catch up economically and politically, and that Muslims were a people of
two identities, one fully Indian and, like Hindus, waiting to be free, the other
“supernational” shaped by the principles of Islam.^45
Muhammad Iqbal (1873–1938), a native of Panja ̄b, was trained in law,
continental philosophy, and Islamics. Less the activist than the poet and
thinker, Iqbal argued that Islam’s contribution to the world was its belief in
the unity of humankind, its abhorrence of injustice, and its insistence that
the self be developed to its fullest extent. At the same time, Islam needed to
embrace the modern world and rethink its fundamental message in light
of contemporary thought. One such rethinking lay in how Islamic principles
could be applied in a democratic state: the classical Sunnı ̄ principle of ijma ̄‘
(consensus of the ‘ulama ̄‘) could be the basis for parliamentary govern-
ment – that is, consensus by an elected body. His poetry, in both Urdu ̄ and
Persian, was rich in expressing his beliefs – that love, for example, was
the basis, not for quiescence, but for “righteous action” for the betterment
of humankind; that the self was the gift of God and deserved to be free and
conscious of the fullness of life’s values.^46
Relationships between Christians and Hindus were also fragile at times,
though they seldom took on violent form into the early twentieth century.
More often, the confrontations were intellectual. Two illustrations will
suffice.
John Wilson was a Scottish Presbyterian missionary in Bombay from
1829–75. He helped establish a college and schools in English and Mara ̄thı ̄,
and, together with his wife, the first school for girls in Bombay in 1832.
Wilson was also a scholar who became comfortable in Mara ̄thı ̄, Guja ̄rati,
Hindu ̄sta ̄nı ̄, Hebrew, Portuguese, Persian, Sanskrit, and Arabic. His style,
nonetheless, was confrontational, as he would write pamphlets and offer
lectures, challenging intellectuals of Pa ̄rsı ̄, Hindu, and Muslim communities
to rethink the essential nature of religion. When two Pa ̄rsı ̄s were converted
in 1839, and a brahman in 1843, responses were generated especially
amongst the brahmans of Bombay. The more conservative group, led by a
man named Prabhu, came to oppose attendance at mission schools and
re-entry into caste after such attendance. By the late 1840s, they published
journals in Mara ̄thı ̄ and Guja ̄rati, defending Hinduism, resisting change,
and calling for a return to orthoprax ritual activities. A more “progressive”
group led by Sa ̄strı ̄took a different tack: they believed re-entry into caste
was possible after contact; they espoused social reform, and the rethinking
of Hindu “essentials.” Some studied Hindu classics more deeply in order to
defend it more adequately, and to reject those practices not deemed
consistent with “vaidika” tradition.^47
The other illustration follows from the writings of John Muir(1810–82),
a Scottish administrator in the East India Company and maverick lay theo-
184 Streams from the “West” and their Aftermath