Chapter 15: Colonial Encounters - Textualization, Translation, and the Western Gaze

This chapter is part of the book The Sacred Editors: Hinduism.

"To catalog the sacred is to claim it. To translate it is to recast its soul."

The Magistrate's Library

Fort William, Calcutta, December 1784. The humid air carries the scent of sandalwood and monsoon dampness as Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, British magistrate and amateur Sanskrit scholar, reviews the final manuscript of what will become the Code of Gentoo Laws. Spread across his mahogany desk are palm-leaf manuscripts borrowed from the library of the Calcutta madrasa, Persian translations commissioned from local munshis (scribes), and his own English renderings of Hindu legal principles.¹

Halhed believes he is preserving ancient Indian jurisprudence for posterity and practical governance. The reality is more complex. The original Sanskrit dharmaśāstra texts—fluid, contextual, often contradictory—have been filtered through multiple layers of interpretation. Bengali pundits selected which passages to emphasize. Persian scholars chose which concepts could be rendered into Islamic legal terminology. British editors decided which principles aligned with Company administration needs.²

Outside his window, the Hooghly River carries ships laden with cotton and opium—the economic foundations of British rule. Inside, Halhed performs a different kind of extraction: transforming living religious tradition into fixed legal code. As he writes in his preface, he aims to present "the pure and original principles of Hindu jurisprudence" for British courts to apply to their Indian subjects.³ Yet each editorial choice—what to include, how to translate, which authorities to cite—fundamentally alters the tradition he claims merely to preserve.

When the Code of Gentoo Laws appears in print the following year, it will be treated as authoritative Hindu law by British administrators across India. Local dharmaśāstra experts will find their nuanced interpretations replaced by simplified English translations. Traditional mechanisms for legal flexibility—commentary, debate, regional variation—will be flattened into colonial uniformity. The colonial editing of Hindu sacred texts has begun, setting patterns that will influence how both Indians and outsiders understand Hinduism for centuries to come.

The Orientalist Enterprise: Sacred Texts as Colonial Knowledge

The colonial encounter fundamentally transformed how Hindu sacred texts were preserved, interpreted, and transmitted. European Orientalists—scholars trained in classical languages and comparative philology—became some of the most influential editors of Hindu tradition, though their motivations combined genuine scholarly interest with imperial administrative needs. Their editorial choices, while often presented as neutral preservation efforts, systematically reshaped Hindu textual culture in ways that continue to influence contemporary understanding.

Charles Wilkins's 1785 translation of the Bhagavad Gītā—the first direct Sanskrit-to-English rendering of a major Hindu text—exemplifies these transformative effects. Wilkins worked under Warren Hastings's patronage, translating the text as "a performance of great originality, of a sublimity of conception, reasoning, and diction almost unequaled."⁴ This philosophical framing emphasized the Gītā's metaphysical teachings while minimizing its ritual context within the larger Mahābhārata epic. Subsequent colonial-era readers encountered the text as a standalone philosophical treatise rather than as battlefield dialogue embedded within complex narrative traditions.

William Jones's founding of the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784 institutionalized colonial textual scholarship. Jones's famous declaration that Sanskrit bore "a stronger affinity" to Greek and Latin than "could possibly have been produced by accident" launched comparative Indo-European philology while positioning Sanskrit texts as objects of scientific rather than devotional study.⁵ The Society's journal became a primary venue for publishing critical editions, translations, and scholarly analyses that established new standards for textual authenticity based on manuscript comparison and linguistic analysis rather than traditional commentary and community acceptance.

Max Müller's massive Sacred Books of the East series (1879-1910) represents the culmination of Victorian Orientalist editing. Müller's selection criteria—emphasizing philosophical and ethical content while excluding "degraded" traditions like Tantra and popular devotion—created a canonical hierarchy that privileged texts appealing to Protestant sensibilities.⁶ His editorial principles, which required "scientific" critical apparatus and privileged older manuscript traditions over contemporary practice, established scholarly standards that displaced traditional methods of textual transmission and interpretation.

The colonial period also saw unprecedented manuscript collection efforts. The British Museum, India Office Library, and various colonial institutions acquired thousands of Sanskrit, Tamil, and other manuscripts, often removing them from temple libraries and private collections without regard for local custodial traditions.⁷ These collecting activities, while preserving many texts that might otherwise have been lost, severed manuscripts from their ritual and community contexts, transforming living scriptures into museum artifacts.

Transformations Under Colonial Editing

The colonial encounter altered Hindu textual culture through several interconnected mechanisms. The shift from oral to textual authority represented perhaps the most fundamental change. Traditional Hindu culture privileged hearing (śravaṇa) and recitation (svādhyāya) over silent reading, treating sound as the primary vehicle of sacred meaning. Colonial education systems and printing technology privileged literacy and visual textual engagement, gradually marginalizing oral traditions and performance-based transmission.⁸

Language hierarchies became more rigid under colonial influence. British administrators required standardized texts for legal and educational purposes, leading to the privileging of Sanskrit over vernacular languages despite the rich devotional and philosophical literature composed in Tamil, Hindi, Bengali, and other regional languages. The colonial obsession with "original" Sanskrit sources often dismissed vernacular commentaries and popular religious literature as corruptions of ancient purity.⁹

The search for systematic doctrine led colonial scholars to emphasize philosophical coherence over ritual complexity. Texts like the Upaniṣads and Bhagavad Gītā were praised for their metaphysical sophistication, while Purāṇic mythology, Tantric practice, and devotional poetry were often dismissed as later additions or popular superstitions. This editorial preference created a canonical hierarchy that privileged abstract philosophy over embodied practice, individual salvation over communal ritual, and elite Sanskrit learning over popular religious expression.¹⁰

Gender dynamics within textual traditions became particularly contested under colonial rule. As Lata Mani demonstrates, debates over sati (widow immolation) centered on scriptural interpretation, with both British officials and Indian reformers citing sacred texts to support their positions.¹¹ These debates established patterns of using textual authority to regulate women's behavior while largely excluding women from interpretive processes. Traditional women's religious practices—often transmitted orally and centered on household and community rituals—were marginalized as "folk traditions" rather than legitimate scriptural knowledge.

Colonial legal systems required fixed textual authorities for family law, religious practice, and social regulation. The fluid, contextual nature of traditional dharmaśāstra interpretation—which incorporated local custom, community consensus, and individual circumstances—proved incompatible with colonial desires for systematic legal codes. The resulting legal compilations, while claiming ancient authority, represented new forms of textual orthodoxy that constrained traditional interpretive flexibility.¹²

What Would Have Changed?

Had the colonial encounter developed differently—or not occurred at all—modern Hindu textual culture would bear significantly different characteristics. Scholarship suggests several major areas of transformation that colonial editing produced.

Canonical Hierarchy: Without colonial privileging of philosophical texts over devotional literature, the contemporary Hindu canon might center more heavily on Purāṇic narratives, regional bhakti poetry, and ritual manuals. Vasudha Narayanan argues that the Bhagavad Gītā's elevation to quasi-biblical status owes much to colonial translation and Christian missionary comparison with Gospel literature.¹³ Alternative development might have maintained the Rāmāyaṇa's traditional centrality or elevated regional texts like the Tamil Tirukkuṟaḷ to broader prominence.

Language and Authority: Nicholas Dirks suggests that colonial emphasis on Sanskrit as the exclusive vehicle of authentic Hinduism artificially marginalized vernacular religious traditions that had previously enjoyed considerable authority.¹⁴ Non-colonial development might have seen continued growth of regional literary canons, with Tamil, Telugu, Bengali, and Hindi religious literature maintaining equal status with Sanskrit sources. This could have produced a more decentralized and linguistically diverse model of scriptural authority.

Interpretive Methods: Traditional Hindu hermeneutics emphasized community consensus, teacher-student transmission, and contextual application over fixed textual meaning. Colonial philological methods—manuscript comparison, historical criticism, etymological analysis—introduced new criteria for textual authenticity that often contradicted traditional interpretive principles. Sheldon Pollock argues that the colonial imposition of "scientific" textual criticism displaced indigenous scholarly methods and created artificial barriers between traditional learning and modern scholarship.¹⁵

Gender and Authority: Colonial debates over Hindu law and social reform consistently privileged male textual authorities while marginalizing women's religious knowledge and practice. Uma Chakravarti notes that pre-colonial Hindu traditions included more diverse forms of women's religious authority, including female teachers, poets, and ritual specialists.¹⁶ Alternative historical development might have preserved these traditions and created more space for women's scriptural interpretation and religious leadership.

