Appendix A Half a Christian? Chapters 2 and 3 demonstrate that Rammohun profoundly engaged the discourse of Rational Dissent in the early 1820s. He endorsed the expansive definition of Christianity advanced by Unitarians, who responded by proclaiming him their tro- phy. And not without reason. In April 1826 Rammohun and William Adam discussed Christianity with London Missionary Society missionaries Daniel Tyerman and George Bennet. At one point, Rammohun asked the two “whether we thought him a Christian.” Considering him “a pretty consistent Socinian”—albeit with some views “peculiarly his own”—Tyerman and Bennet replied in the negative. To this, they claimed, Rammohun responded: “ ‘Will you not allow me to be half a Christian?’ ” This drew another no, although the orthodox missionaries conceded that Rammohun was “perfectly skilled in the tactics of Socinian controversy, and defended himself and his notions with as much ability and discretion as any person of similar tenets whom we have encountered.”1 Doubts have been raised on this score that are also supported by recorded comments. In 1830 Rammohun helped Scottish missionary Alexander Duff open a school that had mandatory Bible readings. Indian pupils balked at this until Rammohun intervened, telling them that he had read the Qur’an and asking “has that made me a Mussalman? Nay, [and] I have studied the whole Bible, and you know I am not a Christian.”2 Such evidence has led some to argue that Rammohun either never converted or had only a temporary interest in Unitarianism, returning to his Vedanta roots after 1828 when he founded the Brahmo Samaj.3 Others suggest that Unitarianism was an important stage—one that took him beyond the Hindu tradition—but not the final resting place in a religious journey that culminated in Brahmo universalism.4 These arguments have merit. Rammohun’s withdrawal of support from William Adam and the Calcutta Unitarian Committee points to a parting of religious ways, as Rammohun could not subscribe to Adam’s Christian focus.5 Also telling is the response of David Reed in Boston. Reed shared Adam’s interest in promoting Unitarian Christianity and welcomed Rammohun’s assistance in that effort, which he believed merited him the title of Christian.6 In 1828 Reed published the first complete American edition of the Precepts and three Appeals, proclaiming repeatedly in his weekly paper that the Final Appeal placed Rammohun in “the very first rank of Christian Theologians.” He also published that year two letters challenging orthodox clergy who denied that the Bengali was a Christian.7 In 1829, however, Reed struck a very different tone while describing 168 RAMMOHUN ROY AND VICTORIAN BRITAIN the breakup of Calcutta Unitarianism. The celebrated Bengali, he now suggested, was a Hindu Unitarian, denying even that Rammohun was ever known to be a Christian. The new ad that Reed ran for his edition of Rammohun’s works is also revealing. The volume was now offered “merely as a curiosity” available at a reduced price.8 Over the succeeding years, Reed continued to devote space in the Christian Register to Rammohun, including claims by other Unitarians that the famous Bengali was a Christian.9 The Bostonian remained, however, of a different mind. After Rammohun’s death, Reed described him as a “noble Hindoo” worthy of the great attention he received, “even if, in regard to his faith, ‘he followed not us.’ ”10 This use of Mark 9:38 is interesting. The Christian Register editor surely intended his readers to think of verse forty, where Jesus added that “he who is not against us is for us.” Perhaps Reed was conceding that Rammohun was half a Christian. Reed and Adam could have recognized the situation earlier. There were indications that Rammohun never abandoned Vedanta for Christian revelation. The suggestion in the Final Appeal of a separate “Christian dispensation” where Jesus was essential to worshipping the one true God is an example.11 Another is the explanation why he attended a chapel in Calcutta: “Unitarians believe, profess, and inculcate the doctrine of the divine unity—a doctrine which I find firmly maintained both by the Christian Scriptures and by our most ancient writings commonly called the Vedas.”12 The Vedanta College Rammohun founded around 1825 provided another clue. As Adam wrote, although the college allowed instruction in Christian Unitarianism, it was founded for “the propagation and defence of Hindoo Unitarianism.”13 And shortly before the break with Adam, Rammohun led the Calcutta Unitarian Committee to invite “all Unitarians, whether Christian or Hindoo, in every part of India” to form auxiliary associations.14 His years in Britain are interesting in this regard. Rammohun gave Rational Dissenters significant attention and expressed admiration for individual Unitarians.15 He gladdened them with pronouncements that, although “the Bishop and the Baptist were displeased with him for not believing with them . he could sooner put a sword to his heart than lie to his God.”16 He also defended the humanity of Jesus with vigor in