Can We Practice What We Preach? an Inquiry Into Systems of Knowledge in the Social Reform Period
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Can We Practice What We Preach? An Inquiry into Systems of Knowledge in the Social Reform Period Thesis Submitted to Kuvempu University for the Award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Culture Studies) Submitted by Polly Hazarika Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore Under the Guidance of Dr.Vivek Dhareshwar Senior Fellow Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore. Kuvempu University Centre for Excellence Bangalore. Declaration I hereby declare that the thesis entitled Can We Practice What We Preach? An Inquiry into Systems of Knowledge in the Social Reform Period submitted to Kuvempu University for the award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy contains my original research done under the guidance and supervision of Dr. Vivek Dhareshwar, Senior Fellow, CSCS, Centre for Excellence, Kuvempu University, and that it has not previously formed the basis for the award of any Degree or any other similar title of any University or Institution. Polly Hazarika Place: Bangalore Date: 31 - 8 – 2011 Certificate This is to certify that the thesis entitled Can We Practice What We Preach? An Inquiry into Systems of Knowledge in the Social Reform Period submitted to Kuvempu University by Ms Polly Hazarika for the award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy is her work done under my guidance and supervision. Dr Vivek Dhareshwar, Senior Fellow, CSCS Bangalore. Dr S.V. Srinivas, Ashish Rajadhyaksha (Member, Ph.D. Committee) (Director) CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF CULTURE & SOCIETY (Affiliated to Kuvempu University) BANGALORE—560061 August 2011. This work is for my parents, Julie and Kashi Nath Hazarika. Because of whom I got this far. As for what motivated me, it is quite simple; I would hope that in the eyes of some people it might be sufficient in itself. It was curiosity- the only kind of curiosity, in any case, that is worth acting upon with a degree of obstinacy: not to know, but that which enables one to get free of oneself. After all, what would be the value of the passion for knowledge if it resulted only in a certain amount of knowledgeableness and not… in the knower's straying afield of himself? There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all... in what does (philosophy) consist, if not in the endeavor to know how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently, instead of legitimating what is already known? Michel Foucault History of Sexuality Vol. II Acknowledgements This thesis has been possible because of the love, support and encouragement that I have received during the long years of writing it. My sincere thanks to- Dr. Vivek Dhareshwar, Dr. S.N. Balagangadhara, Dr Narahari Rao and Dr Indira Chowdhury Dr Sufiya Pathan, Dr Dunkin Jalki, Dr Millie Hazarika and Parvati Sharma Friends at CSCS Bangalore and the University of Ghent Teachers at CSCS Bangalore and at Delhi University Students at SNDT University Mumbai, Jyoti Nivas College Bangalore and Miranda House Delhi. Staff at CSCS, Nehru Memorial and SNDT libraries And Sourabh Ratnu. Contents Introduction 1 Chapter 1 24 Chapter 2 70 Chapter 3 113 Chapter 4 185 Conclusion 243 Bibliography 260 1 Introduction Can We Practice What We Preach? This thesis fundamentally takes up three areas of investigation which are tied together. One, it traces a historiography of Reform discourse. It does not attempt to provide either a comprehensive historical account or any kind of exhaustive documentation of reform activities or ideas. Instead, it seeks to provide an overview of the way in which scholarship on reform has evolved, the routes it has taken and whether there has been any significant critical re- evaluation of the ‗reformist‘ narrative of Reform. It also scrutinizes major reform arguments, which have, in some sense been taken for granted in reform scholarship and have acquired axiomatic status, in order to unearth the assumptions that underlie these arguments and the framework of knowledge that is implicitly required in order to give coherence to these arguments. Two, it examines the encounter between colonialism and the Indian traditions. This encounter, on the one hand, gave rise to reform discourse, but on the other, also generated responses from the so-called ‗orthodoxy‘ (or simply non/anti-reformist section of Indian society). So far, none of our historical studies into this period have attempted to dispassionately examine these responses in order to reconstruct the non-reformist voices responding to colonialism. All our historical accounts have always assumed that reform was an astoundingly successful project, which brought in its wake the ‗modernization‘ of India. Thus, it is the trajectory of ‗modernization‘ that becomes the subject of history. ‗Tradition‘ usually features as the minor character passed by early in the plot, vanquished, and no longer having any significant role to play. It is the contention of this thesis that an engagement with the response characterized as ‗tradition‘ or ‗orthodoxy‘ to colonialism and Reform opens up an entirely new perspective on what ‗modernization‘ has meant in the Indian context. 