇa-bhāṣya\* in four volumes (1849-75). Both Jones and Max Müller were drawn towards India with their love for Sanskrit and helped to create a romantic image of India in West and also to stimulate the spirit of Renaissance. Both of them could address the mindset of traditional as well as the modern scholars of Sanskrit in India. If the discovery of Śakuntalā by Jones paved the way for neo-romanticism and Renaissance in India and abroad, the publication of Max Müller’s \*Ṛgveda\* was an event of much more far-reaching consequences. It has been one of the most significant events in the world history of ideas for having initiated a meaningful dialogue between the East and the West. ### [c11.s5.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5.8) Even traditional Sanskrit \*paṇḍits\* and \*veda-pāṭhins\* in India could not remain unaffected by the phenomenon that was Max Müller. In Maharashtra, S.P. Pandit was one of the first savants who appreciated Max Müller’s work. Not only this, he also followed Max Müller’s model when he took up the work of preparing a critical edition of \*Atharvaveda\*. But S.P. Pandit could achieve something which Max Müller could only dream about — besides manuscripts, he had access to the notice of oral textual traditions and took due notice thereof. ### [c11.s5.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5.9) After Max Müller, Raja Ram Shastri Bodas and Shivaram Shastri Gore also brought out \*Ṛgveda\* with \*Sāyaṇa-bhāṣya\*. They followed Max Müller’s edition but also utilized fresh manuscript material. When the Bombay edition of \*Ṛgveda\* by Raja Ram Shastri Bodas and Shivaram Shastri Gore came out, Max Müller had already issued three volumes of the second edition of his \*Ṛgveda\*. Hence he could consult this Indian edition only for the last volume of his second edition. But Max Müller thoroughly checked the Indian edition and accepted its readings at four places in the last volume of his second edition of \*Ṛgveda\*. In this way it was the beginning of an era of correspondence between Sanskrit scholars of India and Europe. The episode of Max Müller’s \*Ṛgveda\* taken up for correction of its manuscripts by the brāhmaṇas of Pune, but untouched by them and read by a non-brāhmaṇa in an assembly has been recorded by Nirad C. Chaudhury and other biographers of Max Müller. Chaudhury also records that Martin Hague had written a letter to Max Müller apprising him of the proceedings of this assembly. Another assembly was called to pass a resolution of thanks in favour of Max Müller. ### [c11.s5.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5.10) Alfred Ludwig produced a complete German translation of \*Ṛgveda\* from Prague in six volumes published during 1876-88. Max Müller and Oldenburg also translated selected hymns in Sacred Books of East. The whole discourse of Orientalism found its footing with the publication of \*Ṛgveda\* with these translations. Debates on translating Vedic texts and discussions on the principles of textual criticism were initiated. ### [c11.s5.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5.11) More than all these, the publication of \*Ṛgveda\* revolutionized the whole concept of the growth of civilization, the world history and the culture demanding a revision of the prevailing notions and changing perceptions. The concepts of the families of languages such as the Indo-Aryan languages, Indo-Europeans languages and Indo-Iranian language emerged. In their romantic enthusiasm for that was foreign, unfamiliar and distant, the Germans were particularly attracted to India. India also became synonymous to Oriental wisdom. Some of the Orientalists started using terms like “Indian wisdom”. Friedrich Schlegal became the founder of Indian philology in Germany due to his work \*On the Language and Wisdom of Indians: Contributions to the Foundation of Archaeology\* published in 1803. (Winternitz, 2003 vol. I: 13). Through the kinship between languages, the world of Orientalists was thrilled at discovering the new facets of relationships between nations and societies in prehistoric times. This also gave rise to the fictitious notion of an “Indo-Germanic race” having far-reaching consequences in world history of nineteenth and early twentieth century. An Indo-Germanic mind started working, leading to a plethora of presumptions. In the manuscript meant to be read out as an academic lecture, Schopenhauer wrote in the beginning: ### [c11.s5.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s5.12) The results of what I propose to deliver before you are in agreement with the oldest of all world-views, namely the Vedas.⁵³ ### Theological and Religious Debates ### [c11.s6.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s6.1) The row of debate between \*Nyāyāmṛtaṁ\* and \*Advaitasiddhi\* led to a series of texts like \*Taraṅgiṇī\*, \*Āmoda\* and \*Kaṇṭakoddhāra\* from the side of Dvaita Vedānta, whereas texts like \*Gurucandrikā\*, \*Laghucandrikā\*, \*Viṭṭhaleśī\* and \*Gauḍabrahmānandī\* came out in their rebuttal from the adherents of Advaita Vedānta. The series of debates have continued during nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries with almost the same vigour and zeal even though their range and social appeal have considerably shrunk. The works of Jālihāla Śrīnivāsācārya and Ananthakrishna Shastri further took up the issues. The debates between Advaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita that were initiated by Vedāntadeśika's \*Śatadūṣaṇī\* and Anantakṛṣṇa Shastri's \*Śatabhūṣaṇī\* were given fresh stimulus by the advent of works by Bellamkoṇḍa Rāmārāyakavi and Parvate Raghunāthācārya who were converted to Advaita and stood up for its defence in the beginning of the twentieth century. The staunch proponents of Advaita like Karapatri Swami, Kāśīkananda Giri, Suri Ramachandra Shastri on one hand and the adherents of Dvaita like Satyadhyānatīrtha, Vidyāmānyatīrtha, Tāmraparṇi Śrīnivāsācārya joined the line of these serious debates. Works of Tryambaka Shastri from Maharashtra, Raju Shastri and Natesh Shastri from Tamil Nadu, Venkamatya and Kuṇigal Rāma Shastri from Karnataka extended the frontiers of debate between the Advaita and Dvaita schools of Vedānta. ### [c11.s6.