Here he found insuperable difficulties. In the modern situation Vedic texts
were becoming accessible, even to non-Hindus, through printed editions, trans-
lations, or descriptions; and it was becoming apparent that they spoke of many
gods and of elaborate rituals for their worship. Already in 1833 Krishna Mohan
Banerjea had attacked Rammohun’s Veda ̄nta, albeit using very imperfect know-
ledge, partly on the grounds that it was incompatible with the actual Vedas
(Banerjea 1833). In the 1840s Duff took up the same argument, driving a wedge
between Debendrana ̄th, who wanted to believe in the literal truth of the Vedas,
and his rationalistic associate Akshoy Kumar Datta. In 1850 Debendrana ̄th
reluctantly abandoned the Vedas as his authority; he soon abandoned textual
authority altogether, in favor of “the pure heart, filled with the light of intuitive
knowledge” (Tagore 1916: 161; Rambachan 1994).
The Bra ̄hmo Sama ̄j took a new direction when Keshub Chunder Sen
(1838–84) joined in 1858. Debendrana ̄th was a Brahman, whose father
Dwarkanath Tagore was one of the wealthiest of the bhadralok; Keshub was a
Vaidya who earned his living in a bank. Nevertheless, Debendrana ̄th became like
a father to Keshub, and in 1862 made him an a ̄ca ̄ryaof the Sama ̄j.A ̄ca ̄rya, a
Sanskrit word meaning “teacher,” was the term used for the Brahmans who
expounded Sanskrit texts and led worship in the Sama ̄j. The abandonment of
Sanskrit texts as authorities, and the appointment of Keshub, a non-Brahman,
changed the nature of the acaryas; they were referred to in English as “minis-
ters,” and Keshub wore a black gown like a British nonconformist minister. He
also insisted that, whether Brahmans or not, they should not wear the sacred
thread which was the mark of Brahman status.
The group of younger Bra ̄hmos who gathered round Keshub wished to
abolish caste distinctions; they promoted intercaste marriage, interdining and
the abandonment of the sacred thread. They tended to identify reform with
the adoption of Western ways of thinking and behavior; and while they saw
Bra ̄hmoism as a bulwark against Christianity, they emulated the missionaries’
self-denying zeal for their faith, opening branches of the Sama ̄j outside Calcutta,
and refuges for young men and women who had broken with their families over
religious practice. They also wished the Sama ̄j to be directed by a representative
body rather than an unelected leader. All these points separated Keshub from
Debendrana ̄th, who envisaged a movement rooted in Hindu tradition and fitting
intobhadraloksociety rather than separating itself from it. In 1866, after an inci-
dent in which Debendrana ̄th allowed Brahman a ̄ca ̄ryas to wear the sacred
thread, the Sama ̄j split, and the majority joined Keshub in a new organization,
the Bra ̄hmo Sama ̄j of India. Tagore’s party, consisting mainly of his relatives and
friends, became known as the A ̄di (“original”) Bra ̄hmo Sama ̄j.
Keshub went on lecture tours, demonstrating his commanding rhetoric, his
devotional enthusiasm, and the power of steam travel and the English language
to spread ideas throughout India and beyond; in 1870 he visited England. His
message was that God was to be found not in “the dry wells of ancient traditions
and outward symbols” but in “the deep fountain of divine revelation” (Scott
1979: 75); and revelation could only be apprehended by spiritually sensitive
modernity, reform, and revival 517