How Rammohan Roy Broke Into Liberal Discourse

A bust which Roy actually had the patients to sit for (unlike many portraits of him). Image Source

A bust which Roy actually had the patients to sit for (unlike many portraits of him). Image Source

The Problem

When entering the realm of European liberal discourse, Rammohan Roy was faced with a double sided problem. Firstly, liberal thought at the time considered India to be in a state of backwardness, and therefore inherently unfit for political autonomy. Secondly, it was thought that a culture lacking a tradition of liberty couldn’t produce individuals worthy of entering the public discourse. Thus, Roy had to simultaneously challenge liberalism’s notions of civilizational advancement and backwardness, and also convince his opponents to stop seeing him as a primitive who lacked the right to participate in the intellectual arena.

Roy’s solution to this (consciously formulated or not) was to create a new paradigm within liberalism based on some concept of “class” instead of race or culture. In this paradigm elites across cultures have more in common with one another, than they do with their respective sets of commoners. This is why elites everywhere practice forms of religion closer to monotheism, and also why idolatry and trinitarianism are practiced by the masses of ignorant commoners. Based on this logic, the British elites in India should support and cooperate with their Indian counterparts, as they constitute the same in-group. Educated and mercantile elements of both societies should engage in commerce and cultural interchange, and work for the upliftment of the ignorant underclass of both British and Indian populations. In this new model, the relationship of liberal upliftment is shifted from something akin to the “white man’s burden,” to something more akin to the “bourgeois monotheist’s burden.”

Liberalism was indeed universal in regards to the equal capacities of all human beings. However, liberals saw those who came from “despotic” societies as inherently primitive in social development, and therefore unworthy of political representation. Furthermore, liberals looked for certain social indicators, which would identify people as worthy of political inclusion, and deserving a voice in the public sphere. These indicators included language, dress, education, and religion which were easily recognizable as civilized by Europeans.1

The State of Liberal Thought

Early liberal thought, particularly of John Locke and the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers had a much more cautious stance towards foreign modes of thought than did the liberalism of Roy’s era. It is necessary to show how that transition occurred to fully contextualize the problem Roy was confronting.

For certain, since Locke there had been a strong strain of universalist egalitarianism within liberalism. Locke writes: “[M]an has a natural freedom…since all that share in the same common nature, faculties and powers, are in nature equal, and ought to partake in the same common rights and privileges…”2 However, within Locke is also the concept that children must undergo a period of tutelage only after which they gain adequate reason to enter into contracts and gain the rights of a citizen.3 This concept would later be utilized by John Stuart Mill in the interests of the imperial project.

The ever empirical and skeptical Scottish Enlightenment thinkers added an anti-constructivist twist to Locke’s universalist egalitarianism. David Hume writes:

The imagination of man is naturally sublime, delighted with whatever is remote and extraordinary, and running, without control, into the most distant parts of space and time in order to avoid the objects, which custom has rendered too familiar to it. A correct Judgement observes a contrary method, and avoiding all distant and high enquiries, confines itself to common life, and to such subjects as fall under daily practice and experience; leaving the more sublime topics to the embellishment of poets and orators, or to the arts of priests and politicians.”4

David Hume. Image Source

David Hume. Image Source

For these thinkers, examining the foreign and remote was fraught with epistemic danger, which could very probably lead to practical misjudgments. Adam Smith sometimes used observations about foreign nations as examples in his writings, but was also aware of the epistemic danger of this, and therefore confined his judgements about political philosophy and economics to Britain for the most part.5 These thinkers tend to consider other nations primarily through the lens of “sympathy.” In this context, sympathy signifies the impulse in people to identify with the fortune or misfortune of others, and feel happiness or sadness on their account. This is seen as a quality fundamental to all humans who are raised in a society, and also (alongside self interest) is one of the fundamental impulses which produces society. Indeed, the existence of a civilized society is seen by Smith, as evidence that its population possesses sympathy.6 The assumption that all civilized humans possess sympathy leads Smith to the conclusion that just as Europeans are sometimes disgusted at foreign cultural practices, such as the binding of feet or skulls, foreigners too might be disgusted with European cultural practices, such as corsets.7 The predominance of the sympathy concept in early enlightenment thought contributed strongly to its anti-imperial, perhaps proto-cultural relativist flavor.

