Theorising the Informant: The Epistemic Space of Bengal and the Codification of Hindu Law 1772-1800 by Michael S. Dodson B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1992 a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Faculty of Graduate Studies Department of Asian Studies We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard: The University of British Columbia August, 1998 © Michael S. Dodson, 1998 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) Abstract This thesis attempts to interpret the events surrounding the codification and implementation of Hindu law in late eighteenth century Bengal, under the government of the East India Company. The first chapter provides the necessary framework of historical facts for this interpretation; it consists primarily of a narrative of events such as the implementation of structural changes to the judicature, and the collection and translation of "laws" from the Hindu normative treatises, the dharmasastra, in Company sponsored legal digests. The second chapter provides the basic theoretical framework through which these events are interpreted, by first discussing the utilisation of discourse theory by Edward Said in Orientalism, and then by considering subsequent refinements to his approach. I argue for a conception of epistemic space as constituted by objects of knowledge, variously inscribed by divergent discourses. Further, each discourse is seen to be connected with non-discursive factors through the enunciation of individual members of various knowledge communities. Two separate and competing discourses are then described, the first wielded by orientalists and East India Company officials, in a justification of Company rule in India, and the second deployed by Hindu pandits in the compilation of dharmasastra nibandhas. Each discourse is seen to be derived in large part from pre-existing philosophical frameworks peculiar to the members of these two different knowledge communities. The legal, colonial discourse of the orientalists is informed largely by notions of "civil society" and "civil justice," while the "traditional" discourse of the pandits is influenced principally by the philosophical methodologies of mvmdmsa and nyaya, and the concept of dharma. Utilising the concept of "hybridity" as developed by Homi Bhabha, I argue that the pandits of late eighteenth century Bengal refused the demands of colonial discourse, and thereby colonialism itself, by not accepting the "civilise-ational" requirements it imposed upon the legal project. in Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iii Acknowledgements iv Note on Orthography v Introduction 1 Chapter One Context: Judicial Plans and Hindu Legal Digests 9 Chapter Two Mapping the Epistemic Space 43 Chapter Three The Figure of the Informant 80 PostFace 113 Bibliography 117 IV Acknowledgements I want to acknowledge here the kind financial support of the Goel Family Charitable Foundation and the Faculty of Graduate Studies. Without the financial support generously provided by the Goel family, I would not have been financially able to complete this degree. Thanks in this regard are also due to the Department of Asian Studies and the Faculty of Arts, who provided me with both monetary prizes and a teaching assistantship in my second year. The ideas in this thesis have been helped along enormously by the contributions of my professors, all of whom are either affiliated with the Department of Asian Studies or the Department of Religious Studies. I would like to thank specifically Larry Preston, my thesis supervisor, for taking a chance on someone who had misspelled "devandgaft" on his application for graduate school. As well, Mandakranta Bose, Harjot Oberoi, Ken Bryant, Ashok Aklujkar, Joshua Mostow and Sharalyn Orbaugh deserve recognition and thanks for their individual criticisms, suggestions and unfailing encouragement. I feel very fortunate to have been able to learn from all of them. Thanks are also due to Tanya Boughtflower for her friendship and proof reading skills, and to Chris Bayly for his helpfulness and encouragement. Finally, I must thank my family for their support and their patience, especially my parents Jo-Anne and Robin. None of this would have been possible, however, without the seemingly inexhaustible support and understanding of my wife Tanja. V Note on Orthography All words from Sanskrit or Hindi, including Persian loan words, appear in the text at their first occurrence in italics with proper diacritical marks, as well as in riagarT. Sanskrit words will also appear with appropriate nominative case endings in the nagarT. Thereafter, such words appear in the text in italics only, without diacritical marks. For example, in the first instance: dharmasdstra (SIWIW), and thereafter: dharmasastra. Further, the names of Sanskrit texts will appear in a similar fashion, although these names will not be capitalised. The Sanskrit names of individuals, however, will always appear capitalised, with appropriate diacritical marks, and not italicised. For example, Jagannatha Tarkapaficanana will always appear in the text in this way. c 1 Introduction I am now at the ancient university of Nadeya, where I hope to learn the rudiments of that venerable and interesting language which was once vernacular in all India. Sir William Jones, 8th Sept. 1785 letter to Patrick Russell1 The settler makes history and is conscious of making it. 2 Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth The late eighteenth century in Bengal is a period of transition and change. The role of the East India Company in Bengal developed from one dominated by mercantile interests and activities to being the effective government; politico-administrative structures were altered in the transition from rule by the navdb ('m) to rule by the Company; "traditional" educational institutions and methods of knowledge transmission were institutionalised or abandoned; and the cultural meaningfulness of textual traditions/Was forever altered. This period has been described by Bernard Cohn as a "formative period" in British India, during which time the British constructed a system of rule through the appropriation of Indian forms of knowledge. The production of language grammars, legal codes, and the translation of religious texts under the auspices of the British East India Company is thought by Cohn to have served to establish the discourse of Orientalism, and thereby converted Indian forms of knowledge into European objects: 1 W. Jones to P. Russell, letter #416 in The Letters of Sir William Jones, in 2 Volumes, G. Cannon (ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), Vol. II, p. 680. 2 F. Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, C. Farrington (trans.), (New York: Grove Press, 1963), p. 51. 2 -3 objects which proved instrumental in the rule and domination of India. Cohn is certainly warranted in identifying the late eighteenth century in Bengal as a period of "formation," though it might equally be characterised of as an era of "trans-formation" and "de• formation," as the implements of rule were often fashioned from a modification of existing indigenous forms of knowledge and institutional practices. Conn's use of the terms "formation," "construction" and "appropriation," however, points to a conception of a unilateral epistemic process, one in which the British possess the means, the access and the power to wholly construct resultant knowledges and discourses. Betraying a Saidian bent, for Cohn knowledge is thought to derive from (and hence contribute to) a singular discourse, constructed monologically. Though publication of Edward Said's Orientalism* in 1978 has acted as a catalyst to two decades of academic debate over the formative processes of "Western" knowledge about the "Orient," and the uses to which that knowledge was/is put in the domination and subordination of societies-thus-known through Western imperialism and colonialism, Said's work has been criticised for his formulation of Orientalism as a singular, monolithic discourse, as well as for his ahistorical approach to the paradigmatic texts of Orientalism!5 The shortcomings of Said's approach in Orientalism have highlighted the need for more subtle and responsive theoretical approaches to the study of Orientalist or 3 B.S. Cohn, "The Command of Language and the Language of Command" reprinted in Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 20-21. See also "Law and the Colonial State in India" reprinted in the same volume. Further references to the latter article, however, will be from its original printing in History and Power in the Study of Law: New Directions in Legal Anthropology, J. Starr & J.F. Collier, (eds.), (Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press, 1989). 4 E.W. Said, Orientalism, (New York: Vintage Books, 1979). 5 See, for example, J. Clifford, "On Orientalism" reprinted in The Predicament of Culture, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988); A. Ahmad, "Orientalism and After: