traditions. The Hinduism of Veda ̄nta perfectly fit their needs. A rational religion
consisting of intellectual systems and critical epistemologies, modern Hinduism
made Christianity appear nonrational, intuitive, and idiosyncratic, a religion
riddled with inconsistencies and confusing dogmas. To Hindus seeking rational
bases in religion, the concept of the Trinity was one of Christianity’s most vexing
puzzles. The Christian convert Pandita Ramabai’s main quarrel with Trinitari-
anism was that its concepts of God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit dispersed deity
in three different figures, and confounded the promise of monotheism that led
her to leave Hinduism in the first place. By contrast, Veda ̄ntic Hinduism pos-
sessed almost a cold logic that the Hindu elite could proudly display as a sign of
their own cultural superiority. Moreover, its severe intellectualism was com-
patible with the scientific temperament, unlike in the west where religion and
science were virtually opposed terms. This was a religion Hindus could be proud
of: instead of gaudily decorated stone, theirs was a Hinduism of the mind, that
faculty praised by the colonizers as the index of civilization.
On the other hand, the push toward a monotheistic version of Hinduism was
intended to contest Christianity on its own ground and win back converts to the
Hindu fold by offering the same egalitarian promises as Christianity. The A ̄rya
Sama ̄j, to name one of the most successful of these movements, eliminated many
of the cumbersome rituals of Hinduism and loosened caste strictures. It was
especially attractive to those who were neither keen on converting to Christian-
ity nor content to remain in a past-oriented Hinduism, out of touch with the
compulsions of modernity. Although Hinduism traditionally claimed that,
unlike Christianity and Islam, it was not a proselytizing religion and that Hindus
were born not made, the A ̄rya Sama ̄j introduced practices that unsettled those
claims. A practice akin to the baptismal rites of conversion, the ritual purifica-
tory act ofs ́uddhiinitiated non-Hindus to the religion (Seunarine 1977). Though
claiming earlier scriptural antecedents, s ́uddhiwas intended to help Hindus
reclaim converts to Christianity. The ritual is an example of how Hinduism
adapted to the new challenges set by colonialism by borrowing some of the very
features – such as conversion – that it had earlier repudiated, claiming Hin-
duism’s privileged status on the basis of birth. Reconversion rituals have been a
fundamental part of modern Hinduism’s attempt to reclaim and sustain its
majoritarian status.
Orientalism and reformism thus often went together in the nineteenth-
century construction of Hinduism. If the Hinduism approved by Orientalism
reflected a European view of natural religion, reform movements were a double
reflection of that view. Orientalism and reform enter a dialectic that kept Hin-
duism bolted within the vise of European perceptions – as if in an interlocking
set of infinite mirrors – regardless of whether the intent of Hindu reformers was
to break free of them or not. The texts that reformers consulted were often based
on translations authorized by western scholars, such as William Jones, Charles
Wilkins, Nathaniel Halhed, Henry Colebrooke, and Henry Prinsep. Rarely did
reformers turn to oral traditions or local practices for alternative understand-
ings of Hinduism. Rosane Rocher’s argument that the privileging of Veda ̄nta by
36 gauri viswanathan