In a class I’m teaching this fall, we’re looking at Pandita Ramabai’s book on America, which has been recently translated by Meera Kosambi as Pandita Ramabai’s American Encounter (2003). The original book was written in Marathi in 1889, and published as United Stateschi Lokasthiti ani Pravasavritta, which translates to The Peoples of the United States. It’s an intriguing book — part of the small group of “Easterner goes West” books published in the 19th century, coexisting uneasily alongside dozens of conventional, Orientalist travel narratives that describe the mystic, masalafied “East.” What Ramabai has to say about America is interesting partly for the oblique criticisms of colonialism and racism one finds at various points, and partly because of her staunch, unapologetic feminism.
Meera Kosambi has a thorough introduction to the book and to Pandita Ramabai, which is the source of most of the information in the post below. First off, the basic biography: Pandita Ramabai was born to a Brahmin family in Maharashtra in 1859. In a personal memoir she writes that her father (known as Dongre) went out on a limb and taught her Sanskrit, and also taught her to read and recite from the Puranas — considered completely off-limits to women at the time. But both of her parents died in in 1874 [approximately] because of famine, and Ramabai and her brother wandered around India until they ended up in Calcutta in 1878. They impressed the local Sanskrit experts (Calcutta, being more progressive, didn’t shun a female Sanskrit scholar), who granted Ramabai the name “Pandita,” in honor of her learning. Unfortunately, her brother died soon afterwards, and Ramabai married one of his friends, a lawyer from the Shudra caste named Bipin Behari (also known as Das Medhavi). The couple was ostracized for the cross-caste marriage, and tragically, Medhavi died just a couple of years later (in 1880), leaving Ramabai to raise their daughter Manorama, completely on her own. It isn’t surprising that she fell in with Christian missionaries, who helped Ramabai go to England in 1883 to study medicine. Unfortunately, she was refused admission after actually reaching England on account of defective hearing. It was at this point that she converted to Christianity (Anglicanism), which was highly controversial in the Indian press at that time, and made her somewhat of a, well, “pariah” figure in most accounts of early Indian writers and intellectuals. Her conversion still may be controversial for some readers, though I think it’s important to remember that Ramabai, as a Brahmin woman, had been battling religious orthodoxy her whole life: first, as a woman who knew Sanskrit and could read and critique the classical texts, then as a person who married across caste only to be completely ostracized — and finally as a young widow who was also orphaned and without siblings in 1880.
According to Kosambi, it isn’t clear that Ramabai was comfortable within the Anglican fold (Ramabai would dabble with other denominations), nor is it clear that she enjoyed being in England, where she lived between 1883 and 1886. In fact, she didn’t write very much about her specific experiences there, so it’s hard to say. Still, Ramabai did write a book during that trip (her second!), The High-Caste Hindu Woman, a scathing attack on gender norms in upper-caste families — including the denial of education, child marriage, polygamy, and widowhood. The book was published in Marathi in India, and didn’t make much of an impression, though it was widely read in a version translated by Ramabai herself by feminists in England and the U.S.
In 1886, Pandita Ramabai went to the U.S., to give a lecture at a Women’s Medical College in Philadelphia. Here she had a personal connection to another Marathi woman, Anandibai Joshee, who holds the distinction being the first Indian woman to earn a medical degree in the U.S. — only a few years after medical schools began to open their doors to women. (This was also well before women got the right to vote.) Ramabai planned to go for a month, but ended up staying for three years.
In the U.S., it appears, Pandita Ramabai thrived. She did numerous lectures at various cities around the northeast and midwest, as well as further out west (she made it as far as Denver, and was impressed by the Rocky Mountains). Her larger mission at this time was to raise money for a school she wanted to start back in India — and here she was remarkably successful. It’s no surprise to find, then, that Ramabai writes effusively about the country in her book, though she does criticize the country’s problems with race, its persecution of the Native Americans, and of course, the resistance to women’s emancipation.
On to the book itself. Ramabai starts with a reference to the history of early exploration, and a dig at religious superstition:
Centuries ago, when people lacked adequate knowledge of the earth, they indulged in all sorts of speculations in this regard. The ancestors of the Hindu and other communities believed the earth to be flat; as a result, they imagined the universe to be multi-storied, like the large multi-storied city houses, with the earth occupying the middle story. According to the Hindu Puranas, the universe is a fourteen-storied mansion, of which six stories or “worlds” are situated above the earth, and seven below; the lowest of these stories has been named the Nethermost Woeld. Now that all these ideas have been disproved by new discoveries, everyone has understood that the universe is not like a fourteen-storied mansion, and that the earth is not flat. (62)
So much for the scientific value of the Puranas!
