A typical example of Western assessment of Indian political thought is provided by Dunning. He concludes that India does not have any political thought because of the dominance of religion and theology. “The Oriental Aryans, comments Dunning, “never freed their politics from the theological and metaphysical environment in which it is embedded today” (1966, 4). Spender mentions Egyptian and Chinese political thought but does not hesitate to omit Indian. This is a very prejudiced view. The tradition of Indian political speculation is very old dating back to the Vedic period (1500-1000 BC). In the twelfth century, Kalhan’s Rajatarangini provides some interesting insights into politics. Furthermore, the Upanishads, the Dharmasutras, the Buddhist literature, the writings of the Arthashastra School, Manusmriti and the Shantiparva of the Mahabharatha provide a very rich cluster of political ideas.
Nature of Ancient Indian Thought
Compared to the Ancient Greeks who provide a wide variety of political ideas, the ancient Indian political theory follows the pattern beginning with the Vedas except for the Buddhist tradition. The primary reason for this is due to the fact that though some states were oligarchic and republican, by and large, the accepted pattern was monarchy which was in sharp contrast to the wide variety of governmental systems in ancient Greece. The two other crucial factors that impeded the development of political theory was the sway of religion and the consequent Brahmin domination with strict division of society into four distinct castes performing different functions.
Apart from this social factor, knowledge and learning were considered to be comprehensive and indivisible which meant that political existence was not different from social existence. Even in Kautilya with his elaborate and skilful dissection of public administration and statecraft, there was an overall acceptance of this social order. This led to the fact that though the Saptanga theory was more elaborate than the Western theory, unlike the latter, the divine sanction was a major framework of political authority. This led to the basic imperfection in theorising as the divine laws were unchangeable and society was strictly divided into four groups with separate functions and duties. Added to this was the fact that Brahmins dominated, as they were the most privileged group with the exemption of taxation and punishment constituted a state within the state.
Nature of Islamic Thought
Eighth century onwards the period of Islamic thought begins. With the predominance of Islamic religious code, civil law was a part of religious law. The non Muslims were not considered full members of society. In the fifteenth century, new ideas started to emerge under the enlightened reign of Akbar who tried to reform and bring about equality irrespective of individual religious beliefs. Jahangir and Shahjahan followed the tradition of Akbar which was totally revered by Aurangzeb who reverted back to religious orthodoxy.
In the eighteenth century, the impact of the European civilization was felt in India. This was of great significance because after a century of anarchy and stagnation it created awareness in the minds of educated Indians. This was more so because not only to Aurangzeb to whom no new ideas appealed but even among the Maratha rulers which arose out of protest there was not much of an inkling of a new quest or manifestation of a liberal outlook. Its major social achievement was limited to providing equal treatment to the Hindus and the Muslims. According to Jadunath Sarkar (1973), one major reason for the failure of the Marathas was their inability for innovations or for that matter creating new political ideas. In other words, unlike in Europe, in India, an acute crisis did not lead to innovative political theory. It did not become a period of Plato and Aristotle or for that matter a period of Hobbes and Locke, the two periods of European history, which reflected acute crisis and transition from one period to the other (Sabine 1939, 1).
In this anarchic situation, the Europeans started to consolidate their control over India. Amongst the European powers, England ultimately proved to be the winner. The period from the death of Aurangzeb in 1707 to the victory of the British army in Bengal in 1757, marked a very gloomy period of Indian history. The decline of the Mughal Empire meant loss of political unity and lot of confusion and disorder. This sordid state of affairs was graphically described by the French traveller Jean Law in 1759: “I have travelled everywhere from Bengal to Delhi but nowhere have I found anything from anyone except oppression of the poor and plundering of the way farers” (cited in Bose 1960, 1) .
It was period when any kind of political speculation or for that matter any inkling of nationalist aspiration was totally absent. The lack of both nationalism and political consciousness were the biggest factors that helped the easy consolidation of British hegemony over India. But the British rule being administered through the East India Company, for which the commercial interest was of paramount importance, was hardly any better. Burke very aptly criticised the Company’s government as “one of the most corrupt and obstructive tyrannies that probably ever existed in the world” (cited in Bose, Ibid, 2). The colonial rulers were not interested in promoting Western education in this country. The first Governor General, Warren Hastings (1732-1818) knew many Indian languages and it was because of his initiative that for studying indigenous traditions of both Muslims and Hindus centres was set up. The net result of this was that both the communities were immersed in their respective traditional spheres.
