DOCSLIB.ORG

'The Malicious Arya'?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
'The Malicious Arya'? international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018) 198-224 brill.com/ijac ‘The Malicious Arya’? Pundit Lekhramjī’s Portrayal of Christianity in the 19th Century South Asia David Emmanuel Singh The Oxford Centre for Mission Studies [email protected] Abstract This paper focusses on the first two volumes of Pundit Lekhramji’s collected works, kulliyat. Its main argument is that contrary to the position of Ahmadis and secondary scholarship, Lekhram did not deserve to be labelled ‘malicious’ or a ‘radical’ princi- pally responsible for communalism. Jones is a fine scholar, but he may have allowed the perspective particularly rife among Ahmadis to colour his view of Lekhram. Be- sides, his view of Lekhram was only partial in that it relied largely on the material which forms part of volume 3 of kulliyat. What drove Lekhram was a need he saw for ‘pastoral’ support for the supposed ‘insiders’ – the protection of a reimagined Hin- du community (which included local converts to Christianity) from what he saw as the sustained campaigns of proselytization and polemical tracts. The intent was not necessarily to dialogue with Christian missionaries or padres but to persuade Indian converts to Christianity to ‘return home’. Lekhram’s attempts at ‘exposing’ Christianity however remained equally superficial as the padres’. However, in so doing he was not blind to issues in his own scriptures/traditions, something that requires another paper to elaborate Keywords Pundit Lekhram – Arya Samaj – Kulliyat – Shuddhi – Ahmadiyya © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/25424246-00102003Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 12:30:04PM via free access <UN> ‘The Malicious Arya’? 199 Introduction There are already a large number of secondary sources on the Arya Samaj (as).1 There remains, however, a curious gap in the secondary literature ( barring passing or selective references) on Pundit Lekhramji (1858–1897). An important early leader of the as, Lekhram wrote about 30 books and booklets. Most, if not all of his significant works, can also be found in the collected works in Urdu, (kulliyāt-e ārya musāfir or kulliyāt)(Lekhram 1904)2 and its transla- tion into Hindi (Lekhram 1963; 1972:i & ii). Reportedly, a forceful defender of ‘Hinduism’,3 Lekhram was neither the first nor the last of the reformist leaders of the as to engage Christians and Muslims. He was a product of his time when interfaith debates and polemical tracts could well be deeply dividing and con- flict generating. Muslim-Christian polemics in the broader colonial context did generate resistance from many in the as. Notwithstanding this context, was he really as ‘radical’ or ‘malicious’ an Arya as he is portrayed by Jones, (a leading scholar) and the Ahmadis4? Direct evidence from Lekhram’s own vast writings and life circumstances cut short by murder (interpreted as ‘an act of God’ by some), offers us a dif- ferent perspective. In order however, to investigate this position further, I have attempted in this preliminary work, to first review the existing second- ary sources that make passing references to Lekhram, and then, to examine two (out of 3) significant parts from Lekhram’s (kulliyāt, which scholars have largely ignored. These are parts where Lekhram goes into his ‘response’ to the Christian tracts directed against ‘Hindus/Hinduism’. My argument is that even 1 A Hindu reform organisation set up in 1875 by Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824–1883). 2 All primary sources are being cited in the text in order to avoid filling up the footnotes and repetitions to the same work. 3 Usually the terms used were dharm or ārya dharm. 4 Farquhar rightly includes the Ahmadiyya as part of his analysis of the reform movements in 19th century India. The as was part of the broader spectrum of revivalism that cut across reli- gions. Islam was no exception (see Farquhar, J.N., Modern Religious Movements in India (New York: The Macmillan Company 1915), pp. 91–100; pp. 347–351) and whilst the Ahmadiyya have not been considered mainstream Muslims by the majority, they especially carried the banner of Islam in many of the debates, polemical writings and counter-writings (Farquhar, Modern Religious Movements, 137–147). Ahmadiyya are not representative of Islam at large but they were the main interlocutors and dialogue partners with Christianity and the as especially in Punjab in the 19th century. They continue to encourage this practice not just in India, but also the Gold Coast, and hence characterised as ‘Muslim cosmopolitans’ (Hanson, J.H., The Ah- madiyya in the Gold Coast: Muslim Cosmoplitans in the British Empire (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2017). international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/25/2021 12:30:04PM via free access <UN> 200 Singh though Lekhram wrote in the form of a response to Christian polemics, his writings were meant for the insiders and their aim was pastoral. The Arya Samaj and Its Founder Several secondary sources on the as already exist. These cover a lot of ground including its history,5 characteristics as a ‘fundamentalist movement’,6 a move- ment marking the birth of the ‘Hindu consciousness’,7 its role in education,8 politics/nation-building,9 social change and śuddhī,10 the as abroad11 etc. For those unfamiliar with the movement a brief overview is in order. The as was inaugurated in 1875 in Bombay and spread quickly throughout North India fol- lowing its birth. It largely relied on indigenous ideas and personnel who were not necessarily direct products of missionary or colonial education systems. Jones speaks of two indigenous forms dissent in 19th century India: ‘Transition- al’ and ‘Acculturative’. He classifies the as under the Transitional Movements, because they were marked by the presence of a general lack of ‘anglicised lead- ers’ and a further lack of efforts at drawing from or relating to the colonial milieu.12 The as’ ‘dissent’ was expressed through reform in areas that included education, caste and gender. Theologically, its critique was directed inwards in offering a severe critique of idolatry through a careful refocus on monotheism 5 See G.S. Saxena, Arya Samaj Movement in India 1875–1847 (New Delhi: Commonwealth Publisher, 1990); L. Rai, A History of the Arya Samaj (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1967). 