Ramabai also doesn’t fail to remind her readers that Columbus, in his exploration, was in fact looking for India, and she is unrelenting of her criticism of the exploitative nature of the Spanish and Portuguese doings in the new world in the early years. She accuses Columbus of practicing “deceit,” and denigrates his eagerness to enslave the natives, take them back to Europe, and forcibly convert them to Christianity (Catholicism): “How sad that a great man’s conduct should be tarnished by such an extraordinarily demonic deed!”
Some of her remarks about this chapter of American history strike me as coded or indirect criticisms of British colonialism:
If these same Europeans had discarded their firearms and weapons, such as bows and arrows, quartz knives, and bone-tipped lances, they would have proven themselves to be truly brave. But sad to say, those who called themselves pious and went forth to enlighten the ignorant, to rescue people from hell and lead them to heaven, ended up by utterly annihilating the poor innocent Indians through deceit, trickery, cruelty, and false speech. (71)
Clearly the British colonization of India and the American conquest of the Native Americans are two quite separate things, but there might well be some parallels in the references to “deceit, trickery, cruelty, and false speech” — though that is only an inference. (Pandita Ramabai is rarely directly critical of the British in her writings.)
Occasionally, Pandita Ramabai also makes some circumspect comments on the problem of writing a travel narrative, and seems to be alluding to the extremely problematic narratives Europeans themselves had produced when traveling to India. She knows better than to simply reverse the dynamic, claim to be the monarch of all she surveys:
It is impossible for a person to see all the sides of an object while sketching it; the same applies to the description of the social conditions in a country. A single person is not able to see all aspects of a society; therefore one person’s opinion of it cannot be assumed to be infallible.
Some English and American people have traveled in India and written descriptions of our customs and manners and social conditions. A perusal of these clearly shows that a foreigner sees the people of the country he visits in a very different light from how the inhabitants see themselves. Therefore, I have refrained from presenting any firm and final conclusion that such-and-such is the nature of American society and that it has only these many types. Instead, I intend to describe how they appeared to me. This is the objective of this chapter and of the book as a whole.
Fascinating and precocious; it took the discipline of Anthropology another 80 years to reach this level of epistemological humility.
And finally, I should mention that most of the second half of Pandita Ramabai’s book on America is dedicated to the specific question of the status of women in the United States. On the one hand, she is impressed by the remarkable progress that was being made with regards to women’s education; this was the era during which the great women’s colleges were opening, and it was also the era of the first women graduates from law and medical schools. But Ramabai is also surprised by the amount of resistance these progressive measures encounter, and feels pressed to actively rebut the charge that having women in positions of responsibility, or actively participating in the work-place, would somehow be detrimental to morals. In that the book is aimed at Indian readers, it’s hard not to think that she’s thinking of the Indian objections to these reforms as well.
Her most striking comment along these lines still in some sense rings true today:
How true is the claim of many Western scholars that a civilization should be judged by the conditions of its women! Women are inherently physically weaker than men, and possess innate powers of endurance; men therefore find it very easy to wrest their natural rights and reduce them to a state that suits the men. But, from a moral point of view, physical might is not real strength, nor is it a sign of nobility of character to deprive the weak of their rights. . . . [A]s men gain wisdom and progress further, they begin to disregard women’s lack of strength to honor their good qualities, and elevate them to a high state. Their low opinion of women and of other such matters undergoes a change and gives way to respect. Thus, one can accurately assess a country’s progress from the condition of its women. (169)
This statement is perhaps not without a couple of problematic elements, but as a progressive take on the relationship between feminism and history it is still very much something to contend with.
This woman is gorgeous looking.
Funny, I’ve been reading alot about her on the net lately.
There was one really good critque of her various books and her work by one Hindu woman, written as a University paper, I think.
The author of the paper (I’ll try to search for it again), questioned her motives in her Christian conversion, and addressed the fact that the same type of patriarchy she fought against in Hinduism, was again an issue for her in the hierarchy of the Christian establishment she worked within.
