Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Was Raja Rammohun Roy a 'British Stooge'? - Part I

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

Very interesting thread.

S Datta says - " Let us, once and for all, stop retrospectively projecting our contemporary morality, theories, and politics to snobbishly judge, dishonour, and wokeishly cancel the giants on whose shoulders we now stand."

I don't feel like I stand on the shoulders of "giants" (??) like rAjA rAm mohan  at all! Why would any traditionalist (bengalI or otherwise) feel any debt of gratitude whatsoever to him?? If I were bengalI, I would feel jugupsA towards him for having bespoiled the honor of bengalI-s.

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 at 14:31, Sreejit Datta <sreeji...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr Kumar,

Namaste and thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Specifically with regard to point no. 4 raised by you, I hope you will allow me to point out that the fact of the matter is: the term 'Oriental Learning' has, over the last two centuries, evolved from signifying traditional Indian pedagogical approaches to Indian knowledge traditions/systems, into signifying a modern-day approach based on the humanities and social sciences disciplines to them, as the latter is practised in the departments of Indology/India studies/South Asian studies or even Oriental studies. In fact, at one point in the past, the term 'Orientalism' itself used to signify the study of Eastern knowledge traditions/systems. Imputing Saidian Orientalist undertones to the term 'Oriental Learning' used in this context only makes the present point under discussion (viz., the effect of English education on Sanskrit education) more obscure, instead of clarifying it further. Other-ing and exotification of the 'Oriental' may/may not be a real aspect of how the British in general understood Indian knowledge traditions/systems, but that has little bearing upon what they implied by the term in their parliamentary debates on the question of education. Their concern was utilitarian -- Benthamites like Bentinck, Macaulay and the evangelists held that Indian knowledge was inferior and worthless, while Hastings, Prinsep et al held that Indian knowledge was superior and worthwhile. It might help bring more clarity if you familiarise yourself with the statements made by Hastings and Prinsep in this regard. 

Let me also point out that a formulation such as "consciously or unconsciously social reformers of India were in the grip of the greatness of liberal English ideas and education" is deeply problematic in at least two ways: 

1. You are bracketing Raja Rammohun Roy with "social reformers", bringing a certain inflexion in the discourse that, once again, veers our attention away from the core issues. The Raja was primarily a religious reformer; and, in the Indian/Hindu context, social reform is downstream from religious reform, as has been exemplified by the actions and movements undertaken by our traditional as well as modern acharyas. To put the matter into proper context, the Raja may be put in the category of religious reformers like Swami Dayanand Saraswati of the Arya Samaj.

2.  How do you say with such absolute certainty that people with such widely different convictions on religious and social issues as Raja Rammohun Roy, Mrityunjay Vidyalankar, Raja Radhakanta Dev and Prince Dwarkanath Tagore, to name only a few, were so much in awe of English ideas and education that their imagination and their sense of right and wrong got veiled by that fascination? At least that is what I understand as the full implication of the phrase you use in this regard ("in the grip of"). What historical evidence(s) do you propose to produce before us, Mr Kumar, to paint these individuals in this inferior light that won't even leave any space for us to think that perhaps - just perhaps - sanity could have prevailed in the thoughts and actions of reformists like the Raja as well as of the orthodox like Vidyalankar? Are you not suggesting through your statement quoted above that these men, merely because they lived in the early 19th century, were devoid of good sense rooted in morality, patriotism, and pragmatism, and that we are better than them in each of these regards? Are you not implying that these men were mere puppets -- "stooges" as some have chosen to call them, betraying their irreverence and haughtiness towards them all -- devoid of any agency to think, speak, and act as free men who cared for their country, society, and their culture?   

Let us, i.e., the 21st-century Indians/Hindus, get off our high horse for once and read the actions and words of the 19th-century Indians/Hindus in the context of the Himalayan challenges they had to face in their social/political/historical situation. Let us, once and for all, stop retrospectively projecting our contemporary morality, theories, and politics to snobbishly judge, dishonour, and wokeishly cancel the giants on whose shoulders we now stand.