salon debate.17 Yet there are indications of distance. Unitarians struggled to explain Rammohun’s unwillingness to be baptized or break caste, as well as his tendency to give orthodox interlocutors the impression that he agreed with them. The first two were rela- tively easy. Paul had lived like a Jew while proselytizing among them and Rammohun was following suit among his countrymen. Moreover, he would lose influence by break- ing caste, which was primarily “a civil, not a religious institution.”18 The problem of impressions was trickier. At one Unitarian gathering, Rammohun voiced conventional opinions—out of deference to a lady present—and was challenged by another guest who read back to him a passage from his Precepts.19 Perhaps cultural habits—“eastern polite- ness,” as Lant Carpenter called it—contributed to reticence in face-to-face meetings with strangers.20 The Unitarian barrister James Losh was blunter. He had a long conversation about politics with Rammohun at a London gathering. The Bengali, however, “seemed rather to avoid the subject of religion, not knowing my sentiments and being appar- ently afraid of controversy.”21 Unitarians were not the only ones disappointed. Political radicals in Calcutta were unhappy by his “trimming” in London, where “the prejudices of courtesy” led him to give “shuffling” answers to questions about India posed by a parliamentary committee.22 One detects, however, a particular anxiety among Rational Dissenters whose trophy convert tended in conversation to persuade the orthodox that he shared their opinions and who was comfortable attending Anglican services.23 HALF A CHRISTIAN?169 Rammohun’s response when Unitarians lauded him at their 1831 annual meeting is noteworthy too. Like a modern politician on the campaign trail, he expressed sympa- thy and points of contact with the audience while leaving himself some wiggle room. Unitarians, he told those assembled, have “reason, scripture, and common sense” on their side, their opponents “wealth, power, and prejudice,” but “I am convinced that your success, sooner or later, is certain.” His own contributions to the Unitarian cause in Britain, Rammohun added, are “very trifling.” I am not sensible that I have done any thing to deserve being called a promoter of this cause; but with respect to your faith I may observe, that I too believe in the one God, and that I believe in almost all the doctrines that you do; but I do this for my own salvation and for my own peace.24 These comments suggest overlapping, but not identical interests, and a careful draw- ing of boundaries. Events at the very end of his life convey a similar impression. Lant Carpenter reported that, shortly before his demise, Rammohun professed belief in the mission and resurrection of Jesus. But the sacred thread he wore on his deathbed,25 the recitation of aum during his fatal illness, and his desire not to be buried on church grounds or according to Christian rites indicate that this assertion needs to be contextualized.26 A good place to start is with his universalism. Many commentators have described Rammohun as a universal theist who found a common basis—worship of an eternal, unitary godhead—in all the religions he studied.27 Accompanying this was a universal distrust of creeds, which led some contemporaries to insist that Rammohun was a pure Deist.28 But distrust was not disengagement. As Dermot Killingley notes, Rammohun thought all religions originally promoted worship of the one true God, but that each had been led astray by the introduction of distinctive doctrines and practices. In arriving at this, Rammohun drew upon Advaita Vedanta for interpreting the Hindu tradition, and Unitarianism for understanding the history of Christianity.29 There is a similar debt to Islamic rationalism in Tuhfat al-Muwahhidin, where, as Ajit Kumar Ray argues, Rammohun criticized sectarianism as a corrupting influence and universal phenom- enon.30 The sheer volume of his Vedanta and Unitarian works supports Killingley’s emphasis on those two influences. There are other reasons to do so. Bruce Carlisle Robertson aptly notes that Rammohun found attractive Unitarianism’s social gospel because it reinforced his Vedantic conviction that true devotion leads to “freedom from poverty, superstition, and all forms of injustice in this world.”31 Vedantin and Unitarian were thus complementary identities for Rammohun. Each supplied him with means to criticize popular religion while also validating the integrity of Hinduism and Christianity. Each valorized his personal prosperity and sense of social commitment. He could also identify specific virtues in each. According to a report pub- lished long after his death, when asked which he preferred, Hinduism or Christianity, Rammohun chose to emphasize their different strengths. The Vedas contain superior notions of the deity and are unique in inculcating toleration as a duty, while “the moral precepts of Jesus are something most extraordinary.”32 This explains why Rammohun adopted the persona of Vedantin and Unitarian with equal facility.