Chapter 16: Reformers and Radicals - Modern Hindus Edit Their Past

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

"To reform scripture is to risk heresy. To leave it untouched is to inherit injustice."

Two Moments of Scriptural Revolution

Bombay, October 7, 1875. In the sweltering heat of a crowded hall, Dayānanda Sarasvatī rises before an assembly of the Ārya Samāj, his white robes stark against the oil-lamp shadows. The air is thick with incense and anticipation as he opens his well-worn copy of the Ṛg Veda and declares: "The Vedas alone are the word of God. All else—Purāṇas, image worship, caste by birth—these are human corruptions that have perverted the eternal truth."¹ His audience listens in stunned silence as he systematically dismantles centuries of Hindu practice, claiming scriptural authority for a reformed religion that would exclude most of what contemporary Hindus considered sacred.

Eighty-one years later, October 14, 1956. On the dusty grounds of Dīkṣābhūmi in Nagpur, B.R. Ambedkar stands before half a million Dalits gathered for the largest religious conversion in modern Indian history. In his hands lies not a Hindu sacred text, but a Buddhist one—the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta. As he recites the three refuges in Pali, he formally renounces the Hindu tradition that had relegated him and his community to untouchability. "Religion is for man, not man for religion," he had written in explaining his decision. "The religion which denies dignity to man is not worthy of acceptance."²

Between these two moments—reform and rejection—lies the spectrum of modern Hindu engagement with sacred texts. The colonial encounter had not only introduced external criticism of Hindu tradition; it had also sparked internal movements that would fundamentally reshape how Hindus understood their own scriptures. Some sought to purify the tradition by returning to ancient sources. Others argued that the tradition itself was irredeemably corrupt and required complete transformation or abandonment.

Rewriting from Within: The Reformist Project

The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries witnessed unprecedented internal criticism and reconstruction of Hindu textual authority. These reform movements emerged partly in response to Christian missionary attacks and colonial administrative policies, but they also reflected genuine indigenous concerns about social justice, rational consistency, and spiritual authenticity. Reformers did not merely reinterpret existing texts; they actively edited the boundaries of canonical authority, elevating some traditions while dismissing others as corruptions.

Dayānanda Sarasvatī (1824-1883) represents the most radical form of scriptural editing within the reformist tradition. His Satyārth Prakāś (Light of Truth) systematically rejected all post-Vedic Hindu literature as human fabrication, arguing that only the four Vedic Saṃhitās contained divine revelation.³ This position required extensive reinterpretation of Vedic content, as Dayānanda argued that the ancient texts actually taught monotheism, rejected caste distinctions, and promoted scientific rationalism. His translation methods were highly creative—he interpreted Vedic hymns to fire deities as discussions of steam engines and electricity, demonstrating how reformist editing could transform ancient texts into vehicles for modern concerns.⁴

Dayānanda's selective editing extended to social reform through scriptural authority. He argued that the Vedas granted women equal rights to education and religious practice, directly contradicting medieval dharmaśāstra interpretations. His assertion that true Vedic religion required widow remarriage and prohibited child marriage used ancient textual authority to challenge contemporary social practices. This approach demonstrated how reformers could claim traditional legitimacy while promoting radical social change.⁵

Rammohun Roy (1772-1833) pioneered a different editorial strategy through his work with the Brahmo Samāj. Rather than rejecting post-Vedic literature entirely, Roy engaged in sophisticated hermeneutical editing that emphasized certain textual traditions while marginalizing others. His translations of the Īśopaniṣad and other Upaniṣadic texts into Bengali and English promoted monotheistic interpretations while downplaying polytheistic elements.⁶ Roy's famous debate over sati (widow immolation) exemplified reformist editorial practice—he cited Vedic and dharmaśāstra passages supporting widow remarriage while arguing that texts supporting sati were either misinterpreted or corrupted by later additions.

