Modern Hinduism

Hindu reformers in the nineteenth century had a huge impact on the theorization of the
power of priests. Attacks on priestcraft were commonplace in India at the time, and the period
was characterized by the efforts made to reform human subjects and free them from external
influence. Spiritual despotism was largely criticized during the 19 th century. This consequently
gave rise to the ideal of the self-ruling subject. Reformers were concerned about the powers of
the priest. They worked towards fostering new religious practices and discipline. Hey achieved
this by mobilizing ascetic practices elated to Hind and Protestant.
The idea of priestcraft is part of the reform movements in India and England. In England,
atheists and protestants came together in opposition to priestly authority. They held beliefs that
were not in support of priestcraft. Over time, people migrated to India. Their religious positions
also found themselves in colonial India as the people interacted with each other. People came
together to form the movement of the reformer. These reformers defined themselves in
opposition to priestcraft. Hindu reformers aligned themselves with and their anticlerical beliefs
with imperial Britain. England reformers shaped Hindu reformers. Colonization had an impact
on the reformers’ ideas, and they shaped their understanding of the nature of the self.
The reforms in India and England are connective as opposed to comparative. Colonial
intellectuals demonstrated a strong linking to India’s past way of life. They made Indian
reformers realize that the people had moved away from their traditions. The colonial intellectuals
proclaimed their allegiance to India’s traditions. They insisted on the people’s unique traditions as
an important aspect that would distinguish India as a nation from other nations. They brought
their ideas of modernity and made attempts to reconcile them with India’s past. Hard as it may

3
have looked, the intellectuals managed to convince reformers to initiate change. One of the
issues that they wanted to be changed was priestcraft. These reforms were thus connective in
nature. According to Aurobindo Ghosh, one of the most powerful means of recreation is to get a
thing out of its past and throw it into modern life. This is what the intellectual colonists,
alongside the Hindu reformers, did. The colonialists knew a more conservative India aligned
with their style of leadership. The Hindu reformers were able to initiate change and make their
positions known regarding priestcraft.
James Mill wrote a book in which he described India’s priestcraft. He stated that Indians
were accustomed to the rule of one individual who had been given “unlimited authority” by
virtue of being a priest. This individual ruled even over kings. He defined religion in India as the
despot’s authority. Apart from politics, religion was the hidden source of power. According to
Mill, India had turned into a country where everything could be done by divine or spiritual
prescription. His ideas motivated him to change, and Hindu reformers were able to champion the
self-disciplining subject.
Likewise, Jeremy Bentham wrote in opposition to priestcraft and in support of self-
disciplining subjects. According to Bentham, the Deity is a “despot” who possesses derivative
power. He was opposed to such means of acquiring power because it was used for purposes other
than to protect the well-being of the people. Further, Charles Grant insisted that only an Indian
reformer in support of the European reformation was capable of liberating the people of India
from priestcraft or the tyranny of priests. Only Hindu reformers were capable of initiating change
and working on the inner aspects of the individual souls so that the people of India could support
self-government. The three scholars show that the Hindu and England reform movements were a
connective tissue. They influenced and strengthened one another.

4
However, Thomas Carlyle had other ideas. He seemed to have been supporting
priestcraft. He believed that a despotic priesthood in India was necessary as it would give rise to
a group of “great men” who would represent the country. Carlyle believed that this group of men
was necessary for ruling the masses. They would faithfully represent the interests of the people
of India. He was in support of the words of Keshub, who asserted that when people honor their
prophet, they honor themselves. In this context, the prophet is a symbol of society. Keshub held
the view that Christ would fulfil both the “Mosaic dispensation” as well as the “Hindu
dispensation”. Keshup was opposing what the British missionaries had told the Indians
concerning the same. They had made them believe that Indian religions were a vague
representation of a truth that had a Christian foundation and one that was yet to be realized.
Another reformer was Mulji; he was acclaimed as the Martin Luther of the Banian Caste.
Mulji is revered as the reformer who liberated his people from the tyranny of spirituality. The
term “Indian Luther” was, however, avoided. This is because some felt that colonial writers used
the term “Indian Luther”, and this was a direct imposition of British categories onto Indian
content. This was viewed as a classical imperial fashion. According to Timothy Dobe, Dayanand
was an “irascible rishi” as opposed to being a Luther. Sematic complexities were common.
Attempts to translate “guru” into priests raised many debates. They asserted that “Guru” is the
guru and not a priest.
Further, John Stuart Mill presented ideas on liberalism. He held that autonomy was a
perpetual work on the self. It was not a one time process and was thus constitutively
incomplete—autonomy called for the active and ongoing renunciation of the world. In light of
Mill’s views on autonomy, ascetic selfhood acquired a different meaning. The new self-
disciplinary programs adopted acquired a new meaning. They were embedded in the community.

5
Every believer was bound to be the other’s watcher for their own good. The moral conduct of
individuals would be guaranteed by the community.
Overall, Dodsley describes the woman as a good housewife who gives commands and is
obeyed. She provides care for the family and uses reasoned technique over her domestic space.
She does not cultivate beauty but is instead interested in virtue. She has a passion for goodness.
Dodsley compares the new reforms to feminine virtue. Submission is necessary to this feminine
virtue. The ascetic self-rule enables critical practice. Humans will achieve self-rule through
religion. According to Barton Scott, the cultivation of ascetic self-rule requires religion. He then
goes ahead to clarify that the kind of religion needed here is not Hinduism or even the
Zoroastrian religion. On the contrary, he proposes a religion that underlies all other religions.
Thus, based on this argument, a split is evident. The new ascetic self-rule is split between the law
of the other and the law of the self. The other, as explained by Scott, is a higher form of religion
that is higher than Hinduism but one that overlies it.