Also, though claiming that she found a higher message in Christianity than that of Hinduism, which she described as being full of superstitions and non-progressive traditions, she still clung to the simple white sari of Indian widows after the death of her husband, did not remarry, and insisted on a very vegetarian brahmical diet everywhere she went in the western world.
According to the author of that paper, she seemed to undergo a deep depression which sprang from her religious confusion vis. a vis. Hinduism versus Christianity, which went unresolved even at the time of her death.
The author also asks, if Hindu Brahmin women were so repressed at that time by Hindu culture, how is it that she was able to rise so high in Hindu society and become so respected and honored – all before converting to Christianity?
Also, regarding ostracization or ex-communication in regards to an intercaste marriage – who ex-communicated her and from what? Hinduism is not centralized like the Catholic church. Sure, she may have been shunned by some neighbors or relatives, but ex-communicated? Who had that kind of centralized power in Hinduism?
And, if she married inter-caste due to her refusal to conform to Hindu traditions and superstitions (which is claimed in her book The High Caste Hindoo Woman), then why not just marry a Muslim or a tribal adi-basi? Why stay within Hinduism at all?
These were questions posed by that paper.
I’ll try to find it.
One more thing – please provide the exact sanskrit qoute from any Upanishad or Purana that describes the earth as flat!!!!
Okay, on a tangential but related note: did anyone catch the ‘India’ displays or pavilions in the PBS show about the Great World’s Fair of Chicago of 1893? It happened in the blink of an eye, the show spent a lot of time on the Japanese pavilions which were the first time that lots of Americans ever saw a Japanese and the show mentioned that there were Indians there as well…and then a quick picture that lasted all of a nanosecond on screen. I wanted to know more.
*Back on topic: Yes, to describe what you see around you in the world with humility….it is a great gift.
Okay, on another related note: There is such good material for a novel here…an Indian woman becoming a physician here in the US at a time before suffrage?
*What were the things she wrote effusively about the US? What did she like? Are there non Orientalist travel narratives of the “east”? Sorry, Amardeep, if I was in your class I would be so annoying with all the questions….
Thanks for this post Amardeep. Its so interesting to hear about these folks who came to Amrika way back in the day (and Anandibai Joshee!) and read about their experiences. These women were certainly patakas of their time!
These stories are so important and its great to hear about them!
Oh. My. God. Amardeep, where do you FIND THIS STUFF? I gots to order that asap. . .
how much would the Mutiny have to pay your employers to webcast your lectures???
It’s always amazing when you read these stories about the women of 1800s, how much talent and energy they manifested with the slightest release.
Hmm another interesting look at early Indian travel-writing in America. The course your teaching Amardeep – does it look at similar texts by Indian writers (Tagore, Vivekananda). If so, I’d be interested in learning more.
Ramabai’s Mukti Mission school in Pune (I believe) was one of the loci of a broader evangelical revivalism that was buzzing in small pockets all around India in the late 19th century – for example in Kerala it resulted in the emergence of the Marthoma Church. As a point of interest, it is stories about the Mutki Mission that travelled across the Atlantic that partly inspired the Azusa Street revival and the birth of American Pentecostalism.
she sounds fascinating…now these are the kind of women I wish more girls had exposure to
nice blog Amardeep..
propz.
As a point of interest, it is stories about the Mutki Mission that travelled across the Atlantic that partly inspired the Azusa Street revival and the birth of American Pentecostalism.
daycruz’s uncle has written about this. hope he chex out this thread.
Excellent suggestion Saheli – please webcast lectures…
Pardesi Begum, she was recognized as Pandita in Calcutta where Brahmo-ism and reformism were in full force. It’s unlikely her education would have been accepted back in Maharashtra at the time. As for ostracization (I didn’t say “ex-communicate”), that is hardly surprising — it still happens all the time.
In Pandita Ramabai: Through Her Own Words (a separate collection of writings also translated by Meera Kosambi), there is a short essay called “An Autobiographical Account,” she discusses some of these issues in more detail:
Those are her own words. If you want to quibble and demand written evidence, unfortunately she is no longer around to provide further documentation of her forced exile from the place where she grew up.