Incidentally, in Smith (as indeed in Hume and Locke) we do find the categorization of nations into the barbarous and civilized categories. However, India is consistently placed in the civilized column, alongside the Chinese and the Egyptians.8 He bemoans the monopolies which have prevented more trade to flow between Europe and the “rich and civilized” nation of India.9

By the time of John Stuart Mill, much of the above was discarded or denuded in the liberal tradition. It is true that Edmund Burke persisted in identifying India as a civilized and aristocratic nation, and in the usage of the sympathy concept in his anti-imperial arguments, but he can hardly be considered a mainline liberal. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill writes:

It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons … For the same reason, we may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. … Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one.”10

Image Source.

John Stuart Mill, who played a large role in shifting liberalism away from cultural relativism and skepticism and towards rational social planning and logical positivism. Image Source.

Applying Locke’s pedagogical logic to nation building, John Stuart Mill determined that subjugated barbarians “have not reached the state in which it is an injury not to be under a free government”.11 Mill gives several factors which determine whether or not a nation is fit for free government, but they essentially amount to the following: The people must desire a free government, or a government of laws as opposed to despotism, and they must be willing and able to maintain and operate it.12 Importantly, those living in conditions of barbarism were seen as less intelligent, particularly in political affairs, than their civilized counterparts.13 14 Thus, sympathy was jettisoned as a means of interacting with the culturally foreign other, and epistemic skepticism and anti-constructivism along with it. India was boldly analyzed via a rational, deductive process in the histories of James Mill, whose writings were read by John Stuart Mill. The latter therefore consigned India to the ranks of barbaric, degraded, less intelligent nations worthy of only despotic rule.

The logic outlined in the above quotes seems to have heavily influenced both European and Indian liberal thought. It is under the pretense of a civilizing mission Mill, while favoring autonomy for colonies comprised of British descended populations (which of course excludes Ireland), maintained an authoritarian position in regards to India, and other nonwhite colonies. While earlier liberal thinkers, particularly Smith, probably did influence Roy, he too accepted the basic premise of Mill’s argument. He agreed that India was in a degraded state compared to that of Europe, and agrees that Europe should help in the uplifting of India. Where Roy differed, was in claiming that India’s condition that it was not always so, that India had a free constitution at one point and still retains many features of it, and that civilized and intelligent elements can exist even in degraded societies.

Roy’s Strategy in Brief

Firstly, it was necessary to convince his British audience that India had a recognizable history of liberty, and that its history was not one of Asian despotism or destructive, irrational superstition. If India has a history of liberal institutions, then it is possible under the liberal framework for it to produce intellectuals with political intelligence, whose arguments cannot be dismissed on the basis that they originate in a barbaric culture. In the process of making this argument, he also restructures, or formulates a new structure for liberalism’s “civilized vs barbaric” dichotomy away from being a simple mirror of “west vs east.” He emphasizes that liberty and tyranny, true religion and superstition, can both exist within any given society. This effectively re-draws liberalism’s map of the world, and places civilized men of all nations on the same footing, as those who have a duty to uplift the barbaric of all nations.

This move benefits Roy in two major ways. Firstly, it undercuts the strongest British critiques of Indian society and religion by simply accepting them, passionately at times. However this acceptance is restricted. In Roy’s view, the harsh critiques of India as embodying Asian despotism and arbitrary legal codes apply only to India in its present, degraded state. The religious critiques apply only to popular misinterpretations of Hinduism, not to the true religion of the Vedas. Redrawing liberalism’s map along class lines also allows Roy to critique British governance, religion, and society in the same terms that British liberals critiqued India. If any society was capable of containing civilized and barbaric elements, then the British were equally capable of despotism, bigotry, and superstition.