6 See J.E. Liewellyn, The Arya Samaj as a Fundamental Movement: A Study in Comparative Fundamentalism (New Delhi: Manohar, 1993). 7 See K.W. Jones, Arya Dharma: Hindu Consciousness in 19th Century Punjab (London/ Berkley: University of California Press, 1976). 8 M. Kishwar, ‘Arya Samaj and Women’s Education: Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Jalandhar,’ Eco- nomic and Political Weekly. 21 (17) 1986, 9–24; A. Kaur, ‘Gender and Education in Arya Samaj’ Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 72 (1) (2011), 836–840 and S.S. Pandit, A Crtical Study of the Contribution of the Arya Samaj to Indian Education, (Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, 1975). 9 R.S. Pareek, ‘Contribution of Arya Samaj in the Making of Modern India, 1875–1947’ (PhD thesis, the University of Rajasthan, 1965). 10 See R.K. Ghai, Śuddhī Movement in India: A study of its sociopolitical dimension (New Delhi: Commonwealth Publishers); M.N. Srinivas, Social Change in Modern India (Berke- ley: University of California Press, 1966). 11 See N. Vidyalankar, M. Somera, Arya Samaj and Indians abroad (New Delhi, India: Sar- vadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, 1975). 12 K.W. Jones, The New Cambridge History of India iii-1 Socio-religious reform movements in British India, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989/2003), 3. international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/25/2021 (2018) 198-224 12:30:04PM via free access <UN> ‘The Malicious Arya’? 201 rooted in the Vedas. Early on, however, the as was far from being a homog- enous movement. It manifested a diversity of perspectives, as for example, on the issue of the type of education one acquires (Anglo or Vedic) or the issue of diet followed (meat-eating or vegetarianism). We know these differences did cause an early split between the so-called anglicised Dayananda Anglo-Vedic (dav) and the traditionalist Gurukul factions around 1893. Although, the as, as an organisation, did not directly engage in politics, some early leaders such as Lala Lajpat Rai (1865–1928) and Swami Shradhananda (1856–1826) (a tradi- tionalist leader, succeeding Pundit Lekhram) were closely involved in politics with the Congress.13 Apart from focusing on the as, as a reformist movement, quite rightly, secondary literature also lays much emphasis on the founder, Dayananda Saraswati (1824–1883).14 Insiders’ accounts of him abound as well (as e.g., jīvancaritra-mahārshī swāmī) and, understandably, much has been said re- garding his ideas on Christianity and Islam. Two of the principal works of interest are the satyārtha prakāsh15 and the qur’ān kī chānbīn;16 these works were unsurprisingly also the basis for subsequent as debates with and writ- ings on Muslims and Christians. Dayananda’s approach toward spawning the ‘Hindu consciousness, involved a radical re-imagination of a religious commu- nity, ‘Hinduism’, a community oriented towards the Vedas as the foundational scriptures and it ‘absolute truth’. In his reconception, therefore, the Vedas were wrested out of the control of the Brahmin, so that the sacred scriptures could be universally accessed by all castes. This was the start of a socially, politically and ethically confident ‘Hinduism’ and whilst the as may not be as central in the public imagination today, it was undoubtedly quite significant a movement in the 19th and the early 20th century colonial context. The attempt in this paper is to focus on an early as leader who rose to prominence in Punjab and who was immortalised through his violent death, Pundit Lekhram.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com09/23/2021 05:34:30PM Via Free Access
    international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018) 198-224 brill.com/ijac ‘The Malicious Arya’? Pundit Lekhramjī’s Portrayal of Christianity in the 19th Century South Asia David Emmanuel Singh The Oxford Centre for Mission Studies [email protected] Abstract This paper focusses on the first two volumes of Pundit Lekhramji’s collected works, kulliyat. Its main argument is that contrary to the position of Ahmadis and secondary scholarship, Lekhram did not deserve to be labelled ‘malicious’ or a ‘radical’ princi- pally responsible for communalism. Jones is a fine scholar, but he may have allowed the perspective particularly rife among Ahmadis to colour his view of Lekhram. Be- sides, his view of Lekhram was only partial in that it relied largely on the material which forms part of volume 3 of kulliyat. What drove Lekhram was a need he saw for ‘pastoral’ support for the supposed ‘insiders’ – the protection of a reimagined Hin- du community (which included local converts to Christianity) from what he saw as the sustained campaigns of proselytization and polemical tracts. The intent was not necessarily to dialogue with Christian missionaries or padres but to persuade Indian converts to Christianity to ‘return home’. Lekhram’s attempts at ‘exposing’ Christianity however remained equally superficial as the padres’. However, in so doing he was not blind to issues in his own scriptures/traditions, something that requires another paper to elaborate Keywords Pundit Lekhram – Arya Samaj – Kulliyat – Shuddhi – Ahmadiyya © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/25424246-00102003Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:30PM via free access <UN> ‘The Malicious Arya’? 199 Introduction There are already a large number of secondary sources on the Arya Samaj (as).1 There remains, however, a curious gap in the secondary literature ( barring passing or selective references) on Pundit Lekhramji (1858–1897).
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Malicious Arya'? Pundit Lekhramjī's Portrayal Of
    international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018) 198-224 brill.com/ijac ‘The Malicious Arya’? Pundit Lekhramjī’s Portrayal of Christianity in the 19th Century South Asia David Emmanuel Singh The Oxford Centre for Mission Studies [email protected] Abstract This paper focusses on the first two volumes of Pundit Lekhramji’s collected works, kulliyat. Its main argument is that contrary to the position of Ahmadis and secondary scholarship, Lekhram did not deserve to be labelled ‘malicious’ or a ‘radical’ princi- pally responsible for communalism. Jones is a fine scholar, but he may have allowed the perspective particularly rife among Ahmadis to colour his view of Lekhram. Be- sides, his view of Lekhram was only partial in that it relied largely on the material which forms part of volume 3 of kulliyat. What drove Lekhram was a need he saw for ‘pastoral’ support for the supposed ‘insiders’ – the protection of a reimagined Hin- du community (which included local converts to Christianity) from what he saw as the sustained campaigns of proselytization and polemical tracts. The intent was not necessarily to dialogue with Christian missionaries or padres but to persuade Indian converts to Christianity to ‘return home’. Lekhram’s attempts at ‘exposing’ Christianity however remained equally superficial as the padres’. However, in so doing he was not blind to issues in his own scriptures/traditions, something that requires another paper to elaborate Keywords Pundit Lekhram – Arya Samaj – Kulliyat – Shuddhi – Ahmadiyya © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/25424246-00102003Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access <UN> ‘The Malicious Arya’? 199 Introduction There are already a large number of secondary sources on the Arya Samaj (as).1 There remains, however, a curious gap in the secondary literature ( barring passing or selective references) on Pundit Lekhramji (1858–1897).
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Malicious Arya'?
    international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018) 198-224 brill.com/ijac ‘The Malicious Arya’? Pundit Lekhramjī’s Portrayal of Christianity in the 19th Century South Asia David Emmanuel Singh The Oxford Centre for Mission Studies [email protected] Abstract This paper focusses on the first two volumes of Pundit Lekhramji’s collected works, kulliyat. Its main argument is that contrary to the position of Ahmadis and secondary scholarship, Lekhram did not deserve to be labelled ‘malicious’ or a ‘radical’ princi- pally responsible for communalism. Jones is a fine scholar, but he may have allowed the perspective particularly rife among Ahmadis to colour his view of Lekhram. Be- sides, his view of Lekhram was only partial in that it relied largely on the material which forms part of volume 3 of kulliyat. What drove Lekhram was a need he saw for ‘pastoral’ support for the supposed ‘insiders’ – the protection of a reimagined Hin- du community (which included local converts to Christianity) from what he saw as the sustained campaigns of proselytization and polemical tracts. The intent was not necessarily to dialogue with Christian missionaries or padres but to persuade Indian converts to Christianity to ‘return home’. Lekhram’s attempts at ‘exposing’ Christianity however remained equally superficial as the padres’. However, in so doing he was not blind to issues in his own scriptures/traditions, something that requires another paper to elaborate Keywords Pundit Lekhram – Arya Samaj – Kulliyat – Shuddhi – Ahmadiyya © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/25424246-00102003Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 02:05:12PM via free access <UN> ‘The Malicious Arya’? 199 Introduction There are already a large number of secondary sources on the Arya Samaj (as).1 There remains, however, a curious gap in the secondary literature ( barring passing or selective references) on Pundit Lekhramji (1858–1897).
    [Show full text]