First Regular Campaign

( 1814¹—1820 )

FIRST REGULAR CAMPAIGN : SPIRITUAL THEISM VERSUS IDOLATRY AND SUTTEE

• 1814². Rammohun settles in Calcutta.
• 1815. Founds the Atmiya Sabha or Friendly Association. Translates the Vedānta into Bengali.
• 1816. Writes Abridgment of the Vedānta, and publishes it in Bengali, Hindusthani, and English. Translates the Kena and Isha Upanishads into Bengali and English.
• 1817. Letter to Mr. Digby. Writes A Defence of Hindu Theism Parts I and II. Translates Māṇḍukya Upanishad into Bengali. Translates Muṇḍaka and Kaṭha Upanishads into Bengali and English.
• 1818. Nov. 30. Publishes the English edition of his first tract on Suttee.
• 1819. 19th Pous. Great meeting of Atmiya Sabha; discussion with Subrahmanya Śāstri.
• 1820. Feb. 26. Publishes English version of his second tract on Suttee.

At last, in the year 1814,³ at the age of forty-two, Rammohun Roy emerged from provincial obscurity, and took up his abode in the capital of British India. He was now in the prime of manhood, a majestic looking man, nearly six feet in height, and remarkable for his dignity of bearing and grace of manner, as well as for his handsome countenance and sparkling eyes. He seems to have owned two houses in Calcutta, but that of which we chiefly hear was his garden house at Maniktala, which he furnished in the English style. Babu Rakhaldas Haldar says that Rammohun’s Calcutta house was built for him by his half-brother (whom Babu Rakhal calls Ramtanu Roy, though he is usually known as Ramlochan).⁴ Here then Rammohun settled himself, and took up his life’s work in thorough earnest.

How formidable that work was, can with difficulty be realised at the present day. Thick clouds of ignorance and superstition hung over all the land; the native Bengali public had few books, and no newspapers. Idolatry was universal, and was often of a most revolting character; polygamy and infanticide were widely prevalent, and the lot of Bengali women was too often a tissue of ceaseless oppressions and miseries, while as the crowning horror, the flames of the suttee were lighted with almost incredible frequency even in the immediate vicinity of Calcutta. The official returns of the years immediately following Rammohun’s removal thither, give the number of suttees in the suburbs of Calcutta alone as twenty-five in 1815, forty in 1816, thirty-nine in 1817, and forty-three in 1818,—the ages of these victims ranging from 80, 90, and 100, down to 18, 16, and even 15. All these inhumanities deeply afflicted the heart of Rammohun Roy. An ardent lover of his country, he longed to deliver her from her degradations, and to set her feet on safe paths, and to that end he devoted his whole energies from this time forth. He did not, however, confine his activity to one or two subjects. His alert and eager mind ranged with keen interest over the whole field of contemporary life, and in almost every branch thereof he left the impress of his individuality. Alike in religion, in politics, in literature, and in philanthropy, his labours will be found among the earliest and most effective in the history of native Indian reform.

In chronicling a life of such manifold and simultaneous activities in various fields, the best way to avoid needless repetition will be to keep as closely as possible to the chronological order of events. I shall, therefore, divide the sixteen⁵ years of Rammohun’s Calcutta life into four periods, which mark the successive stages in his treatment of the main problems of his day. These periods are (1) from 1814⁶ to 1820; (2) from 1820 to 1824; (3) from 1824 to 1828; (4) from 1828 to September, 1830.⁷ The three years which followed, mostly spent in England,—where he died in September, 1833,—form a separate period altogether, and may be regarded as a general epilogue to the whole *.⁸

Commencing with the first of these periods, we soon see that to Rammohun’s mind the root evil of the whole wretched state of Hindu society was idolatry, and to destroy this was his first object. His multifarious researches in the various sacred books of India had shown him how comparatively modern was the popular Hinduism then current, and with what gross corruptions it had superseded the earlier forms of Hindu faith and practice. Single-handed as he was, he naturally sought the path of least resistance, and by appealing to the venerated authorities of the more ancient and spiritual scriptures, he endeavoured to purify and elevate the minds of his countrymen. For this purpose he selected some of the chief productions of the Vedantic system, “which (writes Pandit Sivanath Śastri) were of unquestionable authority in matters of Hindu theology. With the general decline of learning, these writings had fallen into disuse in the province of Bengal, and there were very few men even amongst those who were reputed to be learned at that time who were familiar with their contents.” In 1815 he published his translation of the Vedānta Sutra itself from the original Sanskrit into Bengali; and in 1816 he published a brief summary of this in Bengali, Hindusthani and English.⁹ It had been his wish to “render a translation of the complete Vedanta into the current languages of his country,” but this was never fully carried out.¹⁰ He recounts, however, how “during the interval between my controversial engagements with idolators as well as with advocates of idolatry, I translated several of the ten Upanishads of which the Vedanta or principal part of the Veds consist.” Of these the Kena and Isha Upanishads appeared in 1816, and the Kaṭha, Muṇḍaka and Māṇḍukya Upanishads in 1817,¹¹ and all of these except the last he translated into English also. These works he published with introductions and comments, and distributed them widely among his countrymen, free of charge.

The following extracts, written in 1816, will show the earnest feelings with which he started his propaganda.

My constant reflections to the inconvenient, or rather injurious rites, introduced by the peculiar practice of Hindu idolatry, which more than any other Pagan worship, destroys the texture of society, together with compassion for my countrymen, have compelled me to use every possible effort to awaken them from their dream of error : and by ‘making them acquainted with their Scriptures, enable them to contemplate with true devotion the unity and omnipresence of Nature’s God.

By taking the path which conscience and sincerity direct, I, born a Brahmin, have exposed myself to the complainings and reproaches, even of some of my relations, whose prejudices are strong, and whose temporal advantage depends upon the present system. But these, however accumulated, I can tranquilly bear; trusting that a day will arrive when my humble endeavours will be viewed with justice,—perhaps acknowledged with gratitude. At any rate, however men may say, I cannot be deprived of this consolation: my motives are acceptable to that Being who beholds in secret and compensates openly !*

Some Europeans, endued with high principles of liberality, but unacquainted with the ritual part of Hindu idolatry are disposed to palliate it by an interpretation which, though plausible, is by no means well founded. They are willing to imagine that the idols which the Hindus worship are not viewed by them in the light of Gods or as real personifications of divine attributes, but merely as instruments for raising their minds to the contemplation of those attributes, which are respectively represented by different figures. I have frequently had occasion to remark, that many Hindus also who are conversant with the English language, finding this interpretation a more plausible apology for idolatry than any with which they are furnished by their own guides, do not fail to avail themselves of it, though in repugnance both to their faith and to their practice. The declarations of this description of Hindus naturally tend to confirm the original idea of such Europeans, who from the extreme absurdity of pure unqualified idolatry, deduce an argument against its existence. It appears to them impossible for men, even in the very last degree of intellectual darkness, to be so far misled as to consider a mere image of wood or of stone as a human being, much less as divine existence. With a view, therefore, to do away with any misconception of this nature which may have prevailed, I beg leave to submit the following considerations.

Hindus of the present age, with a very few exceptions, have not the least idea that it is to the attributes of the Supreme Being as figuratively represented by shapes corresponding to the nature of those attributes, they offer adoration and worship under the denomination of gods and goddesses. On the contrary, the slightest investigation will clearly satisfy every inquirer that it makes a material part of their system to hold as articles of faith all those particular circumstances which are essential to the belief in the independent existence of the object of their idolatry as deities clothed with divine power.