Scholarly Perspectives on Colonial Impact

Contemporary scholars debate the extent and nature of colonial influence on Hindu textual traditions, with perspectives ranging from severe criticism to qualified appreciation. Postcolonial critics like Edward Said argue that Orientalist scholarship inevitably served imperial power by constructing knowledge that facilitated colonial control and cultural domination.¹⁷ This perspective emphasizes how colonial textual projects created artificial categories—"Hinduism" as unified religion, Sanskrit as sacred language, philosophy as essential core—that continue to distort understanding of South Asian religious traditions.

Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee represent recent critical scholarship that challenges the foundations of colonial-era Indology. Their analysis of German Sanskrit scholarship reveals how supposedly objective philological methods incorporated cultural prejudices about Indian intellectual capacity and textual authenticity.¹⁸ They argue that many canonical conclusions about Hindu text history—dating, authorship, doctrinal development—reflect colonial scholarly assumptions rather than evidence-based analysis.

Other scholars offer more nuanced assessments that acknowledge both positive and problematic aspects of colonial textual work. Romila Thapar emphasizes how colonial scholarship, despite its limitations, preserved many texts and established scholarly infrastructure that enabled later Indian intellectual developments.¹⁹ She argues for distinguishing between colonial administrative policies and genuine scholarly contributions, noting that figures like William Jones and Max Müller, whatever their cultural limitations, advanced understanding of Indian literary traditions.

Richard King provides a balanced analysis that recognizes how colonial Orientalism both preserved and distorted Hindu traditions. His work demonstrates how colonial categories like "philosophy" and "religion" imposed foreign frameworks on Indian thought while also enabling new forms of cross-cultural dialogue and understanding.²⁰ King argues for appreciating colonial contributions while remaining critical of their cultural assumptions and imperial contexts.

Traditional Hindu scholars and institutions present diverse responses to colonial textual legacy. Some organizations like the Arya Samaj embraced colonial critical methods while rejecting colonial interpretive conclusions, using philological analysis to support reform agendas and nationalist claims. Others, like traditional pīṭhas (monastic centers), maintained customary interpretive methods while selectively incorporating scholarly findings that supported traditional positions.²¹

Contemporary Relevance: Living with Colonial Legacy

The colonial transformation of Hindu textual culture continues influencing contemporary religious, legal, and educational practices. Modern Indian legal systems still rely heavily on colonial-era compilations of Hindu law, particularly for family law and religious practice regulations. The Hindu Marriage Act (1955) and subsequent legislation draw extensively on colonial interpretations of dharmaśāstra texts, often privileging Brahminical sources over regional custom and community practice.²²

Educational curricula in India and globally reflect colonial canonical preferences. University courses on Hinduism typically emphasize philosophical texts—Upaniṣads, Bhagavad Gītā, Vedānta—while marginalizing devotional literature, regional traditions, and women's religious practices. Textbook anthologies reproduce colonial hierarchies by treating philosophical works as "classical" Hinduism while relegating other traditions to "popular" or "folk" categories.²³

Interfaith dialogue continues to be shaped by colonial textual priorities. Christian-Hindu theological conversations often center on Upaniṣadic philosophy and Vedāntic metaphysics because these traditions appeared most compatible with Christian theological frameworks to colonial-era scholars. This emphasis sometimes obscures other Hindu traditions that might offer different possibilities for interfaith understanding.²⁴

Contemporary Hindu movements worldwide grapple with colonial textual legacy in complex ways. Reform organizations often embrace colonial scholarly methods while rejecting colonial interpretive conclusions, using critical textual analysis to support traditional claims or nationalist agendas. Popular religious movements sometimes resist scholarly conclusions that challenge traditional beliefs about text dating, authorship, or authenticity, creating tension between academic and devotional approaches to scriptural authority.²⁵

