'The Malicious Arya'? Pundit Lekhramjī's Portrayal Of

Home , Ahmadiyya, Pandit Lekh Ram, Prophethood (Ahmadiyya), Review of Religions

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

‘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 translation 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 conflict 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 different perspective. In order however, to investigate this position further, I have attempted in this preliminary work, to first review the existing secondary 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 religions. 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.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

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 movement 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 following 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 leaders’ 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.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access

‘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 traditionalist 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 regarding 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 writings on Muslims and Christians. Dayananda’s approach toward spawning the ‘Hindu consciousness, involved a radical re-imagination of a religious community, ‘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. His prolific writings have not yet been systematically studied by scholars and insiders alike although the publications of his collected work in Hindi translations by the national body of the as show signs of a reviving

13 See G.S. Chhatra, Advanced Study in the History of Modern India, Vol. iii (1920–1947) (New Delhi: Lotus Press, 2007); Chapter 11 – ‘Some Indian Personalities of the Time – Swamis Dayananda and Shraddhananda;’ C. Bhatt, Shraddhanand Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies and Modern Myths (Oxford/New York: Berg Publishers, 2001); J.F.T. Jordens, Swami Shraddhananda: His Life and Causes (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1981). 14 See Jordens, Swami Shraddhananda and S.R. Bakshi, Arya Samaj: Swami Dayanand and his Ideology (New Delhi: Anrnol Publisher, 1991). 15 See D. Saraswati, Satyārtha prakāsh (Ajmer: Vaidic Pustakalaya, 2005). 16 See D. Saraswati, qur’ān kī chānbīn (Muradabad: Vaidic Pustakalaya, 1925).

international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

202 Singh interest in him among the insiders. It is the Lekhram of the existing secondary sources that I am first examining.

Lekhram in Secondary Sources

Colonial, Missionary and Orientalist interventions each played a part in the construction of collective religious labels such as Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh.17 But such characterisations were also embraced by many Indians who sought a ‘Hindu’, ‘Sikh’ or ‘Muslim’ identity as a ‘mobilising ideology’.18 Jones is a significant western scholar to have covered the emergence of what he called ‘Hindu consciousness’ (ārya dharm). The as is an early example of this consciousness, which included a complex socio-religious reform motive.19 Jones’ doctoral work completed in 1966 from the University of California, Berkeley, may have been a source of his monograph published in 1976, where he inves- tigates the particular case of the as led social and religious reform in the Pun- jab.20 His was, arguably, an alternative historiography to the British imperial and the nationalist political history. Although his examination of a ‘resurgent ārya dharma’ focused particularly on the Punjab, similar works on Bengal and Maharashtra more or less complete the picture of ‘a modern and modernizing Hindu consciousness’.21 Jones refers to a selective list of Lekhram’s works in the third volume of kulliyāt,22 which to him support his position on the source of communalism in Punjab. He uses neither the kulliyāt nor the Hindi translation of the two parts of it. Besides, Jones’ article on communalism, relates exclusively to Le- khram’s writings on Islam, and none to Christianity, with which Lekhram’s

17 V-D. Veer, ‘Hindus: A superior race’, in Nations and Nationalism, 5 (3) (1999), 419–430. 18 S. Freitag, ‘Sacred symbol as mobilizing ideology: the north Indian search for a ‘Hindu’ Community’, in Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (4) (1980), 597–625; T. Ballantyne, ‘Looking back, looking forward: the historiography of Sikhism’, in New Zea- land Journal of Asian studies 4 (1) (2002), 5–29. 19 See Jones, Arya Dharma. 20 K.W. Jones, ‘The Arya Samaj in the Punjab: A study of social reform and religious revivalism, 1877–1902’, (PhD thesis in history from the Berkley, University of California, 1966). 21 Jones, Arya Dharma, p. xvii. 22 K.W. Jones, (“Communalism in the Punjab: The Arya Samaj Contribution,” in The Journal of Asian Studies 28 (1) (1968), 51) lists the following: Takzīb-e barāhīn aḥmadīya (refutation of the Ahmadiya arguments), nuskhā-e khab ṭ-e aḥmadīya (a prescription for the mad- ness of Ahmadiya), radd-e khilat-e-islām (rejection of the Islamic robe of honour), ibṭāl- e bashārāt-e aḥmadīya (refutation of Ahmadiyya statements). See Lekhram 1904.

international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access

‘The Malicious Arya’? 203 writings engaged with substantially. Jones’ position on Lekhram, besides being based on his reading of a small part of kulliyāt, seems focused on stressing his role in Punjabi communalism. In this, Jones’ conclusion aligned with the view that contemporary Muslims had of Lekhram and Ahmadis, which continues to hold until today.23 A relatively recent paper (cited below) shows that Lekhram did ‘ruffle feathers’. Most resources appear to have dismissed him as someone ‘spreading foul views’, ‘retaliating with malice and guile’ in actual en- counters (reportedly he visited ‘Qadian with the prime object of finding fault with Hazrat Ahmad’s concept of Islam’) and in print (as per Jone’s the list in footnote 20 above).24 Addison’s work on ‘the Ahmadiyya movement and its Western Propaganda’ is though dated, predictably, mentions Lekhram in passing as ‘a Brahmin leader of Arya Samaj’ and his ‘rather entertaining’ duel with the Ahmadiyya founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed (1835–1908) over an oft-repeated trope concerning the ‘competitive prophecy’.25 The incident is well known and appears in the literature of both camps (with significant twists highlighting their respective narratives and interests), as well as some academic works as Addison’s. In this context, Jones represents Lekhram as someone having ‘a strongly anti-Muslim bias’. He is presented as a ’radical’, ‘bold’, ‘aggressive’, ‘outspoken’, ‘self-conscious and militant Hindu’; and as someone making ‘a career of his prejudice’.26 It appears almost as if Lekhram invited his detractors to murder him! He is blamed for being partly responsible for the increasing communalisation in Punjab.27 Jones’ view has had echoes both in contemporary and recent secondary works (more generally on the as).28