Locality of habitation and a mode of existence analogous to their own views of earthly things are uniformly ascribed to each particular god. Thus the devotees of Siva, misconceiving the real spirit of the Scriptures, not only place an implicit credence in the separate existence of Siva, but even regard him as an omnipotent being, the greatest of all the divinities, who, as they say, inhabit the northern mountain of Kailas; and that he is accompanied by two wives and several children, and surrounded with numerous attendants. In like manner the followers of Vishnu, mistaking the allegorical representations of the Śastras for relations of real facts, believe him to be chief over all other gods, and that he resides with his wife and attendants on the summit of heaven. Similar opinions are also held by the worshippers of Kali, in respect to that goddess. And in fact, the same observations are equally applicable to every class of Hindu devotees in regard to their respective gods and goddesses. And so tenacious are those devotees in respect to the honour due to their chosen divinities that when they meet in such holy places as Haridwar, Prayag, Siva-Kanchi, Vishnu-Kanchi in the Dekhan, the adjustment of the point of precedence not only occasions the warmest verbal altercations, but sometimes even blows and violence. Neither do they regard the images of those gods merely in the light of instruments for elevating the mind to the conception of those supposed beings; they are simply in themselves made objects of worship. For whenever a Hindu purchases an idol in the market, constructs one with his own hands, or has one made under his own superintendence, it is his invariable practice to perform certain ceremonies, called Prāṇa-Pratishthā, or the endowment of animation, by which he believes that its nature is changed from that of the mere materials of which it is formed, and that it acquires not only life but supernatural powers. Shortly afterwards, if the idol be of the masculine gender, he marries it to a feminine one, with no less pomp and magnificence than he celebrates the nuptials of his own children. The mysterious process is now complete, and the god and goddess are esteemed the arbiters of his destiny, and continually receive his most ardent adoration.

At the same time, the worshipper of images ascribes to them at once the opposite natures of human and superhuman beings. In attention to their supposed wants as living beings, he is seen feeding, or pretending to feed them every morning and evening; and as in the hot season he is careful to fan them, so in cold he is equally regardful of their comfort, covering them by day with warm clothing, and placing them at night in a snug bed. But superstition does not find a limit here; the acts and speeches of the idols, and their assumptions of various shapes and colours, are gravely related by Brahmins, and with all the marks of veneration are firmly believed by their deluded followers.*

My reflections upon these solemn truths have been most painful for many years. I have never ceased to contemplate with the strongest feelings of regret, the obstinate adherence of my countrymen to their fatal system of idolatry, inducing, for the sake of propitiating their supposed Deities the violation of every humane and social feeling. And this in various instances; but more especially in the dreadful acts of self-destruction and the immolation of the nearest relations under the delusion of conforming to sacred religious rites. I, have never ceased, I repeat, to contemplate these practices with feelings of regret, and to view in them the moral debasement of a race who, I cannot help thinking, are capable of better things, whose susceptibility, patience, and mildness of character, render them worthy of a better destiny. Under these impressions, therefore, I have been impelled to lay before them genuine translations of parts of their Scripture, which inculcates not only the enlightened worship of one God, but the purest principles of morality, accompanied with such notices as I deemed requisite to oppose the arguments employed by the Brahmins in defence of their beloved system. Most earnestly do I pray that the whole may, sooner or later, prove efficient in producing on the minds of Hindus in general, a conviction of the rationality of believing in and adoring the Supreme Being only; together with a complete perception and practice of that grand and comprehensive moral principle —Do unto others as ye would be done by.†

Such was the standing ground from which Rammohun Roy opened his first regular campaign.

The fame of his provincial discussions and writings had preceded his settlement in Calcutta, and when these were followed up by such increased and systematic opposition to the popular creed, great excitement was produced in Hindu society, and the orthodox feeling against Rammohun soon became very hostile. Meanwhile he gathered around him a small circle of intelligent friends who sympathised more or less actively in his desire to enlighten his countrymen; and in 1815 he started a little society which he entitled the Atmiya Sabha or Friendly Association for the purpose of spiritual improvement. It met once a week and its proceedings consisted in the recitation of texts from the Hindu Scriptures and the chanting of Theistic hymns composed by Rammohun and his friends. Rammohun’s Pandit, Sivaprasad Misra, was the first reciter and a paid singer, Govinda Mala was the first chanter. “The meetings were not quite public and were attended chiefly by Rammohun’s personal friends. Among these may be mentioned Dwarkanath Tagore, Brajamohun Mazumdar, Haladhar Bose, Nandakisore Bose and Rajnarayan Sen”* There was a remarkable man who also assisted Rammohun at this time, named Hariharananda Tirthaswāmi. This man, “during his peregrinations as a Hindu mendicant had come to Rangpur, and there met Rammohun, who had received him with great honour in recognition of his learning and liberality of spirit: and Tirthaswami, bound to Rammhoun by love, followed him like a shadow. He practised the rule of Tantric Bāmāchāra, and was a worshipper of One True God according to the Mahānirvāṇa Tantra. Ramchandra Vidyabagish, the first minister of the Brahmo Samaj was the younger brother of this man.”¹²

If Hariharananda Tirthacwami represented the extreme Eastern side of Rammohun’s society, the extreme Western side was represented by David Hare, the active and benevolent rationalist who did so much for native Bengal education. In his life by Pyarichand Mitra we read as follows :—

“Hare found an intimate friend in Rammohun Roy. He had begun to spread Theism, denounce idolatry, was moving heaven and earth for the abolition of the Suttee rite, and advocating the dissemination of English education as the means of enlightening his countrymen, . . . The first move he (Hare) made, was in attending, uninvited, a meeting called by Rammohun Roy and his friends for the purpose of establishing a society calculated to subvert idolatry. Hare submitted that the establishment of an English school would materially help their cause. They all acquiesced in the strength of Hare’s position, but did not carry out his suggestion.” Hare, therefore, consulted Chief Justice Sir E. Hyde East, who inclined favourably to his ideas. The subject was mooted among leading Hindus, meetings were held at Sir E. H. East’s house, and it was resolved that “an establishment be formed for the education of native youth.” Rammohun Roy, fearing that his presence at the preliminary meeting might embarrass its deliberations, had generously abstained from attending it, but his name had been mentioned as one of the promoters. Soon afterwards some of the native gentlemen concerned, told Sir Edward Hyde East that they would gladly accord their support to the proposed College if Rammohun Roy were not connected with it, but they would have nothing to do with that apostate. Hare communicated this to Rammohun Roy, who willingly allowed himself to be laid aside lest his active co-operation should mar the accomplishment of the project. This was early in 1816. So soon had Hindu orthodoxy taken alarm and so early had Rammohun been called upon to exercise that self-effacingness with which, many a time in his life, did he withhold his name from benevolent schemes for which he nevertheless worked, in order to smooth their reception by the general public, to whom his name was an offence.

About the end of Rammohun’s third¹³ year in Calcutta, he wrote (fortunately for us) a brief summary of his proceedings to his old friend Mr. Digby, to whom he also sent his first two English publications, the Abridgment of the Vedant and the Kena Upanishad. These translations Mr. Digby reprinted in London in 1817, with a preface which beginning with the description of Rammohun quoted in the last chapter,¹⁴ goes on to give the following extract (“made without alteration”) from “a letter I have lately received from him, intimately connected with the subject before me.”

RAMMOHUN ROY TO JOHN DIGBY, ENGLAND.

“I take this opportunity of giving you a summary account of my proceedings since the period of your departure from India.

The consequence of my long and uninterrupted researches into religious truth has been that I have found the doctrines of Christ more conducive to moral principles, and better adapted for the use of rational beings, than any others which have come to my knowledge; and have also found Hindus in general more superstitious and miserable, both in performance of their religious rites and in their domestic concerns, than the rest of the known nations on the earth; I therefore, with a view of making them happy and comfortable* both here and hereafter, not only employed verbal arguments against the absurdities of the idolatry practised by them, but also translated their most revered theological work, namely Vedant, into Bengali and Hindustani, and also several chapters of the Ved, in order to convince them that the unity of God, and absurdity of idolatry, are evidently pointed out by their own Scriptures. I, however, in the beginning of my pursuits, met with the greatest opposition from their self-interested leaders, the Brahmins, and was deserted by my nearest relations; I consequently felt extremely melancholy; in that critical situation, the only comfort that I had was the consoling and rational conversation of my European friends, specially those of Scotland and England.

I, now with the greatest pleasure inform you that several of my countrymen have risen superior to their prejudices; many are inclined to seek for the truth; and a great number of those who dissented from me have now coincided with me in opinion. This engagement has prevented me from proceeding to Europe as soon as I could wish. But you may depend upon my setting off for England within a short period of time; and if you do not return to India before October next, you will most probably receive a letter from me, informing you of the exact time of my departure for England, and of the name of the vessel on which I shall embark.”¹⁵

Mr. Digby returned to India in November, 1819, and was again employed in the Bengal Civil Service. During 1821 and 1822 he was stationed at Burdwan, where he would doubtless have many opportunities of meeting his old friend.¹⁶ Rammohun’s much longed for visit to England did not take place until the end of 1830. It is interesting to know how early he had formed that desire.