Best wishes,

S Datta       

  

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 at 22:31, Soumya Kumar <vsou...@gmail.com> wrote:

It makes an interesting read - the argument by Sri Sreejit Datta, counter arguments by Dr Paturi and Sri Datta's attempt to answer. 

I just wish to make few points, in support of Dr Paturi's objections:

1. Rammohun Roy was influential during his time and so passionate about his beliefs/ideas that he travelled all the way to London and presented his ideas before the lawmakers of that country. Cumulatively, he had a big role to play in the introduction of English type of education in India and his voice carried more voice than any other is of no doubt. 

2. He clearly wanted Indians to follow the model of English education and he must have thought that this could only be achieved by following English pedagogy. The very idea that Continental knowledge can be acquired only through English language and English pedagogy was intrinsic to the arguments made by Rammohun Roy. Others contributed but Rammohun's voice was dominant is of no doubt. 

3.  Rammohun Roy was a well versed person, as his many biographies attest. It is therefore puzzling that neither Rammohun Roy nor his contemporaries thought that one can borrow ideas but preserve the language, pedagogy and enrich the thought process of their land. Raja translated a text book to Bengali yet continued to advocate for English methods! In this context it is worth remembering that our astronomers welcomed the ideas of Yavanas (Greeks), called them reverentially as Yavanacharyas yet continued with the time tested methods. It is surprising that Sri Datta quotes Al Biruni to the effect that Indians had become insular to outside influence. On the contrary, there was a vibrant academic life in India. To give one magnificent example, the works of Kerala astronomers were well above the Continental thoughts even in the 14th century and spread across the country in a matter of a decade or two. Or one has to read the works of Sri Dharampal to understand the distorted depiction of social life in India.

4. Finally, use of the term like Oriental learning has acquired new meaning precisely because they were used in a loaded manner by the British and others influenced by them; it is precisely because of this that unravelling of colonial baggage became necessary by critiquing the term Orientalism. Consciously or unconsciously social reformers of India were in the grip of greatness of liberal English ideas and education. Unfortunately, even a great scholar like Rammohun Roy was no exception. 

Thanks a lot for opening this discussion.

With regards

Soumya Kumar

Department of Sociology

Government First Grade College

Krishna Raja Nagara

Mysuru

*******************

On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 2:34 PM Sreejit Datta <sreeji...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Paturi,

I am very glad to hear from you - and it makes me feel even happier to see that you have made time to read this longish article. This encourages me to write more, and your inputs certainly give me a chance to think on fresher lines. I'm much grateful to you for that. 

I beg to differ on certain points that you have raised -- I must hasten to add -- so very passionately and eloquently. These are inspiring, though progressively rare, traits to be found in a senior academic. I'm aware that the topic I've chosen to write on here is contentious, and I am developing a complex argument to explain/interpret a chapter of Modern Indian history which itself is a super-complex phenomenon. Therefore, I sincerely hope that you will not read my voicing of disagreement with your opinions on the matter as a sign of my impudence, sir, but that you will be so kind as to forgive me for venturing to merely elaborate on my argument further, thinking that I'm just one of your bolder - if not one of your more imperceptive - pupils.

You're quite right in pointing out that, in the present context, the terms 'traditional Sanskrit pedagogy', 'Oriental learning', etc. have acquired widely differing connotations. But may I point out, sir, that in the context of the historical era which I described in this article, these terms were certainly used interchangeably in the correspondences and intellectual discourses carried out in the English language? For example, what people like Warren Hastings, James Prinsep, and T.B. Macaulay referred to as 'Oriental learning' in their parliamentary debates and testimonies to Select Committees, was precisely what we understand as 'traditional Sanskrit pedagogy'. Even the late-18th- & early-19th-century Sanskrit institutions (like the Sanskrit Colleges at Benares and Calcutta), founded by the British, were dominated by traditional Sanskrit pedagogy, as exemplified by the ṭol system which continues to this day at least in the Sanskrit College Calcutta (now University) -- although it is no longer the dominant method of teaching as it used to be in the 19th century. Thanks to your highlighting this, I will certainly make it a point to offer this explanation whenever I make this point in future. 

