Imagined Hinduism: British Protestant Missionary Constructions of Hinduism, 1793– 1900, by Geoffrey A. Oddie (IJFM 24:4, Winter 2007, pp. 375)—Reviewed by H. L. Richard
There is no end in sight to academic discussions of the validity and (if valid at all) meaning of “Hinduism.” Christian academics confused by the seeming cacophony emanating from Indological studies now have at hand a brilliant introduction to the debate based on the history of British Protestant missionary discussions of “Hinduism.”
Geoffrey Oddie (Honorary Research Associate, Department of History, University of Sydney, Australia) does not propose a solution for this conundrum; rather he analyzes one particular aspect of the root of the problem. Precursors to the British Protestant missionary analysts of “Hinduism” are introduced and discussed at some depth; these are European travelers, Roman Catholic missionaries (de Nobili, Dubois, etc.), south Indian Protestant missionaries (Ziegenbalg in particular), British Protestant friends of missions (Charles Grant, Claudius Buchanan and Bishop Heber) and the Orientalists.
By the time William Carey and William Ward in Serampore began wrestling with “Hindu” realities, a consensus of opinion had developed. Oddie summarizes that “the Orientalists thought of Hinduism as an all-India unified phenomenon, based on Sanskrit and still controlled, policed and enforced by brahmans” (pg. 100). True religion was found in texts (Sanskrit), and “pantheism” was the basic philosophy of this imagined textual Hindu religion.
Oddie seeks information on the training in Britain of 19th century missionaries; most noteworthy is a focus on language, which led to dependence after arrival in India on (usually) Brahman informants (language teachers), who encouraged the self-aggrandizing view of Brahmanical influence on “Hinduism.”
One of Oddie’s central insights is how missionary students of Hinduism were in a unique position, forerunners of later anthropologists, as many of them faced, described and analyzed the practical religion of the people of India. But the textual orientation of scholars impacted them as well, and Oddie sees Carey as one who moved away from the “experiential” to the “textual” approach, clearly a move in the wrong direction. William Ward’s massive and influential volumes were even worse:
Ward picked up and promoted the idea of Hinduism. Indian “paganism,” “the Hindu religion” or “Hindu superstition” was now, quite simply, “Hindooism.” Furthermore, for Ward especially, “Hindooism” was a word for “the Hindu other,” for everything that was evil and different from Christianity. Indeed, in helping to popularize the term he helped develop a very valuable and effective weapon in the arsenal of Christian propaganda. As a result of its increasing usage, English-speaking commentators were tempted more strongly into stereotyping, oversimplification and misunderstanding (pg. 179).
This “dominant paradigm” of Hinduism, developed by the Serampore Trio, was guarded by Alexander Duff and many others. Evidences were at hand that Ward had really described Bengali realities, and even then was very selective in the midst of massive diversity. (Most striking is Oddie’s clear evidence presented from Ward’s journal
that he understood the Khartabhaja anti-brahman, anti-idolatry, theistic bhakti (devotional) movement; “as he was so intent on demonizing ‘the other,’ he could hardly afford to dwell for too long on Kartabhaja virtues, on their monotheism, rejection of caste and love of one another!”) So a bias towards the dominant paradigm long triumphed over empirical evidences against this unified Brahmanical system. (Ironically, one of the chief complaints against “Hinduism” was its internal contradictions; but there was never a unified system within which contradictions could exist.)
Reality finally impinged on this imagined Hinduism of the early 19th century. Despite the longevity of the dominant paradigm (particularly in popular motivational missionary literature, which is also analyzed), many missionaries moved away from the idea of a monolithic brahman-dominated “Hinduism.” Oddie gives a lengthy explanation for why the “pantheistic” view of Hinduism held on so long when so much evidence was against it; but that this view still has proponents in some circles today is quite astonishing. One of the reasons
is that missionaries may have placed undue emphasis on pantheism partly because of their ignorance of bhakti (loving devotion to a personal god) or failure to see it as a distinctive tradition. There was, indeed, comparatively little discussion of bhakti among European scholars for the greater part of the nineteenth century and it was only in the 1880s and 1890s that Ramanuja’a philosophy, “dualism,” and the ideas implicit in bhakti movements appear to have received more systematic attention (pg. 270).
As the idea of Hinduism as pantheism came under attack, so did the concept that it was a monolithic religion. Regional variations were increasingly noted, as were differences between the faith and practices of the high and low castes. Robert Caldwell in the Tamil country was one who saw clearly and trusted what he saw. He is noteworthy for
destroying the idea that Sanskrit lay behind all Indian languages (in his Comparative Grammar in 1856, although the truth of a Dravidian language family did not originate with him (see pg. 99)); already in 1840 he noted that
It does not throw much light upon the Shanar [Nadar] religion to describe it as a form of Hinduism. It is no doubt equally deserving of the name with most of the religions of India; but as those religions are not only multiform, but mutually opposed, the use of the common term “Hinduism” is liable to mislead (pg. 285).
Yet, as Oddie shows, by 1874 Caldwell was speaking on “The Relation of Christianity to Hinduism;” the dominant paradigm was too strong, and a new term had taken root.
Underlying perspectives on “Hinduism” was a basic attitude, and whether one was sympathetic or hostile played a large role in one’s view of “Hinduism.” As knowledge of Hinduism increased and the problems of maintaining a hostile perspective
became apparent, sympathetic views of Hinduism came to prominence in the missionary community.
Oddie summarizes three types of approach to Hinduism. The first, dominant through the first half of the nineteenth century, was “radical displacement” (Kenneth Cracknell’s term), “the belief that the purpose of mission was to wage war and destroy Hinduism (the citadel of Satan) replacing it with what amounted to a European version of Christianity” (pg. 301). The second approach developed in the second half of the nineteenth century, which was Christianity as the fulfillment of Hinduism. Oddie points
out that before academics in Britain began to talk of fulfillment it had been suggested and applied to various degrees on Indian mission fields, again most notably by Robert Caldwell.
William Miller of Madras Christian College went a step further and pro- pounded the viewpoint that though Christ is one it is not necessary to think that the Christian religion is the only true representation of his life and work and way. The separation of Christ and Christianity was axiomatic even in that time, with many recognizing the need to preach Christ and not Western Christianity or denominationalism. But Miller went well beyond this, as Oddie summarizes:
If individuals felt they should be baptized into the Christian church then baptism should occur, but, generally speaking, there was no need for baptism as people drawn from all nations and communities could continue to develop Christian ideas and ideals while continuing to operate within their existing communities, and without a “shifting of camps.” It was, therefore, the task of the church and of the Christian colleges to diffuse Christ’s teachings and ideals throughout the country so as to enable Hindus to follow Christ within their own particular tradition. It was this last point that was especially challenging for most missionaries (pg. 315).
Oddie has a closing chapter addressing gender issues in missionary perspectives and practices, commending the careful work of missionary women among Hindu women, and lamenting that this was largely ignored by the leaders of missionary thought.
In his conclusion Oddie notes two areas where the missionary perspective on Hinduism had a great impact. Ironically, the first was on Hindu self-perspectives; the ideal of a unified national religion had an appeal to educated Hindus, and in a context where
Hindu ways were often reproached and abused there was a natural defensiveness. Political action against sati and British support for modernist reforms ignited a sense of concern that was easily communicated as the Christian system against the Hindu system. Ironically, the sense of a unified Hinduism took root among Indians in just the same late nineteenth century decades when missionaries were realizing they had it all wrong, there really was no such unified Hinduism.
Missionary thought about Hinduism had a lasting impact in Britain as well, where popularist propaganda for missions carried on the old paradigm long after thinking missionaries had abandoned it. Oddie concludes that this is Orientalism at its worst, “Western misunderstanding and mistreatment of the East” (David Smith’s phrase, pg. 348). But missionaries had generally moved beyond this and are best understood as closer to what today are described as anthropologists rather than being textual scholars like the classical Orientalists.
Oddie’s survey and analysis of the significant shift in nineteenth century missionary thought is full of insight, and his conclusions need still to impact missionary thinking about “Hinduism” today. This is an essential book for every serious student of the Hindu-Christian encounter and for every library of mission studies.
- L. Richard is an independent researcher focused on the Hindu-Christian encounter. He has published numerous books and articles including studies of key figures like Narayan Vaman Tilak (Following Jesus in the Hindu Context, Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1998) and Kalagara Subba Rao (Exploring the Depths of the Mystery of Christ, Bangalore: Centre for Contemporary Christianity, 2005).