23 Many secondary sources have come to light on the Ahmadiyya, originally founded by Mir- za Ghulam Ahmad (1838–1908). Hanson’s recent work points out that Ahmadiyya ‘defies precise classification’ with some thinking of it as a Sufi order and others identifying it as a Muslim reform movement. The founder saw himself as a Mahdi (Messiah) tasked with the call to reform and revive Islam. Hanson characterises those following him as ‘Muslim cosmopolitans who engaged Christians and others.’ (Hanson, Muslim Cosmoplitans, 95) This is borne out by primary evidence both in terms of the Mirza’s own polemical writings and also Lekhram’s writings on Ahmadiyya, the only Muslim group he engaged with in writing (see Lekhram 1904.iii). 24 Ahmad 1984: 39ff. 25 Addison 1929:10. 26 Jones, “Communalism in the Punjab”, 51. 27 Jones, “Communalism in the Punjab”, 45. 28 Such as N. Barrier, ‘The Arya Samaj and Congress Politics in the Punjab, 1894–1908’, in The Journal of Asian Studies, 26 (3) (1967), 363–379, B.V-D., Linden Moral Languages from Co- lonial Punjab: The Singh Sabha, Arya Samaj and Ahmadiyahs (New Delhi: Manohar, 2008)

international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

204 Singh

How was Lekhram viewed by as insiders writing about him? One can per- ceive a reflection of an emerging ‘Hindu masculinity’29 in the publication of an ode following Lekhram’s murder in March 1897: ‘he soaked his mortal body in the blood [of martyrdom]; but [in doing so] he saved himself [lit. his forehead; māthā] from the ignominy of faint-heartedness (buzdilī)’.30 This, over thirty five page celebratory ode for Lekhram, was brought out as an extended obituary in June 1897 by Baburam Sharma of Etawah in North India. Given its proximity to Lekhram’s murder, this is understandably emotionally moving, but this sets the tone for much of the subsequent insider commentary on Lekhram. Thus, his death was represented as a ‘sacrifice for dharma’ and Lekhram was immortalised as a ‘brave soldier of dharma’ (dharmvīr).31 Much of the secondary scholarship on Lekhram, in my view, selectively buys into this sort of insiders’ emotional representation of Lekhram, not least Jones who holds Lekhram and his ‘radical school’ responsible for the enhanced level of communalism in Pun- jab. What is apparent to me is that even among Lekhram’s sympathisers and followers (despite the martial and masculine imageries), the intension was not to be the aggressive attackers but to offer in most cases, reasoned responses to the attacks from outside against Indian scriptures/traditions. These responses and editorial commentaries, on balance, appear fairly measured as is evident from the following comment: ‘having been offended [by Dayananda’s re- evaluation of Muslim interpretation of the Qur’an in satyārth prakāṣa] from time to time Muslim intelligentsia offered several books against it.’32 Pundit Camupatī’s (d.1937) work caudhavī kā cānd was a response to a Mus- lim Mawlwi’s ‘objections’ against satyārth prakāsh.33 It represents a stage of

and D. Hardiman, “Purifying the Nation: the Arya Samaj in Gujarat 1895–1930,” in The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 44 (1) (2007), 41–65. 29 See Gupta ‘Articulating Hindu Masculinity and Femininity: ‘Śuddhī’ and ‘Sangathan’ Movements in United Provinces in the 1920s’ in Economic and Political Weekly 33 (13) (1998), 727–735 for more on the historical roots of ‘masculinity’ in the colonial period. It shows how certain ‘gender icons, images and themes’ were used for ‘constructing and ne- gotiating a Hindu identity’. One of the early movements it draws attention to was śuddhī. See also S. Banerjee, Make Me a Man: Masculinity, Hinduism and Nationalism (Albany: suny Press, 2005); for more on the ideas of ‘warrior soldier’ as representations of ‘Hindu masculinity”. 30 B. Sharma Dharmabalidan: dharmvir p. lekhramji aryapathic ka swargavas (Etawah: Brah- ma Press, 1967), pp. 3–39. 31 Sharma, Dharmabalidan, pp. 3–39. 32 Sharma Dharmabalidan, pp. 3–39. 33 P. Camupatī Caudhavī kā chānd, tr. in Hindi Pundit Shivajsinghji (Hindon: Sri Ghoodmal Prahlādkumār Ȃrya Dharmārth Nyās, 2008), p. 5.

international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access

‘The Malicious Arya’? 205 apologetics inspired by Lekhram in highlighting the need for understanding the significance of Lekhram in the context of continuing attacks.34 The significance of this book is equated by the editor of caudhavī kā cānd with the achievement of Lekhram himself: ‘After dharmvīr P. Lekhramjī there have only been two other books on Arya principles (siddhānt)’. These books, it is asserted, were not considered significant (by the dominant faction in the as) because they were ‘in response to a Muslim religious doctor and concerned Islam’.35 The commentator considered this an erroneous conclusion because, he argued, Camupatī’s works drew from Lekhram and were equally of ‘lasting value’ as Lekhram’s. That is to say that, the aim of these sources and those be- hind their composition, was to respond ‘to those who oppose ārya siddhānt’, and to show that what they produced in writing therefore remains valid.36 Both the Urdu and Hindi version of kulliyāt contain Pundit Shraddhnan- da’s statement on the context, and a narrative on Lekhram’s wife. The latter is significant as it shows that whilst in some spheres of as thinking and practice (engagement through dialogue or writing rather than capitulation under attack and śuddhī [purification – reconversion]), the emergent Hindu masculinity may have been present, there also existed a refreshing emphasis on the equality of sexes/castes, universal education, prohibition of child marriage, purdah, and other such practices. Shraddhananda acknowledges here that Lekhram was single-minded and in contexts of actual dialogue appeared ‘over- enthusiastic’. But he was its opposite in writing – ‘possessing serious depth and patience’. (Lekhram 1963 i.4). Shraddhananda’s introduction to Lekhram’s work also contains several pieces of evidence that suggest that the main aim of Lekhram’s writings was directed towards ‘seekers’ represented as dharmpipāsujan (truth-seekers). It was the responsibility of the āryapuruṣ (Arya activists) to make sure the writings reached those who were seeking help (or those that as activists believed were seeking help). The hope was that this outreach among the ‘seekers’ would be enough to ‘rescue the āryasantān (descendants of the āryas) from the Muslim and Christian proselytization’ (Lekhram 1963 i:7). In this context, the task of tahrīr (persuasion through explanatory and defensive texts) was fundamental rather than takrīr or disputation. The abridged biography ends as follows:

See that the work of tahrīr is not stopped…. The attacks and objections of those who oppose [vedicdharm] need comprehensive answers and this is

34 Camupatī, Caudhavī kā chānd, p. 30. 35 Camupatī, Caudhavī kā chānd, p. 30. 36 Camupatī,Caudhavī kā chānd, p. 30.

international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

206 Singh

all our responsibility. May the Supreme Father, the Supreme Spirit give us strength and motivation so we may fulfil our dharm (religious duty) with dignity (maryādā). lekhram 1963 i.14

The Portrayal of Christianity in Kulliyāt

Cornille has suggested that missionary views were not static, in that, these changed over time (from 18th to the 20th centuries) through ‘linguistic devel- opments’ and ‘theological shifts’ to which missionaries themselves contribut- ed.37 However, even though their manners changed, most continued to view Hinduism from a ‘normative perspective’. Their approach involved ‘selective use of Hindu traditions’ and often ‘brazen and unreserved judgments of the other’.38 The 19th century Orientalist writings offer many images of India and Hindus as being ‘mysterious and dark’ and Indian thought as ‘essentially ir- rational’ ().39 The missionary views were even more openly blunt in e.g. con- demning idolatry as ‘disgustingly immoral’, ‘irrationally superstitious, ‘heathen abominations’.40 In relating Lekhram’s writings to such a prevailing narrative, the over- whelming impression I have is that much of his writings were in the form of a ‘response’ to the expressed missionary ‘views’ about Hinduism but that these writings mainly addressed the ‘insiders’, which included Indian converts to Christianity.