2 Three, the thesis tentatively proposes some ideas about the nature of Indian traditions and very specifically, the place of practice in these traditions. Although an examination of this third sphere need not be limited to the period of Reform, this period brings some crucial aspects of the Indian traditions into sharp relief and therefore, provides a good starting point for investigation. Since the thesis does not seek to give yet another account of the history of Reform, but rather to acquire an understanding of the encounter between colonialism and Indian traditions and to provide a perspective on Reform discourse which takes into account the nature of this encounter, it highlights only particular moments in Reform history. These moments, such as the moment of the abolition of sati, are useful in so far as the debates taking place at this time outline positions that are typical of the three major participants in Reform – the so-called orthodox, the colonial and the reformer. There are clear patterns that emerge in the propositions and responses of each of these participants. Therefore, these moments serve to illuminate not just one specific historical moment of reform (such as the abolition of sati or the age of consent bill), but rather, serve as templates for the study of the systems of knowledge1 that generate the three positions outlined above. One such moment in history serves as an ideal starting point for the thesis. The time is 1877 and the story is about the wedding of Suniti, the daughter of one of the major Reform figures of nineteenth century Bengal, Keshub Chunder Sen, with Nripender, the Prince of Kuch Behar from an ‗orthodox‘ Hindu Royal family. The story of the marriage showcases a classic confrontation between the reformist and orthodox positions. Since the objective of the thesis is to deconstruct Reform discourse, this extremely typical Reform story enables us to pick out the features of the Reform discourse that urgently require 1 Although I do not give a definition of ‗systems of knowledge‘ in the thesis, a fair idea of what this means should be clear from the reconstructions of the three positions I provide in the thesis. A clearer articulation of how to define this notion awaits further research. 3 problematization. I One part of the setting of the story is nineteenth century Kuch Behar. But our historical accounts tend to be sketchy about the intellectual and social conditions2 of the Princely states. By contrast, since historians have been much enamoured of the ‗Bengal Renaissance‘3, we have a surfeit of information about Bengal, the other part of the setting for the story. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, when the wedding between Suniti and Nripender took place, Calcutta was caught in the heart of the reform movement sweeping across British India. Always at the vanguard when it came to things Western, Calcutta had, by this time, colleges for English education, schools for girls, and a thriving Brahmo Samaj. Set up in the 1830‘s by Raja Rammohun Roy, the Samaj took up religious reform as its primary concern. Since Hinduism was supposedly riddled with problems such as idolatry and other ‗false‘ practices, the Samaj did not claim to be a branch of Hinduism, but claimed its ancestry from the ‗original Vedism‘ that was thought to be the pure and un-corrupted predecessor of Hinduism. In its first forty years, the Samaj had already seen debate, dissension and a split; demonstrating, among other things, the difficulty of the project of religious reform. By 1878 the Samaj would see another split, and the Brahmo Samaj would never regain its previous position as an idea on the brink of becoming a mass movement. By the turn of the century, the enthusiasm for the Samaj dwindled, and it remained, as it had begun, a movement involving a small section of the Calcutta middle-class with minimal influence in the mofussil areas. 2 The implication of course being that nothing of any intellectual or social significance took place outside British India. 3 The reform period in Bengal was also referred to as the ‗Bengal Renaissance‘. 4 Keshub Chunder Sen (1838-1884), Suniti‘s father, was the most illustrious and charismatic leader of the Samaj to hold the post of the Secretary of the Brahmo Samaj during this period. A Brahmin by birth, he initiated the first split from Devendra Nath Tagore‘s Adi Brahmo Samaj over the issue of the sacred thread, as he felt that none but Brahmos who had given up the thread should officiate at Brahmo ceremonies.