The year 1817 saw further progress of the movement. Rammohun’s publications now began to call forth learned and animated replies from the defenders of Hinduism. The Madras Courier, in December, 1816, contained a long letter from the head English master in the Madras Government College, Śankara Śastri, controverting Rammohun’s views as shown in his writings, and pleading for the worship of Divine attributes as virtual deities. Rammohun reprinted this letter with a masterly reply entitled A Defence of Hindu Theism, in which he not only defended his own position very clearly, but carried the war into the enemy’s camp by exposing the degrading character of the legends attached to so many of the Hindu incarnations, and pointing out how mischievous must be the effect of regarding such narratives as sacred records. Another defender of Hinduism appeared some months later in the Head Pandit of the Government College at Calcutta¹⁷, Mrityunjaya Vidyālaṅkāra, who published a tract entitled Vedāntachandrikā.¹⁸ To this Rammohun replied in A Second Defence of the Monotheistical System of the Veds. In this tract, substantially the same arguments as before were put forth, but with still greater fulness and force. These writings were, however, largely supplemented and strengthened by Rammohun’s numerous oral discussions and conversations with his friends, disciples and opponents,—of which we can only now get occasional glimpses. Pandit S. N. Śāstri states in his History of the Brahmo Samaj :

“At times the Atmiya Sabha got up interesting discussion meetings which would attract all classes of people. The most remarkable of these meetings was the one held in December, 1816 [17th of Pous], where Rammohun Roy had a face to face fight with his idolatrous adversaries. A learned Madrasi Pandit, called Subrahmanya Śastri, renowned at that time for his erudition, publicly challenged him to a polemical combat. Rammohun Roy accepted it with pleasure, and in the presence of a large gathering of people, headed by Radhakanta Dev, the acknowledged leader of the orthodox Hindu community, silenced his adversary by the great cogency of his reasoning, as well as by the long array of scriptural authorities that be quoted in favour of his views.”¹⁹

[Defeated in theological debate, his opponents renewed their attack upon him in the law courts. “Shortly after” this debate Rammohun’s nephew (his brother’s son) “brought an action against him in the Supreme Court in order to disinherit him from any participation in the ancestral property, on the score of his being an apostate from the Hindu religion.”* The endeavour was made to prove that he had broken caste and so forfeited his civil rights. The proceedings lasted some two years, and involved him in great expense, but ended in a complete victory for Rammohun. But during these two years he considered it advisable to discontinue holding the meetings of the Atmiya Sabha, which earlier litigation had compelled him to have convened in the houses of friends instead of his own as previously.] †

An interesting sign of the progress of Rammohun’s views is recorded at the beginning of 1820. A native called as a witness in a court of law refused to take the oath by the waters of the Gangā. He declared himself a follower of Rammohun Roy, and consequently not a believer in the imagined sanctity of the river. He was allowed to affirm as Quakers do. Our Reformer may thus be regarded as a pioneer in the abolition of oaths in courts of law.²⁰

We must now take up the other main branch of Rammohun’s propaganda, agitation against Suttee. His first tract on this subject appeared in November 1818, in the form of a dialogue between an opponent and an advocate of the custom; and in February, 1820, this was followed by a second tract giving a later dialogue between the same interlocutors. But before speaking of these in detail, some brief account must be given of the state at which the controversy had arrived at that time.

A Sati,—long since Anglicised as Suttee—means literally a faithful woman, from Sat—truth; but the term has long been practically narrowed to designate a widow who is burnt on the funeral pile of her husband. This “rite” (as it is euphemistically called) was never universal in India, but it has been practised more or less extensively in various localities and amongst various classes in that country. M. Barth, in his admirable work on The Religions of India, says (p. 59):—

“A custom which……could beyond a doubt reckon its victims by myriads, the immolation, viz., more or less voluntary, of the widow on the funeral pile of her husband, is not sanctioned by the Vedic ritual, although certain hints in the symbolism connected with funerals (particularly in the Atharva-Veda) come very near it, and in a measure foreshadow it. In the Atharva-Veda we see the widow could marry again under certain conditions, which in the course of time orthodox usage strictly debarred her from doing. The custom of the suicide of the Sati is nevertheless very ancient since as early as the days of Alexander, the Greeks found it was observed among one of the tribes at least of the Panjab. The first Brahmanical testimony we find to it is that of the Brihaddevatā, which is perhaps of quite as remote antiquity; in the epic poetry there are numerous instances of it. At first it seems to have been peculiar to the military aristocracy, and it is under the influence of the sectarian religions that it has especially flourished. Justice requires us to add that it was only at a period comparatively modern that it ceased to meet with opposition.”

Sir John Malcolm in one of his Reports on Central India, says that “the Mahometan rulers endeavoured, as much as they could without offending their Hindu subjects, to prevent it.” The zeal of the Emperor Akbar in the matter is well known, and the Asiatic Journal of January, 1824, states that the practice “was discouraged and even forbidden by the Moghul Government,²¹ and the Peshwa was in the habit of personally exerting himself to dissuade widows from becoming Suttees, making suitable provision for those who yielded to his arguments.”

When the European powers came to obtain footing in India, they also usually seemed to have endeavoured to stop the Suttee rite. The French, the Dutch, and the Portuguese Colonies all exerted themselves in this direction and with fair success. The English were no less humanely shocked by the practice, and frequently made efforts to stop it but the official class were considerably hampered by the dread of offending native prejudices and thus imperilling the British power in India. At last, however, serious efforts were made by philanthropists in England, both in the House of Commons and in the East India House, and in 1821 the first Blue Book on the subject was issued.

From this valuable storehouse of evidence we find that the first recorded British action in this matter took place in the very year of Rammohun’s birth, 1772; when a Captain Tomyn, of Tripetty in Southern India hearing that a widow was about to be sacrificed, went straightway to the spot, and led her away to a place of safety. This truly British course drew down upon him a formidable riot from a large and indignant crowd. But the first deliberate official step taken on this subject was the refusal, in January 1789, of a British magistrate to permit the performance of a Suttee at Shahabad. His letter to the Governor-General in Council, Lord Cornwallis, is so terse and sensible, that it is worth preserving :—

My Lord.—Cases sometimes occur in which a Collector having no specific orders for the guidance of his conduct, is necessitated to act from his own sense of what is right. This assertion has this day been verified in an application from the relatives and friends of a Hindu woman, for my sanction to the horrid ceremony of burning with her deceased husband. Being impressed with a belief that this savage custom has been prohibited in and about Calcutta, and considering the same reasons for its discontinuance would probably be held valid throughout the whole extent of the Company’s authority, I positively refused my consent. The rites and supertitions of the Hindu religion should be allowed with the most unqualified tolerance, but a practice at which human nature shudders I cannot permit within the limits of my jurisdiction, without particular instructions. I beg, therefore my Lord, to be informed whether my conduct in this instance meets your approbation.—I am, &c., M. H. Brooke, Collector. Shahabad, 28th Jan., 1789.

Lord Cornwallis’s reply informed Mr. Brooke that the Government approved of his refusal to grant the application for permission of the Suttee : but they did “not deem it advisable to authorize him to prevent the observance of it by coercive measures, or by any exertion of his official powers; as the public prohibition of a ceremony, authorized by the tenets of the religion of the Hindus, and from the observance of which they have never been restricted by the ruling power, would in all probability tend rather to increase than diminish their veneration for it, and consequently prove the means of rendering it more prevalent than it is at present.”