Kulliyāt: Intended Audience Those scholars that use Lekhram’s writings, as does Jones, in passing or as part of the larger discussion on the as, rely on a narrow band of works such as takzīb-e barāhīn aḥmadīya that engage exclusively with the Ahamdiyya and not the totality of his works on Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and the Brahmo Samaj (another reform movement). I rely on not just the kulliyāt (works

37 Cornille ‘Missionary Views of Hinduism’ in Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies 21 (9) (2008), 28–32. 38 Cornille, ‘Missionary Views of Hinduism’, 28–32. 39 P. Lamont & C. Bates ‘Conjuring images of India in nineteenth-century Britain,’ in Social History, 32 (3) (2007), 308. 40 A. Copley, Religion in Conflict: Ideology, Cultural Contact and Conversion (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997).

international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access

‘The Malicious Arya’? 207

collected by the Punjāb Ȃrya Pratinidhī Sabhā) in Urdu, published in 1904, but also the Hindi translation of parts 1 and 2 published in 1963 and 1972 respec- tively. The Hindi translations by Pundits Jagatkumarjī śāśtrī and śanti Prakāśjī, were published by the sarvādeśik sabhā (the National Assembly at New Delhi) and not by the regional Punjāb Ȃrya Pratinidhī Sabhā. Clearly therefore, the Hindi versions have also been widely regarded as reliable sources for use within the as. Indeed, the quality of the Hindi translations is indisputable having been attempted by qualified Pundits who enjoyed ahigh status within the as. Two of the three parts in kulliyāt include substantial material on Christiani- ty (Lekhram 1904:1–186; 187–325), whereas the third part deals mainly with Ah- madiyya (and Islam) (Lekhram 1904:326-end). There are undeniably sections in kulliyāt that appear in tone to be polemical as we see in the reflection on the Christian view of God and Jesus, the notion of the Son of God, the notion of Jesus being sinless, his miracles, trinity, and salvation. Arguably, however, these were not meant for Christian missionaries (padres) but for the Indian converts to Christianity who were considered ‘insiders’. What predominates in this collection (understandably disparate with each having its own context and immediate purpose) is the content that was, I argue, meant to review and re-interpret specific ideas that related to the specific weaknesses of ‘Hinduism’ highlighted by Christian missionaries. Some examples of such contents can be found in the detailed discussion of the tarīkh-e dunyā (history of creation) (Lekhram 1904.1–142), biographies of Krishna and Ram the quintessential ava- tars (incarnation) (Lekhram 1904.143–148; 207–219) and another substantial book (not present in the Urdu version though included in the Hindi version (Lekhram 1963 i.222–401; 1972 ii.1–137). Clues to the intended audience are strewn across Lekhram’s writings. These suggest that his engagements with the padres or mawlwis through shashtrartha (debates) or prolific publications were not meant to humiliate or seek converts but rather to ‘save Hindus’. One of his writings concerned the founder of the as. Lekhram played a significant role in fulfilling the need for a biographical account of the as founder, Dayananda Saraswati. An insider’s account claims that this was ‘not just desired by the āryasamajasth puruṣ (as members) but also by ‘ordinary Hindu, Muslims and Christians’ (Lekhram 1989:1). Whilst this level of widespread demand is possibly an exaggeration, it is significant that the decision was taken at a time when the fault-lines were appearing within the as and reportedly, conversions to Islam and Christianity were growing. The reference to ‘Muslims and Christians’ is especially noteworthy in this context. Why would ordinary Muslims and Christians want to read Dayananda’s biography that Lekhram was commissioned to write? One possibility is that the

international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

208 Singh

reference here is to the local converts or to be converts to Islam and Christian- ity. One finds evidence for this position in the editorial to Lekhram’s biography by Mushiram Jigyasu (written in 1897), which ends with an appeal:

O my estranged Muhammadi and Christian friends! You parted the hands of your own brothers and clasped those of the others due to the darkness of avidya (ignorance)…. But now the darkness has parted… read the life- story of your brother who did not preserve his own life for yours…. lekhram 1989:17.

The desire to preserve and protect the Hindus and converts is also evident from the final benediction by Lekhram himself: ‘O learned brothers! Study the history in its finer details! Is this [life of Dayananda] not an astonishing miracle…? O gracious Father! Give strength to everyone irrespective of their class, temper- ament, social group so they may have the ability to consider Dayananda’s life and mission…’ (Lekhram 1989:17). We know from reports, Lekhram was quick to respond to news of proselytization or a possible conversion of Hindus or a possibility of dialogue (śaśtrārth) and he would drop everything to attend to these (Lekhram 1989:2–3). Reportedly, those coming in contact with Muslims or Christians had many questions about their own heritage and activists like Lekhram eager to provide such pastoral support were in short supply; hence, ‘necessitated by such [urgent] needs, his biographical work had to be suspend- ed for some time’ (Lekhram 1989:3).

‘Response’ to Christian Polemics: Select Examples The 19th century India was rife with bold polemics in words and writings. Le- khram travelled extensively throughout undivided India (hence known among the insiders as āryamusāfir) and would have been familiar with the legacy of the Great Agra Debate (10–11 April 1854) between Rahmatullah al-Khairanwi (1818–1891) and Karl Gottlieb Pfander (1803–1865). An obvious evidence for this comes from the title of a pamphlet by Lekhram titled, iẓhār al-ḥaq (Lekhram 1904:620–622), which is more than mere coincidence as it reflects Rahmatul- lah’s work in out-matching Pfander’s mizān al-ḥaqq, namely, iẓhār al-ḥaqq.41 Clearly, therefore, as reformers drew from this legacy or at least its form in

41 See R. Khairanwi, iẓhār al-ḥaqq tr. in Urdu by Akbar Ali baibal se qur’ān tak (Deoband: Hafizi Book Depot, 1967) and K.G. Pfander, The mizān al-ḥaqq or Balance of Truth tr. in English R.H. Weakley (London: Church Missionary House, 1866).

international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access

‘The Malicious Arya’? 209 print when as began experiencing similar open challenges in words and writings (takzīb-e barāhīn aḥmadīya being just one example).42 Christian missionaries may have been guilty of bold polemics but so also were many others including as activists: ‘Street preaching is very much in vogue here now-a-days. All along Anarkali, Hindu, Mohamedan [Muslim], Christian, Arya [Samaj] and Brahmo [Samaj] preachers may be seen earnestly expatiating on the excellences of their respective creeds, surrounded by crowds of apparently attentive listeners’.43 As part of his explanation of the Christian polemics, Lekhram wrote a sort of extended pamphlet for those he considered as the insiders. I see from a passing reference in sadāqat-e uṣūl that Lekhram wrote it after reading a polemical tract by an unnamed padre:

I have carefully leafed through this pamphlet and this is evident to me that the Punditjī [respectful reference to the padres who composed it] has largely relied on his active imagination in presenting his refutation of the solid textual arguments [in Hindu scriptures]. We have among us able intellectuals who trust these arguments and their faith in these is not in any need for my support. lekhram, 1904.287 & 1972 ii.397

This booklet titled sadāqat-e uṣūl wa-ta‘līm-e ārya samāj or satya siddhānta awr ārya samāj kī śikśā (1904:287–325 & 1972 ii.396–416) brings to light several interesting details from Lekhram’s perspective. I have outlined three of these below:

Padres’ ‘ignorance of their own scriptures/traditions’

The overarching tone in Lekhram’s writings, despite what he perceived as the sustained Christian missionary polemics, appears to a Christian scholar like me to be respectful in tone.44 Some may consider this patronizing, but

42 See M.G. Ahmad, barāhīn-e aḥmadīyya: Arguments in support of the Holy Quran & the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad i/ii (Tilford: Islam International Publica- tions Ltd., 2012/1880). 43 Lahore Tribune 1889. 44 In commenting on the well-known fulfilment theologian, Farquhar whose work I cited above (Farquharm Modern Religious Movements, 1915), Sharpe has spoken of much of the 19th century missionary theology being based on exclusive Christian assumptions. This gradually changed to allow a level of sympathy with room for recognising and understanding the other, which evolved later into the formal ‘inter-religious dialogue’ approach E.J. Sharpe, Not to Destroy but to Fulfil: The Contribution of J.N. Farquhar to Protestant

international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

210 Singh

Lekhram starts by asserting that the padres’ views owed to ‘misunderstand- ings’ (nāfahmī or nāshamjhī) and not intentional misrepresentation (Lekhram 1904.287 & 1972 ii.396). As a literary device, Lekhram writes this book as if addressing all padres who wrote such tracts. The contents however were only meant for the insiders and for the converts from Hinduism whom he sought to win back:

You are a Christian and you claim to be a truthful Christian. So dear Punditjī [the padres] before casting aspersion over the sadāqat-e uṣūl (fundamental principles) [of vedic mat] in your writings should you not have picked up the injīl (the Gospels)? Your khudāwand (Lord) Jesus Christ says this: ‘do not find fault with the others lest they find faults with you. Just as you find faults in others you will be found wanting and the measure you use for others will be used for you. The speck you see in the eyes of your brother…Mt 7.1–5’. lekhram, 1904.287/n.d.396–7

In other words, the objections the padres raised against the Vedic Tradition could also be applied by fair-minded persons to the Bible. The padres’ polemics was a baffling example of disobedience to Jesus’ command to the followers to attend to ‘the log in their own eyes’ before attending to ‘the speck in the others’ eyes’. Lekhram also expressed to his readers his bafflement at the manner in which the padres turned ‘a religion of love’ to something as hateful as ‘tactless polemics’. His readers needed to be vigilant about this. One example should suffice: One of the criticisms of the padre in question (page 2, line 14–16 of the original pamphlet) was: ‘Claim alone is the basis of their [Hindus] faith’; ‘Can such a baseless tradition (mat) give succour to one’s heart?’ Lekhram appeared deeply wounded by this. In a satirical response, he reminded his readers to re- member: Are ‘this padre’s love-full words a sample of Christian teachings?’ He continued, ‘They [padres] write freely against the āryas without solid proofs. Is their saviour giving them the motivation for such engagements?’ From his perspective, he was seeing among the padres a complete lack of awareness of their own traditions; and their views appeared discordant with their claim to love and the practice of engagement with Hindus. He invited his readers, therefore,

Missionary Thought in India before 1914. Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia v. (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1965); Faith Meets Faith: Some Christian Attitudes to Hinduism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (London: scm Press, 1977); and “J.N. Farquhar”, in Mission Lega- cies: Biographical Studies of Leaders of the Modern Missionary Movement, edited by Gerald H. Anderson et al. (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), pp. 290–296.

international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access

‘The Malicious Arya’? 211 to bear this dissonance in mind and not be fooled by the apparent claims of love; instead always check how actual claims matched real lives of the padres (Lekhram 1972 ii.425–426).

Padres’ ‘ignorance of Hindu scriptures/traditions’

Lekhram put down the padres’ ‘ignorance’ concerning Hindu scriptures and traditions to ‘their misguided zeal or prejudice’ against ‘an ancient tradition’, which remained beyond their reach or comprehension. Lekhram seemed puz- zled, however by not just their ‘ill-prepared efforts’ to criticise the Vedas and the Vedic tradition (including subsequent scriptures) but their ‘graceless manners’ in both written and spoken discourse about this tradition. They appeared to have made up their mind even before seriously considering the other tradition and adopted ‘dishonest strategies’ to yield the conclusions they desired. One example of this should suffice: one of the assumptions the Christian pam- phlets held concerned the Buddha, ‘an ancient Pundit’ who had rejected the Vedas and did not accept it to be ‘the word of God’. The padres thought of this to be an incontrovertible proof that ‘the Vedas were not from God’:

It would have been greatly desired if before committing to the conclusion, you had seriously considered how many years have passed since the Buddha. You agree that the Buddha appeared 632 years before Christ who appeared a little over 1887 years ago. If so then Buddha appeared about 2519 years ago. Since according to you the [last of the] Vedas came in to being around 2417 years ago, Buddha, according to you was in body about 102 years before the end of the Vedas… [and if so] why did he not just say that the Vedas were being written in his own time and were therefore not as ancient as it is claimed. The Buddha did not offer his critique in a suspiciously round-about way. It appears therefore even he, like you [padres], did not fully comprehend things or knowingly hid the truth. If he did so where is the surprise? He was an atheist [and ‘an enemy of the vedmat’] and so why would he accept the word of God [the Vedas]? lekhram 1904.290 & 1972 ii.401

In Lekhram’s mind, this was evidence of the ‘respected padres”45 ‘prejudiced conclusion’; since instead of evaluating the content of the Vedas that claim to

45 Previously addressed as ‘dear Punditjī’.

international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

212 Singh be the word of God in a responsible manner, they were relying on an ancient atheistic critics of ‘the believers in God’ and ‘his word’ to support their view.

Offering ‘firm solutions’

Lekhram here offers not just a critique of the padres but also some ‘firm solutions’ for his readers or seekers (qarār waq‘a-e ‘ilāz or yathārth nidān) (Lekh- ram 1904.287 & 1972 ii.396). In a discourse attributed to a padre (serialised in sadāqat-e uṣūl as n.3) we read about another ‘unsubstantiated claim’ about ‘the God of the Vedas being unjust’. Lekhram testifies to carefully reading this claim to understand the basis of the padre’s claim. He says the following in his response for the readers to see for themselves the weaknesses of such arguments:

The four Veda agree that God created man in four varna namely, mouth, arm, thigh and feet. I would like my readers to especially note that in speaking of the jātī we are not legitimising the origins of the Brahmins [the caste system]. My Arya brothers assure me – this is the meaning of the Vedas and this has been written in clear words in all of the four Ve- das – the origins of man thus described in puruṣasukt [hymn 10.90 of ṛg veda dedicated to the Cosmic Being, puruṣa] ….is right and we agree with padrejī. Where we diverge from him is when having been influenced by prejudice he fills in it a creative but false turn. Ȃryā Samāj accepts that based on the capacity of individuals people often fall in different socio- economic categories but if anyone uses this to claim caste privileges then we reject this. We consider such a division of humanity as the caste against just order… We see however that the other type of division based on function and capacity to be something that reflects the reality of the human condition on the ground. lekhram 1972 ii.434–5.