Probably not the most accurate portrait of Roy, as it . It was painted by John King in 1833, the year of Roys' death. Image source

Not the most accurate portrait of Roy in my estimation (he just looks too young), but it was painted by John King in 1833, the year of Roys’ death. Image source.

Finally, it was necessary for him to communicate all of this in such a way which would indicate to British Liberals that he was indeed on the civilized side of that dichotomy. He carefully crafted his English language publications to convey an image which would be accepted by British liberals. This can be easily discerned by a comparison with his works in Bengali, and by analyzing the content of the writings he published under names other than his own.

Religion

Religion is the easiest place to start in order to understand how Roy navigated and shifted these paradigmatic boundaries. One of the most obvious ways, is by repeatedly positioning himself on the same side as the harshest critics of Hindu society and religion, and then applying the same critique to the “lower” elements of British society. For example, in his opening to “To the Believers of the Only One True God” he writes:

I have observed, that both in their writings and conversation, many Europeans feel a wish to palliate and soften the features of Hindoo idolatry; and are inclined to inculcate, that all objects of worship are considered by their votaries as emblematic representations of the Supreme Divinity! … but the truth is, the Hindoos of the present day have no such views on the subject, but firmly believe in the real existence of innumerable gods and goddesses, who possess in their own departments, full and independent power; and to propitiate them and not the true God are temples erected and ceremonies preformed.”15

He then goes on to argue “to my European friends, that the superstitious practices which deform the Hindoo religion have nothing to do with the pure spirit of its dictates!”16 To whom then do the Hindu scriptures advise the practice of worship via the medium of an idol? To those of “defective understanding” who are incapable of comprehending the true nature of God. 17 He derives all of his information of Hinduism from textual knowledge, most typically from the Upanishads and certain Tantras (it does not appear that he had direct knowledge of the Vedas themselves.)

Roy generally writes very admiringly of Christian monotheism, or what he would call “true” Christianity. That is to say, the Christianity of the most spiritually developed. However, for trinitarians, and those who believe in the godhood of Jesus of Nazareth, he has this to say: “Therefore the plurality of gods, their locality and subjection to sensual indulgence, are faults to be found in a real sense, only in the system of the missionary gentlemen.”18 and also “How can Christians, who in general justly pride themselves on their cultivated understanding, admit such an analogy … ?”19 [emphasis added]. In exactly the same text centered manner through which he elucidates the“true” Hinduism, he addresses the Christian Trinity: “…these individuals reject or misinterpret that portion of the Bible which relates to the Trinity and the atonement of Christ, both considered by the queitist and his fellow believers as the essential principles of Christianity.20

bw079

Portrait of Rammohan Roy done in 1820. It doesn’t resemble his bust very closely, and makes him seem very European. I think it is a rather unfortunate looking portrait. Image source

bw060

Profile portrait of Rammohan Roy done in 1833 (the year of his death). Image source.

In both cases, the “true religion” is backed by an accurate reading of scripture by a person of “cultivated understanding.” And in both cases, those conclusions differ from the religion practiced by the vast majority of claimed adherents, probably due (Roy supposes) to the influence of corrupt or ignorant religious authorities. Roy is trying to draw our attention to the relationship of true religion with men of cultivated understanding, and superstitious religion with men of defective understanding. In doing so, he reorients liberalism’s categories of civilization versus primitivism, which had normally been associated with Christianity and Hinduism. Roy relates civilization onto Monotheism, which is religion properly understood in accordance with scripture. This includes Brahmo Samajists, Arya Samajists, Advaita Vedantins, Christian Unitarians, and enlightened Protestants. A middle tier consisted of mainline Protestants, and Hindus who were monotheists, but accepted that God could be worshipped in many forms. Most degraded were the polytheists and trinitarians, whose beliefs are fit only for those who are physiologically incapable of comprehending Monotheism. 21 22

