So what is it that sets Bengal apart from most other parts of the country in this regard?

A
primary reason, says sociologist Paromita Naskar, is the Bengal Renaissance of the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries. “Stalwarts of those times like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Iswar
Chandra Vidyasagar, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami
Vivekananda and others pioneered social reforms and broke down caste barriers. They actively
dedicated themselves to forging social harmony by campaigning vigorously against social evils
like sati and untouchability,” said Naskar.

Historian Ramachandra Baral says that the reason why the campaign against
untouchability worked in Bengal while the same campaign by Mohandas Gandhi in
other parts of the country did not succeed is because the Bengal Renaissance was
spearheaded by noted personalities from various spheres. Ram Mohan Roy’s
campaigns advocating abolition of sati and untouchability, and widow remarriage were
vociferously endorsed by both contemporary and later educationists and litterateurs like
Vidyasagar and Chattopadhyay, by scientists like Jagadish Chandra Bose and Satyen
Bose, by leading and respectable mathematicians, religious leaders, scholars and
prominent personalities. “Within two to three decades, many social evils were
completely rooted out of Bengal because all leading lights of Bengali society from all
spheres of life advocated the abolition of those social evils and ills,” says Baral.

The Bengal Renaissance did not find replication in any other part of the country and that
is why, reasons Baral, caste divisions still run deep elsewhere. “After Independence,
too, prominent Bengali personalities upheld the spirit of the renaissance and thus an
egalitarian mindset took deep roots in Bengal. Caste, untouchability and other social ills
went completely out of fashion in Bengal. Even the political leadership of Bengal, right
from the late nineteenth century to the present times, has always lent crucial support to
social reforms. That was also a determining factor behind caste barriers dissolving
almost completely in Bengal,” says Naskar. The indisputable egalitarian mindset of even
the average Bengali, she adds, leaves little room for caste to play a role in Bengali
Hindu society.

How Bengal ‘Caste’ It Away

by  Jaideep Mazumdar

 
 - Nov 01, 2018, 3:31 pm

https://swarajyamag.com/magazine/how-bengal-caste-it-away

However, most ofthe Renaissance men of India failed to change themselves completely as per the
specific required necessity of the trend of Renaissance in the Indian society. Even they did not succeed
to abolish permanently these two institutions. They confined themselves only by ideal talking on these
issues. In fact; the so-called 19th century Renaissance and Reformation Movement led. by the emerging
intelligentsia in Colonial India failed to bring radical change in the domain of Hindu society, polity,
economy, religion etc. in connection with the protection of human rights and its privileges based on the
principles of equality, liberty and 100 fraternity in all spheres of their individual as well as national life as
a whole.

Chapter3 The Attitude of the 19th Century Reformers and the Role of the British Government towards
the Issue of Castehttps://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/160409/8/08_chapter_03.pdf

Firstly, Italian renaissance brought radical change in the field of religion that hastened the process of the
decline of the old society and economy and established a new lease of life in respect of agriculture,
industry, trade and commerce. It ultimately opened up a new dimension in all sphere of human life.
However, the Bengal intelligentsia did not try at all to establish a new set up of life in the society on the
ruins of the traditional structures of the past.