The padre supposedly draws attention to the allusions to the rājpūts as a caste in the ṛg veda and argues that the texts on jātī46 have always been understood in the sense of a religiously legitimised system of caste and not in the functional sense the as endorses. Lekhram writes:

We are deeply saddened to see that the padre has engaged in such a fruitless proof as mere references from the texts. It only exposes his

46 Caste or sub-caste often related to a traditional job or function.

international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access

‘The Malicious Arya’? 213

ignorance. The word that is used in ṛg ved section 7 which the padre saw as the Rajput caste only means ‘the house of the king’ and not the jātī called Rajput. The khshatrīyas belong to all of the four varn and there is no separate fifth varn. It is clear therefore that the meaning of the varn has always denoted different functions exactly as the Ȃryās believe and not as it is propagated by you… [the roles diverge] not based on janm (birth) but based on karm (action/role/function one plays in society based on one’s capacity and readiness). lekhram 1972 ii.435.

The point seems to be that someone way down in functional hierarchy could by their own effort or those around him rise to any role they desired. One last example from section number 4 of the padre’s criticism from sadāqat-e uṣūl should suffice. The padre claimed to search for the presence or the evidence of God’s activity in the Vedas. His search had two rules: Are the Vedas revelatory (‘ilhāmī) and are they without origin (anādī)? Do the Vedas’ represent the knowledge (gyān) of God or not? Lekhram’s advice for his readers was as follows:

Aryas do not think of the revelatory nature of the Veda in exactly the same ways as the other Holy books. The Vedas are the gyān (knowledge) of God. What this means is that the Vedas are not only ilhami but also anādī. This is because God is anādī and there was no time when he was devoid of gyān…. It is important for me to say this…. veda means gyān. The Vedas are not reducible to a piece of paper, ink, and letters in a book. Gyān is different in essence from these signs… only gyān contained in the Veda is anādiī [and not its physical form in a book]… This Veda in the form of gyān…was brought to light (prakāśit) by the just God not through [an angel of revelation] Jibra’il or Gabriel; and this is the light of the world (jagat), the source of the true dharma (1972 ii.441–2).

Critique of Christianity: Selected Themes Lekhram also attempted to engage with some aspects of Christianity (see part 2 of kulliyāt in Lekhram 1904:188–287). His engagement was however not in any sense rigorous. He could be faulted therefore with the same sort of criticism he levelled against the padres. His engagements with Christianity appear in any case not as deep as they are with Islam (see part 3 of kulliyāt in Lekhram 1904:326–689). Much of what he has to say on this topic in part 2 is

international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

214 Singh contained in a relatively short book, titled kriscian mat darpan (Reflections on the Christian Tradition) (Lekhram 1904:220–257; 1972:ii.225–310). This is not as substantial as part 3 containing Lekhram’s ‘response’ to the Ahmadis (Le- khram 1904:326–689), which is noteworthy. Its message is rather plain and direct. The imagined readers of this book, namely the Indian Christians, are not described, not even in a veiled manner, as dasyūs (those playing menial roles) or rakśaś (meat-eating beings) (arguably some mawlwīs and padres did in his view fall into this category!) but as ‘brothers’:

This world has many different matmatāntar and all of these invite people towards them. Among these is the Christian mat. The contents of this book concern this mat. We request our gracious Christian brothers with utmost humility that they should not look at the appeal [here] from a communal angle instead from the angle of fairness and truth. [I urge them] to study it [this book] in light of the solid facts. While reading [I urge them] not to forget philosophy. Science [too] is a supporter of the truth and do not let this be missing from you. lekhram 1972:ii.225.

The readers, as noted before, were considered brothers needing persuasion to reconsider their decision to follow Christianity. It was an attempt to encourage them to consider ‘returning home’ (gharvāpasī):

Those of us that had parted company for ages have now met [again].The differences in our views on dharm are in reality [rather] fixed; how nice it would be if [all of us] were under the control of the [real] truth and were able to give up selfishness in using knowledge and science to lead to [a final] decision. As members of the Ȃryā Samāj we have a clear conscience and we are present together in order to assist [you] with [your decision to] depart from untruth…. Our intent is not to grieve anyone. We recog- nise the great usefulness of the Bible for ages; this has been your gift. May the Father of the world, the Great Spirit make us all his beloved so we may eliminate untruth in light of the truth. lekhram 1972:ii.225–6. kriscian mat darpan contains eight chapters on topics that Lekhram hoped his readers would reconsider in light of his arguments: i. Masih was not the Son of God; ii. Masih was not without sin; iii. Miracles of Masih; iv. The God of the Bible is neither gracious nor just instead he is oppressive; v. How did Chris- tianity spread in the world?; vi. The Trinity and its origins; vii. Enquiry into

international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access

‘The Malicious Arya’? 215

Christian denominations and the Bible; and, viii. The events of the century. Given the constraints of space, I am focusing here on two of these:

Spread of Christianity

The main argument of Lekhram’s chapter on this issue is simple. Some Chris- tian padres misuse history in communicating a one sided perspective on the extent, means and impact of Christianity’s spread around the world. It is usually the ordinary people and young children who get ‘coaxed’ or ‘snared’ by the ‘respected padres’ who offer ‘Christianity as the true alternative’. The fact that it is a ‘world religion’ is offered as ‘an open proof’ of its truth. They also claim that its spread ‘leads to peace in their state’ and that they ‘preach from the Bible in peace’; they never use force or inducement as a strategy to convert: ‘they never use the sword [which was/is the standard accusation against Muslims] but rather use wise means of persuasion.’ The impact of their work, they argue, is here for everyone to see: ‘the blessings of the kriscian mat are many [which include]: the press, railways, engines…the electric wire, medicines, schools and colleges’ (Lekhram 1972:ii.278). Lekhram’s view was that the Indian Christians (considered brothers and sis- ters) have been ‘misled’. His plea to them was that Christianity was not exactly what the padres claimed for it and this was what he sought to demonstrate. A few examples of his argument should suffice: i. Christianity is not as widespread as it is claimed and the reality is that there are other religions with significant numbers of followers of which Buddhism is one. ii. In many European countries people are actually rejecting Christianity; iii. There is much in print emerging from the West that shows that the insiders are increasingly writing against the Bible iv. Peace that prevails in Britain is not because of Christianity but because of the presence of order and good parliamentary system47 [ v. Europe under the religious heads for centuries was not an ideal ‘Kingdom of God’ as claimed by some padres. vi. Christianity’s hands have also been bloody in examples of the use of the sword in Christian religious wars48

47 Lekhram was writing well before the start of the world wars. 48 For example, the crusades which he must have read or heard about in the 19th century debates between Muslims and Christians.

international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

216 Singh vii. Christian denominations have often been in conflict as has been the case of the Protestants and the Catholics49 viii. With the Roman Emperor Constantine (272–337 ce) came the era of Christianity as a political force.

