Published on 03 April, 2006
[Recently, we are observing a phenomenon among conservative Muslims which has nice parallel in the Indian history during 1820s, the glorious period of Hindu reform brought about by Lord William Bentinck. History is a much better teacher than hypothesis of social science and therefore, I found it amazingly interesting to browse through the writing of Lord Bentinck to understand the nature of problem- whether or not "human rights" are "western" ideals, and not universal!
East India Company had a declared policy of non-intervention into religious matter of its Hindu and Muslim subjects. Hence, when Ram Mohan approached to Lord Bentinck for the abolition of Satidaha and to make it criminally punishable, one of the finest humanist of all time, Bentinck had to fight with the council to get permission on the issue of religious interference.
The year 1828 has traditionally been regarded as demarcating the beginning of a new era in the history of British India. Up to this time attitudes concerning the governance of an alien society varied and were mostly discordant. But the dominant ethos was ' reformist' and it grew in strength and stridency. Initially held at bay, it captured the mind of Parliament first, indoctrinated the bureaucratic class that was trained at Hailey bury to run the new empire, and overwhelmed the objections of orientalists and pragmatists .By 1828 liberals like Macauley and Utilitarian like Mill, Bentinck and Trevelyan had the field to themselves and immediately instituted reformist programmes.
Bentinck was appointed governor general of Bengal in 1827 and was successful in turning the annual deficit of about £1.5 million into a surplus of about the same amount. Consequently, the Charter Act of 1833 renewed the government of East India Company, and Bentinck became the governor general of India in 1833. Strongly influenced by the tradition of Utilitarianism—a political school of thought, influenced by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, which believed in reform through rational administration—he brought about important changes in the administrative structure of India, such as an end to discrimination in public service recruitment, adoption of a liberal attitude toward the press, and the far-reaching measure of making English the official language of India. Although he followed a policy of nonintervention in the day-to-day running of Indian states, he annexed Mysore, Coorg, and central Cachar. He abolished the practice of female infanticide prevalent among some Rajput tribes. Indian reformers such as Raja Rammohan Roy (1772–1833) advocated abolition of the sati system (the custom of burning widows alive with the dead bodies of their husbands). In Regulation of XVII of December 1829, Bentinck declared sati illegal. However, this has not been as easy task and he had to write constantly in the favor of reform.
Here is, one of such golden collections of his writing which has shown light to the Indians and mankind in general. I am adding my notes (blue) for the readers.]
From "Lord William Bentinck on the Suppression of Sati, 8 November 1829," in Speeches and Documents on Indian Policy, 17501921, ed. Arthur B. Keith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922), vol. 1, pp. 208226.
Whether the question be to continue or to discontinue the practice of sati, the decision is equally surrounded by an awful responsibility. To consent to the consignment year after year of hundreds of innocent victims to a cruel and untimely end, when the power exists of preventing it, is a predicament which no conscience can contemplate without horror. But, on the other hand, if heretofore received opinions are to be considered of any value, to put to hazard by a contrary course the very safety of the British Empire in India, and to extinguish at once all hopes of those great improvements-affecting the condition not of hundreds and thousands but of millions-which can only be expected from the continuance of our supremacy, is an alternative which even in the light of humanity itself may be considered as a still greater evil It is upon this first and highest consideration alone(Quite interesting analysis of the situation by Lord Bentinck-it is clear that he was influenced by Mills and hence, he considered humanism as the supreme objective. This is also a clear proof that proponents of Muslim personal laws like Ziauddin and Setara Hashem are much behind Lord Bentinck and his ideas in 1829. If not for anybody else, a Ram Mohan or a Lord Bentinck is needed to baptize them with absolute value of humanism -BP)., the good of mankind, that the tolerance of this inhuman and impious rite can in my opinion be justified on the part of the government of a civilized nation. While the solution of this question is appalling from the unparalleled magnitude of its possible results, the considerations belonging to it are such as to make even the stoutest mind distrust its decision. On the one side, Religion, Humanity, under the most appalling form, as well as vanity and ambition-in short, all the most powerful influences over the human heart-are arrayed to bias and mislead the judgment. On the other side, the sanction of countless ages, the example of all the Mussulman conquerors ( Bentinck was of the opinion that Muslim rulers did nothing to stop inhuman practice of Hinduism. This is not true. Empire Akbar also restricted Satidaha and ritual infanticide by the Hindues-BP **) , the unanimous concurrence in the same policy of our own most able rulers, together with the universal veneration of the people, seem authoritatively to forbid, both to feeling and to reason, any interference in the exercise of their natural prerogative. In venturing to be the first to deviate from this practice it becomes me to show that nothing has been yielded to feeling, but that reason, and reason alone, has governed the decision. ( Educated Muslim supporters of Sharia must be felt ashamed to find out Lord Bentinck was ahead of them!-BP )
. . . So far from being chargeable with political rashness, as this departure from an established policy might infer, I hope to be able so completely to prove the safety of the measures as even to render unnecessary any calculation of the degree of risk which for the attainment of so great a benefit might wisely and justly be incurred.... With the firm undoubting conviction entertained upon this question, I should be guilty of little short of the crime of multiplied murder if I could hesitate in the performance of this solemn obligation (This is a classic reasoning why a humanist should be as equal guilty if he does not take action against any kind of inhuman practice without seeing color, race and religion-BP) I have been already stung with this feeling. Every day's delay adds a victim to the dreadful list, which might perhaps have been prevented by a more early submission of the present question. . .