On the Raja's role wrt traditional Sanskrit pedagogy (henceforth 'Sanskrit education'), my contention -- to repeat what I have said in the article -- is that the Raja merely acted as a voice to channel the collective will of the Hindu society (inclusive of both orthodox as well as reformist sections) in the three Presidency towns to adopt the European system of liberal education in English (henceforth 'English education'). And I do not think that it makes him a "collaborator" of any sort in the British colonial project. On the contrary, it proves his perceptiveness, pragmatism, courage, and will as well as his acumen to undertake difficult tasks that may usher in benefits to his society and nation, despite knowing that he may face opposition and even grave sanctions. I hope you will read the upcoming parts of this series on the Raja with as much attention as you have kindly directed to this one, wherein you will see that I develop my argument by highlighting the positive effects of English education on Sanskrit studies in general. May I point out, sir, that the depth, breadth, and impact of such post-1835 Sanskrit scholars as Brajendranath Seal, Swami Vivekananda, K.C. Bhattacharya, Benoy Kumar Sarkar, Sri Aurobindo, Sri Anirvan, P.V. Kane, V. Raghavan, Jadunath Sinha, V.S. Sukhtankar  -- all products of English education -- are unquestionable? Why were we unable to systematically present even such a fundamental Chaturvarga Shastra as the Mahabharata, the fifth Veda and no less, before Sukhtankar & team laid their blessed hands on the same? What changed within that one century?

In my humble opinion, based on a careful perusal of available material, it is a defeatist view that Sanskrit studies saw a decline in the post-1835 years. It is not only a defeatist but also a flawed view, simply because it is one-sided. I argue that Sanskrit studies rather got a new lease of life because new paths opened up for it due to the East-West encounter, which is largely a result of adopting English education. What it lost in terms of volume, it got overcompensated for in terms of quality output. While visiting India, Al-Biruni had pointed out in the 11th century CE that Indian scholars were insular to the outside world & its knowledge. Perhaps that insularity and complacence were the reasons why, between the 10th century CE and the early 19th century CE, Indian knowledge traditions mostly operated in silos, with little growth compared to what we saw up to the 10th century CE (albeit with a few brilliant exceptions in the intervening period). Relentless European critiques and even distortions of Indian knowledge traditions gave us a rude shock in the late-18th and early-19th centuries CE, thanks to which we woke up from a lethargic slumber and insularity. I'm not alone nor am I the first one to be thinking along these lines, some of the greatest thinkers of Modern India have held similar views (to be discussed in detail, once again, in the upcoming parts of the series). Result: production of new Indian knowledge, the burgeoning of new Indian creativity in the arts as well as the sciences, and better proliferation as well as a more robust articulation of old Indian knowledge in newer lights, newer moulds, newer experiences, and newer realisations.

