9/21/2019 Three phases of Indian renaissance - Frontline

DISPATCHES (HTTPS://FRONTLINE.THEHINDU.COM/DISPATCHES/)
India’s Chandrayaan-2 mission ends in a crash-landing  
(htt //f tli th hi d /di t h / ti l 29362608 )

ESSAY

Three phases of Indian renaissance

Print edition : March 03, 2017

 

Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Photo: The Hindu Archives

The way to stem the increasingly declining values in society is to rethink the relationship
between culture and politics in a manner in which culture is spurred by politics and politics is
re ned by culture. It is time to think about a fourth phase of the Indian renaissance.

IN the historiography of modern India, the renaissance is generally marked as the pre-
political phase of the anti-colonial struggle, a period when Indians were mainly engaged
in social and cultural preparation for participation in the more “progressive” and
“radical”, political programme. The social and religious movements, popularly termed as
the renaissance, which preceded the political struggles, are considered a necessary
precursor to the coming of nationalism. Hence, nationalism is conceptualised as a
natural outcome of the renaissance.
This teleological view of history has been dominant till recently. A departure from this
view, quite critical for renaissance studies, had to wait until a strict periodisation of
historical time came to be questioned. Not only broad overarching labels like ancient,
https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/three-phases-of-indian-renaissance/article9541139.ece 1/7
9/21/2019 Three phases of Indian renaissance - Frontline

medieval, modern and contemporary periods, but also thematic periodisation like the
colonial, reformist or nationalist periods came under scrutiny. The challenge to this neat
compartmentalisation came from di erent sources. To begin with, from Marxist
scholars who traced the social origins of the national movement, from Dalit scholars
who came out with alternative histories based on caste, and subaltern historians whose
focus was on domination and subordination. This not only marked a change in the
universe of analysis, but also a reconceptualisation of categories and the re-
examination of analytical categories such as caste, class, community, and so on. In the
realm of the history of ideas, the intellectual history, if you like, the most important
departure has been the contextualisation of ideas.
Modernity and Renaissance
The relationship between modernity and the renaissance has given rise to a variety of
questions. Whether the renaissance succeeded in resolving the social contradictions that
existed in society is one important question. Why the renaissance did not become
trans-sectional and why it remained religion-caste oriented is another. Is it that the
renaissance was the expression of nothing more than an aggregation of upper-caste
social and religious interests? Is it a fair assessment that the renaissance did not
succeed in transgressing the limits set by the Brahmanic ideologies? Is it accidental that
the university syllabuses did not contain courses on the history of Dalits and the
marginalised? Why did the historical literature on the evolution of modern India treat
the renaissance as an overarching phenomenon striding across the Indian society in the
19th and 20th centuries, without much sensitivity to the fortunes of the marginalised?
An inquiry into the relationship between renaissance and modernity may provide
answers to some of these questions.
The origin of modernity in India is often attributed to the intellectual and cultural
e orescence associated with the renaissance. The renaissance marked a period of
transition in values, transformation in social sensibilities and rebirth in cultural
creativity. The outcome of these processes was the elaboration, representation and
interpretation of humanism and the emergence of a new man with cultural and
intellectual attributes di erent from his past. These ideas inspired an upsurge of
creative energy, leading to the works of masters in painting, sculpture, literature, music,
and so on. The new aesthetic that emerged was integral to the structural
transformation of social organisation and relations of production. It was the intellectual
component of the rise of capitalism, which came to be christened as modern, to
distinguish the present from the past—the new from the old.
With the growth of capitalism, the modern assumed di erent hues. Therefore, what we
mean by “modern” became a matter of debate. A seminal question is whether the
modernity in the former Asian and African countries is qualitatively similar to the
modernity capitalism had brought about in Europe, as it is generally viewed as a
phenomenon that came from the West through the instrumentality of colonial rule. A
dominant opinion, initially generated by colonial rulers who prided themselves on their
civilising mission, was that India was being led to the modern stage by the colonial
administration, guided by the principles of liberalism. As such, the changes that were
ushered in during the colonial domination—in administrative organisation, transport
and communication, commercialisation of agriculture, and so on—are described as
modernisation. Such changes were part of “colonial modernity” in the sense that they
https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/three-phases-of-indian-renaissance/article9541139.ece 2/7
9/21/2019 Three phases of Indian renaissance - Frontline