Tagore’s Response
Describing this period, Tagore comments that India was in a deathlike sleep in which “her life was dried up and it showed all those dead and forgotten customs, superstitions and prejudices, all the ignorance and fear, all feuds, all bitterness and separateness, all unreasonableness and remotelessness from the wide world” (cited in Bose Ibid, 6). Even the traditional learning had decayed and the entire educational edifice was based on a very narrow foundation. The study of Sanskrit language, ancient classics and sacred texts were virtually given up. There were no centres for higher learning and there were only Tols, Madrasas and Pathsalas where only rudimentary Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic languages and simple mathematics sufficient only for ordinary life were taught. In Bengal, the Bengali prose was still in its formative stage.
This twin lack of education and political authority created a situation of social degeneration which was reflected in a widespread practice of blind superstition created a situation of social degeneration. This was manifested in a widespread practice of blind superstitions and inhuman customs such as slavery, polygamy, early marriage, sati, killing of female children, throwing of the first child in holy-river, inhuman atrocities to lower castes by higher castes and a feeling of helplessness and extreme insecurity. It was a fact that some of these practices existed for a long time. Whereas in earlier times, these practices were rather uncommon, but had becomes widespread and rampant. The worst sufferers were women. The reflection of this degeneration was amply demonstrated by the socio-religious practices at the time of Rammohun. Sacrificial rites, outwards show, lavishness and exhibitionism in religious festivals were common. “Superstition and irrational orthodoxy have taken the place of reasoning” (Bose Ibid, 7).
BEGINNING OF A NEW ERA: INDIA’S RESPONSE TO THE BRITISH RULE
Towards the end of the eighteenth century and beginning of the nineteenth century, the situation started to change for the better. In generating this new awareness, which is often termed as the beginning of nineteenth century Indian Renaissance, the establishment of the Asiatic Society in Bengal (1784)was an important milestone. A group of English scholars, the most important of whom was Sir William Jones (1746-94), enthusiastically started to dissect the ancient Sanskrit literature and out of this serious research, the twenty volumes of Asiatic Researches emerged providing a lot of interesting and stimulating facts of Oriental and Indian civilizations. These were unknown even to the then educated Indians.
Apart from opening the door to Western appreciation of Indian culture, Sir William Jones’s work had very remarkable effects on India itself. To a people who had sunk so low as the people of Bengal had in the eighteenth century, the work of Jones and his Orientalists came as a balm. The national self-esteem of India which had touched its depths at the end of the eighteenth century received its first aid to recovery in the appreciation which Indian literature received at the hands of the most renewed men in Europe. Jones can be acclaimed in this sense as one of the fathers of the Great Recovery which followed in the nineteenth century (Pannikar 1964: 204).
The second important factor in the awareness was the introduction of Western education. This was achieved by the joint collaboration of enlightened Indians and the Christian missionaries bringing Indians in contact with the West and Western thought. Bacon, Locke, Voltaire, Burke, Bentham, James Mill and Newton became familiar names. The third impact was that of the French Revolution of 1789 especially in the minds of the Indian youth. In this context, one example might help us in assessing the magnitude of this influence. The Christian missionary, Alexander Duff recorded that in just one ship, one thousand copies of Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason arrived. At the beginning, the book was sold at just one rupee but because of the tremendous demand its price increased manifold within a few days. Within a short time, a cheaper edition of all works of Paine was published.
Three Different Responses to the British Rule
The net impact of all these developments changed dramatically the intellectual climate of India in general and Bengal in particular within a few decades. In this period of ferment three different schools of thought emerged. The first was influenced by the Western rationalistic outlook and was iconoclastic. It was critical of both authority and tradition and wanted total abolition of the caste restrictions and practices. Though most of them were young and did not adopt Christianity, they “renounced the whole system of Hinduism” and “there was little sympathy either between them and their countrymen or between them and the English, they had been raised out of one society without having a recognized place in another” (O’Malley 1969, 66). The leader of this radical movement was Henri Derozio (1809-31).