Lekhram does not reveal his sources but he seems accurate in pointing out that this change involved not just the patronage of Christianity (a persecuted religion) but also that the state power was used to silence dissent (heresy).50 Lekhram asserts, there were cases of dispossession of ‘the non-believers’ (kāfir) and the Christian state’s power and its resources were used to attract converts (Lekhram 1972:ii.279–280) (though it seems more likely that conversion was seen as an attractive option by the subjects). Lekhram then proceeds into a litany of ‘evidence’ systematically through the ages with specific reference and sources available to him in his day before seeking to ‘expose’ the less than honest ‘handiworks’ of the padres. He quotes from a padre’s writing on the topic of ‘the jātīs of Hindus’51: ‘Christians must not touch those from lower jātīs if there are upper caste Hindus are present; but if there are only Christians present there then there is no issue [in touching them].’ Another example of ‘dishonesty’ is cited from the life of a well-known 17th century Italian Jesuit missionary to South India, Robert de Nobili (1577– 1656)52 known among Indian Christian theologians for his radical translation/ adaptation of Christianity. He is proudly ‘presented by the padres as a Brahmin from Europe’. He claimed he had come in order to ‘teach his brother Brahmins new knowledge whilst also learning from them’. Lekhram continues his list of evidence of ‘deceit’ which I am paraphrasing as follows: He pretended to follow the rules of this jātī [Brahmin] which included the way of dressing complete with the candan (sandalwood paste) on the forehead [a sign of Brahmins]. He assumed a Brahmin name (Tattvā Bodhāgya Swāmī) and even followed the rit- uals appearing on the surface to be Brahminic. He extended his ‘deception’ by ‘fabricating’ an old parchment in Sanskrit to show that the Brahmins of Rome

49 About which Lekhram must have been aware of. 50 The idea that Constantine was a ‘Christian Emperor’ is indisputable. This involved playing a role in defining and maintaining orthodoxy and eliminating heresy. See ‘Constan- tine i.’ New World Encyclopedia. 2017 at

international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access

‘The Malicious Arya’? 217 were more ancient than that from India and that they were from Brahama himself53 (Lekhram 1972:ii.84–285).

God of the Bible

The specific details given with names of the padres, suggest that Lekhram was aware of some of their writings and appears to have keenly followed them. For example, a padre named ‘Khadak Singhjī’ is said to have given six discourses to which Lekhram gave his response in his book sadāqat-e usūl wa-ta’līm-e ārya samāj (Lekhram 1904.287–326). In writing about God’s love and justice, this padre found it necessary to juxtapose it against what he saw as the opposite of the fundamental principles of Hinduism. One can see the details of Lekh- ram’s response in the book above, where he gathered evidence, as he saw it, of ‘cruelty’, ‘oppression’ and ‘injustice’ in the Bible. His readings of these passages are neither deep nor sympathetic. There is no evidence of his use of ei- ther the western critical scholarship (something many Muslims were known to employ)54 or insiders’ commentaries on those passages to also reflect on the views of the Christian insiders. There is also no evidence of (at least not in the source I am using) a dialogue for clarification with the padres concerned. But the selections of the biblical passages, mostly from the Old Testament (but also some from the New Testament), do appear to be deeply problematic in the manner in which they are strung together under specific themes. This is interesting though, as it gives one an insight into how existing positions in the as informed Lekhram’s perspectives. In his chapter 4 of the kriscian mat darpan, Lekhram underlined what he identified as ‘solid evidence’ from the Bible. The form of the presentation here appears rhetorical. It asks the padres the big question: ‘reverend padres! Have you thought about this at all? What is the teaching of Christianity on this issue?’ (Lekhram 1972:ii.269). This is not a dialogue with the padres. The purpose of the treatise is not even to refute with the intention to challenge the ‘opposi- tion’. The answers he gives, therefore, are directed towards mostly those who need to be protected from the padres or those who need encouragement to return home (gharvāpasī). This idea has resurfaced with the revival of Hindu nationalism in recent times which demonstrates how ideas rooted in the late 19th century context bounce back but often conveying differing meanings and furthering dissimilar purposes. Far from the defensive and apologetic context

53 Brahamā is said to be svayambhū (the Self-Born) and thus, the Creator; vāgīaśa (the High- est Speech or the Word) and thus the originator of the veds. 54 See for example, Rahmatullah, iẓhār al-ḥaqq.

international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

218 Singh in which the as operated in the 19th century within the backdrop of missionary Christianity and colonialism, what we are witnessing today in terms of ‘home- coming’ is led by or with the blessings of the very people who are in political power. A case in point is the supposedly unforced ‘home-coming’ and śuddhī (purification ceremony used to mark this return) of five families of Adi Dravi- dar colony in South India. The apparent means involved were persuasive arguments and an appeal to loyalty for the ‘mother religion’.55 Given the prevailing political agenda involving the issue of conversion, it seems doubtful if these re-conversions were ‘unforced’ and involved mere appeals to conscience.56 In writing about love and justice, Lekhram quoted extensively from several passages of the Bible such as: Is. 19.14; 29.17; 44.18; Job 29.17; 12.17; 17.4; Rom 11.7/8. He then writes:

Do you sense anything to do with love or justice from the proof just given [from the biblical verses]? Absolutely not! The guilty are not punished. And they said, ‘He gave his life for you’. This did not ensure mukti for all; but only to those who had iman in the divinity of the masih and took baptism. [Can] his blood not remove the stains of sin without the sprinkling of water [baptism]? The power to believe too, it appears based on the evidence above, is not in the hands of man. It is as if [this power rests] in the hands of him [God] or with someone [more] powerful before whom even the Spirit of God quakes. Who is he? [Is this] haḍrat shaytān dīn who is also the destroyer of imān whose power has been acknowledged even by God as follows? ‘…you urged me to harm him, i.e. Job, without cause’ (Job 2.3). lekhram 1972:ii.271.