Her husband, who was from Sylhet (Assam) was also an orphan at the time of their marriage:
According to this, she didn’t “believe in the Hindu religion” even before her marriage. But the mere fact that she had to marry under the Civil Marriage Act (created for Brahmos, it’s a predecessor of today’s “Special Marriage Act”) tells us a lot about the status of her marriage.
Neither I nor Pandita Ramabai are singling out Hinduism here; caste restrictions on marriage were simply a fact of life then. As were child marriage, polygamy, dowry, and the ban on widow remarriage (which was made illegal by the British in 1856, but the practice remained prevalent).
OK here is the link I was talking about; http://www.sawnet.org/books/reviews.php?Rewriting+History
Pandita Ramabai – A Voice Suppressed or A Woman Ahead Of Her Times?
Amardeep, I see where you’re coming from. I was just providing counter arguments from something I read recently, which I posted the link to above.
Regarding;
“Neither I nor Pandita Ramabai are singling out Hinduism here; caste restrictions on marriage were simply a fact of life then. As were child marriage, polygamy, dowry, and the ban on widow remarriage (which was made illegal by the British in 1856, but the practice remained prevalent). “
These are still prevelant. In rural India (which makes up most of India). Most women still marry between 12-16, sometimes even younger than 12. Dowry is still huge, there is a cultural taboo against women re-marriage (no need of legal bans when cultural bans remain high), and polygamy is still found amongst muslims. Even some hindus marry more than once by simply getting married again in a simple ceremony in another town where it is not known they have a first wife from whom they are not divorced.
Out of all of the above, I would say the child marriage thing is still the most prevelant out of everything listed.
All of the domestic workers I have spoken with were married between the ages of 11-15. They say it is commmon in their villages. Yes, they come from generally poor backgrounds.
I’m not saying India has not changed on these things. Improvements have been made. But if you go into the interiors, where most Indians are living the same way they lived 100 years ago, you will see what I mean.
I would say the most improvement has been made in the field of hindu polygamy. That is not openly or culturally acceptable anymore.
Uh, Saheli, that pretty much is my lecture! It’s “muft” 😉
MD, lots of things: she liked the nuclear family (“family life is not a chore here”). She liked the lively feminists she met. She liked the relatively non-classist nature of the U.S. (she contrasted this to England) She even liked that sense of civic responsibility — she talks about how impressed she is that everyone pays taxes and local elected officials actually have to be responsible for things like sanitation and so on. That last point of praise might be another loaded/ oblique criticism of the British Raj — where Indians paid taxes, but local officials generally couldn’t be held accountable for their performance.
Badmash, yes, Tagore is on the syllabus — mainly his letters home from his first trip to England, as are sections of Gandhi’s autobiography. We might also talk about Tagore’s adventures in the U.S., though there’s less in the way of personal material to work with there. Not Vivekananda currently — would you recommend a particular essay or book he wrote about his impressions of the U.S. ?
Amardeep… I realize its essentially dissimilar in its approach, but have you reviewed this:
Caste and Outcast Dhan Gopal Mukerji Edited and Presented by Gordon H. Chang, Purnima Mankekar, and Akhil Gupta Stanford University Press, 2002
First published in 1923, it’s an interesting read, in part because Mukherjee talks not just about American culture, but also his own sense of isolation and identity as he participates in the culture.
a point of interest, it is stories about the Mutki Mission that travelled across the Atlantic that partly inspired the Azusa Street revival and the birth of American Pentecostalism.
Wow! Interesting. All things really do come from India 🙂 Any links for further information, badmash?
Desitutde – can’t find anything online, but my reference is RS Sugirtharajah’s “Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation” (link) Specifically, his chapter of Ramabai.
Check out this paper which discusses some of the unexpected (and comic) ramifications of the phenomenon of xenolalia (speaking in known languages) as one of the “signs of the Holy Spirit” at the Mukti Mission:
The newsletter of the Azusa Street Church, “The Apostolic Faith” published accounts of the Mukti Mission revival:
… and yes, all things do come from India!!!
“Mukti Mission is a witness to the love of Jesus Christ in this mainly Hindu and Muslim nation”
This is what their website http://www.mukti.org.au proclaims. Apparently they have offices all over the world including clinton, NJ.
That would be really interesting if indeed Charismatic Christianity originated in India.
My grandmother was one of those.
Speaking in tongues, holy rollin’, snake charmin’, you name it!
The pastor of her church was a woman, and that too in the 1970s!