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s6.2) Theological and sectarian debates assumed bitterness during this period. In \*Radde-Hanūd\* Mohammad Ismail Bokani criticized Hindu ways of life which was published from Mumbai in 1845. More editions of the work from several places were issued. Badridas Chaube wrote \*Radde-Musalman\* in reply. Maulana Ubedullah wrote \*Tohaful-Hind\* (Gift of India) in Urdu. Indra Mani gave a reply to it in his \*Tohaful-Islam\*. This series in the form of attacks and counter-attacks continued.⁵⁴ \*Satyārthaprakāśa\* of Swami Dayananda also became a precursor to such debates. There were texts on unscientific nature of various religious sects. Bachcharaj Singhi wrote \*Jaina Śāstroṅ kī Asaṅgat Bāteṅ\* (Inconsistencies in Jaina \*Śāstras\*).⁵⁵ ### The Debates by Roy ### [c11.s7.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s7.1) Raja Rammohun Roy composed a text \*Tohfatu-\* 'i-\*muwahiddin\* comprising a discourse on monotheism in Persian with Preface in Arabic. This work must have created a wave of protests and disagreements, as another text \*Jawab-i-\* \*Tuhfat-ul-muwahiddin\* in defence of the earlier work came out in 1820. According to Bruce C. Robertson, this second work is falsely attributed to Roy.⁵⁶ \*Jñānacarcā\* was published in refutation to Rammohun’s ideas in 1821. Roy was accused of using the Islamic argumentative style to refute Islam.⁵⁷ ### [c11.s7.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s7.2) He was challenged for a face to face debate by Subrahmanya Shastri of Madras. The meeting was held during December 1816. Rammohun was able to silence his opponent “by the great cogency of his reasoning, as well as by long array of scriptural authorities that he quoted in favour of his views”.⁵⁸ The dispute was reported widely and was attended by a large audience.⁵⁹ \*Vedāntacandrikā\* by an anonymous author was a public censure for Rammohun. Perhaps the ghost author was Mrityunjaya Vidyalankar.⁶⁰ Radhakanta Dev Bahadur was the man behind the whole campaign against Ram-mohun. An English translation of \*Vedāntacandrikā\* entitled \*An Apology for the Present State of Hindoo Worship\* was also published. Roy was criticized by Christian mercenaries for reducing the Christ to a human being. Rammohun gave a strong refutation to \*Vedāntavandrikā\* in his \*Bhaṭṭācārya Sahit Bicār\* (in Bengali).⁶¹ ### [c11.s7.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s7.3) In order to convince the Christian missionaries that the best of their teachings is already contained in Upaniṣads, Raja Rammohun Roy himself translated a large number of Upaniṣads and also edited the original Upaniṣadic texts.⁶² ### [c11.s7.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s7.4) Consulted by the authorities, the \*paṇḍits\* upheld the custom of \*satī\* with the rider that permission for “suttee” is not to be allowed in case of the pregnant women and a lady having very small children, or if she is in a tender age herself. After this, the government issued a directive to magistrates and police officers in 1817 to allow the “suttee”. As a result between 1815 to 1818, as many as 2,365 widows were burnt alive. Alarmed by the enormous number the government issued regulations to place restriction against the practice of \*satī\*, the orthodox \*paṇḍits\* opposed these regulations and submitted a petition to the government to repeal the regulations.⁶³ During 1818-19 Rammohun Roy wrote a series of tracts in Bengali and English to show that the practice of \*satī\* was not approved by Hindu Śāstras. The leaders of Dharma Sabha engaged an attorney of the Calcutta Supreme Court to carry the appeal to England. Roy also finalized his plans to visit England. The appeal of the \*paṇḍits\* was rejected as Rammohun Roy has been a regular attendant in the Privy Council where it was heard. ### [c11.s7.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s7.5) In the \*Brief Remarks Regarding Modern Encroachments on the Ancient Rights of Females: According to Hindoo Law of Inheritance\* (1822) Roy pleaded how the plight of Hindu women has become precarious due to modern interferences and that even the \*satī\* cases had multiplied.⁶⁴ ### [c11.s7.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s7.6) Dharma Sabha founded by Radha Kant Deb tried to arrest the progressive movement of Brahmo Samaj. It also started a weekly called \*Samācāracandrikā\* to give a boost to its opposition to the movements of progressive thinkers like Roy. \*Samācāracandrikā\* criticized Rammohun Roy for travelling to England for personal gains. ### [c11.s7.