You have asserted, sir, that in my article "British individuals and institutions are listed among those who 'fulfilled' the 'great public desire for English education' and the fact that it is they who engineered and created that desire out of their colonizing plan is hidden out of the attention of the reader." I have nothing to say wrt the first part of the charge, simply because that is how the historical reality presents itself to us, complex as it may be. But wrt the second part, I beg to add, sir, that it is unfair not only to my presentation of the said period's history but also to the society that was anxious to adopt English education. If I had any plans to hide anything from the reader's attention, I wouldn't take upon myself the pain to chronologically recount the history of the efforts by Christian evangelists like Charles Grant and William Wilberforce in the article. I request you to spare a little more time and thought to ponder on that particular section of the article, to see and appreciate the differences in motivations of different parties interested in instituting English education. While the Christian Evangelists wanted to wield English education as a weapon to spread Christian ideas, the leaders of the Hindu society like the Raja (representing the reformist side) and Radhakanta Dev/Mrityunjay Vidyalankar (representing the orthodox side) wanted to deploy English education to rejuvenate Indian knowledge (cf. the statement made by the Leading Pandits of Calcutta to Sir Edward Hyde East at the 1816 meeting to set up the Hindu College, discussed in detail in the article), and to stride towards a level-playing field for the Hindu nation in what they correctly understood as an increasingly interconnected global arena, dominated by Western modes of thought and knowledge. To say that it was only the Europeans who "engineered and created that desire [for English education] out of their colonizing plan" is to have a woefully cynical view of the Hindu society of that era, depriving it of any kind of agency to act on its own behalf and in accordance to what it saw as necessary and beneficial for itself. In other words, sir, it is to concede that we Indians/Hindus were actually the benighted natives waiting to be "civilised" by a superior foreign race. I'm sure, sir, that you would not hold such a demeaning opinion of our forebears from the 19th century.

May I, once again, request you, sir, to spare some more of your time and read the upcoming parts of the series, wherein I shall present more material in support of my argument that it is really a condemnation of ourselves -- i.e., of the Modern Patriotic Indians/Hindus of the 20th- and 21st centuries -- to dub the Raja a "British Stooge", and that he should really be thanked by us for emancipating our great nation from a centuries-old suicidal lethargy, self-defeating complacence, and an utter collapse of our national consciousness into a Self-forgotten colonised state? Apologies for the delay in publication of the upcoming parts. 

Pranaam,

Sreejit       

            

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:10:44 AM UTC+5:30 Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

Dear Sri Sreejit,

For those looking at things from the point of view of Sanskrit education, is it not enough to know that 

" At best, Raja Rammohun Roy can be described as one of the most articulate voices advocating for the adoption of English education in place of the traditional Sanskrit pedagogy " 

to see his negative role for Sanskrit education ?

In what way does it matter whether he is the only one or one of many having that attitude or having played that role ?

" It is at this juncture, that Raja Rammohun Roy comes into the picture. As mentioned earlier, the Raja had written a letter dated December 1823 to Lord Amherst, passionately opposing the proposal to establish yet another Sanskrit institution (prior to this, the government official Jonathan Duncan, Superintendent and Resident at Benares, had founded the Sanskrit College at Benares) and requesting that the funds be utilised for the promotion of “useful Sciences” instead. It is now clear that the Raja’s epistolary protests against setting up yet another institution of oriental learning, out of the Indian revenue extracted by the Colonial government, had fallen on deaf ears – as the Sanskrit College at Calcutta came up anyway, within only three months of his letter being directed to the Governor-General. So much for the role of the Raja’s letter to Lord Amherst opposing Sanskrit education and advocating for English education." 

That his request was not executed does not alter the fact that he opposed a Sanskrit college and in that place asked for " useful sciences" 

You use the phrase "traditional Sanskrit pedagogy" in reference to what he opposed and you also use the phrases 'Sanskrit institution' , 'Oriental learning' etc. which are not traditional Sanskrit pedagogy. 

Whether he was the only one who served the purpose of the colonization by the  British or he was one among many who served that purpose, when people call him the stooge of the British they mean that he served the purpose of colonization by the British, of course, along with many others like him. In that metaphor, it can only be said that he was not the only stooge of the British. 

But when people point him out with those characteristics , they don't put others like him for comparison, they contrast him with those who are not like him and opposed colonization by the British. 

While saying, 

" Such blame/praise can be equally claimed by other significant historical personalities as well as collective entities, such as Raja Radhakanta Dev, Baidyanath Mukherjee, Pandit Mrityunjay Vidyalankar, Prince Dwarkanath Tagore, Gaurmohan Auddy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, David Hare, Rev. Alexander Duff, Sir Edward Hyde East, the Lord Bishop of Calcutta, Lord William Bentinck, Lord T.B. Macaulay, the Baptist Mission, The Calcutta School Book Society, the Calcutta School Society, the first few generations of the Hindu College graduates, and so on and so forth, for each played their historically significant part in fulfilling the great public desire for English education in 19^th-century colonial India." ,

you don't distinguish between the British individuals and institutions and Indian individuals. 