In fact, most of the emerging 19th century intelligentsia had come from the upper caste Hindu family
except few exceptions. Almost they had strong economic background. The sons of the Zaminders,
property owners and wealthy persons etc. got opportunity to take part in the Western education. They
were very much influenced by the Western liberal ideas and thoughts. Not only that but also they were
inspired by the thought-provoking and revolutionary influences and changes of the Italian and European
Renaissance which stirred their mind set up at a large. But they did not cross the socio-religious barriers
and limitations in case of the caste system and untouchability that were based on the strategy of
inequality, injustice, disparity and inhuman nature which brought down the low strata of the Hindu
society into the status and position of animals, beasts and slaves. It was generally said; What Bengal
thinks today, India will think tomorrow? However, the 19th century Bengal intelligentsia did not capable
to utilize the true concept of the Italian and European Renaissance in the context of the Indian society
for the abolition of the caste institution and untouchability. They expressed their grievances against
these two institutions only by ideal talking, not by launching a direct movement against these inhuman
arrangements due to the pressure and vehement opposition of the Orthodox Hindus and their family
convictions and personal limitations and inability. They realized the gravity and importance of its
abolition from the Hindu society. The utmost necessity of the time was the abolition of these two
institutions. lnspite of that they did not dare to abolish these institutions from the Hindu society that
had yet been creating numerous incurable socio-religious problems in the Hindu society.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy had most probably compared the 19th century
Bengal with the 16th century Renaissance of Europe. He told Alexander Duff as follows: 'I began to think
that something similar to the European Renaissance might have taken place here in India. ' 2Even
Bankim Chandra, Keshab Chandra Sen, Aurobindo, Bipin Chandra Pal etc identified the 19th century
Bengal as the age of Renaissance. However, there was a great controversy among the historians and
scholars on this issue. Obviously most of them accepted the view that the 19th century was the age of
Renaissance in the context of Bengal as well as India. But it had several negative and positive outlooks.
Binoy Ghosh said, 'The upper-caste Hindus who became bhadralok or 'babus', by their-caste and status
and English education, were completely enslaved and logically made inferior through and through' 3
.Ramesh Chandra Majumdar pointed out that the Renaissance of Bengal was the out come of the Hindu
nationalism4 • Sumit Sarkar pointed out that the trend of renaissance of whole Bengal was nothing but
a xerox copy of English renaissance. Asoke Mitra said that · the Zamindar community gained much profit
by the exploitation of the poor peasants through the land revenue settlements of the British
Government and transferred their wealth to Calcutta as there inhabitant, which ultimately hastened the
process of cultural renaissance in the city of Calcutta.

Binoy Ghosh said, "What we call 'Bengal Renaissance' ... turned out to be nothing but a historical hoax"
6 . It did not touch the major portion of the society except the nominal portion of the upper class
society. But the Indian renaissance was nothing but a myth in the context of the Indian society.
Aurobindo Podder wrote, 'A renaissance which assured the people neither recognition nor a place in the
manifestation of its will was from its very inception, from both qualitative and quantitative
considerations, a distorted sapless renaissance7 •\

Some scholars pointed out very boldly that the possibility of European Renaissance was completely
impossible in the Indian soil due to the existence of the caste system.

Even Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Vidyasagar were depended upon the British government for their social
reform works.

The anti-Sati movement was more or less successful but the widow remarriage movement of Vidyasagar
was not popular. Polygamy was not prohibited. Actually, they wanted to bring some progressive reforms
of the religion and society without changing its basic structures. They did not want at all to bring social
revolution. They did not play the role of Chaitanya and Kabir in this perspective. Not only that but also
Raja Ram Mohan Roy to Young Bengal did not emphasis on the issue of economic exploitation. Raja Ram
Mohan welcomed the investment of the British capital as well as indigo cultivation of the Sahib. He was
completely silent about the destruction of the 'native tatis' by the deindustrialization. Sushaban Sarkar
pointed out that the impact of the 19th century Renaissance in Bengal{ literature, cultivation of science,·
painting, art etc. were an epoch making event.
The 19th century Renaissance thinkers of India imbibed all the thought provoking features of the
Western education. Therefore, the impact of the Western education in the Indian society was very
important for the new awakening and reconstruction of Indian thoughts.

The impact of the Western education accelerated the process of the formation of different associations
and societies in India. The various aims of these organizations like Brahmo Samaj of RajaRam Mohan
Roy, Arya Samaj of Swami Dayananda, Satya Shodhak Samaj of Jatirao Fule etc. to reform the society,
polity, religion and soon. All these new associations and societies encouraged new thinking and
reconstruction of social institutions on the pattern of ancient Indian specimen.

In the final years of life, he chose to spend his days among the Santhals, an old tribe in India.

But it is known from a letter sent to the Education Department by Vidyasagar that he vehemently
opposed to the demand of the Subama Banik of Calcutta for their admission in the Sanskrit College due
to their low Caste27 position.

Dr. Amalesh Tripathi pointed out that Vidyasagar was a mixture of the traditional past and the Western
liberal ideas. He treated Vidyasagar as. the 'traditional modernizer' of India.

He was the great product of the 19th century Renaissance of Europe. But he could not bring radical
change in the Hindu society except little exception in the case of widow re-marriage. He did not pay due
attention to solve the issue of caste system and untouchability from the so-called Hindu society.
Practically speaking, Vidyasagar did not move prohably to eradicate the inhuman problems of these two
institutions due to the following reasons; Firstly, he belonged to a high caste Brahmin family. Naturally,
the problems of the lower strata of the Hindu society did not stir the mind set up of him.

Secondly, the problems of the widow re-marriage basically confined within the circle of the upper caste
Hindus, especially among the Brahmins.
Satyashodhak Samaj and Jyotiba Phule JyotibaPhule belonged to the Mali (gardener) community and
organized a powerful movement against upper caste domination and brahminical supremacy. Phule
founded the SatyashodhakSamaj (Truth Seekers’ Society) in 1873, with the leadership of the samaj
coming from the backward classes, Malis, Telis, Kunbis, Saris, and Dhangars. The main aims of the
movement were Social service Spread of education among women and lower caste people Phule’s
works, SarvajanikSatyadharma and Ghulamgin, became source of inspiration for the common masses.
Phule used the symbol of Rajah Bali as opposed to the brahmins’ symbol of Rama. Phule aimed at the
complete abolition of caste system and socio-economic inequalities. This movement gave a sense of
identity to the depressed communities as a class against the Brahmins, who were seen as the exploiters

However, his attitude towards the issue of caste and untouchability was very disappointing. He was very
much silent towards these problems. That is why; it can be said that Vidyasagar did not individually as
well as collectively over come the social barriers of the caste system and the Himalayan hurdles of the
untouchability of his age. He realized the inhuman nature, character and features of these two
institutions. But he did nothing without ideal talking. It is an irony of fate that the lower stratum of the
so-called Hindu society was not much benefited by the social reform policy of Vidyasagar like high caste
Hindu. His benevolent activities were confined mainly within the 'Dwija' circle as it did not touch the
common interest of the common people of Bengal as well as India. In fact, there was no problem of
widow re-marriage in the lower strata of the Hindu society. It was a genuine problem of the upper caste
Hindu society.

He played a vital role for the spread of women education. However, he did not give any attention to the
education of his daughter. Prof. Asoke Sen wrote - 'Vidyasagar had no sufficient means to link up
tradition and modernity in any meaningful sense of that convergence ... Vidyasagar was a victim of the
illusions which he shared with his stage of history, about the prospects of modernization under colonial
rule' 29. However, he was completely indifferent and silent regarding the Revolt of 1857 and Indigo
Revolt that was really a tragedy in the life history of Vidyasagar.

Vidyasagar maintained that Manu enumerated twelve types of legitimate progenies including ourasa,
kshetraja, dattaka, pounarbhaba, and allowed the widow to procure a kshetraja son under certain
circumstances.44 On the relative status of offsprings, Brhaspati commented, ‘just as in the absence of a
clarified butter, oil is a substitute, in the absence of an ourasa son or aputrika (a daughter brought up as
a son), the eleven kinds ofsons are a substitute’45 Parasar, however, recognized only three types of
offsprings in the kali era: ourasa (bom of one’s semen), dattaka (adopted) and kritrim (artificial or son-
made). Vidyasagar argued that Pounarbhaba must have lost its relevance and significance in subsequent
ages. Otherwise, Parasar would have included the name in his list oflegitimate offsprings.46

Even before the Act on Sati, the regulations of Warren Hastings ofthe years 1772 and 1780 ensured
that family matters like inheritance, marriage, castes and other religious usages and institutions
would be administered by scriptural sanctions.16 W

44

While Rammohun’s treatises on Sati accorded centrality to brahminic scriptures and standardized
Sanskrit as the linguafranca ofHindu India, Vidyasagar’s ‘reform-throughtext’ strategy showed an
element of continuity with earlier ways of seeking change through authoritative rulings of scriptures.17
TThe successive reformist undertakings inherited the conviction that social reform must derive its
legitimacy from the power of tradition rather than from secular humanistic principles. This explained
Vidyasagar’s repeated assertion of Sanskrit as the only veritable language to reach his sources and his
reliance on scriptures in promoting a secular reform.18The Legislative Council, in passing the Widow
Remarriage Act, repeatedly proclaimed that the impetus came from none other than Ishwarchandra
Vidyasagar, ‘who in reputation for learning, yielded to no Pandit in this city’ and was conspicuous among
the more liberal of his countrymen in his desire for social progress.19 TTo obtain the necessary state and
social support, Vidyasagar based his exhaustive tract on textual exegesis. Asok Sen argues that he
preferred to prescribe an ‘alternative social behaviour’, with added shastric validity to convince both the
upper class and the uneducated masses. Scriptural prescriptions, he thought, would endow him not only
with the strength ofintellect, but also with a renewal of a common Hindu sensibility.20

16 Sarkar, Writing SocialHistory, 263-265. 17 The fifteenth century European Renaissance similarly
witnesseda resurrection ofclassicism and a revival of ‘Latin’ as the Lingua Franca ofEurope. 18
Bandyopadhyay, ‘Caste, Widow Remarriage’, 19-20. 19 Proceedings, 25. 20 Sen, Vidyasagar, 73-75.

However, in addressing the problem of child marriage in ‘Balyabibaher Dosh’ (The evil of child marriage)
in 1850, Vldyasagar mounted a social rather than scripturebased critique of the practice.21 ,In fact, he
condemned the scriptural valorisation of gauridan or the custom of marrying off a girl-child before she
reached her puberty and deprecated such marriage as panipiran (marital torture)22In this article,
Vidyasagar questioned the custom of brahmachatya or ascetic austerities enforced on the Hindu
widows. Repeatedly he decried the shastra for imposing such physical mortifications upon widows, [A]
widow’s life is one of endless sufferings. '..All her happiness ends the moment she loses her husband....
In the days of fasting cruel fate does not allow her dry, weary tongue a drop of water to quench her
thirst or even allow an ailing widow to take medicine. Yet no compassionate person dissuades widows
from such brutal custom in violation of the pitiless scriptures and lokachar (customs of people)23 This
essay, one of Vidyasagar’s less publicized tracts, rejected ‘scriptural injunctions’ as ‘superstitions’, and
received the least popular support. This led him, perhaps, to believe that bare reasoning and simple
facts had failed to carry forward his reform proposals. Consequently, he emulated the strategy of
Rammohun to embark upon a more serious campaign for widow remarriage.24 He further believed that,
as shastras were considered the most powerful evidence, it was necessary to settle, first of all, the
scriptural evidence on widow remarriage.2Amales Tripathi has argued that in making use of tradition in
his reform, Vidyasagar appealed to the shastra like any one ofthe traditional pandits. But he knew a lot
more about shastras, and was able to distinguish between the genuine and the fake, the relevant and
the archaic, the perennial and the parochial.26

45

21 Shri Ishwarchandra Sharma, ‘Balyabibaher Dosh’ (The evil ofchild marriage), first published in Sarba
Subhakari Patrika, Bhadra, 1850, Gopal Haider ed., VidyasagarRachana Sangraha, 2,Vidyasagar Smarak
Jatiya Samiti, Calcutta, 1972. 22 Ibid, 3, translation mine. 23 Ibid, 8-9, translation mine. 24 Subal Chandra
Mitra, Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar: A Story ofhis Life and Work, Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi, 1902,
reprint 1975,262. 25Vidyasagar, ‘Bidhaba Bibaha’, 22-23. 26 Tripathi, Vidyasagar, 3

His real stumbling block was Mam Smriti that stood pre-eminent in nineteenth century India. Manu was
said to have correctly represented the sense ofthe Vedas, and that Smriti, which was in conflict with
Manu, was not esteemed.30 As Manu was unequivocal in delegitimising widow remarriage, to ‘invent’
reform under the name of tradition, Vidyasagar had to rest his reasoning on other scriptural authority.
Finally, after a frantic search for the text that indisputably endorsed widow remarriage, he ‘discovered’
the ruling maxim in Parasar that stated, ‘taking another husband is sanctioned for a woman, whose
husband is missing, dead, has turned a wandering ascetic, is impotent or fallen’ (Naste Mrite Prabrajite
Klibe Cha Patite Patou, Panchasvapatsu Narinang Patiranyo Bidhiyate). Parasar’s second instruction,
however, iterated the virtue of ascetic widowhood, hailing 27 Sen, Vidyasagar, 87-88. 28
Bandyopadhyay, Vidyasagar, 207-208. 29 Shri Ishwarchandra Sharma, ‘Bidhaba Bibaha Houya
UchitKinaEtadvisayakPrastab, Dwitiya Pustak’, (A proposal to ascertain the justifiability ofwidow
remarriage, the second manual), first published October 1855, VidyasagarRachana Sangraha, 2, 36.
Hereafter ‘Dwitiya Pustak’. 30 Pandurang Vaman Kane, History ofthe Dharmashastra,Ancient
andMedieval, Religion and Civil Law in India, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1968, Vol. 1, Part 1,
310, 328. 47 ‘the woman who observes asceticism or brahmacharya after the demise of her husband as
she is entitled to attain heaven like a male ascetic’ (Mrite Bhartari Ya Nari Brahmacharye Byabashthita,
Sa Mrita Labhate Swargang Yathate Brahmacharinah). The supreme act ofvirtue remained that ofself-
immolation as Parasar remarked that ‘she who bums her body at the pyre of her dead husband will
reside in heaven for as many years as there are hairs in the human body i.e. more than thirty million’
(Tisrah Kotyordhakoti Cha Yani Lomcmi Mcmave, Tabat Kalang Baset Swargcmg Bhartarang
Yanugachchati). However, Vidyasagar emphasized that at the very first instance, Parasar recommended
widow remarriage, which in the absence of the other two choices, appeared at present the sole choice
for widows.31

Vidyasagar, on the other hand, was more pragmatic and realized the potential power of the scriptural
sanction in harnessing popular support for widow remarriage legislation. According to Tripathi,
Vidyasagar, in quoting from scriptures, was not accepting the intellectual obscurantism of orthodox
pandits who counted only the Puranic and fossilized past, nor was he welcoming the imposition of a
foreign law on Hindu social arrangements like the Derozians33

Contemporary critics of Vidyasagar, however, violently attacked his strategy of ‘reform-through-text’ for
compromising on both counts. An anonymous critic (Samalochak) questioned the obsessive reliance of
the English educated reformer on ‘Sanskrit scriptures’ to obtain the ‘rational objective’ of reform. He
asked, why did Vidyasagar use ‘shastric evidence in enacting an alien, secular reform’ instead of taking
the honest and straight line of attack, appealing to the common sense of people and European
rationalism? Samalochak praised the radical (Young Bengal) reformers who ‘cared a damn about the
Hindu shastra and possessed greater foresight and better

31 Vidyasagar, Bidhaba Bibaha, 25-26, translation mine. 32 Tripathi, Vidyasagar, 2-3. 33 Ibid.

judgment than these Anglo-Sanskrit pandits (like Vidyasagar)’.34 The critic rejected Vidyasagar’s ‘East-
West intellectualism’, which stood between progressive thinking on the one hand, and dogmatic
obscurantism on the other, as utterly ‘blasphemous’. The reformist technique was, according to
Samalochak, an imperfect fusion between the Sanskrit and the non-Sanskrit idioms or gum-
chandaljog,35

Parasar, however, recognized only three types of offsprings in the kali era: ourasa (bom of one’s
semen), dattaka (adopted) and kritrim (artificial or son-made). Vidyasagar argued that Pounarbhaba
must have lost its relevance and significance in subsequent ages. Otherwise, Parasar would have
included the name in his list oflegitimate offsprings.46

The battle over scriptures reached a stalemate since neither contestant could provide a clinching
argument. Vidyasagar then turned the debate on widow remarriage from the ‘scriptural’ to the ‘social’.
To the colonial state, ‘the strongest argument’ in favour of widow remarriage came not from scriptures,
but from reformist concern for sexual morality. The drive towards widow remarriage reflected, at one
level, a patriarchalanxiety to ensure the control of the widow’s sexuality within the legitimate sphere of
marriage. In the conclusion of his first book on widow remarriage, Vidyasagar drew attention to
‘intolerable hardships’, suffered by young widows. He described how ‘hundreds ofwidows, failing to
observe ascetic austerities take to adultery and foeticide and disgrace the lineage of their fathers,
mothers and husbands’. He argued, ‘until this beneficial practice (subhakari pratha) comes into being, till
then sexual laxity, the sin of abortion, the tide of disgrace and sufferings of widowhood will bum
increasingly fiercer’.60

However, even in his social arguments, Vidyasagar harnessed scriptures. Five years ago, while writing
‘Balyabibaher Dosh\ he had upbraided scriptural sanctions that ‘threatened’ a widow’s life. In 1855,
however, Vidyasagar was far more circumspect in his treatment of shastric sanctions, using them
innovatively to legitimise his social arguments. In the epilogue of his second manual, Vidyasagar
attributed the ‘swelling tide of vice that engulfs the holy land ofIndia’ to the utter disregard shown to
scriptures. He entreated his countrymen not to reject the proposed law, yielding to desachar (customs
of the land). Hebeseeched, [O] Indians! How long will you rest blissfully in the slumber of illusions? Open
your eyes for once and see that your sacred earth is overflowing with the stream of adultery and
foeticide. ...You are ready to let your beloved daughters bum in raging flames ofwidowhood and you are
ready to endorse their illicit sexual affairs disregarding religious injunctions. You are even ready to
jeopardize your family honour by aiding their abortions from fear of public censure. Strangely, however,
you will not take recourse to shastric sanctions that allow you to get these women remarried and to
relieve them from their unbearable pain .... Perhaps, you think that after the death of their husbands the
body of women turn into stones, their suffering does not remain as before, their pain does not remain
as before, all their ungovernable sexual passions get necessarily subdued. But that your conclusions are
utterly erroneous is manifest at every step and demonstrable by countless instances.61 Finally,
Vidyasagar exhorted, ‘Woman! In India thy lot is cast in misery’!62

Countless petitions against the Bill poured in, upbraiding the breach of the government’s proclamation
of non-intervention. While the legal ‘benefit’ ofthe proposed Act, as declared by the colonial
government, was particularly aimed at the high caste widow, to a section ofBrahmans it was an attempt
to confound all castes by extending customs ofinferior and outcaste tribes to Brahmans. On 15 April
1856, a petition signed by nine hundred and eighty two signatories of Poona vehemently disapproved
ofthe Act for the remarriage of ‘Brahmin widows’, thus also legitimising claims oftheir offsprings. The
people who were longing for its introduction, the letter said, must be hailing from ‘low caste Hindus,
Arabs, Christians or anti-Brahmins’. For Brahmans, who were faithful to their shastras, observed old
manners and customs and ‘obtained the supremacy or command over all the other Hindoo Castes... will
never look longinglyTor a thing that is -not consistent with their Shastras’
The Widow Remarriage Act remained the least successful social reform legislation in India. Despite all
good intentions of Vidyasagar and the colonial state, very few widows actually got remarried. At the
turn of the century, a large section of widows across a wider spectrum ofsociety were forced to live
celibate. The practice ofwidow remarriage could not ‘filter through society on a large scale’, and faltered
for lack of support from the elites.122

The issues surrounding widow remarriage, nonetheless, continued to be the source of a protracted
controversy between the 1860s and 1890s. A large number of contemporary vernacular tracts
admonished Vidyasagar for his ‘scriptural inaccuracy’ and his ‘sexual obsession’. Many ofthese farces
and satires acquired wide popularity, as the debate became increasingly bitter and acrimonious.
Vidyasagar, observing the popularity ofthese writings, also descended from his erudite heights to
attempt rejoinders in kind. He wrote a number of scathing rejoinders under various pseudonyms, ‘Ati
Alpo Hoilo’ (Very little has happened), ‘Abar Ati Alpo Hoild> (Again very little has happened),

‘Bisaymi’123, ‘Braja-Bilas,m and ‘Ratna ParikhscC (Assessing the precious gems).125 Some
ofthese became popular sell-outs. Sumit Sarkar has argued that the reformer, lost in the labyrinth of
polemic, moved away from the original vision, and succeeded in widening the public space of the social
debate on widow remarriage. He himself felt trapped in a ‘scholastic morass’, says Sarkar. His own
outrage at the attack on his scholarship and the sincerity of his intentions gave rise to ‘a sense of
helpless anger, finding vent, perhaps in bouts of violent, even vulgar abuse, joining in equal or greater
scurrility from his side’.1Until his death in 1891, Vidyasagar had to wrestle tirelessly with scholars like
Madhusudan Smritiratna, Dinabandhu Nayaratna, Padmalochan Nayaratna dwelling on issues left
unresolved by the Widow Remarriage Act.

While Vidyasagar attributed the rising number of city prostitutes to the futility and ineffectuality
ofthe ascetic practice of brahmacharya, Nayaratna figured out that ‘eighty per cent ofCalcutta’s
prostitutes’ came from ‘low caste untouchables or chandals*. Since widow remarriage was customaiy
among their caste, ‘why then the Muslim women (javana) and the lower caste women, the chandals,
frequently become prostitutes and perpetrate fornications and abortions?’ It was actually the caste and
social rank, argued Nayaratna, which played its role invitiating the nature of women.129
Sekhar Bandyopadhyay attributed the defeat of Vidyasagar to the ‘massive chain of caste’, of the
brahminic patriarchy, which he failed to break.183According to Sumit Sarkar, the individualism of
Vidyasagar was never divested of collective concerns, as he refused to abandon his roots in the
brahminic societyThus ‘he 179 180 Cited in Indra Mitra, ibid, 255, translation mine. Ibid. 181 Bipin
Chandra Pal, NabajugerBcmgla, Bipin Chandra Pal Institute, Calcutta, (First published Bangabasi, 1921-
24), 1964,259, details in chapter III. 182 Sen, Vidyasagar, 82, 87, 147. 85 soared, ...but refused to roam’.
Therein lay his strength and greatness as well as his Mure and tragedy.184

Vidyasagar’s agenda on widow remarriage was 183 Bandyopadhyay, ‘Caste, Widow Remarriage’,
32-33. 184 Sarkar, Social History, 232-233. 86 based, to a large extent, on brahminic patriarchal
valorisation of marriage as the most legitimate instrument of control over female sexuality. Since
marriage offered the only legitimate locus for the Hindu woman’s social identity, the widow problem
could be solved by bringing the widow under the marriage net. Opponents ofthis ‘solution’ feared that
induction of widows into marriage would weaken the mystique and power of the sacrament. In their
view, control of the widows’ sexuality, especially those from the upper classes and high castes, focussed
on exclusion from marriage and, therefore, a wide range of social activity, coupled with an elaborate
surveillance mechanism. Both sides— reformers and their opponents—were actually concerned over
the hegemonic meanings and extension ofthe Hindu marriage system

When Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar, the pioneer social reformer from Bengal, was opening up the Bethune School for

girls in Kolkata, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule was pioneering another revolution on the west coast of India. Born into a

Dalit family and a firm believer in the cause for women's education, Phule opened up the first school for

untouchable girls in his hometown of Pune.

In many ways, Phule's struggle surpassed that of Vidyasagar. While the latter, famous for his role in opening up

educational opportunities for women and in picking up the cudgel to legalise widow remarriage, depended mainly

on educated high-caste Bengali families to send their girls to his schools, Phule concentrated on uplifting the most

marginal members of the Indian society. 

Moreover, while Vidyasagar because of his government job as the school inspector was very close to the colonial

bureaucracy, Phule had none to back up his cause. Shunned by the upper castes of the Hindu society for his daring

effort, isolated by his own family members who feared reprisal, Phule traveled the treacherous road assisted only by

his wife Savitri Phule. Incidentally, Phule married an illiterate Savitri, as was usual during the age, but taught the

young girl himself. Even here Phule's life stands in contrast to that of Vidyasagar who kept his wife uneducated

because his mother was against it.

Such deep-seated was Phule's conviction about the need for education as a tool for upliftment that the 3 guidelines

of the Satyasodhak Samaj, which he founded in 1873, contained the precepts: 'I shall educate my sons and

daughters.'

It is through educating the women, Phule thought, that he will be able to undermine Brahmanical culture system

most effectively. The Hindu higher castes, particularly, the Brahmins were most singularly opposed to educating

their girls. Uneducated and disempowered, the girls unwittingly served the patriarchal values of the Hindu society.

Deeply influenced by Thomas Paine's book Rights of Man, the idea of social justice, truth and humanity were

cardinal principles for Phule. It is social inequality that sits at the heart of the Hindu caste that Phule found so

abhorring. Phule argued that education of women and the lower castes were a vital priority in addressing social

inequality. 

Some of the foremost feminists of western India, such as Pandita Ramabai and Tarabhai Shinde were deeply

influenced by Phule. It is following Phule's footsteps that Pandita Ramabai, a widow herself, protested against the

early marriage of girls. She strongly believed that early marriage of girls denied proper education as it is the best age

to acquire knowledge. We have to remind ourselves here, another religious reformer from Bengal Swami

Vivekananda sharply criticised Ramabai for distorting the religious teachings of Hinduism regarding women. But

Phule stood by Ramabai and even published an interview in support of her conversion to Christianity.