This caused a problem for Christian critics. If they continued in disparaging popular Hindu traditions and social practices, Roy would agree with them, and load trinitarianism onto the fire. If they preached monotheism, Roy would again agree with them. Thus, to critique Roy’s Hinduism, essentially entailed an attack on Unitarianism, which although fringe, had more legitimacy than Hinduism amongst European liberals. Such an argument usually relied on emphasizing more arcane aspects of Christian theology, such as the godhood of Jesus Christ, and his atoning death. This in turn allowed Roy to adopt the posture of a strict monotheist, critiquing his opponents as worshippers of a fleshy God, and being in essence idolaters. 23

This has two dialectal functions: Most obviously, it establishes a parity between Europe and India which is exploitable in the realm of political discourse. Secondly, it identifies Roy as a member of the highest class of religious understanding, which erodes the notion that Indians are inherently less intelligent, and encourages Europeans to read him as a credible intellectual, not as an unintelligent representative of a degraded race.

Politics

To make the case that India deserved liberal governance in the present, Roy took great pains to outline that India indeed has a “constitution” of sorts and a history of free institutions. Thus, rather than have the British rule as despots, the colonial rulers should help India recover its lost constitution. He argued that the laws of Manu and Brihaspati, (which in his interpretation prohibit Sati, or at the very least render it optional24) as well as the Mughal legal tradition are functionally similar to the Anglo-Saxon codes of laws which form the basis of Britain’s constitution. The caste system too (in the varna sense), was originally in his view, a system of checks and balances between different ruling bodies. India’s constitution of liberty was lost because of Rajput and Mughal despotism, though under Colonial tutelage the situation was being somewhat remedied.25 There was no way that the British could deny the existence of preexisting legal traditions, as they had used them as the basis for much of colonial law. Nor could they deny the intelligence of court intellectuals and pandits who they regularly consulted for legal and religious information. 26 This narrative of decline from glorious origins, and the harkening back to anachronistically conceptualized liberal institutions places Roy in a similar position as Greek and Italian liberals of the same period.

Recall Roy’s dialectical tactic in the realm of religion, wherein he secures the position of “true monotheist” for himself, and uses it to critique Christianity in the same terms which missionaries used to critique folk Hinduism. This is directly mirrored in the realm of politics. Now, having secured for himself the “high liberal” ideal of a civilization with a heritage of liberty, he could warn the British not to stray into Asian Despotism as well. For instance, in his letter to the Supreme Court in Calcutta, he tries to persuade the government not to “adopt the political maxim so often acted upon by Asiatic Princes, that the more a people are kept in darkness, their rulers will derive the greater advantages from them.27

Panchayat. Image source

The Panchayat system of village governance is also arguably a part of India’s native “constitution of liberty.” Image source.

His reorientation away from nationality and towards class, and identification with global bourgeois culture is also integral to his views on European immigration. In his Remarks on Settlement in India by Europeans Roy argues that for the first 20 years of liberalized immigration, only landed, educated Europeans should be permitted to immigrate to India. He argues this on the basis that the “educated classes” are “known from experience to be less disposed to annoy and insult the natives than persons of a lower class…” 28 In reference to uneducated Europeans he writes, “it is obvious that there is no resemblance between the higher and educated classes of Europeans and the lower and uneducated classes.”29 The benefits of European settlement which Roy lists include, notably, the introduction of superior agricultural techniques, and the spread of knowledge of the English language, and European sciences and arts.30 He makes this claim in an even more extreme way in a letter to Lord Amherst in which he argues that the Sanscrit school in Calcutta would be improved if it taught English, and European sciences, rather than Sanskrit and the more arcane traditions of Hindu philosophy. It is by repositioning the Indian middle and upper classes, and the European middle and upper classes as part of the same global community such statements.

Social Signaling

Roy consistently writes as a loyal British citizen, emphasizing his happy membership under British governance at every possible avenue. He refers to the British regime as a liberating force from Mughal despotism, which granted rights even surpassing what Hindu monarchs would have bestowed, and refers to the British monarch as “father and protector” of Indians.31 This is almost not worth remarking on though, because of how firm a prerequisite it was to enter colonial discourse. Outside of a few radicals in Young Bengal, all Indian liberals and reformers had to at least pay lip service to the crown. More interesting is the way he wrote in English under different names, and in Bengali, for the differences between his self attributed work, and his pseudo-anonymous work gives a direct insight into what he was and was not willing to share with his European readership.

Andrew Sartori (in Bengal in Global Concept History) warns us that Roy is often a Rorschach, and can be interpreted differently according to what the interpreter wants to see. This is a fair warning, but it is easy to be misled when Roy wrote under so many different masks. This doesn’t mean that he lacked a coherent philosophy, only that he used different voices or personalities to convey different aspects of his philosophy to specific target audiences. In a sense, this is deceptive, but Roy was not trying only to communicate his ideas, but to do so in a way which was likely to have real social and political impact. Religious and political thought originating from an Indian Hindu may have necessitated a certain level of deception in order to be taken seriously.

In his Bengali writings and translations he openly states a belief in reincarnation, karma, and comes across as a revivalist or purifier of the Hindu tradition. In the English writings and translations which he wrote under his real name, he adapts Sanskrit terms and concepts into the language of Anglo-American rational theism. To take a representative example of this: In his Vedanta Sutras, when disputing the notion that atomism explains the cause of the universe, Roy’s English version reads: “He by whom the birth, existence, and annihilation of this world is regulated, is the Supreme Being. … No Being void of understanding can be the author of a system so skilfully arranged.”32 The Bengali version, translated into English by Dermot Killingly reads: “Brahman is he from whom are the origin, continuance and destruction of the world. … A universe such as this could not have originated from an unconscious being.”33 The difference is subtle, but significant. The English version formulates the verse within concepts like regulation, and authorship of the universe, which are parts of rational theism, but not traditionally Upanishadic Hinduism. It seems as though Roy was intentionally interpreting the text in such a way as to make it easy for Europeans to read charitably. The Bengali retains the traditional, semi-panentheistic language of origination, maintenance, and destruction without the interventionist implications of design and regulation. ***

Roy occasionally wrote in English the name of others, or under invented names. The most notable other English language personas he constructed were those of Pandit Stradivari Sarma and Ram Doss.34 Under Sarma’s name, he communicates in a very similar way as his Bengali writing, professing an explicitly Hindu theology rather than a universal rational theism. It is likely that these writings were intended to directly explain Hindu theology as he understood it, without the potentially obfuscating step translating Hindu concepts into those of rational theism. Under Ram Doss’ name he writes as an idol worshipping Hindu.35 Though Roy didn’t believe in the use of idols, he probably wrote this to make his comparison between trinitarians and folk Hindus more compelling, as though it were coming from a practitioner of that brief. It is notable that he avoids speaking in such terms when publishing under his own name, or when communicating to Christians verbally, as they by and large seem to have considered his position much closer to Christianity than it actually was. Christians tended to think that he had either already converted, or on the verge of conversion, and Roy was not enthusiastic in dispelling such notions.36 Partly as a result of his language, he also came across to some of his European peers as enlightened, as a “Universal Man”, or the pioneer of a new kind of humanity.37 He may have even modified his biography to suit that image.38

Conclusion

Roy’s religious writings, as well as his language skills, rank, and education earned him the acceptance and friendship of many British Unitarians.39 Thomas Belsham, the minister of London’s primary Unitarian chapel at the time says of Roy:

Rammohun Roy, a learned, eloquent and opulent Brahmin having by the proper exercise of his own understanding, discovered the folly and absurdity of the Hindoo mythology and of idol-worship has entered his protest against their impious, barbarous and idolatrous rites. Such doctrine from a person of such exalted rank, at first excited great astonishment, and gave infinite offense. But by degrees, the courage, eloquence, and perseverance of this extraordinary man prevailed over all the opposition; and it is said that many hundreds of the native Hindoos, and especially of the young people, have embraced his doctrine.”40

Indeed, it may have worked too well, or been effectively a form of deception. For, as a result of his writings on folk Hinduism and sympathetic statements regarding Christianity, many Unitarians seem to have considered him a Christian Unitarian, and treated him accordingly.41 42 Nevertheless, he did have an effect in opening up Britain to the influence of Indian ideas, and in introducing Christian notions of service and egalitarianism into the Brahmo community.

Brahmo Samaj

The interior of a Brahmo Samaj Sabha in Kolkata (technically, the Brahmo Sammilan Samaj building in Bhuwanipur). The pews, architecture, absence of icons and organ (not pictured) all attest to European influence, and possibly of signaling their “high culture” status to the British. Photo taken by author.

His more visible successes lay in the political arena. Indeed, he seems to have been more influential in the English reading public than in Bengali, for despite writing in a formative period in the history of modern Bengali language, today it bears little if any of his stylistic influence.43For the first time in history, Europeans were eagerly consuming the religious, and and political writings of an Indian intellectual.44 He engaged in a correspondence with Jeremy Bentham45 who considered Roy a potential disciple.46 Bentham even advocated, in accordance with Roy’s political prescriptions, that Roy be given a seat in the British parliament.47 His opinion was requested by the House of Commons in regards to the Charter Act of 1833, regarding immigration to India.48 He was instrumental in convincing the British to institute trial by jury in India with non-Christians able to serve as jurors49 and in the prohibition of Sati. To the degree that Calcutta retained a free press, Roy is also to be given a fair share of the credit. 50 Based on this record, it would seem that Roy was successful in upsetting liberal conceptions of civilization and barbarism, at least enough to enter the realm of public discourse, have a practical impact, and initiate the long process towards indigenous liberal governance of the Indian subcontinent.

***: Edit: I think that a very similar case can be made regarding Roy’s work in Persian with an Arabic introduction: Tuhfatul Muwahhiddin. I read the translation of it by Kissory Chand Mitter (Rammohan Roy and Tuhfatul Muwahhiddin 1975, K.P Bagchi and Company). It is addressed in an unstated, but direct way to Muslims, most likely Islamic scholars. It uses Quranic concepts and categories to explain Brahmo beliefs (like Haram and Halal on p3) . He condemns the Quranic violence against idolaters as a probable fabrication. It reads noticeably differently than either his Bengali, OR his English writings. It speaks positive of those willing to break idols on p6. It repeatedly critiques the notion of alteration, change, or innovation departing from the original word of God. It is truly a shame that his other work in Persian The Manazarutil Advan didn’t also survive.

—————–

Nearly all of Rammohan Roy’s English works can be read for free in the following two volumes:

The English works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Volume 1: Religious Writings

The English works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Volume 2: Political Writings

—————–

Endnotes

1Uday Singh Mehta. Liberalism and Empire. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 46-50, 64-72.

2Locke, John. The Two Treatises of Civil Government (Hollis ed). (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2011), 42.

3Mehta, Liberalism and Empire. 45.

4David Hume. Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2014), 102.

5Mehta, Liberalism and Empire. 39.

6Adam Smith. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. editors, D.D. Raphael and A.L. Macfie. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1982), 209.

7Smith. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 199.

8Adam Smith. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Cannan ed.), vol. 1. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2014), 48.

9Adam Smith. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Cannan ed.), vol. 2. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2014), 360.

10 John Stuart Mill. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women (1879 ed). (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2011), 10-11.

11 John Stuart Mill. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIX – Essays on Politics and Society Part 2. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2011), 189.

12 Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIX, 84.

13 Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIX, 65.

14 John Stuart Mill. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume VI – Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire [1824]. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2011), 743.

15Rammohun Roy. “To the Believers of the Only One True God” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol. 1. editor, Jogendra Chunder Ghose. (Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901), 4.

16Roy. “To the Believers of the Only One True God”, 4.

17Rammohun Roy. “Second Defense of the Monotheistical System of the Veds” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol. 1. editor, Jogendra Chunder Ghose. (Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901), 153.

18Rammohun Roy. “The Brahmunical Magazine Number II” in The English works of Raja Rammohun Roy Vol 1. editor, by Jogendra Chunder Ghose. (Bhowanipore: Oriental Press, 1885), 189.

19Rammohun Roy. “The Brahmunical Magazine Number III” in The English works of Raja Rammohun Roy Vol 1. editor, by Jogendra Chunder Ghose. (Bhowanipore: Oriental Press, 1885), 198.

20Rammohun Roy. “The Brahmunical Magazine Number IV” in The English works of Raja Rammohun Roy Vol 1. editor, by Jogendra Chunder Ghose. (Bhowanipore: Oriental Press, 1885), P 217.

21Dermot Killingley. Rammohan Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition: The Teape Lectures 1990. (Newcastle upon Tyne: Grevatt & Grevatt, 1993), 79.

22Killingley. Rammohan Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition, 29.

23Phillip Medhurst, “Rammohun Roy and ‘the Day-Star of Approaching Morn’” in Bengal Past and Present, vol 110. 3.

24Rammohun Roy. “On Concremation: A Second Conference Between an Advocate and an Opponent of That Practice” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol 2. ed. Jogendra Chunder Ghose. (Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901), 143-189.

25Rammohun Roy. “Brief Remarks Regarding Modern Encroachments on the Ancient Rights of Females” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol 2. ed. Jogendra Chunder Ghose. (Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901), 195-196

26Rammohun Roy. “Additional Queries Respecting the Condition of India” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol 2. editor, Jogendra Chunder Ghose. (Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901), 95-96.

27Rammohun Roy. “Petitions Against the Press Regulations” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol 2. ed. Jogendra Chunder Ghose. (Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901), 285

28Rammohun Roy. “Remarks on Settlement in India by Europeans” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol 2. ed. Jogendra Chunder Ghose. (Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901), 116.

29Rammohun Roy. “Questions and Answers on the Revenue System of India” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol 2. ed. Jogendra Chunder Ghose. Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901), 24.

30 Roy. “Remarks on Settlement in India by Europeans”, 113-114.

31Roy. “On Concremation: A Second Conference Between an Advocate and an Opponent of That Practice” 289.

32Killingley. Rammohan Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition, 44.

33Killingley. Rammohan Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition, 44.

ei jagater janma sthiti yāśa yāhā haite pāre nā … acaitanya haite etādṛśa jagater sṛṣṭi haite pāre nā”

34Killingley. Rammohan Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition, 118-126

35Killingley. Rammohan Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition, 123.

36Phillip Medhurst, “Rammohun Roy and ‘the Day-Star of Approaching Morn’”, 1-20.

37Killingley. Rammohan Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition,16-17.

38Killingley. Rammohan Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition,19-20.

39Phillip Medhurst, “Rammohun Roy and ‘the Day-Star of Approaching Morn’”, 1-2.

40Phillip Medhurst, “Rammohun Roy and ‘the Day-Star of Approaching Morn’”, 1-2.

41Phillip Medhurst, “Rammohun Roy and ‘the Day-Star of Approaching Morn’”, 1-20.

42Zastoupil. Rammohun Roy and the Making of Victorian Britain. 118.

43Killingley. Rammohan Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition, 2-4.

44Killingley. Rammohan Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition, 57.

45Poonam Upadhyaya. Social Political Economic and Educational Ideas of Rammohun Roy. (New Delhi: Mittal Publications, 1990), 117.

46Lynn Zastoupil. Rammohun Roy and the Making of Victorian Britain. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 157.

