or Veda ̄ntists (Killingley 1993: 103), since he based his teachings on Advaita
Veda ̄nta, often called simply Veda ̄nta.
Rammohun attacked not only Hindu beliefs and rituals but the moral evils
that he believed resulted from them. Besides sahamaran.a, these included poly-
gyny, infanticide, the placing of the dying in the Ganges, and caste discrimina-
tion. Other societies had other aims. The Dharma Sabha ̄, already mentioned,
was formed in 1830 to oppose legislation against sahamaran.a, and any other
interference with Hindu practice. One of its founders, Ra ̄dha ̄ka ̄nta Deb
(1783–1867), was at the same time active in promoting some of the same
causes as Rammohun, particularly education, including the education of girls;
another, its secretary Bhava ̄n. ̄caranı .Banerjee, had edited a Bengali newspaper
founded by Rammohun. The Bra ̄hmo Sama ̄j and the Dharma Sabha ̄, like other
societies in nineteenth-century India, cannot be understood in terms of a simple
opposition of reform and reaction; each of them was negotiating a way of being
Hindu in the modern situation.
Opposed to both was “Young Bengal,” a name which embraces many soci-
eties of young men, some still in their teens, which met in the 1830s and 1840s
to put Indian society to rights in the light of utilitarian and other rationalistic
ideas. Some of these men openly renounced Hinduism, and flouted its rules of
purity. Such attitudes flourished especially among the pupils of the young
Eurasian teacher and poet Henry Derozio (1809–31), who was dismissed from
the Hindu College, the leading English-medium school in Calcutta, on a charge
of corrupting Hindu youth and teaching atheism. One such pupil, Krishna
Mohan Banerjea, was converted by Alexander Duff into the Presbyterian church
in 1832 but was later ordained as an Anglican priest. Others remained rebel
Hindus, proclaiming their rebellion by eating beef and drinking alcohol.
The Bra ̄ hmo Sama ̄j
In 1843 the Bra ̄hmo Sama ̄j was reorganized by Debendrana ̄th Tagore
(1817–1905) around a “Bra ̄hmo Covenant” in which members undertook to
worship one God and to renounce idolatry. Debendrana ̄th’s idea of God was influ-
enced by his English education at the Hindu College, and he was sensitive to
Western-inspired critiques of Hinduism. One such critique appeared in 1845 in
theCalcutta Review, edited at that time by Duff, under the title “Veda ̄ntism; – what
is it,” professing a utilitarian standpoint but clearly based on evangelical theol-
ogy. It accuses Rammohun of whitewashing Veda ̄nta (meaning Advaita Veda ̄nta,
as was usual at the time), and denounces it as a form of pantheism which lacks
an idea of God’s love, arrogantly identifies the self with God, denies the reality of
the world, leaving no lasting value to moral action, and offers virtual annihila-
tion as the final goal. This critique provoked debate within the Sama ̄j, and
eventually Debendrana ̄th distanced himself from Veda ̄nta and sought a theology
grounded in the Vedas which was not liable to these accusations.
516 dermot killingley