It was forbidden for women in her church to cut their hair, wear pants, jewellry and makeup.
My grandma was a rebel coz she wore a broach.
Back-slidin!
Jai Maharastra!!
Last week I read an online book about Pandita Ramabai that was written by a British or American missionary. It was a plea to western christians to support her work in India, and gave alot of biographical info about the Pandita. It was very interesting.
However, now that I’m searching for that link I cannot find it.
Maybe you guys would have better luck. I can’t even recall how I came across it.
It took alot of material from the Pandita’s book: THE HIGH CASTE HINDOO WOMAN.
This is fantastic Amardeep. Thank you. I’m partial I’m Maharastrian and it would be incredible to read about a woman and that too during the 1800’s wow. Love it. Keep it coming. I’ve got a long list of books I have to get thru thanx to you.
United Stateschi Lokasthiti ani Pravasavritta, which translates to The Peoples of the United States.
Pravasa-vritta translates literally as a “travelogue” and loka stithi as “state of the people”. so the translation of the title would probably be ” State of the Peoples of the United states and (my) travelogue “
But your translation is probably good enough.
Also discussed here; http://www.sawnet.org/books/reviews.php?Rewriting+History
Pandita Ramabai – A Voice Suppressed or A Woman Ahead Of Her Times?
is the fact that Pandita Ramabai seemed to focus her efforts on the upliftment of brahmin girls and women only.
The question is posed; if she indeed had a desire to free herself from Hinduism and it’s caste system, why then the focus on brahmin females exclusively?
Her denunciation of brahminical culture, yet her attachment to it, was something conspicuous, according to the author of the above piece.
Amardeep wrote: “Pardesi Begum, she was recognized as Pandita in Calcutta where Brahmo-ism and reformism were in full force. It’s unlikely her education would have been accepted back in Maharashtra at the time. As for ostracization (I didn’t say “ex-communicate”), that is hardly surprising — it still happens all the time.”
While it is true that there was active discrimination against women, the above assertion about Bengal v Maharashtra is very creative. It does not take into account that her parents taught her Sanskrit in Maharashtra. In Maharashtra and parts of South India (notably Karnataka and Kerala), it was common for a certain class (in financial terms) of brahmin women to get education in sciences/maths as well as in scriptures. (Quite a few of the ancestral women in my family were well education in the early part of the 20th century).
And before Ramabai’s time, there were women pandits aplenty. Arguably, the most famous of them was Ubhaya Bharati, the wife of Mandana Mishra who debated (on the topic of sex, no less) with Adi Sankara roughly around 800 AD.
…I meant to write “well educated”…
And what about Savitribai Phule (wife of jyotiba phule)? She was the first woman to start a girls school in maharashtra!
I’ll back my statements about Maharashtra with facts in a few hours. I have to transcribe newspaper articles since the stuff is not in computer friendly format.
Impressive woman, and good post Amardeep. I find it a bit odd that a woman who is educated in Sanskrit would look to the Puranas for a rational explanation of the universe. The Puranas are a bunch of the most outrageously, over-the-top, fantastic stories with words of wisdom (and villany) woven into them. Calling the universe multi-tiered is probably the mildest thing you’d find in there. If anything, Ramabai should have mentioned the Vedas but she didn’t. They contain some very precise information on planetary distances, movement etc. Looks like there’s some sort of appeasement going on here – lookee hindoos as stupid as the rest – type of thing.
Hey, sounds like the Church I was raised in yo! I came across a really interesting discussion online recently that tried to relate some of these practices (esp jewellery) to the Hindu custom of renunciation – ie these practices had their roots in Indian rather than European customs. I don’t know if this really has any basis in Hindu practices, but I’d be interested to know from commentators if it does.
Yeah, my moma wears a broach to pin her sari to her blouse – she’s such a rebel too 😉
badmash:
Just the opposite. The churches didn’t want to wear them so that they would not look like Hindu women. In the catholic (a.k.a convent in India) school that I went to, girls (including Hindus) were forbibben from wearing plaits, flowers in their hair or bindis. A muslim girl turned up in a salwar-kameez made in the same dress material as our uniforms. She was summarily sent home and asked to come back in a skirt and blouse. He father showed up. The padre basically said that she would either come back in the appropriate uniform or stay at home. {Only Sikhs were exempt from this uniform – they could wear turbans and carry their kripans).
Anyone know if this book was translated into other Indian languages? I remember my mom telling me of a very similar book that she read in high school, but that was in Tamil. If it’s not translated into other Indian languages, it might be a worthy exercise for a multi-liguist to undertake.
Okay, done. I’ve posted an article (on Pundita Ramabai) that appeared in the New York Times, on Mar 7, 1886.
How very interesting! Sepia is the best, and Amardeep er.. the crown jewel!!!
Throughout Amardeep’s post, I kept noticing how one life incidents provide opportunities that determine one’s fate to a great extant. Its SO possible that had her parents not died in the famine, even after receiving training in Sanskrit she might have had a rather ‘regular’ existance with marriage etc. And then when she eventually did marry, she might have lived a long married life even though in the shadow of religious puritans. Her’s is a classic case of fate, and of not knowing where just a small response in one’s condition will evolve into very large deviation from the ‘ordinary’ existance.
Also made me think how education is SO key even if one ends up discarding the learning eventually. I fail to see had she not had parents who taught her to read and examine the wisdom of her heritage, how she’d have been the person she became. Sure that’s not the only path to erudite examination of life, but you’ve got to admit her parents empowered her with the most potent of weapons to respond to the adversities ordained for her.
What is also so interesting is her continued identification with certain aspects of the value system she grew up with – the widow’s attire, brahmin’s diet etc. Maybe not so much the diet, but the attire would seem so odd to keep, considering what it represented to her, and that there likely wasn’t the same social pressure to conform once outside India. Maybe it was important to her sense of identity in a foreign (wildly so I’d imagine) land.
I agree with Quizman in that while uncommon, educated/learned women did exist. Especially in the reformist hindu homes. I have known women born during her time who studied to the equivalent of 5th grade or so – enough to read and write at least. Sanskrit and Hindu scriptures would also be part of the training which was given informally at home.
Excerpt from the article that I posted She is chiefly known in the United States through a remarkable scene in which, she was a prominent actor, in Poona, in September, 1882. At this time the English Education Commission visited this conservative and wealthy city to inspect the educational institutions, whereupon the leading Brahmin ladies, members of this newly formed society and others, to the number of about 300, notwithstanding a heavy rainstorm, assembled with their children in the Town Hall to welcome the education commission to show them that although the municipality had not encouraged girls schools, a real movement was being made by the best families of the Maharatta country.
The thought of mutineering aunties wearing navvari sarees, with kids in tow, geting drenched in the rain and shouting slogans is awesome!
Related film: 22 June 1897 (Marathi) and Rao Saheb. Both must-see films. A magnificent review of Rao Saheb by Professor. Subbarao Kambampati is here. Other brilliant mutineering articles by the him are here.
Yikes. Wrong link. The imdb link to Rao Saheb is this
Interesting stuff.
This might be of interest to some;
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Women_in_Hinduism.htm
Amardeep,
There is a free e-version of the book available here.
I remember you had asked (on your blog) for recommendations, for books to include in your course. I had meant to send you this link then…mmm…but I got lazy.
This is simply disturbing. Once you convert from a religion you loose all rights to dis- “that religion.” The motive simply is to destroy it. Dumbass converts from one shitty religion to the other and then claims higher moral ground. Did she have nothing to say about slavery.
To prove that his compassion for widows was not empty rhetoric as some might have assumed, he married his own son off to a widow…For his stand he was virulently attacked by conservative vested interest groups and the shastrakars (cleric) of the day. He often received threats of physical violence and death. But nothing stopped Vidyasagar from what he set out to do! His iron-will prevailed in the end. On 26th July 1856 widow marriage was legalised by the then Government.
How difficult it must have been in those times. Pandita Ramabai came to Calcutta around the time the great Ishwar Chandra Vidya Sagar passed away. Wonder why Pandita Ramabai never met Vidya Sagar. I have read (can’t place it where) that Vidya Sagar spent the last years of his life among the Santhals learning with them and helping them to join the mainstream of the day.
I am amused that Ramabai should turn to the Puranas for cosmology. The Aryabhatteeyam the basis of astronomy for 1000 years until the 1500s was widely taught in India. What people believed was something else.
The article is pretty informative and well written. But this line ?