Sixteen years later, in January 1805, Mr. J. R. Elphinstone, a magistrate of Zillah Behar, acted in a similar way, forbidding the sacrifice of a young widow of only twelve years old (who was “extremely grateful for my interposition”), but as he was “not aware of the existence of any order or regulation to prevent such a barbarous proceeding,” and as native prejudices might cause trouble, he wrote to headquarters, requesting definite instructions on the subject. Hereupon Lord Wellesley sent a letter (Feb. 5th, 1805) to the Nizamat Adalat, the chief judicial authority in India at that time, requesting that court to ascertain the precise amount of sanction given by the Hindu Śastras to the practice of Suttee. The Nizamat sent in its reply in four months (June 5th, 1805), enclosing the opinion of a Pandit suggesting certain rules for the guidance of Government officials which might slightly restrict the range of the practice. But no such rules were drawn up and nothing whatever was done for seven years,—a discreditable hiatus, but one which was probably owing, at least in part, to the frequent changes in the personnel of the Government during that period. In 1812, a magistrate of Bundelkhand being perplexed as to his duty concerning Suttees, wrote (Aug. 3rd) to the Nizamat Adalat for instructions: the Nizamat sent his letter to the Governor-General (Lord Moira, afterwards Marquis of Hastings) and after eight months more delay the instructions were at last drawn up and issued, April 17th, 1813. Their principle was “to allow the practice in those cases in which it is countenanced by the Hindu religion and law, and to prevent it in others in which it is by the same authority prohibited”—i.e. where the woman is unwilling or is under sixteen, or is pregnant, or drugged, or intoxicated. These instructions were afterwards extended (in January 1815) by the important item of prohibiting Suttee when the widow had very young children,—an extension which was brought in by the humane refusal of some magistrates to sanction such sacrifices, and in June 1817 a full and elaborate summary of the whole series of instructions was drawn up by the Government officials.²² It is quite clear from the various letters and despatches given in the Blue Book that from this time forth the British authorities did really care earnestly about the matter. Regular statistics on the subject were started in 1815, with which date commenced a series of lists of the Suttee performed all over British India, with the details of name, age, caste, &c., of each victim—truly awful records for any Christian Government.

The first four years of these records—1815-1818—form a sort of initial era which is notable for several reasons. The following tables give a sufficient summary of the main facts :

General Summary of Suttees From 1815 To 1818

Three points in these lists will at once strike the reader’s eye: (1) the great variation in the number of Suttees in different localities; (2) the appalling number of those in the Calcutta division, which are nearly double all the rest put together; and (3) the evident increase in the numbers from year to year, not always in detail for each place, but unmistakably in the totals—the year 1818 giving nearly double the numbers for 1815 in the Dacca division, and more than double in all the others except Bareilly. This alarming increase in the number of Suttees, following so soon on the Government attempts to regulate and check the practice, had greatly discouraged the British authorities even in 1817, and Lord Hastings had consequently stopped the intended publication of the very elaborate set of regulations above referred to, drawn up by the Nizamat Adalat in September, 1817,—saying that more information was needed before going so far. Soon afterwards the Acting Superintendent of Police of the Lower Provinces, Mr. W. Ewer, issued a circular of queries to the magistrates in his jurisdiction, requesting information on six special points. Their replies are very valuable, and throw much light on the causes of the variations in the statistics.

One of these replies is so important as to deserve special notice. Mr. H. Oakely, a magistrate of Zilla Hughli, writes (Dec. 19, 1818) saying how earnestly he has sought to discover the reason of the great frequency of Suttees in his district,—which yielded the largest number of victims in the list,—376 in the four years ending with 1818. One cause he finds in the nearness to Calcutta.—“It is notorious (he says) that the natives of Calcutta and its vicinity exceed all others in profligacy and immorality of conduct;” and while the depraved worship of Kālī, “the idol of the drunkard and the thief,” is “scarcely to be met with in the distant provinces,” it abounds in the metropolis.²³ Elsewhere, none but the most abandoned will openly confess that he is a follower of Kālī. In Calcutta we find few that are not. . . By such men, a Suttee is not regarded as a religious act, but as a choice entertainment; and we may fairly conclude that the vicious propensities of the Hindus in the vicinity of Calcutta are a cause of the comparative prevalence of the custom." This view seems to be confirmed by the large number of Suttees in the other districts near Calcutta,—Burdwan (Rammohun’s own district) ranking only second to Hughli. But besides this local cause, Mr. Oakely attributes much to another cause of general application, viz. : to the attempts of Government to “regulate” the practice. He says :—

Previous to 1813, no interference on the part of the police was authorised, and widows were sacrificed, legally or illegally as it might happen; but the Hindus were then aware that the Government regarded the custom with natural horror, and would do anything short of direct prohibition to discourage and gradually to abolish it. The case is now altered. The police officers are ordered to interfere, for the purpose of ascertaining that the ceremony is performed in conformity with the rules of the Śastras; and in that event, to allow its completion This is granting the authority of Government for burning widows; and it can scarcely be a matter of astonishment that the number of sacrifices should be doubled, when the sanction of the ruling power is added to the recommendation of the Śastras.

He ends by saying, “I do not hesitate in offering my opinion that a law for its abolition would only be objected to by the heirs, who derive wordly profit from the custom, Brahmins, who partly exist by it, and by those whose depraved nature leads them to look on so horrid a sacrifice as a highly agreeable and entertaining show; at any rate the sanction of Government should be withdrawn without delay.”

Mr. Ewer, summarizing the replies to his circular of inquiry, expressed his agreement with the views of Mr. Oakely and of other magistrates who wrote to the same effect; and finally, the Governor-General reluctantly acquiesced in the inference that the Government action in the matter had really tended to increase instead of to discourage the sacrifices,—and therefore suspended any additional regulations for the time.

Meanwhile two native petitions were sent up to the Governer-General which appeared to tell on the opposite side. They are not mentioned in the BlueBook, and I have only seen the second of them. It is given in full in the Asiatic Journal of July 1819, which states that it seems to have been sent up in August, 1818, and that it “was signed by a great number of the most respectable inhabitants of Calcutta.”²⁴ Its immediate occasion was to counteract a petition recently sent up to Government by certain other inhabitants of Calcutta, which had prayed for the repeal of the orders then in force against illegal proceeding in cases of Suttee. The counter-petition challenges the title of the previous supplicants to represent “the principal inhabitants of Calcutta,” and warmly endorses the humanity and justice of the afore-mentioned Government order. In forcible language, some of the chief horrors of the Suttee practice are enumerated. For instance :—

“Your petitioners are fully aware from their own knowledge or from the authority of credible eye-witnesses that cases have frequently occurred when women have been induced by the persuasions of their next heirs, interested in their destruction, to burn themselves on the funeral pile of their husbands; that others who have been induced by fear to retract a resolution rashly expressed in the first moments of grief, of burning with their deceased husbands, have been forced upon the pile and there bound down with ropes, and pressed with green bamboos until consumed with the flames; that some, after flying from the flame, have been carried back by their relations and burnt to death. All these instances, your petitioners humbly submit are murders according to every Śastra, as well as to the common sense of all nations.”

In conclusion, these petitioners declare that they “look with the most lively hope to such further measures relative to the custom of burning widows as may justly be expected from the known wisdom, decision, and humanity which have ever distinguished your Lordship’s administration.”

It is evident that the writer of the above took hold of the regulation system from the side of prohibition, regarding the police interference at “illegal” Suttees as a step towards the final abolition of the practice altogether, and looking to Lord Hastings in the hope of further protection. And no doubt a small number of Suttees was really prevented by the regulation system, as we find by occasional records of such instances in the Blue Books. But the balance on the whole was so enormously on the other side that it is not surprising to find, among the letters of the magistrates and other high class officials consulted, a very large proportion of opinions expressed against the system altogether; and the conviction is often put forth that the practice of Suttee might be abolished by law without any danger to the British rule. Lord Hastings left India on Jan. 1, 1823, but his successor Lord Amherst, wrote with equal humanity on the subject, and concurred in the same policy of standing still until he knew in which direction to move. Perhaps, as a new comer, he may have been additionally cautious in the matter. At any rate, the impasse remained for some years more.

And now we come to Rammohun Roy. It was in this eventful year 1818, that his influence in this matter began to be definitely felt.²⁵ He used to go down to the Calcutta burning-grounds and try to avert the Suttee sacrifices by earnest persuasion. Two of such cases have been recorded, one very briefly;—the other is described in the Asiatic Journal for March 1818, which states that the priests were induced to light the pile first, Rammohun having maintained that the Śāstra required this, and left it open to the widow to ascend the pile and enter the flames afterwards if she chose,—his expectation of course being that she would not so choose. But this case (if it be accurately reported) proved exceptional; the two widows both fulfilled the Suttee’s ideal, and “deliberately walked into” the flames, the younger widow having previously “with great animation, addressed herself to the bystanders in words to this effect :—‘You have just seen my husband’s first wife perform the duty incumbent on her, and will now see me follow her example. Henceforward, I pray, do not attempt to prevent Hindu women from burning, otherwise our curse will be upon you.”[^26]

No record is given of the actual ordeal, which often proved fatal to the fortitude of many Suttees who had dared it, as we have seen with Rammohun’s own sister-in-law. But assuming the unbroken courage of the two widows here described, it needs not to be added that such heroism was quite exceptional, as may be seen from the details given in the Calcutta petition, quoted avove, as well as from the habit prevalent in Bengal of tying down the victims to prevent their escape.

It was in August, 1818, that this petition was presented to Lord Hastings. How far Rammohun was concerned in it, does not appear. It bears traces of his hand, and most likely he wrote a good deal of it,—though there is one paragraph reflecting very harshly on the Mahometans which is so unlike him that it must have come from another source. On the 30th of November following, Rammohun issued an English translation of his first work on the subject; a Conference between an Advocate for, and an Opponent of, the Practice of Burning Widows Alive. The brief preface states that the tract is a literal translation of one in Bengali which “has been for several weeks past in extensive circulation in those parts of the country where the practice of widows burning themselves on the pile of their husbands is most prevalent.”

A Second Conference followed, fourteen months later (Feb. 20, 1820) and was dedicated to Lady Hastings in the following words. “The following tract being a translation of a Bengali essay, published some time ago, as an appeal to reason in behalf of humanity, I take the liberty to dedicate to your Ladyship; for to whose protection can any attempt to promote a benevolent purpose be with so much propriety committed?”

As Rammohun was far too discreet to have published such a dedication without leave from its object, we may conclude that it virtually implied the Governor-General’s good-will to his movement.

These tracts are very characteristic of their author. He threw his argument into a dramatic form, making the “Opponent” (of Suttee) quite as good a Hindu as the “Advocate,” and ready to admit that “all those passages you have quoted are indeed sacred law, and it is clear from those authorities that if women perform Concremation or Postcremation, they will enjoy heaven for a considerable time” (previously estimated at thirty-five millions of years). But he calmly points out that all this brings Suttee under the category of acts “performed for the sake of gratifications in this world or the next”; which are declared by the highest Hindu authorities to be only of an inferior order of merit. The Katha Upanishad declares that “Faith in God which leads to absorption, is one thing; and rites which have future fruition for their object, another. Each of these, producing different consequences, holds out to man inducements to follow it. The man who of these two, chooses faith, is blessed; and he, who for the sake of reward, practices rites, is dashed away from the enjoyment of eternal beatitude.” And the author of the Mitaksharā decides that “The widow who is not desirous of final beatitude, but who wishes only for a limited term of a small degree of future fruition, is authorized to accompany her husband.”

Thus far the abstract argument, of a purely Hindu nature. The “Opponent” then shows that Manu, their great law-giver, expressly enjoyed that the widow should live on as an ascetic, and should “continue till death forgiving all injuries” (a significant hint !), “performing harsh duties, avoiding every sensual pleasure, and cheerfully practising the incomparable rules of virtue which have been followed by such women as were devoted to one only husband.” Other high authorities are quoted in confirmation of this view.

By this process of argument the “Opponent” brings the discussion up to the critical point. The “Advocate” flatly denies that women are capable of true faith or permanent virtue and avows that they are burnt in order to prevent them from going astray after the husband’s death. Arrived at this issue, Rammohun drops the dramatic dress and enters upon a thorough defence of women in general and Indian women in particular, which shows how closely he had observed, and how deeply he had felt, the wrongs of his country-women, and how ardently he longed to see them delivered from the miseries of their lot. This defence is so characteristic of himself and of the situation that I give it entire,—but must first call attention to one golden sentence concerning the relative trustworthiness of the two sexes which is, alas ! not applicable to India alone.

Women are in general inferior to men in bodily strength and energy; consequently the male part of the community, taking advantage of their corporeal weakness, have denied to them those excellent merits that they are entitled to by nature, and afterwards they are apt to say that women are naturally incapable of acquiring those merits. But if we give the subject consideration, we may easily ascertain whether or not your accusation against them is consistent with justice. As to their inferiority in point of understanding, when did you ever afford them a fair opportunity of exhibiting, their natural capacity? How then can you accuse them of want of understanding? If, after instruction in knowledge and wisdom, a person cannot comprehend or retain what has been taught him, we may consider him as deficient; but as you keep women generally void of education and acquirements, you cannot, therefore, in justice pronounce on their inferiority. On the contrary, Lilavati, Bhanumati, the wife of the prince of Karnat, and that of Kalidasa, are celebrated for their thorough knowledge of all the Śastras; moreover in the Brihadāraṇyaka-Upanishad of the Yajur-Veda it is clearly stated, that Yājñavalkya imparted divine knowledge of the most difficult nature to his wife Maitreyī, who was able to follow and completely attain it !

Secondly. You charge them with want of resolution, at which I feel exceedingly surprised: for we constantly perceive, in a country where the name of death makes the male shudder, that the female, from her firmness of mind, offers to burn with the corpse of her deceased husband; and yet you accuse those women of deficiency of resolution.

Thirdly. With regard to their trustworthiness, let us look minutely into the conduct of both sexes, and we may be enabled to ascertain which of them is the most frequently guilty of betraying friends. If we enumerate such women in each village or town as have been deceived by men, and such men as have been betrayed by women, I presume that the numbers of the deceived women would be found ten times greater than that of the betrayed men. Men are, in general, able to read and write, and manage public affairs, by which means they easily promulgate such faults as women occasionally commit, but never consider as criminal the misconduct of men towards women. One fault they have, it must be acknowledged, which is, by considering others equally void of duplicity as themselves, to give their confidence too readily, from which they suffer much misery, even so far that some of them are misled to suffer themselves to be burnt to death.

In the fourth place, with respect to their subjection to the passions, this may be judged of by the custom of marriage as to the respective sexes; for one man may marry two or three, sometimes even ten wives and upwards; while a woman, who marries but one husband, desires at his death to follow him forsaking all worldly enjoyments, or to remain leading the austere life of an ascetic.

Fifthly. The accusation of their want of virtuous knowledge is an injustice. Observe what pain, what slighting, what contempt, and what afflictions their virtue enables them to support! How many Kulin Brahmins are there who marry ten or fifteen wives for the sake of money, that never see the greater number of them after the day of marriage, and visit others only three or four times in the course of their life. Still amongst those women, most, even without seeing or receiving any support from their husbands, living dependent on their fathers or brothers, and suffering much distress continue to preserve their virtue; and when Brahmins, or those of other tribes, bring their wives to live with them, what misery do the women not suffer? At marriage the wife is recognised as half of her husband, but in after conduct they are treated worse than inferior animals. For the woman is employed to do the work of a slave in the house, such as, in her turn, to clean the place very early in the morning, whether cold or wet, to scour the dishes, to wash the floor, to cook night and day, to prepare and serve food for her husband, father and mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, and friends and connections! (for amongst Hindus more than in other tribes relations long reside together, and on this account quarrels are more common amongst brothers respecting their worldly affairs). If in the preparation or serving up of the victuals they commit the smallest fault, what insult do they not receive from their husband, their mother-in-law, and the younger brothers of their husband! After all the male part of the family have satisfied themselves, the women content themselves with what may be left, whether sufficient in quantity or not. Where Brahmans or Kāyasthas are not wealthy, the women are obliged to attend to their cows, and to prepare cow dung for firing. In the afternoon they fetch water from the river or tank; and at night perform the office of menial servants in making the beds. In case of any fault or omission in the performance of those labours, they receive injurious treatment. Should the husband acquire wealth, he indulges in criminal amours to her perfect knowledge, and almost under her eyes, and does not see her, perhaps once a month. As long as the husband is poor she suffers every kind of trouble, and when he becomes rich she is altogether heart-broken. All this pain and affliction their virtue alone enables them to support. Where a husband takes two or three wives to live with him, they are subjected to mental miseries and constant quarrels. Even this distressed situation they virtuously endure. Sometimes it happens that the husband, from a preference for one of his wives, behaves cruelly to another. Amongst the lower classes, and those even of the better class who have not associated with good company, the wife, on the slightest fault, or even on bare suspicion of her misconduct, is chastised as a thief. Respect to virtue and their reputation generally makes them forgive even this treatment. If, unable to bear such cruel usage, a wife leaves her husband’s house to live separately from him, then the influence of the husband with the magisterial authority is generally sufficient to place her again in his hands; when, in revenge for her quitting him, he seizes every pretext to torment her in various ways, and sometimes even puts her privately to death. These are facts occurring every day, and not to be denied. What I lament is, that seeing the women thus dependent and exposed to every misery, you feel for them no compassion that might exempt them from being tied down and burnt to death.

This noble defence may fitly close our record of Rammohun’s first regular campaign. At this point we must leave his controversies on Suttee and Idolatry, to take up other phases of his many-sided activity.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO CHAPTER III

I

At different times Rammohun Roy possessed four houses in Calcutta. On the occasion of the partition of his paternal estates, he inherited from his father a house at Jorasanko; (see above p. 11; also Chanda and Majumdar Letters and Documents p. 73). As the records of the law-suit Govindaprasad Roy vs. Rammohun Roy indicate, he purchased two more houses in the city in 1814, one at Chowranghee from one Elizabeth Fenwick at the price of Rs. 20,317/-, and the other at Simla, from one Francis Mendes for Rs. 13000/-; (Letters and Documents No. 131, p. 266; also pp. 123, 138, 151, 172 and 187). In addition to the above Rammohun also had his famous Maniktala gardenhouse which was built for him according to his instructions, by his cousin Ramtanu Roy. The last mentioned house was furnished in English style, where Rammohun used to meet and entertain many of his eminent Indian and European friends and acquaintances.

The Jorasanko house was probably sold off sometime between 1805 and 1815; for we hear of it no more after Rammohun’s final settlement in Calcutta. The Maniktala garden-house came into Rammohun’s possession probably sometime later than 1814. For the case-records do not mention it among the houses said to have been acquired by him up to that year. The Simla house was his family residence and is now house No. 85 Amherst Street. The Maniktala garden house is identical with mansion No. 113 Upper Circular Road now converted into the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District, Calcutta. The sites of the Jorasanko and the Chowranghee houses have not been located.

From a sale notice published in the Samāchār Darpan dated January 9, 1830, it appears that the Maniktala garden-house was put to auction on the 21st January 1830, a few months before Rammohun’s departure for England (Sambadpatre Sekāler Kathā compiled and edited by Brajendranath Banerji Vol. I, 3rd edition, Calcutta 1356 B.S. pp. 248-49). We have no knowledge of the final disposal of the Chowranghee house. The Simla house (85 Amherst Street) is still in possession of a branch of the Roy family.

Mr. Brajendranath Banerji thinks that the Maniktala garden-house is identical with the one purchased by Rammohun from Mr. Francis Mendes (Rammohun Roy pp. 35-36). There are two agruments against this view. First, the Maniktala house is known to have been “built” for Rammohun by the latter’s cousin Ramtanu Roy. It was not a “purchased” mansion. Secondly the case-records cited above, invariably speak of the house purchased from Mr. Mendes, as the “Simla house” and never refer to it as having stood at Maniktala. The Amherst Street house, traditionally known as the Simla family residence of Rammohun, has therefore a greater claim of identity with it.

II

Though a believer in Universal Theism Rammohun’s religious and philosophical thought remained firmly grounded in the Vedānta. While retaining throughout his life a great admiration for the ethical teachings of Christianity, he nonetheless regarded Hinduism as metaphysically and spiritually the most advanced religion in the world. This has been testified to by the Abbe Gregoire, Bishop of Blois (France) who says about Rammohun: “He asserts likewise that he has found nothing in European books equal to the scholastic philosophy of the Hindus……” (quoted in The Father of Modern India : Rammohun Roy Centenary Commemoration Volume, Part II p. 162). To Chandrasekhar Dev, one of his disciples, Rammohun also stated in reply to a query as to which of Hinduism and Christianity was the better system of religion: “The Hindus seem to have made greater progress in sacred learning than the Jews, at least when the Upanishads were written….If religion consists of the blessings of self-knowledge and of improved notions of God and his attributes and a system of morality holds a subordinate place, I certainly perfer the Vedas.” (See Chandrasekher Dev’s English article Reminiscences of Rammohun Roy in the Tattvabodhinī Patrika No 351, Aghrahāyana 1794 Śaka, pp. 139-40.)

In his famous address (dated December 11, 1823) to Lord Amherst, he no doubt pleaded for the introduction of the western system of education, including a curriculum of studies chiefly in western science and technology, in this country, and expressed his opinion against the retention of abstract things like the metaphysical speculations of the Vedānta in the future educational syllabus of India. (For the text of this address, see Appendix II) This is however by no means an indictment of the Vedānta as such. Here Rammohun was contrasting two systems of education,—the medieval Indian and the modern European,—and advocating the introduction of the latter. His statement on the occasion should accordingly be judged with reference to this particular context. It is also important to remember in this connection that Rammohun was responsible for the establishment of a Vedānta College in Calcutta some time before 1826 entirely on his individual initiative and at his own expense. The purpose behind the move was obviously the dissemination of the teachings of the Vedānta. (See The Father of Modern India: Rammohun Roy Centenary Commemoration Volume. Part II p. 41.)

Rammohun’s extant works on the Vedānta are the following:

Bengali : (a) Vedāntagrantha (Calcutta 1815) (b) Vedāntasāra (Calcutta 1815 or 1816) (c) Talabakāropanishat or Kenopanishat (Bengali Translation) (Calcutta 1816) (d) Ishopanishat (Bengali Translation) Calcutta 1816) (e) Kaṭhopanishat (Bengali Translation) (Calcutta 1817) (f) Māṇḍukyopanishat (Bengali Translation) (Calcutta 1817) (g) Muṇḍakopanishat (Bengali Translation) (Calcutta) 1819) (h) Ātmānātmaviveka of Śaṁkarāchāryya (Bengali Translation) (Calcutta 1819)

Hindusthani : (a) Vedāntagrantha (Hindusthani Translation) (Calcutta 1815 ?) (b) Vedāntasāra (Hindusthani Translation) (Calcutta 1815 or 1816 ?)

English : (a) Translation of an Abridgment of the Vedānta (Calcutta 1816) (b) Translation of the Kena Upanishad (Calcutta 1816) (c) Translation of the Ishopanishad (Calcutta 1816) (d) Translation of the Mundaka Upanishad (Calcutta 1819) (e) Translation of the Katha Upanishad (Calcutta 1819)

German: Auflosung des Wedant (Jena 1817) Dutch : Vertaling van Verscheidene voername Boeken, Plādtsen en Teksten van de Veddas. (Kampen 1840). (Apparently a posthumous publication)

Besides the above books Rammohun is known to have published some other works on the subject. For example we may refer to his editions of the original Sanskrit texts of a number of Upanishads such as the Isha, the Kena, the Katha, the Muṇḍaka etc. with commentaries in Sanskrit, as well as that of the entire commentary of Śaṁkara on the Brahma-Sūtras (Raja Rammohun Rāya-Pranīta Granthāvalī edited by Rajnarayan Basu and Ananda Chandra Vedāntavagis, Calcutta 1880, p 812). Rammohun is further said to have published either editions or translations of at least two other Upanishads, the Chhāndogya and the Śvetāśvatara, but copies of these have not yet been found (Ibid p. 812). A Bengali verse translation of the Bhagavat-Gītā was also published by him but unhappily this too remains as yet untraced. He held the Gītā in high esteem and would often say to his friends, “who would care to listen to one that does not listen to the Gītā ?” (Nagendranath Chatterjee, Mahatma Raja Rammohun Rayer Jibancharit 5th Ed. p. 346). Rammohun is thus the predecessor of the great modern translators and commentators of the Gītā in India, including Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Sri Aurobindo and Mahatma Gandhi. Rammohun’s edition of Śaṁkara’s commentary on the Brahma-Sūtras was published in 1740 Śaka (1818 A.D.) from Calcutta in Bengali type. It has now become extremely rare. The Government Sanskrit College Library, Calcutta, possesses two copies of it (Catalogue of Sanskrit Books in the Government Sanskrit College Library, Calcutta,—Vedānta Nos. 239 and 240).