. . . When we had powerful neighbours and had greater reason to doubt our own security, expediency might recommend an indirect and more cautious proceeding, but now that we are supreme my opinion is decidedly in favour of an open, avowed, and general prohibition, resting altogether. Upon the moral goodness of the act and our power to enforce it; and so decided is my feeling against any half measure that, were I not convinced of the safety of total abolition, I certainly should have advised the cessation of all interference.
Of all those who have given their advice against the abolition of the rite, and have described the ill effects likely to ensue from it, there is no one to whom I am disposed to pay greater deference than Mr. Horace Wilson (This British was a supporter of Sati and rumor goes that he was bribed by conservative Hindues. Readers may find a similarity in recent Sharia debate-BP). I purposely select his opinion because, independently of his vast knowledge of Oriental literature, it has fallen to his lot, as secretary to the Hindu College, and possessing the general esteem both of the parents and of the youths, to have more confidential intercourse with natives of all classes than any man in India. While his opportunity of obtaining information has been great beyond all others, his talents and judgement enable him to form a just estimate of its value. I shall state the most forcible of his reasons, and how far I do and do not agree with him.
1st. Mr. Wilson considers it to be a dangerous evasion of the real difficulties to attempt to prove that satis are not "essentially a part of the Hindu religion." I entirely agree in this opinion. The question is not what the rite is but what it is supposed to be, and I have no doubt that the conscientious belief of every order of Hindus, with few exceptions, regards it as sacred.
2nd. Mr. Wilson thinks that the attempt to put down the practice will inspire extensive dissatisfaction. I agree also in this opinion. He thinks that success will only be partial, which I doubt. He does not imagine that the promulgated prohibition will lead to any immediate and overt act of insubordination, but that affrays and much agitation of the public mind must ensue. But he conceives that, if once they suspect that it is the intention of the British Government to abandon this hitherto inviolate principle of allowing the most complete toleration in matters of religion, there will arise in the minds of all so deep a distrust of our ulterior designs that they will no longer be tractable to any arrangement intended for their improvement, and that principle of a purer morality, as well as of a more virtuous and exalted rule of action, now actively inculcated by European education and knowledge, will receive a fatal check. I must acknowledge that a similar opinion as the probable excitation of a deep distrust of our future intentions was mentioned to me in conversation by that enlightened native, Ram Mohun Roy, a warm advocate for the abolition of sati and of all other superstitions and corruptions engrafted on the Hindu religion, which he considers originally to have been a pure Deism. It was his opinion that the practice might be suppressed quietly and unobservedly by increasing the difficulties and by the indirect agency of the police. He apprehended that any public enactment would give rise to general apprehension, that the reasoning would be, "While the English were contending for power, they deemed it politic to allow universal toleration and to respect our religion, but having obtained the supremacy their first act is a violation ol their profession, and the next will probably be, like the Muhammadan conquerors, to force upon us their own religion.(Hindues were always afraid - like Muslim rulers British would try to convert them as well-BP)"
Admitting, as I am always disposed to do, that much truth is contained in these remarks, but not at all assenting to the conclusions which, though not described, bear the most unfavorable import, I shall now inquire into the evil and the extent of danger which may practically result from this measure.
It must be first observed that of the 463 satis occurring in the whole of the Presidency of Fort William, 420 took place in Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, or what is termed the Lower Provinces, and of these latter 287 in the Calcutta Division alone.
It might be very difficult to make a stranger to India understand, much less believe, that in a population of so many millions of people as the Calcutta Division includes, and the same may be said of all the Lower Provinces, so great is the want of courage and of vigour of character, and such the habitual submission of centuries, that insurrection or hostile opposition to the will of the ruling power may be affirmed to be an impossible danger....
If, however, security was wanting against extensive popular tumult or revolution, I should say that the Permanent Settlement, which, though a failure in many other respects and in its most important essentials, has this great advantage at least, of having created a vast body of rich landed proprietors deeply interested in the continuance of the British Dominion and having complete command over the mass of the people....
Were the scene of this sad destruction of human life laid in the Upper instead of the Lower Provinces, in the midst of a bold and manly people, I might speak with less confidence upon the question of safety. In these Provinces the satis amount to fortythree only upon a population of nearly twenty millions. It cannot be expected that any general feeling, where combination of any kind is so unusual, could be excited in defense of a rite in which so few participate, a rite also notoriously made too often subservient to views of personal interest on the part of the other members of the family....
But I have taken up too much time in giving my own opinion when those of the greatest experience and highest official authority are upon our records. In the report of the Nizamat Adalat for 1828, four out of five of the Judges recommended to the GovernorGeneral in Council the immediate abolition of the practice, and attest its safety. The fifth Judge, though not opposed to the opinions of the rest of the Bench, did not feel then prepared to give his entire assent. In the report of this year the measure has come up with the unanimous recommendation of the Court.... No documents exist to show the opinions of the public functionaires in the interior, but I am informed that ninetenths are in favour of the abolition....
Having made inquiries, also, how far satis are permitted in the European foreign settlements, I find from Dr. Carey that at Chinsurah no such sacrifices had ever been permitted by the Dutch Government. That within the limits of Chandarnagar itself they were also prevented, but allowed to be performed in the British territories. The Danish Government of Serampur has not forbidden the rite, in conformity to the example of the British Government.
It is a very important fact that, though representations have been made by the disappointed party to superior authority, it does not appear that a single instance of direct opposition to the execution of the prohibitory orders of our civil functionaries has ever occurred. How, then, can it be reasonably feared that to the Government itself, from whom all authority is derived, and whose power is now universally considered to be irresistible, anything bearing the semblance of` resistance can be manifested? Mr. Wilson also is of opinion that no immediate overt act of insubordination would follow the publication of the edict. The Regulation of Government may be evaded, the police may be corrupted, but even here the price paid as hush money will operate as a penalty, indirectly forwarding the object of Government.
I venture, then, to think it completely proved that from the native population nothing of extensive combination, or even of partial opposition, may be expected from the abolition....
I have now to submit for the consideration of Council the draft of a regulation enacting the abolition of satis.... It is only in the previous processes, or during the actual performance of the rite, when the feelings of all may be more or less roused to a high degree of excitement, that I apprehend the possibility of affray or of acts of violence through an indiscreet and injudicious exercise of authority. It seemed to me prudent, therefore, that the police, in the first instance, should warn and advise, but not forcibly prohibit, and if the sati, in defiance of this notice, were performed, that a report should be made to the magistrate, who would summon the parties and proceed as in any other case of crime....
The first and primary object of my heart is the benefit of the Hindus. I know nothing so important to the improvement of their future condition as the establishment of a purer morality, whatever their belief, and a more just conception of the will of God. The first step to this better understanding will be dissociation of religious belief and practice from blood and murder (Isn’t it amazing, how he was ahead of his time “dissociation of belief and practice from blood and murder”. No religion or religious practice which is inhuman in universal standard be tolerated in the name of religious freedom-BP). They will then, when no longer under this brutalizing excitement, view with more calmness acknowledged truths. They will see that there can be no inconsistency in the ways of Providence, that to the command received as divine by all races of` men, "No innocent blood shall be spilt," there can be no exception; and when they shall have been convinced of the error of this first and most criminal of their customs, may it not be hoped that others, which stand in the way of their improvement, may likewise pass away, and that, thus emancipated from those chains and shackles upon their minds and actions, they may no longer continue, as they have done, the slaves of every foreign conqueror, but that they may assume their first places among the great families of mankind? I disown in these remarks, or in this measure, any view whatever to conversion to our own faith. I write and feel as a legislator for the Hindus, and as I believe many enlightened Hindus think and feel (A humanist, as warm as Lord Bentinck, must feel compassionate enough to identify him with the very cause!-BP ).
Descending from these higher considerations, it cannot be a dishonest ambition that the Government of which I form a part should have the credit of an act which is to wash out a foul stain upon British rule, and to stay the sacrifice of humanity and justice to a doubtful expediency; and finally, as a branch of the general administration of the Empire, I may be permitted to feel deeply anxious that our course shall be in accordance with the noble example set to us by the British Government at home, and that the adaptation, when practicable to the circumstances of this vast Indian population, of the same enlightened principles, may promote here as well as there the general prosperity, and may exalt the character of our nation.
Foot note:
** Empire Akbar also reformed Hinduism, as instructed by his beloved principal wife JodhaBi. He restricted Sati system and made it legal only if the window would volunteer before the Mufti. He also stopped infanticide in GangaSagar Fair, for obtaining more children. His religion Din-hi-Elahi was an atheist religion with no God and no prophet (1575) and as a consequence, Mullahs declared it to be blasphemy..
The whole write up actually shocked me to the core-almost two centuries have passed and religious people of our subcontinents made no progress as it can bee seen that only a handful among us, the so called educated can think like Lord Bentinck. Rest are either indifferent or advocating the religious values over universal codes of humanism. Worst, some people are trying to justify their religious line of thinking in covert form of pseudo-science and socialism.
Humanism is a fundamental trait and above all the reasons and hypothesis. That was the summery of Lord Bentinck which remained unchanged in last two hundred years.
California 10/15/05
Islam fascinates me. But the conduct of some of its adherents also frustrates me. The positive aspects of Islam are too numerous to escape the attention of any unprejudiced and truth-seeking non-Muslim. For example, Hindus have much to learn from Muslims about the virtue of solidarity and fellow-feeling within their community. During the month of Ramadan, I am captivated by the sight of Muslims who, after offering their evening namaz, end their day’s fast by grouping together and eating from the same plate, without any distinction of class or status 