The second group consisted of the conservative Hindus who wanted to uphold social and religious status quo. This group was led by well to do Hindus. Though they were spokesmen for Hindu conservatism, they were practical minded people and championed the cause of English education, as they were shrewd enough to realize that such knowledge would be beneficial to them. But though they wanted to learn English as a language they showed little inclination to assimilate Western thought and culture. What helped them most was the policy of the East India Company of non-interference in regard to Indian religious rites and social practices. The most well-known of them was Radhakanta Deb (1784-1867).
The third school of thought was typified and identified with Raja Rammohun Roy (1774-1833). This group, while attempting to reform society and religion from within was also prepared to incorporate the positive aspects of Western thought and culture. This awakening was a combination of the forces of the Renaissance with those of Reformation. There was a national, conservative side, which was reflected in the revival of India’s culture and reform of Indian religion. In this respect, Rammohun’s role was like that of Martin Luther’s in the European context. Luther appealed to the Bible as the authority against medieval degeneration and corruption. Rammohun similarly took his stand on the basis of the Vedas, the oldest Hindu scriptures in which he discovered a form of pure and undiluted Hinduism. But there was, unlike Luther, another side of Rammohun, namely his cosmopolitanism to assimilate what was good and useful in other civilizations, cultures and religions. For instance, he was attracted by monotheism by his contact with the Muslims. He was also deeply influenced by the ethical teachings of Christianity and believed that asceticism was not essential for leading a religious life, for it could be fulfilled within social surroundings. Subhash Chandra Bose correctly pointed out that Rammohun was the first to assimilate with Indian culture, Western scientific culture (1965, 1). “The Indian Renaissance was possible only because a principle was discovered by which India could throw herself into the full current of modern civilization in the outer world without totally discarding her past” (Sarkar cited in Bose 1960, 9). Rammohun became the most representative example of this Renaissance in its formative period. It was because of such a remarkable achievement, that all the important thought and movements of the nineteenth century- social, religious and political- in India rightly began with Rammohun (Majumdar 1966, 3). What Hegel was to western thought, Rammohun was to Indian.
Rammohun’s Political Thought
Rammohun’s early life was spent learning Hindu and Islamic thought. In more mature years, from the age of twenty two, he came in contact with an Englishman, Digby and mastered English and became immensely interested in Western ideas. This exposure was of crucial significance in Rammohun’s intellectual development as this enabled him to come in contact with some very important European thinkers and historic developments like the American War of Independence and the French Revolution.
Rammohun was a prolific writer and his works were estimated to be round eighty and out of these, eight dealt with different aspects of political philosophy. His method was inductive and with his concern for the primacy of social reform his ideas were spread all over his writings including letters. In the evolution of his political ideas, the most important influences were those of Bentham and Montesquieu. From Bentham he picked up the rejection of natural law theory and the distinction between law and morals. The influence of Utilitarianism was also discernible but whereas Bentham was more rigid and believed that the same principles could operate throughout the world, Rammohun accepted wide variety. From Montesquieu, he borrowed the theory of separation of power and the idea of the importance of the rule of law. Rammohun, like Montesquieu, accepted the ultimate sovereignty of the people which was one of the important reasons for his support for direct British parliamentary legislations in colonial India.
Rammohun disagreed with the most important idea of ancient Indian legal system namely that the basic or the fundamental law was of divine creation and that all other laws emerged from this basic law. For him, law was the command of the sovereign and as such, reformist law emerged from the sovereign authority. He was conscious of the impact of public opinion and emphasized the need of freedom of expression. But he equally stressed the importance of the superior authority for declaring law as command. In the context of India, he asserted that Hindu society was incapable of reforming itself from within. The remedy as such was to make the British Parliament responsible for enacting laws for India. This was defended on two grounds: (1) that Western law emerged from a sovereign authority and (2) because of the separation between legislative and executive responsibilities. In contrast to this in India, all the powers were vested in the executive, which was not conducive for wholesome and progressive legislation. He also thought, like Burke, that the British Parliament was not influenced by small petty interests. Unlike the executive authorities in India, the British Parliament would be more interested in the permanent rather than the immediate interests. The situation in India in the early nineteenth century vindicated this stand, as the local administration as well as the Indian intelligentsia was reluctant to take any risk. Even the historic decision of Lord William Bentick (1774-1839) to ban sati in 1829 did not have the approval of all the sections of educated Indians. Moreover, during the first eighty years of the English rule, only two positive social legislations emerged: (a) Regulation of 1829 banning sati and the (b) Hindu Marriage Act of 1855 passed at the instance of another great social reformer, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar.
The attitude of the ordinary Indian people towards the role of administration also changed. They were not merely satisfied at the maintenance of law and order and wanted the administration to be more responsive to their aspirations and requirements. In this crystallisation of political consciousness Rammohun was a once again a pioneer. With his efforts, the periodical press began. He personally brought out two journals, one in Persian and the other, in Bengali making him an advocate of the importance of freedom of press and publication. In 1823, Rammohun, along with Chandra Kumar Tagore (1768-1828), Dwarkanth Tagore (1794-1846), Harchandra Ghose, Gauri Charan Banerji and Prasanna Kumar Tagore (1801-86), sent a petition to the Supreme Court demanding freedom of the press. This historic petition was compared to Milton’s areopajitica (1644) by Collet. Its basic contention was that human excellence emerged out of freedom to think and to express. Logically no good government should attempt to stifle such precious rights. A free press was extremely beneficial to society. It also helped the government in earning public esteem and respect. However, the petition was rejected by the Court and thereafter, Rammohun appealed to the King. There was also a long debate between him and the Court of Directors. Bentick did not remove this restriction on the press. It was only done by Governor General Metcalfe in 1835.
Rammohun was conscious of the fact that the British legal and social practice was far advanced than the systems set up by the Hindus or the Muslims. The very basis of the British legal system was based on the principle of equality before law which was not practiced either by the Hindu or the Muslim jurisprudence. This admission and forthright statement earned him the title of the inaugurator of modern India from Tagore. For Rammohun, the primacy of reason and enjoyment of liberty were valuable possessions and because of the absence of such values in Indian society, the state had to be instrumental in spreading education and in initiating legal reforms. The preceding Muslim rule was a period of tyranny of one against another. In contrast, the British rule was different, as it incorporated within itself the ingredients of British civilization. As such, the British colonial practices were not comparable to other classical colonialists. The British people possessed a sense of ‘inbred decency’ and its colonial policy had a uniform pattern throughout the world. Furthermore, the British ideal envisaged the state as the vanguard of freedom.
By this assessment of the basic traits of the English character, Rammohun opposed the establishment of a legislative council for India as the British Parliament could make a dispassionate assessment of India’s needs and aspirations. He also made a case for European settlement in India. He thought that such settlements would create a better understanding between Indians and Europeans and would also help in the progress of literary, social and political affairs. The logic of this argument followed from the conviction that colonialism need not necessarily be always exploitative and tyrannical; rather it order could be a precondition of freedom in the colonies. Hence Rammohun regarded such a rule as beneficial and pointed out that the British contact taught Indians three important ideals of the modern world: (a) religious tolerance, (b) political order and (c) scientific outlook. He thanked God “for having unexpectedly delivering this country, from the long continued tyranny of its former rulers and for placing it under the Government of the English, a nation who not only are blessed with the enjoyment of civil and political liberty, but also interested in promoting liberty and social happiness, as well as free enquiry into liberty and religious subjects, among those nations to which that influence extends”.
For instance, one well known Indian commentator, V. P. Verma (1967, 21) argued that Rammohun was supporting the British rule at a time when the Sikhs and the Marathas were fighting with the British without taking into account the fact that such forces were feudal and did not espouse either freedom or nationalism. In fact, the process of consolidation of India was achieved only in 1857, twenty two years after Rammohun’s death, with the undisputed assertion of British sovereignty over India as a whole. Rammohun obviously could not conceive of India’s independence in this situation. However, he was able to transcend this local consideration and evolve a deep contextual understanding of freedom as he supported divergent freedom struggles that took place in the United States, France, Italy and Spain. This intrinsic faith in the triumph of the rights of man also convinced him that the introduction of democracy in the metropolitan Western countries would ultimately lead to India’s independence. Internationalism, cooperation among nations, support for basic human rights, personal freedom, self respect and a perspective of development were the other important components of his outlook. In a memorable passage, in which he echoes the sentiments of Locke, he asserted that “if mankind are brought into existence and by nature formed to enjoy the comforts of society and the pleasure of an improved mind, they may be justified in opposing any system, religious, domestic or political, which are inimical to the happiness of society or are calculated to debase the human intellect” (cited in Majumdar 1967, 18). Rammohun, like Locke, proposed a minimum standard for any civilized government and acknowledged people’s right to rebellion if the essential minimum was not fulfilled.
Such a philosophy helped Rammohun to differentiate between the larger British practices and the localism of the British bureaucracy in India. He was equally conscious of India’s serious internal limitations. The social prerequisites of freedom did not exist. Indian society was full of primitive customs, dogmas and superstitions which stunted growth and hampered flowering of outstanding individuals. Historically, he discovered that the ancient Vedic period was a good era but the subsequent distortions led to idolatory, multiplicity of divinity, child marriage, and prohibition of widow remarriage, sati, caste system and priesthood. He argued very convincingly that these widespread contemporary practices did not have roots in the Vedas and Upanishads and the task, therefore, was to restore the original traditions.
This restoration and reform were stupendous tasks and the state had to play a crucial role in social regeneration. Broadly, the state had to initiate actions in two areas, (1) prohibition of inhuman social practices and (2) to encourage the exercise of freedom by individuals. In this scheme, state supported education would play an important role as education would remedy what had become habitual. Ignorance had led to social acceptance of evils. There was a climate of unreason. The British administration was the most appropriate agency to rectify this serious anomalous situation as he considered the British rule as a ‘benign act of providence’ destined to lead India to social progress and ultimately to independence. The immediate British task was progressive legal reforms which were to include areas like marriage, inheritance, revenue criminal law and judicial system. Similarly, the actions of government which aimed at denying the native population of fundamental liberty of thought and expression were ill conceived and ought to be opposed. The indigenous system of education would be replaced by Western education because the former had ‘no practical use to society’ (Collet 1962). He was for a liberal and enlightened system of instruction ‘embracing natural philosophy, chemistry, anatomy and other useful sciences’. For implementing this new education system he prepared a forty year plan. He also established the Brahmo Samaj for religion to get rid of idolatry, caste system and priesthood and associated himself with the establishment of the Hindu college to disseminate Western type of education and lead India towards modernization.
Economic Thought
Rammohun’s economic thought is not very significant but sketchy. Like his political thought, the method was inductive expressing concern over specific issues. He was conscious of the evils of the permanent settlement as he believed in the idea that “every man is entitled by law and reason to enjoy the fruits of honest labour and good management” (cited in Sarkar 1965, 23). He was equally worried abut the miserable condition of the peasantry and did not support its taxation. To compensate for the loss of revenue because of such exemption he suggested reduction in expenditure, more taxes on luxury items and economic measures by administration like replacing expensive British personnel in the army with Indians. This, he felt would be less expensive and elicit more cooperation from the people. He also recommended exemption of the peasantry from taxation as that would lead to happiness of the peasants and make the government more popular. Susovan Sarkar points out that one reason for Rammohun’s proposal for European settlement in India was his awareness of British appropriation from India (Sarkar 1965).
Rammohun’s essential presumption was that the individual possesses some basic rights which includes right to life, property, speech and association. The state was a Benthamite state with the principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number as the most important criterion for judging its performance. This logically culminated in his plea for massive, political, social, economic and educational reforms in India. He was for a modern secular state with a welfare oriented popular government. In this sense he was one of the forerunners of the modern welfare state. He reflected the same concern for the deprived as Hegel.
Rammohun died in 1833 and Marx in 1883. When Rammohun died, Marx was just fifteen years old. But in spite of such differences there were some striking parallels. Both of them were activist theoreticians and were universalists having attempted a philosophy that encompasses the whole of humankind. Both were optimistic about the future and were deeply influenced by Western scientific culture. If Marx’s life depicted the maturing of West European capitalism, Rammohun’s life ‘portrays India’s transition from medieval to modern age’. Both were analysts of the modern secure state and economy. Both showed a keen interest in comprehending French Revolution and were convinced of its epoch making significance. Rammohun like Marx contended that the Indian society was incapable of changing from within. Rammohun admired European institutions and ideas without undermining Indian tradition and culture. He crusaded against evil social practices like the Sati which he condemned by relying on classical Indian texts. As a universalist he wanted to create a new synthesis of Indian and Western ideas and in this attempt he is one of the great precursors of those who argued more convincingly of civilization as a cooperative enterprise (cited in Joshi 1975, 100).
Rammohun and His Critics
Apart from the conservative section led by Radhakanta Deb there was a group of radicals led by Henry Derozio who were critical of Rammohun’s ideals and policies. Derozio infused radical ideas among the young Hindu students at the Hindu College. This group was well acquainted with contemporary European rationalism and was greatly influenced by the philosophies of Hume and Bentham and the radicalism of Paine. Like the European intellectuals of the period of Enlightenment they wanted to measure everything by the criterion of reason. Their attitude towards religion was extremely sceptical and the denunciation of Hindu religion was total. They considered themselves as true liberals while Rammohun and his followers were ‘half liberals’. Pointing out the contradictions in the philosophy and practice of Rammohun and his followers, Derozio observed
What his opinions are, neither his friends nor foes can determine. It is easier to say what they are than what they… Rammohun, it is well known, appeals to the Vedas, the Koran, and the Bible, holding them all probably in equal estimation, extracting the good from each and rejecting from all whatever he considers apocryphal…. He has always lived a Hindoo….His followers, at least some of them, are not very consistent. Sheltering themselves under the shadow of his name, they indulge to licentiousness in everything forbidden in the shastras, as meat and drink; while at the same time they feed the Brahmins, profess to disbelieve Hinduism, and never neglect to have poojas at home (cited in Joshi Ibid, 19).
Apart from these charges of confusion and vagueness they also charged Rammohun’s followers as opportunists with the important motive of accumulation of wealth and position. Rajat Ray pointed out that the process of modernization in India began with the colonial framework and was “beset by curious contradictions- contradictions that inevitably crept into Rammohun Roy’s role in that process”. These contradictions were pointed by the Derozians. There was another fundamental rejection of Rammohun by the Derozians, the effort of the former to get the essence of all religions as a futile exercise. This was because of his emphasis on moral scruples as well as faith in God, making him a half-liberal, a criticism that hurt Rammohun’s ‘sense of decency’ and ‘theistic idealism’ according to Sushovan Sarkar (1978). The more matured opinion did not support the radicals and after the untimely death of Derozio the movement petered out. They pointed out to the shortcomings of Rammohun’s movement without any real understanding of the difficult situation that Rammohun faced, working ‘within the limitations of a society which was not of his choice but to which he came to belong” (Ray 1974, x). But in spite of this limitation the radicals provided a transformative criticism of Rammohun as “the radical movement was an extension of the movement for reform and change which Rammohun had initiated” (Salahuddin 1975, 100).
In the early nineteen twenties, Gandhi criticised Rammohun in a comparative perspective by pointing out that “Chaitanya, Kabir, Nanak, Guru Govind Singh, Shivaji and Pratap were greater men than Rammohun and Tilak. Their handicap was due to their knowledge of the English language and their impact on the masses was neither permanent nor far reaching and because of this serious shortcoming Rammohun and Tilak “were pigmies before these saints” (Gandhi 1966, 43, 47). For instance, as Niharranjan Ray (1974, x) pointed out Chaitanya, the sixteenth century social reformer of Bengal used the language that the common man could comprehend which enabled Chaitanya to identify himself with the masses. This identification enabled him to acquire the power and prestige by which he could bring the social transformation that he wanted. But “Rammohun did have Chaitanya’s broad sway over multitudes of men and women” (cited in Mukhopadhyay 1965, 15). This is because in the social sense his area of functioning was limited. In refutation of this it can be said that the enormous influence of Rammohun on practically all the eminent people quite describes the popular base of his message. Sister Nivedita wrote about Swami Vivekananda’s own mission, which vindicates the tremendous influence that Rammohun exerted on all the subsequent reform movements. “We heard a long talk on Rammohun Roy in which he (Vivekananda) pointed out three things as the dominant notes of this teacher’s message- his acceptance of the Vedanta, his preaching of patriotism, and the love that embraced the Mussalman equally with the Hindu. For all these things, he claimed himself to have taken up the task that the breadth and foresight of Rammohun had mapped out” (cited in Das 1974, 133).
Apart from this overall impact the immense contribution of Rammohun to the development of Bengali prose and its skilful use nullifies the charge of Englishness in him. Sisir Kumar Das observed “Rammohun Roy was the first Bengali who realised the possibility of Bengali prose as a medium of expression of serious thought and use it as a powerful tool for intellectual communication” (Das Ibid). The well known historian R. C. Majumdar (1977) tried to assess Rammohun’s contribution to the all round development of Bengal in the nineteenth century. In his dissection Majumdar pointed out that there was no doubt about Rammohun’s serious effort in abolishing the cruel practice of sati yet the fact remained that the movement for abolition of sati began long before him. In this context he referred to writings of Pandit Mritunjay Vidyalankar in 1817 who anticipated most of the arguments later put forward by Rammohun. Furthermore, he challenged the ‘Rammohun’s myth’ by refuting Ramanand Chattopadhyay’s (editor of the influential English monthly, The Modern Review) assertion that though Rammohun might not have been the central figure in the crusade against Sati yet it was put down early because of his efforts. The other point that Majumdar mentioned was that Bentick’s decision to abolish it preceded his coming to India and meeting Rammohun. The central argument for him was that Rammohun opposed legislation to abolish sati but Rammohun opposed the legislation because he thought that such an action might be misunderstood by the people as governmental interference in the religious practices, so he advocated indirect methods for abolishing this inhuman practice and there were instances where his method prevented the practice.
The most serious shortcoming of Majumdar’s argument is that he totally ignored the fact that the situation was very difficult which was demonstrated by the fact that the conservatives even after the legislation carried on their campaign and contested the claim that Rammohun was the sole representative of the entire Hindus. So Rammohun’s hesitation about the efficacy of legislation is understandable. Moreover, what Majumdar forgot was that Rammohun praised the legislation publicly and associated himself with Bentick in a public reception. The second point about Bentick’s thinking did not really diminish Rammohun’s role nor does the fact that there were opponents of the practice before him. He himself never claimed any originality for himself and he merely represented very forcefully and scholarly the forces of reform. Furthermore, as Barun De (1975) pointed out “Dr. Majumdar has not identified the Raja’s opinion or objectives by reference to Raja’s own writings which are after all the primary sources” but rather based his arguments on the basis of later interpreters. “Dr. Majumdar’s shafts against Raja’s importance as a precursor of Indian liberal nationalism are no more accurately aimed than the mythology which he rebuts” (De Ibid).
Barun De (1975, 147) thought however that Rammohun’s political and economic thought was based on the philosophy of “limited reformist political activity” which hardly offered any solution to the problems of any group except for the urban elite”. Because of this, “his ideas could be idolised by an urban middle class in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, who were concerned only with their own rise to political and social power, without any serious affiliation to the broad majority of the population in the countryside. As such, Rammohun’s political and economic ideas merit veneration only by those who worship the history of Indian liberalism” (De Ibid, 147). But Rammohun’s own active concern for the pitiable plight of the Indian peasantry was ignored by De. Even in the subsequent period some of the political disciples of Rammohun spoke of the peasantry and the rural masses. Rammohun as the starting point of modern Indian tradition subsequently meant different things to different sections and it seemed to be an unfair criticism of him on the basis of later offshoots and deviations.
Conclusion
There can be no grater testimony to the singular importance of Rammohun than the fact that all the important movements of the nineteenth century India originated with him. The reason for this stupendous achievement is that Rammohun as Ranade pointed out “was at once a social reformer, the founder of a great religious movement and a great politician. These three activities were combined in him in such a way that they put to shame the performance of the best among us at the present time” (cited in Tagore 1975, 100). However, some observers also point out some serious limitations of Rammohun as well. First, it is argued that his religious reform was both sectarian and artificial. And that his religious views as well as his interpretations manifest confusion and contradictions. It is also alleged that he did not realize the real spirit of Hinduism. Second, he was locally dated as he failed to envisage a national education. Third, his political views, it is said, lacked imagination as he could not transcend the English way of thinking nor could he abandon his belief in English sense of justice and liberalism. Fourth, he provided intellectual leadership only to the higher classes of society (Bose 1960, 31-33).