were undertaken in the service of colonial interest. They were essentially colonial
projects and not modernising projects. It is understandable that the o cial readings left
out the “colonial” part, implying thereby that the changes in economy, society and
culture were part of progress towards modernity. The new Indian middle class, nurtured
by the liberal English education, internalised this myth and gave credence to it through
the example of its own “modern” life. In the event, what is considered modern today
came to be identi ed with the type of progress achieved by the West, of which colonial
modernity was in fact a caricature.
The belief in the benevolent nature of colonial modernity was not limited to the middle
class alone. It ltered into all strata of society. Even a section of the Dalit leadership
believed that it was the British who gave them a ray of hope to overcome the
oppressive caste system. Not without reason, though. After all, the British
administrative interventions gave them a break from the age-old oppressive caste
system. At least some of them were enabled to breathe fresh air by the intervention of
the colonial state. Such a perspective was the result of the iniquity of the caste system,
which perpetrated, in the name of religion, cruelty and exploitation beyond human
tolerance.
The infrastructural development that the British undertook to deepen the system of
exploitation or to ensure their control over the people gave credence to the belief about
the dawn of a new era. The railways, the system of communication and secular
educational facilities were prime examples. But colonial rule was not an instrument of
modernisation but an instrument of exploitation, which impoverished the natural
resources of the colony, undermined its traditional industries and unsettled its cultural
life. It also impacted adversely on the cultural, social and political life. When compared
to this vast destruction, the bene ts of colonial modernity were marginal.
The beginning of modernity was heralded not by the arrival of the West in India, but by
the onset of the social and religious reforms, which is popularly called the renaissance,
following the European experience. But reform is not renaissance, which, in fact, is the
expression of a much larger social and intellectual awakening. Its beginning is traced to
the e orts of Raja Ram Mohan Roy in Bengal to ameliorate the conditions of the life of
women and to reform religious practices. In north India, it took root in the activities of
Dayananda Saraswati and in Maharashtra in the Prarthana Samaj founded by M.G.
Ranade and in Andhra Pradesh the movement initiated by Viresalingam. A de ning
feature of all these movements was that they were all upper caste–class phenomena
and catered to meet the social and spiritual demands of the newly emerging middle
class.

A di erent trajectory
The story was slightly di erent in south India, particularly in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. In
both these areas, the renaissance was a slow starter, possibly because the emergence of
a middle class was relatively late in these regions. In the 19th century, the area which
constituted present-day Kerala—namely, Travancore, Cochin and Malabar—was an
educationally and socially backward region. So was Tamil Nadu. What distinguished the
Tamil Nadu-Kerala experience was its lower-caste orientation. Most of the reform
movements in this region emerged from the lower castes, unlike the north Indian
https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/three-phases-of-indian-renaissance/article9541139.ece 3/7
9/21/2019 Three phases of Indian renaissance - Frontline