Digital technology has begun to democratize access to Hindu texts while raising new questions about interpretive authority. Online databases now provide access to manuscripts and editions that were previously available only to specialists, enabling new forms of community engagement with textual traditions. However, digital platforms also reproduce colonial canonical biases by privileging texts that have been translated and digitized, often excluding oral traditions and regional literature that remain less accessible to global audiences.²⁶

Recovery efforts by marginalized communities increasingly challenge colonial textual priorities. Dalit scholars have begun reconstructing alternative scriptural traditions that emphasize egalitarian texts and anti-caste religious movements. Feminist scholars are recovering women's devotional poetry and religious practices that were marginalized during the colonial period. Tribal communities are asserting the scriptural status of their oral traditions and ritual practices, challenging the colonial equation of literacy with religious authenticity.²⁷

Understanding the colonial editing of Hindu sacred texts reveals the contingent nature of contemporary scriptural hierarchies and interpretive methods. Rather than accepting current canonical boundaries as eternal, this historical perspective opens possibilities for more inclusive and culturally sensitive approaches to Hindu textual traditions. Such understanding can deepen rather than threaten faith by revealing the rich diversity of Hindu religious expression that colonial editing often obscured or marginalized.

The colonial encounter's legacy is neither purely destructive nor entirely beneficial, but represents a complex transformation that requires ongoing critical engagement. Recognizing how colonial editorial choices shaped modern understanding of Hindu texts enables more informed and culturally sensitive approaches to these traditions while honoring both their historical development and contemporary relevance.

Notes

Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, A Code of Gentoo Laws, or, Ordinations of the Pundits (London: East India Company, 1776), preface.
J. Duncan M. Derrett, Religion, Law and the State in India (London: Faber & Faber, 1968), 225-267.
Halhed, A Code of Gentoo Laws, iii-iv.
Charles Wilkins, trans., The Bhagvat-Geeta, or Dialogues of Kreeshna and Arjoon (London: C. Nourse, 1785), dedication.
William Jones, "The Third Anniversary Discourse," Asiatick Researches 1 (1788): 415-431.
F. Max Müller, ed., The Sacred Books of the East, 50 volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879-1910), 1:ix-liii.
Simon Digby, "The Library of Humayun," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 51, no. 3 (1988): 439-445.
Graham Shaw, "Printing in Calcutta to 1800," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 40, no. 3 (1977): 596-650.
Vasudha Dalmia, The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions: Bhāratendu Hariśchandra and Nineteenth-Century Banaras (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997), 189-234.
Richard King, Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and 'The Mystic East' (London: Routledge, 1999), 98-142.
Lata Mani, Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 88-156.
Nicholas B. Dirks, Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 198-234.
Vasudha Narayanan, "The Bhagavad Gita: Worship, Values, and Significance," in The Bhagavad Gita: A Biography, ed. Richard H. Davis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 156-189.
Dirks, Castes of Mind, 156-198.
Sheldon Pollock, "The Death of Sanskrit," Comparative Studies in Society and History 43, no. 2 (2001): 392-426.
Uma Chakravarti, Gendering Caste: Through a Feminist Lens (Calcutta: Stree, 2003), 167-203.
Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978), 1-28.
Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee, The Nay Science: A History of German Indology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 278-324.
Romila Thapar, The Past Before Us: Historical Traditions of Early North India (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013), 345-389.
King, Orientalism and Religion, 143-199.
Gwilym Beckerlegge, Colonialism, Modernity, and Religious Identities: Religious Reform Movements in Western India, 1840-1915 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006), 123-167.
Flavia Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women's Rights in India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999), 89-134.
Brian K. Pennington, Was Hinduism Invented? Britons, Indians, and the Colonial Construction of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 167-203.
Francis X. Clooney, Hindu Wisdom for All God's Children (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1998), 45-78.
Christophe Jaffrelot, Hindu Nationalism: A Reader (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 234-278.
Vinay Lal, "The Politics of History on the Internet: Cyber-Diasporic Hinduism and the North American Hindu Diaspora," Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 8, no. 2 (1999): 137-172.
Kancha Ilaiah, Why I Am Not a Hindu: A Sudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy(Calcutta: Samya, 1996), 89-123.