Vedantic Hinduism in Colonial Bengal. Reformed Hinduism and Western Protestantism. By Victor A. van Bijlert

Abstract

Two books that successively appeared in 2021 and have greatly held my interest are Ankur Barua’s The Brahma Samaj and its Vaishnava Milieus (Brill) and the work under review. They both represent intensive studies of the intellectual, cultural, and religious terrain of colonial Bengal through a creative fusion of the disciplines of history and religious studies. In this work, Bijlert’s thesis rests on two major arguments: First, that Vedanta constitutes the moral and intellectual backbone of reform Hinduism and second, that reform Hinduism also purposively reflects Christian Protestant forms of work and organisation. Prima facie, these are reasonable and convincing conclusions to offer. Rightly or wrongly, from Rammohun down to Radhakrishnan (with Tagore and Gandhi placed in between), Vedanta has come to be seen as the quintessential thought of India. But here also lies the catch. In effect, ‘Vedanta’ turns out to be only a somewhat convenient shorthand for a particular sub-school within Vedanta, that is, Advaita or non-dualist Vedanta, whereas in principle, it represents all sub-schools within Uttaramimamsa—which, between them, reveal significant doctrinal differences. Quite possibly, this obfuscating practice goes back to pre-modern India, but Rammohun arguably strengthened it in some ways. The Raja appears to have little knowledge of Vedantic thinkers other than Acharya Sankara and the dualist Madhva he unjustly denigrated by comparing him with Carvaka! To compound matters, Rammohun invariably refers to Upanishadic texts as ‘Vedas’. Herein lies a double confusion: First, the religious and philosophical conclusions of the Upanishads varied considerably from those of the Samhitas, Brahmanas and Aranyakas but more importantly, as would emerge from a perusal of Rammohun’s writings, he had simply no idea of these other textual components. Whereas his paramaguru, Sankara, had commented on as many as ten Upanishads, Rammohun chose to comment on only five, which, I suspect, was aimed at pushing specific theological or philosophical agendas, namely the rejection of image worship, polytheism, and sectarianism. Rammohun used religion rather instrumentally, investing it with certain uncharacteristic features like social utility. How else is one to explain his oft-quoted letter stating that religion ought to promote ‘political advantage and social comfort’.