47Zastoupil. Rammohun Roy and the Making of Victorian Britain. 151.

48Social, Political, Economic, and Educational Ideas of Raja Rammohun Roy, 111.

49Zastoupil. Rammohun Roy and the Making of Victorian Britain. 118.

50Zastoupil. Rammohun Roy and the Making of Victorian Britain. 97-109.

———————-

Bibliography

Bayly, C.A. Recovering Liberties: Indian Thought in the Age of Liberalism and Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Hume, David. Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2014. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/341/Hume_0222_EBk_v6.0.pdf

Hume, David. Essays, Moral, Political, Literary (LF ed). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2011. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/704/Hume_0059_EBk_v6.0.pdf

Killingley, Dermot. Rammohan Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition: The Teape Lectures 1990. Newcastle upon Tyne: Grevatt & Grevatt, 1993.

Locke, John. The Two Treatises of Civil Government (Hollis ed). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2011. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/222/Locke_0057_EBk_v6.0.pdf

Mehta, Uday Singh. Liberalism and Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Medhurst, Phillip, “Rammohun Roy and ‘the Day-Star of Approaching Morn’” in Bengal Past and Present, vol 110.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women (1879 ed). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2011. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/347/Mill_0159_EBk_v6.0.pdf

Mill, John Stuart. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIX – Essays on Politics and Society Part 2. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2011. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/234/Mill_0223-19_EBk_v6.0.pdf

Mill, John Stuart. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume VI – Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire [1824]. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2011. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/245/Mill_0223-06_EBk_v6.0.pdf

Roy, Rammohun. “Additional Queries Respecting the Condition of India” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol 2. editor, Jogendra Chunder Ghose. Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901.

Roy, Rammohun. “Brief Remarks Regarding Modern Encroachments on the Ancient Rights of Females” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol 2. editor, Jogendra Chunder Ghose. Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901.

Roy, Rammohun. “On Concremation: A Second Conference Between an Advocate and an Opponent of That Practice” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol 2. editor, Jogendra Chunder Ghose. Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901.

Roy, Rammohun. “Petitions Against the Press Regulations” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol 2. editor, Jogendra Chunder Ghose. Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901.

Roy, Rammohun. “Questions and Answers on the Revenue System of India” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol 2. editor, Jogendra Chunder Ghose. Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901.

Roy, Rammohun. “Remarks on Settlement in India by Europeans” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol 2. editor, Jogendra Chunder Ghose. Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901.

Roy, Rammohun. “Second Defense of the Monotheistical System of the Veds” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol. 1. editor, Jogendra Chunder Ghose. Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901.

Roy, Rammohun. “The Brahmunical Magazine Number II” in The English works of Raja Rammohun Roy. Vol . 1editor, by Jogendra Chunder Ghose. Bhowanipore: Oriental Press, 1885.

Roy, Rammohun. “The Brahmunical Magazine Number III” in The English works of Raja Rammohun Roy Vol 1. editor, by Jogendra Chunder Ghose. Bhowanipore: Oriental Press, 1885.

Roy, Rammohun. “The Brahmunical Magazine Number IV” in The English works of Raja Rammohun Roy Vol 1. editor, by Jogendra Chunder Ghose. Bhowanipore: Oriental Press, 1885.

Roy, Rammohun. “To the Believers of the Only One True God” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, Vol. 1. editor, Jogendra Chunder Ghose. Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Cannan ed.), vol. 1. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2014. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/237/Smith_0206-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Cannan ed.), vol. 2. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2014. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/119/Smith_0206-02_EBk_v6.0.pdf

Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. editors, D.D. Raphael and A.L. Macfie. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1982.

Sartori, Andrew. Bengal in Global Concept History: Culturalism in the Age of Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Upadhyaya, Poonam. Social, Political, Economic, and Educational Ideas of Raja Rammohun Roy. New Delhi: Mittal Publications, 1990.

Zastoupil, Lynn. Rammohun Roy and the Making of Victorian Britain. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *