Perhaps more common was the approach that sought reform. Ram Mohun
Roy(1772–1833) became a leader in seeking change in the indigenous
landscape while retaining what were thought to be the best principles of the
Indian heritage.^24 Often called the “Father of Modern India,” Roy retired at
the age of forty-two to devote his life to his causes. He had studied Persian,
Sanskrit, and English, had met Unitarians and Deists in England and in
Calcutta, and interacted with the Baptist missionaries of Serampore. He
favored the use of the English medium in public education and believed
cooperation with the British would bring new opportunities to India. He was
bitterly opposed, nonetheless, to both the doctrinaire trinitarianism of
the Baptists and some of what he perceived to be the excesses of his own
tradition, including the burning of widows, a practice that had become all
too common in orthoprax families of his time (including his own). He was
concerned with other social issues as well: the early marriage of children,
the rights of women, the right to education. He found the ethics of Jesus
to be a useful model to emulate, albeit selectively. Not least important, he
founded the Bra ̄hmo Sama ̄j in 1828, a fellowship of like-minded Benga ̄lı ̄
brahmans, who followed a form of monotheism or monism (espousal of
a single divine principle), an ethic of reform, and selective appropriation
of both Indian ideas and Western values.
The Sama ̄j survived for several generations, for a while under the leader-
ship of Debindranath Tagore(1817–84) who tended toward an internal-
ization of religion, and Keshub Chandra Sen(1834–84) whose ideas, in
fact, led to a split and eventual decline of the Sama ̄j. Sen believed it
important to practice fidelity to the throne of England and receive Western
art and science in exchange for sharing with the world the wisdom of India’s
ancients. He spoke of an “Asiatic Christ” who was the quintessential human
and the culmination of Asian wisdom. The “church” of the future would
espouse a god who inspires both quiet meditation (Hinduism) and fervent
service (Islam and Christianity). The religion would be universal, yet reflect
the values of each culture.^25
A far more conservative approach to the British presence was that of
Dayananda Sarasvati(1824–1883). A Guja ̄rati brahman brought up some-
what more removed from the British centers at Calcutta and Bombay, he
nonetheless became disenchanted in his early years with certain popular
forms of Hinduism such as the use of iconography, and determined to
become an ascetic and seek the truth. His understanding of Hinduism and
its need for change was that it ought not to be indebted to Western models,
but to the Vedas. He claimed that Vedism was the only true Hinduism
(though of course, it was his interpretations of the Vedasthat became defini-
tive for him). He was against caste, brahmanic excesses, and iconography on
the grounds that these were not consistent with Vedic principles. At the same
Streams from the “West” and their Aftermath 177