We have taken into account here exclusively Rammohun’s works on texts of the Vedānta philosophy. By publishing the Vedāntagrantha (1815) which is an elaborate commentary on the celebrated Brahma-Sūtras Rammohun became the first commentator of the Vedānta in the modern age. His position as a Vedānta philosopher has been ably discussed by :

(a) Chandrasekhar Basu Vedānta-Praveśa (in Bengali) (Calcutta, 1282 B. S.) pp. 148—65.

(b) Nagendranath Chatterjee Mahatma Raja Rammohun Rayer Jiban-charit (in Bengali) (5th edition) Chapters IV and V (pp. 44—165).

(c) Dhirendranath Chowdhury Vedāntavāgis Dharmer Tattva O Sādhan (in Bengali) (Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, Calcutta ) Chapter VIII. pp. 232—44.

(d) Ishan Chandra Roy ‘Rammohun as a Bhāṣyakāra’ Indian Messenger Vol, LVIII No. 3 (Maghotsava Number 1940) pp, 51—52.

III

For a somewhat sketchy account of the Atmiya Sabhā see Brajendranath Banerji’s article ‘Societies founded by Rammohun Roy for Religious Reform’ in the Modern Review April 1935, pp. 415-19. The best account of the friends and followers of Rammohun Roy during this period will be found in Manmathanath Ghosh’s paper on the “Friends and Followers of Rammohun” in The Father of Modarn India (Rammohun Centenary Commemoration Volume) Part II pp. 124-32. For an exhaustive study of the Atmiya Sabhā see Prabhat Chandra Ganguli’s serial Bengali article “Atmiya Sabhār Kathā” in the Tattvakaumudi vol. 76, Nos, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24; vol. 77, Nos. 1 and 5.

IV

Miss Collet’s account of Hariharananda and his intimacy with and influence over Rammohun Roy is rather meagre. It is not correct to say that Rammohun met Hariharananda for the first time at Rangpur. Hariharananda’s original name was Nandakumar Vidyālaṅkāra and he came to be known as Hariharananda Tirthasvāmī Kulabadhūta after he had renounced the world and become a Sannyāsī. He knew Rammohun from the latter’s boyhood and the two remained on intimate terms of friendship ever since. Testifying for Rammohun in the case Govindaprasad Roy vs. Rammohun Roy, Hariharananda made the following statement: “Saith that he hath known the Defendant Rammohun Roy from the time that the said Defendant attained the age of fourteen years and hath ever since been on the most intimate terms with him” (Chanda and Majumdar Letters and Documents No. 113, p. 174). A native of the village of Palpara in the Hooghly district, he roamed about in different places as a wandering hermit and was with his old friend Rammohun Roy at Rangpur. He accompanied the latter to Calcutta. Both at Rangpur and at Calcutta they had animated discussions of the Śāstras. Hariharananda participated in the meetings of the Ātmīya Sabhā and held progressive views, an instance of which is furnished by a letter he wrote to the India Gazette on the 27th March 1818, denouncing the evil custom of Sati (quoted in the Calcutta Journal, April 11, 1819, J. K. Majumdar, Raja Rammohun Roy and Progressive Movements in India No. 56, pp 112-14). Hariharananda was a follower of the Tantra and is famous for his edition of the Kulārṇava Tantra and a learned commentary on the Mahānirvāṇa Tantra. He died at Benares in 1832. (A brief life-sketch of Hariharananda is to be found in Brajendranath Banerji’s pamphlet Ramchandra Vidyavagis, Hariharananda Tirthasvāmī Sahitya Sadhak Charitmala, No. 9, pp. 29—32).

As a result of his close association with Hariharananda, Rammohun’s thought seems to have been deeply influenced by the philosophy of Tantra. See on this point Bhudev Mukherji’s chapter “Raja Rammohun Raya O Tantra Śāstra” in his Vividha Prabandha Part II Chinsura 1327 B. S., pp. 143—49; for a detailed study of the subject see Dilip Kumar Biswas’s article Raja Rammohun O Tantra in the Bengali Weekly Desh, 19th Jaistha 1352 B. S. pp. 163—67.

Pandit Ramchandra Vidyavagiś the youngest brother of Hariharananda was a close associate of Rammohun Roy and became the first āchārya (minister) of the Brahmo Samaj.

Nagendranath Chatterjee mentions a highly interesting anecdote regarding Hariharananda’s coming to Calcutta to meet Rammohun Roy. The story is slightly different from the account we have given above (Mahatma Raja Rammohun Rayer Jiban Charit 5th Ed. pp. 706—08).

As Hariharananda did not know English, it has been surmised by many that his letter published in the India Gazette was drafted by Rammohun himself.

V

The Hindu College was established on the 20th January 1817. That Rammohun knew and whole heartedly supported the scheme of the establishment of this institution, is beyond any doubt. In fact he stood aside only because he feared that his orthodox countrymen would not co-operate with the scheme, if he would have anything to do with it. “There was no difficulty,” writes Peary Chand Mitra, “in getting Rammohun Roy to renounce his connection, as he valued the education of his countrymen more than the empty flourish of his name as a committee-man” (A Biographical Sketch of David Hare, Reprint, Calcutta 1949, p. 6). The inner story is clearly brought out in a letter of Sir Edward Hyde East, dated the 18th May 1816, to Mr. J. Harrington. The following extract from the letter given by Mr. Brajendranath Banerji in his article “Rammohun Roy as an Educational Pioneer” (Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society Vol XVI, Pt. II pp. 154—75) throws interesting light on the orthodox opposition to Rammohun Roy so far as this educational scheme was concerned. “The meeting was accordingly held at my house on the 14th of May, 1816, at which 50 and upwards of the most respectable Hindu inhabitants of rank or wealth attended, including also the principal Pandits;……Talking afterwards with several of the company, before I proceeded to open the business of the day, I found that one of them in particular, a Brahmin of good caste, and a man of wealth and influence, was mostly set against Rammohun Roy… He expressed a hope that no subscription would be received from Rammohun Roy. I asked, why not? ‘Because he had chosen to separate himself from us, and to attack our religion’. ‘I do not know what Rammohun’s religion is…not being acquainted or having had any communication with him; but I hope that my being a Christian, and a sincere one, to the best of my ability, will be no reason for your refusing my subscription to your undertaking’…he answered readily…“No, not at all; we shall be glad of your money; but it is a different thing with Rammohun Roy, who is a Hindu, and yet has publicly reviled us, and written against us and our religion…’”. We can do no better than quote the comments of Mr. Banerji who seems to echo Peary Chand Mitra: “The leading Hindus of Calcutta disliked his association with it, as he was regarded by them as a heretic… Rammohun therefore very wisely withdrew from the movement lest the objects of the institution, should be frustrated in consequence of his name appearing on the Committee of Management”. See also Jogesh Chandra Bagal’s article, “The Origins of the Hindu College” (Presidency College Centenary Volume, Calcutta 1956, pp. 299-305, particularly p. 300); and also his Vanglar Uchha Siksha Visva-Bharati 1360 B. S. p. 5. It may be mentioned here that the proposal for the foundation of a Higher Institution for dissemination of English education was first made by David Hare before a small assembly of friends in Rammohun Roy’s house and it was supported by everybody present.

How strong and bitter orthodox opposition was to Rammohun and his ideals, in the matter, may be further illustrated by an extract from a letter (dated January 19, 1832) from Raja Radhakanta Dev to Mr. Wilson concerning a proposal for the appointment of Rammohun’s friend and disciple, Mr. William Adam, as one of the teachers of the College. Radhakanta, the leader of the orthodox camp, and a director of the College writes: “For my part, I cannot entrust the morals and education of those I regard, to such an one that was once a Missionary, then a Vaidantic or disciple of Rammohun Roy and lastly a unitarian (italics ours—Editors) (quoted in Jogesh Chandra Bagal Radhakanta Dev Sahitya-Sadhak Charitmala, No. 20, p. 14). Mr. Adam was not appointed. The letter speaks for itself and explains very well why Rammohun himself had to stand back at the time of the foundation of the College!

Also it is not generally remembered that Dewan Baidyanath Mukherjee, who among contemporary Bengalis rendered remarkably valuable services in connection with the foundation of this great institution and became its first native secretary (vide Peary Chand Mitra David Hare pp. 5-8), was a close associate of Rammohun Roy and a member of the latter’s Atmiya Sabhā. It is not unlikely that he drew inspiration, at least in part, from Rammohun’s ideas and advice.

