Theological debates in print in the early 18th C. in Bengal.

Theological debate in print

Rammohun Roy’s brand of Hinduism and commentaries on the Bible were unfavourably received by many, and often his critics would target him using printed tracts. Rammohun had ready answers for all his critics, be they conservative Hindu pandits or missionaries, through his prolific use of printed pamphlets and tracts. The print-induced “public” was redefined in most ways by Rammohun. An instance of how theological disputes and discussions would have taken place in a pre-print age is evident in the formation and operation of the Atmiya Sabha. In 1815, Rammohun started the Atmiya Sabha, or Friendly Association, with a small group of friends. It met once a week, and its activities comprised chanting of hymns that were written by Rammohun and his friends, and the recitation of texts from the Hindu scriptures. Sivaprasad Misra, Rammohun’s pandit, was the chief reciter. The meetings were not public; among the attendees can be mentioned Dwarkanath Tagore, Brajamohan Mazumdar, Haladhar Bose, Nandakisore Bose, and Rajnarayan Sen. Despite the institutional character of the Atmiya Sabha, it was a discursive space for debate, and is representative of the pre print and oral public spaces which functioned and allowed for theological debates. Such kinds of socio-theological discussions were transferred onto print as a result of the emergence of a plethora of pamphlets and journals; Christian missionaries and Hindu orthodox pandits connected to the East India Company joined the fray.

Conservative Hindus were critical of Rammohun’s brand of Hinduism. In December 1816, the Madras Courier carried a letter written by one Sankara Sastri, who was the head English teacher in Madras Government College. He was extremely critical of Rammohun’s propagation of Hinduism. Rammohun replied to this letter in 1817 by publishing A Defence of Hindoo Theism where he wrote:

Before I attempt to reply to the observations that the learned gentlemen, who signs himself Sankara Sastri, has offered in his letter of the 26th December last, addressed to the Editor of the Madras Courier, on the subject of an article published in the Calcutta Gazette, and on my translation of an abridgement of the Vedanta and of the two chapters of the Vedas, I beg to be allowed to express the disappointment I have felt in receiving from a learned Brahman controversial remarks on Hindoo Theology written in a foreign language, as it is the invariable practice of the natives of all provinces of Hindoostan to hold their discussions on such subjects in Sanskrit, which is the learned language common to all of them, and in which they may naturally be expected to convey their ideas with perfect correctness and greater facility than in any foreign tongue; nor need it be alleged that, by adopting this established channel of controversy, the opportunity of appealing to public opinion on the subject must be lost, as a subsequent translation from the Sanskrit into English may sufficiently serve that purpose.

Rammohun displays surprise that English was the chosen medium for a theological debate between two learned pandits as Sanskrit was the accepted mode of discussion but he accepts the choice of language. English was often used by native intellectuals, and in the process, European readers were drawn into these theological debates. Mrityunjay Tarkalankar, the chief pandit connected to the College of Fort William and the finest scholar of Sanskrit in Bengal, also wrote against Rammohun in Vedantachandrika, which was subsequently translated into An Apology for the Present System of Hindu Worship in 1817. Rammohun’s reply was A Second Defence of The Monotheistical System of The Vedas In Reply to An Apology For the Present State of Hindoo Worship in 1817. 

He wrote:

Two publications only have yet appeared with the professed object of defending Hindoo idolatry against the arguments which I have adduced from the Vedanta and other sacred authorities, in proof of the erroneousness of that system. To the first, which appeared in a Madras journal, my reply has been for some time before the public. The second, which is the object of the present answer, and is supposed to be the production of a learned Brahman now residing in Calcutta, was printed both in Bengali and in English; and I have therefore been under the necessity of preparing a reply in both of those languages. That which was intended for the perusal of my countrymen, issued from the press a few weeks ago. For my European readers I have thought it advisable to make some additional remarks to those contained in the Bengali publication, which I hope will tend to make my arguments more clear and intelligible to them than a bare translation would do.

Rammohun distinguishes between his native readers, who were addressed differently from his English readers. Even those theological debates which were addressed to natives, as a result of the use of English printed texts soon included Europeans as readers. The realm of Hindu pandits using print was contiguous to the realm of English print being produced by the Britishers, and oftentimes English was used by the natives in order to include the Europeans in their theological debates.