British individuals and institutions are listed among those who 'fulfilled' the 'great public desire for English education' 

and the fact that it is they who engineered and created that desire out of their colonizing plan is hidden out of the attention of the reader. 

Those who see the British individuals and institutions as colonizers and see colonization as a bad project, see the Indian individuals listed here as those who assisted the British in that colonization project and call them 'stooges' of the British in that sense. 

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 11:05 PM Sreejit Datta <sreeji...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskar,

Sharing my latest article for your kind perusal -- in case someone on this list finds it useful.

Link: Opinion | Was Raja Rammohun Roy a ‘British Stooge’? (news18.com)

P.S. Please note that it is the first of several parts in this new series on Raja Rammohun Roy.

Read ◆ Discuss ◆ Share

Thanks and regards,

--

Sreejit Datta

Fellow, Rajeev Circle Scholars (RCS) Program

Former Assistant Professor, Department of Languages, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Mysore

Former Assistant Professor, Rashtram School of Public Leadership, Rishihood University, Delhi NCR

Former Director, Centre for Civilisational Studies, Rashtram School of Public Leadership

Former Associate Editor, International Journal of Studies in Public Leadership  

Former Faculty Associate, American Institute of Indian Studies, Kolkata

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2B1pLqNsd3PdPt78DWRkRP-bj_UibGtuV9uGjwugm4fzQKAVJw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Senior Director, IndicA

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, Maharashtra

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru

BoS Rashtram School of Public Leadership

Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public Leadership

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/c2684da2-7735-49ab-8118-b7430b390e43n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/6GxvxbaBMqg/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAM2Sc_M_ucvO5FpAX6z9tPGovVG%3D5ohR8uk%3Dd24B4a3mPXceeQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Sreejit Datta

Fellow, Rajeev Circle Scholars (RCS) Program

Former Assistant Professor, Department of Languages, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Mysore

Former Assistant Professor, Rashtram School of Public Leadership, Rishihood University, Delhi NCR

Former Director, Centre for Civilisational Studies, Rashtram School of Public Leadership

Former Associate Editor, International Journal of Studies in Public Leadership  

Former Faculty Associate, American Institute of Indian Studies, Kolkata

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/6GxvxbaBMqg/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2B1pLqMdS071nJqtGChTTPaNtzuNFgC6OrxKDwNFj-rJQdSJBg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 at 16:02, Sreejit Datta <sreeji...@gmail.com> wrote:

Even more interesting that vishvas...@gmail.com believes that he can successfully imagine what it means to be a Bengali and what "honour of Bengal" consists in, in a foolproof manner. 

I'm surprised by the above - I will check with my bengalI friends if I am that bad at understanding traditionalist bengali honor.

 

I had expected more scholarly and academically stimulating interventions like Dr Paturi and Mr Kumar above have demonstrated, than such condescending one-liner sneers & provocative grandstanding from a member of this list. Quite unfortunate. 

Is it not weird that the worth of a point is measured by how prolix (or short) the passage is, rather than how logical it is? I'd have expected better from those who stand on the shoulders of the great navadvIpa tArkika-s (the true giants of bengal) - just as I do. 

Very simply, I observe that S Datta appears entirely unable to state why I, a non-bengali hindu, should feel any gratitude whatsoever to RR Roy.

Furthermore, going by the standard definition (reproduced below), I don't see any gradstanding in my email, given that it clearly avoided any attention - favorable or otherwise from "that list", since it was not even addressed there! I suppose this accusation is about as devoid of substance as the long-winded apologia of RR Roy.

grandstanding

noun

DEROGATORY

1. the action of behaving in a showy or ostentatious manner in an attempt to attract favourable attention from spectators or the media.

 

Best wishes,

S Datta