renaissance, which was mainly an upper-caste preserve. The reform initiated by Raja
Ram Mohan Roy in Bengal was an upper-caste–upper-class movement. Those who
followed him belonged to the same group. Debendranath Tagore and Keshub Chandra
Sen in Bengal, Ranade in Maharashtra, Dayananda Saraswati in Punjab, Viresalingam in
Andhra Pradesh, and so on.
In contrast, the renaissance in Kerala was led by lower-caste reformers such as
Narayana Guru and Ayyankali. So was it in Tamil Nadu, where the progress of the lower
castes was championed by ‘Periyar’ E.V. Ramasamy and Iyothee Thass. The initiatives of
these leaders were not reform movements in the conventional sense. The social
activities they undertook may be termed reformist, but the ideas they propagated were
radical in nature. For instance, their emphasis was not on caste reform but on the
abolition of the caste system. Their role in society was more in the nature of spreading
the ideas which contributed to the making of a modern society. Their emphasis was on
cleanliness, education, industry and such other material issues. They were ideologues of
social change who envisioned a casteless and classless society. Although they did not
propound any social theory, e orts were made to conceptualise the organisation of a
society on egalitarian lines. Vishnubuva Brahmachari’s Vedokta Dharma Prakasha and
Bankim Chandra Chatterji’s essay “Samyo” are good examples.
The common feature that they all shared was the urge to transform the existing social
and cultural conditions, ranging from irrational religious practices and rituals to the
oppressive state of women’s lives. The widespread belief in idolatry, which was ranked
by many as the main source of superstitions, received prime attention. The Brahmo
Samaj abolished idolatry, so did the Arya Samaj and the Prarthana Samaj. Narayana
Guru was more innovative in his approach. He had the foresight to realise that “surgical
operations” were counterproductive in social matters. Therefore, he tried to undermine
the appeal of idolatry in slow stages. To begin with, he questioned the divine character
attributed to the idol by taking an ordinary stone to consecrate Siva. Consequently, he
used a mirror in place of the idol and nally he abolished the idol altogether. This
attempt to use the medium of the idol to negate idol worship has been misinterpreted
as an endorsement of idol worship and as an example of upper-caste hegemony.
Narayana Guru was in line with the 19th century Indian tradition of anti-idolatry. The
irony, however, was that after his death his followers turned him into an idol.
The deplorable condition of women also agitated the reforming mind of the 19th
century. Starting with Ram Mohan Roy, who championed the abolition of Sati, almost
all reformers advocated the urgent need to free women from the shackles of moribund
custom. This was not an expression of empathy for the type of lives they were forced to
lead. The reform had a very limited but crucial purpose: the amelioration of the
condition and dignity of women.
These early e orts to reform the socio-religious conditions formed the rst phase of
the Indian renaissance. A de ning feature of this phase was its focus on reform as the
sole means of regeneration. The destiny of society, it was argued, depended on how fast
Indians got rid of obscurantic practices and superstitious beliefs. At the same time,
renaissance distanced itself from politics. It was believed that once society was rid of
irrational practices, all other dimensions of national life would be automatically solved.
In their view, solving the internal social weakness was the immediate need and once it
was achieved, it would not take a long time for the political problem to be solved.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/three-phases-of-indian-renaissance/article9541139.ece 4/7
9/21/2019 Three phases of Indian renaissance - Frontline

Although the awareness of an alien rule lurked in the minds of many and found
occasional expression, albeit indirectly, a sensitivity about its deleterious consequences
was lacking. Only a very few tried to address the issue of the relationship between
colonialism and social liberation. And those who did, couched their criticism in liberal
terms. The colonial ideology of guided modernity appears to have had a profound
in uence on the Indian intelligentsia at that time and it led them to rationalise the
colonial domination as a divine dispensation.
Nationalism and Renaissance
Through a liberal critique of the colonial rule during the 19th century, the Indian
intelligentsia was able to overcome this delusion, which led to the emergence of
nationalism. At the same time, they also realised the importance of combining political
and cultural activities. This connection led to the internalisation, although on a limited
scale, of renaissance ideas by nationalism. The connection, however, was so tenuous
that the “political” gained an upper hand and the “social” was relegated to the
background. The rise and decline of the Indian Social Conference is a good example. The
social conference, in the beginning, met at the same venue as the Indian National
Congress, thereby recognising the symbiotic relationship between the political and the
cultural. This practice was abandoned when the anti-colonial political movement
became powerful. This separation had symbolic meaning, indicative of the priorities the
national movement had set for itself.
The rise of the middle class led to a disjunction between the social and the political
movements, which had long-term implications. When the national movement gained
strength through political struggles like non-cooperation and civil disobedience, the
social consciousness was still entrenched in caste and communal feelings. Was it a
result of the inability to evolve a symbiotic relationship between the political and the
cultural? Gandhiji addressed this question by his advocacy of Gram Swaraj and
constructive programmes. This was the high point of the second phase of the
renaissance, when nationalism tried to incorporate the renaissance values. However, the
potential of this relationship was not realised in practice. Therefore, nationalism left
behind a backward social consciousness, however progressive the thinking of the
leadership was.
The central inspiration of the renaissance was humanism. By bringing man to the centre
stage, humanism spurred the creative energy in all spheres of social existence—
architecture, music, painting and philosophical thought. But the expression of
humanism in di erent epochs di ered in emphasis. During the ancient period it found
expression in empathy with those denied freedom and subjected to slavery and those
who had no access to justice, but in the medieval times humanist sympathy lay with
those who were victims of feudal oppression. In modern times, the focus of humanism
is focussed on the defence of the rights of the underprivileged and the marginalised.
The di erent phases of renaissance carried in their baggage the changing forms of
humanism.
The three phases
The rst phase of the renaissance in India was embodied in the socio-religious
movements, which was mainly, though not exclusively, initiated by the burgeoning
middle class, which was schooled in British liberalism. But the intellectuals who
spearheaded the movement were not Anglophile Indians. A de ning feature of the
https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/three-phases-of-indian-renaissance/article9541139.ece 5/7
9/21/2019 Three phases of Indian renaissance - Frontline