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s7.7) Debendranath Tagore, son of Dwarkanath Tagore, was a friend of Rammohun Roy. Debendranath Tagore was drawn to Upaniṣadic philosophy and founded Tattvabodhini Sabha, which was later merged with the Brahmo Samaj in 1842. He also started a monthly journal \*Tattvabodhini Patrika\*. He also sent five students to Banaras for the study of Veda. Then he drifted from the Vedic and Upaniṣadic lore as well to formulate his own philosophy of intuition. ### [c11.s7.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s7.8) Keshub Chandra Sen joined the Brahmo Samaj at the age of nineteen in 1857. He fell apart from the Brahmo Samaj when Debendranath disallowed some members from wearing the sacred thread and formed the Brahmo Samaj of India. His opposers then formed a third Brahmo Samaj known as the Sādhāraṇa Brahma Samāja. Mahadev Govind Ranade came in contact with him and as an offshoot of the Brahmo Samaj, a Prārthanā Samāj in Maharashtra came into inception. ### The Vilification and Its Aftermath ### [c11.s8.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8.1) In 1835 Sylvain Lévi wrote: ### [c11.s8.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8.2) These peoples are inheritors of a long tradition of history, of art, and of religion, the sense of which they have not entirely lost and which they are probably anxious to prolong. We have assumed the responsibility of intervening in their development, sometimes without consulting them, sometimes in answer to their request. . . . We claim, rightly or wrongly, to represent a superior civilization, and because of the right given to us by the virtue of this superiority, which we regularly affirm with such assurance as makes it seem incontestable to the natives, we have called in question all their traditions.⁶⁵ ### [c11.s8.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8.3) The whole scenario in India had changed after the departure of Warren Hastings. William Jones was even subjected to an overt and abject criticism by James Mill. For Mill, Kālidāsa's magnum opus was “a story which was above the powers of imagination in an uncultivated language”. Sir William Jones was regretfully rejected: ### [c11.s8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8.4) It was unfortunate that a mind so pure, so warm in pursuits of truth, and so devoted to oriental learning, as that of Sir William Jones, should have adopted a hypothesis of a high state of civilization in the principal countries of Asia.⁶⁶ ### [c11.s8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8.5) \*The History of British India\* by Mill is in fact an example of a \*vitaṇḍā\* text, ridden with futile rejoinders or \*jātis\*, an attempt at deconstructing all that the constructive Orientalism had created. In fact, it was the most eloquent expression of the magisterial and utilitarian view of the British rulers leading to a denouncement of Hindu ways of life. It served as a guideline to the British policy makers for ruling India. Mill contemptuously dismissed all the claims of India's achievements in the fields of science and culture. In the subsequent editions of this book, H.H. Wilson made attempts at correcting his wild and sweeping generalizations and over-reactions. Mill was extremely ruthless in demolishing whatever glory invested by Jones and the Orientalists to Sanskrit literary traditions. ### [c11.s8.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8.6) Mill's work also provided a footing to Macaulay, who in his famous minute on education summarily dismissed the value of Sanskrit literature in his most decrying terms: ### [c11.s8.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8.7) I am quite ready to take the oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I have never found one amongst them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.⁶⁷ ### [c11.s8.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8.8) However, his condemnations of Indian culture and Sanskrit literature generated another kind of debate. Lord Bentinck appointed William Adam for investigating the state of education in Bengal. Adam in his reports voiced the concerns of traditional \*paṇḍits\*; he also collected the signatures of several \*paṇḍits\* from Calcutta Sanskrit College, as a confirmation of the \*vyavasthā\* (opinion) on the continuance of the employment of Sanskrit for translating Western knowledge texts in it.⁶⁸ ### [c11.s8.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8.9) Lancelot Wilkinson was carrying on his experiments at the \*pāṭhaśālā\* in the small town of Sehore near Bhopal in central India. He utilized astronomical texts like \*Sūryasiddhānta\* with their scientific perspective.⁶⁹ Paṇḍit Bapudev was his protégé. John Muir was appointed Superintendent of Banaras Sanskrit College. A Christian polemicist, he had already authored a tract in Sanskrit \*Mataparīkṣā\* denouncing principal tenets of Hinduism. Before that, he had also announced a prize of Rs. 50 for the best essay in Sankrit verse on the design and power of God, which should not refer to Hinduism. He advocated Sanskrit medium and authored several other texts also in Sanskrit.⁷⁰ Ballantyne also published Sanskrit translation of the three chapters of \*Genesis\*, titled \*The Bible for Pundits\* along with the original, to invoke the paṇḍits to testify and search their validity through their scriptures.