Dr.

Rajesh Kumar Dated: 20-10-2014

Assistant Director (Research)
Indian Council of Historical Research
35, Ferozeshah Road,
New Delhi- 110001

Subject: Report on the Research Project

Dear Sir,
This is with reference to your mail vide, letter No. F. No. RENU15011977/1-14/2014- RP dated
10-10-2014 seeking my comments on the Research Project entitled, Savitribai Phule and
Pandita Ramabai: A Comparative Study of Social Thoughts and Works submitted to ICHR
for Grants-in-aid.
I have studied the proposal and my comments are attached herein along with the pre-receipted
bill for your kind perusal. Kindly acknowledge this letter.

Thanking You

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Santosh Kumar Rai

Associate Professor
Department of History,
Social Science Building
(North Campus)
University of Delhi
Delhi 110007

Email: skr1000@gmail.com

Mobile: 9818502847

Enclosures: As Above (2)

1
 F. No. RENU15011977/1-14/2014- RP
Comments on Research Proposal Submitted to ICHR to work on
Savitribai Phule and Pandita Ramabai: A Comparative Study of Social Thoughts and Works

1. Comparative relationship between social reforms and gender relations is a developing area
of research. This proposal correlates this theme with possibilities to explore the angle of
caste and modernity. Contribution of the individuals in the social spaces of reform is
already well known but gender relations within the reform leadership are the arenas yet to
be researched. Experiences of individual and collective subordination create culture of
silence. Pandita Ramabai and Savitribai Phule both in their specific domains created
distinct traditions of resistance. Savitribai Phules was a non-Brahmin female experience
with a larger than life imagery of her husband Jyotibha Phule while Pandita Ramabai was
having an upper caste gendered experience which she subverted in her own ways. The
proposal is very interesting with ample scope to make significant contribution both to the
theory as well as factual information in the area of research.
2. Proposed methods and techniques viz., survey of the archival data, collected works of
Pandita Ramabai and Savitribai Phule and field interviews are well described and seems to
be adequate to achieve the objective. The candidate has a good understanding of the
available primary sources as a detailed list of prominent periodicals has been provided.
The candidate is also planning to visit institutions established by these two women leaders
as well as locations and towns like Satara, Pune and Mumbai to consult as many primary
references as he/she has mentioned.
3. The given bibliographical note as well as survey of primary and secondary works clearly
indicates that the scholar is well aware of the scope and availability of sources as well their
locations.
4. There are some available works which tries to establish relationship between social
reforms and patriarchy in south Asia. Uma Chakravarti, Meera Kosambi, Sharmila Rege
and Gauri Vishwanathan have aptly studied the role of Hindi literature and rise of
nationalism in the context of north India. There are some other works also namely:
M.G. Mali, Savitribai Phule:Samagra Wangmay
Clementina Butler, Pandita Ramabai Sarasvati:Pioneer in the Movement for the
Education of the Child-Widow of India, Fleming H. Revell Company, New York, 1922.
Uma Chakravarti, Rewriting History:The Life and Times of Pandita Ramabai, Kali for
Women, India.

2
 Meera Kausambi, Women Emancipation and Equality: Pandita Ramabai, Economic and
Political Weekely, Vol. XXIII, Oct 29, 1988.
Meera Kosambi, Pandita Ramabais American Encounter, Indiana University Press, 2003.

Yet these works specifically does not take into account specific comparative processes or
history of diverse gendered social reforms in western India. So the proposal will hopefully
fill up the vacuum with a huge scope available on this area of research.
5. The estimated cost presently seems to be realistic given the travel plans and the ambit of
the research will certainly incur this much of expenditure.
6. Trips to Satara, Pune and Mumbai along with the publication of the research findings in
shape of papers/monograph with submission of final project report within two years seem
to be a bit ambitious yet attainable targets.
7. The initial proposal does not require further details before the approval of the council.

The scholar has dealt with research issues and source material with in-depth objectives and there
is a broad research insight about the relevant issues. So it is strongly recommended that this
proposal may be accepted by the Council for the Grant-in-aid.

Dr.Santosh Kumar Rai Dated: 20-10-2014

Department of History
Social Science Building
North Campus
University of Delhi
Delhi-110007

3
 HONORARIUM PRE-RECEIPTED BILL

INDIAN COUNCIL OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH

35, FEROZESHAH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001

Received by Cross Cheque /Demand Draft No.

____________________________ Dated _____________ drawn on the UCO
Bank of India on amount of Rs.1000/ (Rupees One Thousand only as Honorarium for giving
experts comments on the Research Proposal entitled Savitribai Phule and Pandita Ramabai:
A Comparative Study of Social Thoughts and Works Sanctioned by the Indian Council of
Historical Research vide letter File No.RENU15011977/1-14/2014-RP ICHR (GIA-III) Dated 10-
10-2014.

It is certified that no assistance is received from any other source for the above purpose.

Signature: Santosh Kumar Rai

Designation: Associate Professor

Address: Department of History,

Social Science Building
(North Campus)
University of Delhi
Delhi-110007