movement was an inquiry into the past and an assessment of the strength of tradition
to overcome contemporary problems. Recall Ram Mohan Roy’s use of Hindu scriptures
in his debate with his opponents on Sati, or Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar’s widow
remarriage campaign, or Narayana Guru’s advocacy of universalism. They were all
groping for a way out in an “era of darkness”. That they struck at the obvious—social
obscurantism, religious superstition and irrational rituals—was the natural outcome.
Thus, the rst phase of the Indian renaissance was predominantly engaged with social
and cultural matters, a consequence of which was the relative neglect of the political. In
fact, the political did not gure seriously in their thoughts.
In contrast, the second stage was characterised by an attempt to bring together anti-
colonial politics and the social quest for modernity. The anti-colonial movement did not
follow the renaissance, as is generally assumed; the latter elided into the former, in the
sense that the national movement allowed the values of the rst phase of the
renaissance to form their ideological postures and enter areas where they were
conspicuous by their absence. But the national movement took the precaution to keep
the struggle on social issues outside its political agenda and to control it through
measured interventions. Gandhiji’s role in the Vaikom Satyagraha, for instance, was that
of a mediator and not a participant, even if his sympathy was with the satyagrahis.
The third phase of the renaissance, which begins with the end of colonial rule, was a
result of the con uence of Marxism and the renaissance values. In fact, the renaissance
values are inherent in Marxism and were part of the agenda of the communist
movement, which functioned with the notion of cultural and social equality, among
caste and gender. This was not a break with the past. The ideas of equality, gender
justice and secularism were integral to the rst and second phases of the renaissance as
well. But with di erent humanist orientations. The aim of the Left was not so much to
“reform”, but to transform the existing cultural and social practices. In doing so, it
sought to create a new meaning for the renaissance. Although several leaders of the
Left movement realised the importance of culture in popular struggles, they did not
succeed in creatively bringing them together. The third phase of the renaissance, as
represented by radical cultural activism, therefore, did not really take o , despite a very
encouraging beginning in the 1930s. The deleterious e ects of this failure have plagued
the Left renaissance to the extent that cultural activism has almost become irrelevant in
the cultural life of the nation. This is surprising as a substantial section of the creative
intelligentsia are broadly left in their intellectual orientation. Many cultural activists and
writers have started wondering whether a “Left Renaissance” is possible at all.
A process with changing attributes
The renaissance was not an event, it was a process and its attributes underwent
changes whenever major shifts took place in society and the economy. As similar
relations cannot be reproduced for a second time, it is also not possible that the values
of the rst renaissance could be recaptured in the changed conditions generated by
capitalism and neoliberalism. Not because those values have lost their relevance, but
the social context has changed and, accordingly, their content has to be refurbished.
Instead of attempting to recapture the values of the rst renaissance, which occurred in
a colonial-feudal era, the Left has to reinvent the renaissance from the viewpoint of the
oppressed, the exploited and the marginalised. Socialist humanism not only aims at an
egalitarian socio-political order, it also envisions cultural and intellectual freedom. The
https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/three-phases-of-indian-renaissance/article9541139.ece 6/7
9/21/2019 Three phases of Indian renaissance - Frontline

violence and intolerance rampant in society today is not so much the failure of the rst
phase of the renaissance as the inability to transform its values in accordance with the
demands of the present. The material world is changing, but the cultural-ideational
climate remains stagnant, if not deteriorating. The way to stem the increasingly
declining values in society is to rethink the relationship between culture and politics in a
manner in which culture is spurred by politics and politics is re ned by culture.
It is time to think about a fourth phase of the Indian renaissance.
K.N. Panikkar is former Professor of Modern History, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/three-phases-of-indian-renaissance/article9541139.ece 7/7