Since when did Puranas become the storehouse of scientific information? It is akin to looking for science in the Iliad or something and then dismissing the Greek civilization as a superstitious one. I find that sentence distasteful. I don’t know what to say of those who go looking for science in the Puranas.
Just FYI, there were plenty of Indian women even before Ramabai who were learned and even considered poets of a high order (they wrote in sanskrit too). Some names (only female Sanskrit poets) are – madhuravANI, vijjika, vikaTanitaMbA… There were many more empowered women in India during that time and before – but alas! they were more the exception than the rule.
Ramabai was probably a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Her comments on the Hindu religion are not all valid. However, she had her experiences and so is entitled to her own opinion. But, one cannot help but praise her for her courage and strength of conviction.
Finally, I found this line very interesting :
Curiously, the above line was not just the claim of Western scholars but also of Manu who flourished even before them. Manu declared in his now controversial Manusmriti – “yatra nAryastu pUjyante ramante tatra devatAH” (The gods rejoice where women are worshipped). Did Ramabai unconsciously echo Manu here?
I wonder why we should make a big fuss about her. And I also wonder what her reasons for conversion were. I mean if we think she is great and had struggled a lot then what about women and men who stayed in the same religion and worked hard to get rid of the flaws in that religion…i.e. savitribai phule. Their struggle must have been much harder and praiseworthy that ramabai’s. Amardeep, what excatly are you teaching about ramabai….just curious.
Two comments: first, about Ramabai’s interest in the welfare of “high-caste women” – this was from an era when ethnic and sub-ethnic categories were considered immutable and permananent by ALL cultures. Jews were considered from the “hebrew race”; Scots, Welsh and Irish considered deeply different from English and so on and forth. In British Calcutta for example, there was a separate white town (UK-ethnic origin), brown town (iraqi jews, armenians) and black town (indian) which lasted till the 40s. To expect her to go much beyond this in the indian context, with its layers of religous and caste feeling, seems to me to be a very high expectation.
Regarding her conversion to christianity, I see it as a cultural flexibility and openness that has been true of indic cultures for a long time. At a time of extreme change and tumult, why shouldnt some people try out wildly different approaches? After all Ram Mohun Roy, perhaps the first modern hindu, essentially converted to being a unitarian. It is good that she was able to return to india and create some institutions and have some impact on our society.
I think people should get over the ‘conversion’ factor and see what Ramabai has said about America.. I’m interested in knowing what Ramabai felt about America of 1880s.. Maybe Amardeep could expand on that..
So far I’ve read umpteen writers (American/Brit) who have written about India and its people of 1800s/1900s.. Those reports mostly go like this.. How India is delved in superstitious religious beliefs, child marriages, caste abuses, lack of vigour in men ( 🙂 ) etc.. etc.. I get a book from the library, read the first page and then can guess the entire contents.. It would be nice to know the other perspective.. Actually it is true even today.. Someone from India should write about America of today and how he / she feels about it..
Vivekananda hated Ramabai. He wrote everyone in America thinks that Indians(hindus)throw their newborn girls to crocodiles in the river and everyone burns widows. He was flabbergasted by the amount of misinformation about India in US. He credited all this misinformation to Ramabai and the missionaries. Further he wrote that Americans help Ramabai financially to spread Christianity so that dirty and superstitious native Hindus could be salvaged.
Amardeep if you want Vivekananda impressions about America…his letters would be excellent.
Where did you pull that rule out from? If you criticize while you are a follower of the religion, people say “If you don’t like it, why don’t you convert to another religion”. If you criticize after converting, then it’s your rule. It just seems like people just can’t stand criticism of their religion.
Hey, if you have some defense against her criticsm, say it. Don’t just sit and question her motives. A fact is a fact no matter how low the motives of a person saying it might be.
Thanks for calling Hinduism and Christianity shitty religions.
Why not read amardeep’s post carefully?
LOL.. it looks like even now, some people think like that. Even here in sepiamutiny a couple of days back someone remarked that if people married outside of caste they are killed in India..
“LOL.. it looks like even now, some people think like that. Even here in sepiamutiny a couple of days back someone remarked that if people married outside of caste they are killed in India..”
Exactly…..then why emphasize it by teaching a course on ramabai of all the people!!! I am sure christians (and by that I mean americans)know a lot about ramabai than we do (from their church)! They must have studied her and used every bit of her “indian” criticism for their proselytizing mission.