In writing about the claim that the God of the Bible is gracious, Lekhram further cites a number of other passages from different parts of the Bibles: Jer. 63.17; 1 Sam 15.3; Is. 17.11; Jonah 3.17; Jer.16… to argue that it appears ‘this God

55 The Hindu, “15 Dalits Christians ‘reconverted’ in ‘ghar wapsi’ ceremony”, 21 January, 2016. 56 See I. Vandevelde, ‘Reconversion to Hinduism: A Hindu nationalist Reaction against Con- version to Christianity and Islam’, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 30 (1) (2011), 31–50; the author argues that though conversions to Christianity and Islam are often highlighted, conversions to ‘Hinduism’ are common as well but are not as well know. The conversions are often characterised as ‘reconversion’ and are mainly ‘a tool to arrest Christian and Muslim conversions’. Thus, it appears there is in these re-conversions an element of coercion or force. It raises issues regarding the ‘freedom of religion’ enshrined in the constitution; and serves the narrow ‘political agenda’ of Hindu nationalism.

international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access

‘The Malicious Arya’? 219 does what pleases him in anger and revenge’. He asks the rhetorical question aimed at eliciting the response he desires from Indian Christians: ‘tell me if I am guilty for not believing in the masīh [as the padres or you do]?’ (Lekhram 1972:ii.272). One must note in passing here that Lekhram’s invitation to converts to reconsider home-coming also involved not just a critique of the other but also a deeper self-critique, which involved a proposal for a re-visioning of ‘Hinduism’. Several areas of fundamental emphases emerge from Lekhram’s writings, which cannot be discussed here but whose aim would have been to offer something positive for his readers considering gharvāpasī. The choice of these emphases, however, reflects a re-conception of Hinduism apparently in terms of Islam and Christianity. Thus a source of the perceived weakness, was the multiplicity of scriptures and personal gods because he believed it di- vided up the community and rendered them vulnerable to proselytization. In order to address this weakness therefore, Lekhram, in line with as’ position, offered to the insiders a far more simplified a system involving the scriptures and religious founders/leaders. Implicit within this choice of the fundamental scriptures, the Vedas was the assertion of monotheism. His re-conception also involved a demythologised tradition of role-models involving Ram and Krishna. The expectation was that this would lead to the formation of a community reflecting a higher level of cohesion and confidence that characterised Islam and Christianity. The internal cohesion of this sort around one class of sacred scriptures, one God and demythologised role-models (out of a bewil- dering variety) would then protect the insiders from conversion. This included an absolute exclusion of idolatry and inequality (caste and gender). The radi- calness of such a vision was somewhat balanced by a re-emphasis on the key beliefs (practices) of re-incarnation, cremation, and ārya namaste. (Lekhram 1904.175–179; 169–174; 1963:i.222ff; 1972:ii.1–137).

Conclusion

This is a start of a longer journey through kulliyāt. However, even this rapid survey of the selected sections in volumes 1 and 2 of kulliyāt shows that Le- khram did not deserve to be labelled ‘malicious’ or a ‘radical’ leader 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. Besides, his view of Lekhram was only partial in that it relied largely on the material, which forms part of volume 3 of kulliyāt. What drove Lekhram was a need he saw for ‘pastoral’ support for the supposed ‘insiders; the protection

international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

220 Singh of a reimagined Hindu community57 (which included local converts to Chris- tianity) 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 and hence his approach was not oppositional per se. Where he was addressing Indian converts to Christianity he considered them as insiders too, who needed to be counselled and persuaded to ‘return home’. We know from the biographical works that he often did attempt to intervene actively in persuading those leaving the ‘community’ to rethink their choices, but to what extent his writings impacted the Indian converts remains to be investigated. I attempted to achieve this through first providing a brief introductory discussion of the as and Dayananda Saraswati in the 19th century context. I then moved on to reviewing Lekhram in the existing secondary sources involving both academic and insiders’ works. My main aim was to examine the selected sections in kulliyāt and so in the next major section I outlined a discussion emerging on Christianity from two of the three volumes of Lekhram’s collected works. Although, Christianity is not the only subject of discussion in these volumes, it is by far the dominant topic. Its portrayal offers interesting insights into the critique and counter-critique (often verbal, but also in writing) emanating from the 19th century North India. Although, specific details of the padres’ are mostly missing, it is clear that the rebuttal was meant for those considered as the insiders who included the Indian Christians. This discourse was not meant therefore, for street-preaching, although this was a common practice, but to persuade the insiders to be cautious and others already con- verted to consider returning back to a reformed ‘Hinduism’. What constituted this reformed Hinduism has been alluded to in this paper but will be considered in detail in a subsequent paper. Although often penetrating, Lekhram’s critiques were narrowly informed by his own refashioned tradition. The selected cases highlighted his criticisms involving the padres and their ‘ignorance’ of both Christian scriptures/traditions and Hindu scriptures/traditions. His specific criticisms of Christianity were fairly detailed listed under eight different topics. I focussed only on his commentary on two topics: the spread of Christianity and the God of the Bi- ble. Lekhram’s treatment of Christianity, at least in the evidence so far exam- ined was fairly superficial. One can see that his approach to Christian sources was lacking in rigour to the same extent, it appears, as the padres’ whom he

57 The idea of ‘Imagining community’ is from B. Metcalf, ‘Imagining Community: Polemi- cal Debates in Colonial India,’ Religious Controversy in British India, ed., K.W. Jones (New York: State University Press, 1992), pp. 229–240.

international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access

‘The Malicious Arya’? 221 critiqued. Clearly, my primary informant was Lekhram. Even though his portrayal of Christianity was superficial, in critiquing Christianity for the benefit of the ‘insiders’, he was not blind to issues in his own scriptures/traditions. Though this needs further work, one may suggest here that his critique,including the as, of issues relating to the quality of some scriptures,such as the Epics/the Purānās, idolatry, gender inequality, etc. comes across as being genuinely honest and revolutionary.

Bibliography

Addison, J.T. ‘The Ahmadiyya Movement and Its Western Propaganda.’ Harvard Theo- logical Review 22 (1) (1929), 1–32. Ahmad, M.G. Barahin-e ahmadiyya: Arguments in support of the Holy Quran & the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad i/ii. (Tilford: Islam International Pub- lications Ltd., 2012/Urdu in 1880). Ahmad, S.H. ‘Pandit Lekh Ram – the Malicious Arya,’ The Review of Religions, lxxix (5) (1984), 38–47. Bakshi, S.R. Arya Samaj: Swami Dayanand and his Ideology. (New Delhi: Anrnol Pub- lisher, 1991). Ballantyne, T. ‘Looking back, looking forward: the historiography of Sikhism.’ New Zea- land Journal of Asian studies 4 (1) (2002), 5–29. Banerjee, S. Make Me a Man: Masculinity, Hinduism and Nationalism (Albany: suny Press, 2005). Barrier, N. ‘The Arya Samaj and Congress Politics in the Punjab, 1894–1908.’ The Journal of Asian Studies, 26 (3) (1967), 363–379. Bhatt, C. Shraddhanand Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies and Modern Myths (Oxford/New York: Berg Publishers, 2001). Bower, H. ‘hinduon ki jat’ in Christian Tract and Book Society (Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1851). Camupatījī, P., Caudhavī kā chānd, tr. in Hindi Pundit Shivajsinghji. (Hindon: Sri Ghoodmal Prahlādkumār Ȃrya Dharmārth Nyās, 2008). Chhatra, G.S. Advanced Study in the History of Modern India, Vol. iii (1920–1947). (New Delhi: Lotus Press, 2007). ‘Constantine i.’ New World Encyclopaedia. 2017 at [accessed 03 October, 2017]. Copley, A. Religion in Conflict: Ideology, Cultural Contact and Conversion. (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997). Cornille, C. ‘Missionary Views of Hinduism’ Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies 21 (9) (2008), 28–32.