Regarding the first, it can be said that Rammohun categorically denounced sectarian dogmatism. His interpretation of classical texts was scholarly and reflected considerable amount of clarity. As the Asiatic Journal wrote soon after his demise, “the light Rammohan obtained from his study diffused over the ancient theological writings of his race enabled him to recognize their pure original dogma the existence of one god, maker and precursor of the universe” (cited in Tagore 1975, 2). Regarding the fact that the actual adherents of Rammohun were very small, it can be pointed out that their total impact was enormous and that “it cannot be denied that a large section of the educated enlightened people was greatly influenced by Rammohun” (cited in Tagore Ibid, 98). Regarding the second, it can be said that his basic thrust was for developing the scientific temper in Indian educational set which was lacking earlier. He was not against our own scholarship and tradition. He wanted science and scholasticism (Tagore Ibid, 25).
Regarding the criticism of his political views and practices it can be said in the words of R.C. Majumdar (1977, 312) that “Rammohun was the first Indian to place the grievances of his country before the British authorities. He may be justly regarded as the pioneer of organized political movement in India and the method followed by him marks the beginning of what came to be known in latter days as constitutional agitation”. Even the charge of intellectualism does not hold much water because of his concern for the masses and efforts in developing the Bengali language. Rammohun was a true universalist and was the first to initiate a comparative study of religion. He, even before Austin, reconciled “historical and analytical schools of jurisprudence and distinguishes law from morality” (cited in Majumdar 1966). He had the wisdom to understand that the basic cause of the American Revolution was maladministration. Equally he could see that the best prevention for revolution was good government by which he meant liberal and enlightened administration. In this context, his example was Canada.
Rammohun’s views on religion was so revolutionary and modern that even an eminent man like Bentham thought his philosophy of one God emerged out of the European influence exclusively. But as we have seen Rammohun proved his point by an arduous analysis of the early Indian texts themselves. This made his religious interpretation a part of the cultural heritage of India. He took recourse to ancient texts to deal with a modern problem arising out of superstition and degeneration. This example of appealing to our ancient heritage to serve a contemporary cause became a common feature subsequently and was used by such stalwarts as Bankim, Tilak and Gandhi.
Rammohun was also the first Indian to comprehend the very significant changes that had taken place in Europe between the Renaissance and the French Revolution “which witnesses the gradual emergence and consolidation in Europe, of the bourgeoisie as opposed to the medieval feudal aristocracy. To this significant and comprehensive social change, he had rightly attributed all the political, social and religious progress of his own time” (Biswas 1974, 102). Not only that Rammohun had a comprehension of this colossal change brought about the bourgeoisie but also came in contact with socialist ideas towards the end of his life. He came to know the famous British socialist and trade union leader Robert Owen in 1832. He was full of enthusiasm for the socialist programme of Owen. Though he suggested some amendments to his details yet he wished him success in his ‘benevolent undertaking’. Regarding this interesting development Dilip Kumar Biswas (1974, 112) observed “Rammohun had certainly not become a socialist; but his philosophy arising out of a firm faith in universal spiritual values had certainly enabled him to look beyond the limits of middle class liberalism during his last years. Socialist thought was still in its infancy and opened up a new horizon before his mind’s eye. We can only regret that death snatched away before he could fully explore it”.
Rammohun was one of the earliest and greatest spokesmen of the early nineteenth century for freedom. He, like Hegel, would judge the advanced of civilization by the realization of freedom. He was as great a fighter for personal freedom as John Stuart Mill. At a time when democracy was getting institutionalized in Britain he supported freedom in all its forms and dimensions as we understand it in the twentieth century. He pleaded for religious and social tolerance, respect for personal spheres, and right of association and freedom of thought. “Love of freedom was perhaps the strongest passion of his soul”(Tagore 1974, 132). This freedom was to be universal and its enjoyment was to be for all the class of people. This conviction arose out of his nationality, optimism and faith in human nature. A good life was only possible with the enjoyment of freedom. This passion for freedom was reflected in his determined fight for the freedom of press in India. The combination of so many positive factors in Rammohun made him the most important Indian political theorist of the early nineteenth century. He was for a modern secular and enlightened polity based on the realization of human freedom, equality and happiness. It was for this reason that Subhash Chandra Bose wrote about him as a person, a ‘prophet of the new age’ who ‘stands out against the dawn of the new awakening in India’(cited in Tagore, 1975, 101). The tradition of modern Indian political thought began with him.