⁷¹ Ballantyne's \*Christianity Contrasted with Hindu Philosophy\* led to a series of debates. Devout Christians could not tolerate his comparison of Vedāntic \*Nirguṇa Brahman\* with the God of Christianity. He was accused of presenting "too favourable" a characterization of Vedānta. His detractors understood \*nirguṇa\* as devoid of not only physical attributes, but of intellectual and moral characteristics as well. Byllantyne had to approach the \*paṇḍits\* for substantiation of his view of \*nirguṇa\*. The \*vyavasthā\* (opinion) given by the \*paṇḍits\*, including the savants like Vitthal Shastri and Bapudev Shastri, was published along with the signatures of sixteen others by Byllantyne in his \*Bible for Pundits\*.⁷² ### [c11.s8.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8.10) Rajendralal Mitra became an icon in the whole intellectual and political movement that was struggling hard to establish an Indian identity and challenging the Euro-centric interpretations of Indian culture. Mitra criticized the Weber's view that \*Rāmāyaṇa\* was composed under the influence of Homer's \*Iliad\* and wrote sarcastically: ### [c11.s8.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8.11) Alexander during his three week's stay in Punjab taught the Indians according to different authors, the art of preparing male dresses, the mode of piling bricks and stones for buildings, the principles of architecture, the plan of harnessing horses, writing, drama, astronomy, philosophy and all and everything that convert a race of naked savages into civilized men, and it would be preposterous to suppose that he would not leave behind him a copy of the old Homer for the edification of the Indians. — Rajendralal Mitra 1872: 53.⁷³ ### [c11.s8.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11.s8.12) With his firm protest of the idea of ancient India's indebtedness to Greece in respect of learning the constructions by stone, Mitra was embroiled in a controversy with James Fergusson, even though he acknowledged that Fergusson was the "highest authority on Indian architecture".⁷⁴ _First 99 of 306 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11)_ ## Linked texts (30) - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg.10.85.45) — Sanskrit - [Atharvavedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.atharva.11.5) — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit - [Devībhāgavatapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.upa.sakta.devibhagavata) — Sanskrit - [Bhāgavatapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.bhagavata) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Brahmapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.brahma) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Aṣṭādhyāyī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.astadhyayi) — Pāṇini, Sanskrit - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Advaitasiddhi](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.vada.advaitasiddhi) — Madhusūdana Sarasvatī 1570, Sanskrit - [Hitopadeśa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.short_stories.hitopadesa) — Nārāyaṇa, Sanskrit - [Sāhityadarpaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.art.alamkara.sahitya.sahityadarpana) — Viśvanātha Kavirāja, Sanskrit - [Sūryasiddhānta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.astro.siddhanta.early.suryasiddhanta) — Maya, Sanskrit - [Vīramitrodaya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.nibandha.viramitrodaya) — Mitramiśra 1610, Sanskrit - [בְּרֵאשִׁית](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.he.bible.genesis) — Hebrew - [Meghadūta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.duta.meghaduta) — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit - [Veda](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda) — Sanskrit - [Avesta](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.ir.ae) — Avestan - [Uvaṃga](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.upanga) — Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit - [Upaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad) — Sanskrit - [Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.ramayana.valmiki) — Vālmīki, Sanskrit - [Bhagavadgītā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.gita) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Śatapathabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.satapatha) — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit - [Abhijñānaśākuntala](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.sakuntala) — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit - [Mataparīkṣā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.nibandha.matapariksa) — Sanskrit - [Gauḍabrahmānandī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.gaudabrahmanandi) — Gauḍa Brahmānanda, Sanskrit - [Vivādārṇavasetu](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.vyavahara.vivada.vivadarnavasetu) — Several paṇḍits 1748, Sanskrit - [Nyāyāmṛta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.dvaita.tika.nyayamrta) — Vyāsatīrtha, Sanskrit - [Dāyabhāga](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.nibandha.dayabhaga) — Jīmūtavāhana, Sanskrit - [Nārāyaṇasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.upasmrti.narayana) - [Śatadūṣaṇī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.visistadvaita.vadakalai.satadusani) — Vedāntadeśika, Sanskrit - [Vaidyaśataślokī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.med.cikitsa.daksina.vaidyasatasloki) — Avadhāna Sarasvatī, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c11) · Pramāṇa