international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

222 Singh

Farquhar, J.N. Modern Religious Movements in India. (New York: The Macmillan Com- pany, 1915). Freitag, S. ‘Sacred symbol as mobilizing ideology: the north Indian search for a ‘Hindu’ Community.’ Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (4) (1980), 597–625. Ghai, R.K. Śuddhī Movement in India: A study of its sociopolitical dimension. (New Delhi: Commonwealth Publishers, 1990). Gupta, C. ‘Articulating Hindu Masculinity and Femininity: “Śuddhī” and “Sangathan” Movements in United Provinces in the 1920s.’ Economic and Political Weekly 33 (13) (1998), 727–735. Hanson, J.H. The Ahmadiyya in the Gold Coast: Muslim Cosmoplitans in the British Em- pire. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2017). Hardiman, D. ‘Purifying the Nation: the Arya Samaj in Gujarat 1895–1930.’ The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 44 (1) (2007), 41–65. Jafferlot, C. The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics: 1925 to the 1990s – Strategies of Identity-building, implantation and Mobilization. (New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 1999). Jones, K.W. The New Cambridge History of India iii-1 Socio-religious reform movements in British India. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989/2003). Jones, K.W. ‘The Arya Samaj in the Punjab: A study of social reform and religious revivalism, 1877–1902’. (PhD thesis in history from the Berkley, University of California, 1966). Jones, K.W. ‘Communalism in the Punjab: The Arya Samaj Contribution.’ The Journal of Asian Studies 28(1) (1968), 39–54. Jones, K.W. Arya Dharma: Hindu Consciousness in 19th Century Punjab. (London/Berk- ley: University of California Press, 1976). Jordens, J.F.T. Swami Shraddhananda: His Life and Causes. (New Delhi: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1981). Jordens, J.F.T. Dayananda Saraswati: Essays on His Life and Ideas. (New Delhi: Manohar Publishers and Distributors, 1998). Kaur, A. ‘Gender and Education in Arya Samaj’ Proceedings of the Indian History Con- gress 72 (1) (2011), 836–840. Kaur, R. Performative Politics and the Cultures of Hinduism: Public uses of Religion in Western India. (London: Anthem Press, 2003). Khairanwi, R. iẓhār al-ḥaqq tr. in Urdu by Akbar Ali baibal se qur’ān tak (Deoband: Hafizi Book Depot, 1967). Kishwar, M. ‘Arya Samaj and Women’s Education: Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Jalandhar,’ Economic and Political Weekly 21 (17) 1986, 9–24. Lahore Tribune. March 30, (1889), 1. Lamont, P. & Bates, C. ‘Conjuring images of India in nineteenth-century Britain.’ Social History 32 (3) (2007), 308–324.

international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access

‘The Malicious Arya’? 223

Lekhram, P. Kulliyāt-e ārya musāfir, scanned version of the Urdu text from the State Central Library, Hyderabad: numeric id. 73561; (Punjāb ārya Pratinidhī Sabhā, 1904). Lekhram, P. Kulliyāt-e ārya musāfi, tr. into Hindi, Pundit Shraddhananda; part i. (New Delhi: Sarvādeśik ārya Pratinidhī Sabhā, 1963). Lekhram, P. Kulliyāt-e ārya musāfir, tr. into Hindi, Pundit Shraddhananda; part ii. (New Delhi: Sarvādeśik ārya Pratinidhī Sabhā, 1972). Lekhram, P. Jivan charitra: mahrishi swami dayananda saraswati, tr. into Hindi, Kaviraj Raghunandsingh. (Delhi: ārya Sāhityā Pracār Trust, 1989). Liewellyn, J.E. The Arya Samaj as a Fundamental Movement: A Study in Comparative Fundamentalism. (New Delhi: Manohar Publishers and Distributors, 1993). Linden, B.V-d. Moral Languages from Colonial Punjab: The Singh Sabha, Arya Samaj and Ahmadiyahs. (New Delhi: Manohar Publishers and Distributors, 2008). Metcalf, B. ‘Imagining Community: Polemical Debates in Colonial India.’ K.W. Jones, ed., Religious Controversy in British India, (New York: State University Press, 1992), 229–240. Pandit, S.S. A Critical Study of the Contribution of the Arya Samaj to Indian Education, (Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, 1975). Pareek, R.S. ‘Contribution of Arya Samaj in the Making of Modern India, 1875–1947’. (PhD thesis, the University of Rajasthan, 1965). Pfander, K. mizān al-ḥaqq or Balance of Truth tr. in English R.H. Weakley. (London: Church Missionary House, 1866). Rai, L. A History of the Arya Samaj. (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1967). Robert de’Nobili. The Irish Monthly, 9 (102) (1881), 643–662. Saraswati, D. Satyārtha prakāsh. (Ajmer: Vaidic Pustakalaya, 2005). Saraswati, D., qur’ān kī chānbīn (Muradabad: Vaidic Pustakalaya, 1925). Saxena, G.S. Arya Samaj Movement in India 1875–1847.(New Delhi: Commonwealth Publisher, 1990). Sharma, B. Dharmabalidan:dharmvir p. lekhramji aryapathic ka swargavas. (Etawah: Brahma Press 1967). Sharpe, E.J. “J.N. Farquhar.” In Mission Legacies: Biographical Studies of Leaders of the Modern Missionary Movement, edited by Gerald H. Anderson et al. (Maryknoll: Or- bis Books, 1994), 290–296. Sharpe, E.J. Faith Meets Faith: Some Christian Attitudes to Hinduism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. (London: scm Press, 1977). Sharpe, E.J. Not to Destroy but to Fulfil: The Contribution of J.N. Farquhar to Protestant Missionary Thought in India before 1914. Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia v. (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1965). Shraddhananda, S. Aryapathik lekhram ka jivan vritant: ek shahid ki durse shahid ko Shraddhanjali. (Delhi: Vijaykumar Govindram Hasanand, 2012).

international journal of asian christianity 1 (2018)Downloaded 198-224 from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:08:15PM via free access

224 Singh

Srinivas, M.N. Social Change in Modern India. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966). The Hindu. “15 Dalits Christians ‘reconverted’ in ‘ghar wapsi’ ceremony,” January 21, 2016. Vandevelde, I. ‘Reconversion to Hinduism: A Hindu nationalist Reaction against Con- version to Christianity and Islam’ South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 30 (1) (2011), 31–50. Veer, V-d. ‘Hindus:a superior race.’ In Nations and Nationalism 5 (3) (1999), 419–430. Vidyalankar, N. & Somera, M. Arya Samaj and Indian Abroad. (New Delhi: Sarvādeśik ārya Pratinidhī Sabhā, 1975).

international journal of asian christianityDownloaded from 1 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2018) 198-224 06:08:15PM via free access