VI

The ‘polemical combat’ between Rammohun Roy and Subrahmaṇya Śāstrī took place in the house of Biharilal Chaubey at Barabazar, Calcutta. Rammohun’s reply to Subhramaṇya Śāstrī was published in 1820 in four languages viz. Sanskrit, Bengali, Hindi and English. The English translation is entitled An Apology for the Pursuit of Final Beatitude independently of Brahmanical Observances. Pandit Hazari Prasad Dvivedi informs us that Biharilal Chaubey was a notable poet in Hindi, belonging to the group of the famous Bharatendu Harishchandra (vide his article “Hindi Bhashay Rammohun” in the Rammohun Centenary Commemoration Volume Part II p. 466).

VII

It would be a mistake to suppose that the lawsuits in which Rammohun was involved as also the one concerning his son Radhaprasad, in any way hampered his religious and philanthropic activities. The cases against Rammohun continued with breaks almost throughout the period from 1817 to 1830. During the years 1825 and 1826 Radhaprasad had to face his trial on a charge of embezzlement. (For a brief account of all these cases see Note V to chapter II.) Though these cases involved him in ruinous expenses, broke his health and resulted in the death of his wife, Rammohun remained unperturbed and calmly went on with his campaign against the religious and social evils of the country. During the above period we find him engaged in constant polemical war with his orthodox Hindu and Christian opponents, carrying on a ceaseless struggle against the custom of burning widows alive, sharply criticizing the caste system by editing and translating the first chapter of the Vajrasūchī, making strenuous efforts to spread western education and learning in the country, striving for the liberty of the Press, and laying the foundation of the Brahmo Samaj! During the two years, specifically referred to by the continuator, “Rammohun was in regular attendance on Mr. W. Adam’s Unitarian services and was openly identified with the Unitarian Committee",—an act, perhaps much more henious in the eyes of his orthodox Hindu opponents than holding meetings of the Atmiya Sabhā!

VIII

The first Bengali tract against Satī from the pen of Rammohun and its English translation were certainly published in 1818. But he had started his drive against this evil custom certainly a few years before that. Mrs. Frances Keith Martin in a letter dated November 26, 1829, published in the Bengal Hurkaru dated November 28, 1829, pointed out that while the government of Lord William Bentinck might be given its due share of credit for the final abolition of Satī, the great services of Rammohun Roy with regard to it, should never be forgotten. In this connection two of her utterances deserve to be quoted: “Your observation that ‘Europe will resound with praises on the exertions of the Indian Government on this occasion’ should certainly have been modified; the series of grievances to which its imbecility in this respect has given protracted continuance, can surely not be cancelled by the mere tardy introduction of a measure which a disgraceful apprehension of danger alone prevented from being adopted—and which…would not now in the utmost probability be brought into effect…but for the powerful though unacknowledged aid of the great Hindu Philosopher, Rammohun Roy…”; and again a little later “at least to those prodigies of fortitude, the Indian widows, may the present era prove a Jubilee which enfranchises them for ever,—and in commemorating the amiable and the highly politic administration of Lord Bentinck, may they never cease to remember the glowing sympathy, intelligence and fearless energy displayed through a course of eighteen years, by their great and at length successful advocate, Rammohun Roy” (first italics ours—Editors) (J. K. Majumdar Raja Rammohun Roy and Progressive Movements in India No. 80, pp. 150-51). It appears therefore as this extremely specific and uncontradicted statement indicates, that Rammohun’s endeavours against Satī began eighteen years ago from 1829 i.e. in 1811-12. At that time he was living in Rangpur but he must have paid occasional visits to Calcutta and also to his native village. The burning of his sister-in-law in the funeral pyre of her husband took place, if at all, in 1812, and there is no inherent improbability in the story that this family incident was at the root of his firm resolve to try to wipe out the inhuman custom. Even before he had employed his pen against it, he roamed about in the burning grounds of Calcutta and tried “to avert the Suttee sacrifices by earnest persuasion.” (See above p. 89.) “In these efforts he had often to incur the displeasure and insult of the relatives of the Suttee.” Rammohun however remained calm in the face of all provocations. Nagendranath Chatterjee mentions a typical instance in his Mahatma Raja Rammohun Rayer Jibancharit 5th Ed. p. 358.

Reference may also be made in this connection to a meeting held at the Brahmo Samaj, Calcutta, on the 10th November 1832, in order to express the gratitude of the progressive citizens “for the confirmation by the King in Council…of the order for suppressing the burning of Hindoo widows issued by the Governor General in Council” on December 4, 1829. The meeting was presided over by Dwarakanath Tagore and was attended by a large number of prominent Indian and European citizens of Calcutta. It adopted a unanimous resolution offering thanks to Raja Rammohun Roy for his untiring efforts in the cause of the abolition of the Satī evil. Among those who paid eloquent tributes to Rammohun on this occasion, was Krishnamohan Banerjee one of the most brilliant among the contemporary Bengali converts to Christianity. (J. K. Majumdar Raja Rammohun Roy and Progressive Movements in India No. 117, pp. 199-205). It may also be noted that a correspondent of the Bengal Chronicle as quoted in the Asiatic Journal for May 1831, emphatically asserts that the abolition of Satī had been possible chiefly due to the exertions of Rammohun Roy and Dwarkanath Tagore and all praise for the reform should accordingly go to these two individuals (Ibid No. 108, p. 182). For a connected account of the anti-Sati movement in Bengal in the nineteenth century, see now A. Mukherjee’s article “Movement for the Abolition of Satī in Bengal” Bengal, Past and Present vol. LXXVII, Part I, Serial No. 143, pp. 20-41. This is a good summary of available evidence but does not add substantially to our knowledge of the subject.

• To the third period two chapters are devoted (v., vi.) : to the rest one chapter each—Continuator.

• *Final paragraphs to the Preface of his first English work, whose title was in itself a manifesto of the new crusade which he was initiating :—"Translation of an Abridgment of the Vedānt, or Resolution of all the Veds ; the most celebrated and revered work of Brahminical Theology ; establishing the Unity of the Supreme Being : and that He Alone is the object of propitiation and worship. Calcutta, 1816"—English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, I. p. 5. (The reference here is to Jogendra Chandra Ghosh’s Edition which was published in two volumes from Calcutta, the first in 1885, and the second in 1887—Editors.)

• This sentence is taken from the Indian Mirror of July 1, 1865, from a brief sketch by Keshab Chandra Sen, entitled “Brahmo Samaj, or Theism in India. (See Note III at the end of the Chapter.—Edtiors.)

† From a letter signed “A devoted disciple of Rammohun Roy”, in the Tattvabodhini Patrika for Bhādra, 1787 Saka (1865, A. D.). (The account of the relations between Rammohun and Hariharananda, as given, is incomplete. See Note IV at the end of the Chapter.—Editors.)

• So Nagendranath Chattopadhyaya in his Bengali Biograph of the Raja, (5th Ed. pp. 300, 301) : and G. S. Leonard in his History of the Brahmo Samaj (Newman & Co., Calcutta, 1879) p. 35. (See above pp. 43-51.—Editors.)

† Ibid. Rev. K. S. Macdonald in his lecture on the Raja (entitled Rajah Rammohun Roy the Bengali Religious Reformer, Herald Office. Calcutta, 1879) thinks that this giving up these meetings “does not look well,” . . . “seemingly because he was afraid their very existence would prejudice his worldly interests”. Mr. Macdonald apparently forgets that during the latter part of these two years Rammohun was in regular attendance on Mr. W. Adam’s Unitarian services and was openly identified with the Unitarian Committee.—For the sentences enclosed in brackets and notes, the continuator is responsible. (This paragraph, inserted by the continuator, may give the readers the impresson that Rammohun put a temporary stop to his progressive reform work during this time. That supposition would be entirely wrong. See Note VII at the end of the Chapter.—Editors.)

• Preface to the Translation of the Ishopanishad, Calcutta, 1816, English Works, I, pp. 77-79. (J. C. Ghosh’s Edition—Editors).

† Concluding paragraph of the Introduction to the Ishopanishad. English Works, I. pp. 86-87. (J. C. Ghosh’s Edition. — Editors).