Svāmī Vivekānanda (1863-1902) developed perhaps the most influential editorial approach by universalizing Hindu textual authority rather than restricting it. His presentation of Hinduism at the 1893 World's Parliament of Religions drew primarily on Advaita Vedānta philosophy, particularly the Upaniṣads and Bhagavad Gītā, while largely ignoring ritual practices, caste distinctions, and devotional traditions.⁷ Vivekānanda's editorial genius lay in reframing Hindu texts as expressions of universal spiritual principles rather than culturally specific religious practices. His famous declaration that "each soul is potentially divine" transformed Upaniṣadic philosophy into a message of human empowerment that appealed to global audiences while maintaining connection to traditional sources.⁸

Mahātmā Gāndhī (1869-1948) pioneered an ethical approach to scriptural editing that subordinated textual authority to moral principles. His interpretation of the Bhagavad Gītā as an allegory for spiritual struggle rather than a literal account of warfare allowed him to extract nonviolent teachings from a text that explicitly discusses killing in righteous war.⁹ Gāndhī's editorial principle was clear: "I reject as interpolation every verse or text in the Gītā which is inconsistent with ahimsa or fails to uphold the dignity of man."¹⁰ This approach gave ethical considerations priority over textual literalism, enabling reformers to maintain scriptural reverence while challenging problematic passages.

Rejection and Reimagination: The Radical Challenge

Not all modern Hindu intellectuals believed that internal reform could address the fundamental problems they identified in Hindu textual traditions. Some concluded that the sacred literature itself was so deeply implicated in systems of oppression that only complete rejection or radical reconstruction could enable genuine social transformation.

B.R. Ambedkar (1891-1956) developed the most systematic critique of Hindu scriptural authority from a Dalit perspective. His analysis, culminating in The Annihilation of Caste (1936), argued that Hindu sacred texts were not merely corrupted by later additions but were fundamentally structured to support caste hierarchy.¹¹ Ambedkar's public burning of the Manusmṛti on December 25, 1927, represented a dramatic rejection of textual authority, declaring that "to the Untouchables, Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors."¹²

Ambedkar's textual critique was both sophisticated and comprehensive. He argued that even seemingly egalitarian passages in Hindu literature were undermined by the overall system they supported. His analysis of the Bhagavad Gītānoted how Kṛṣṇa's teaching about duty (dharma) reinforced caste obligations rather than challenging them: "The Gītā is a gospel of counter-revolution. It is meant to frustrate revolution by telling people not to bother about the future but to be satisfied with their lot."¹³ This critique challenged reformist attempts to reinterpret Hindu texts by arguing that their fundamental structure resisted egalitarian interpretation.

E.V. Rāmasāmī ("Periyār," 1879-1973) led the Dravidian movement's attack on Sanskrit Hindu literature as a form of Aryan cultural imperialism. His critique of the Rāmāyaṇa focused on its portrayal of South Indian peoples as demons (rākṣasas) and its celebration of Rāma's conquest of the South.¹⁴ Periyār argued that accepting Hindu sacred texts meant accepting Dravidian cultural subordination, and he promoted rationalist philosophy and Tamil cultural pride as alternatives to Brahminical scriptural authority. His movement's success in Tamil Nadu demonstrated how regional identity could provide grounds for rejecting transregional textual traditions.

Feminist critics developed their own forms of radical textual engagement, often working between reform and rejection. Writers like Volga, whose novel The Liberation of Sītā (2002) retells the Rāmāyaṇa from Sītā's perspective, challenged not just traditional interpretations but the fundamental narrative structures of classical texts.¹⁵ Nabaneeta Dev Sen's feminist readings of the Mahābhārata similarly questioned whether reform could address texts whose basic storylines marginalized women's agency and experience.¹⁶ These approaches suggested that true gender equality might require not just reinterpreting existing texts but creating alternative narratives that centered women's perspectives.

Contemporary Dalit literary movements have extended Ambedkar's textual critique through creative rewriting of Hindu epics and Purāṇas. Authors like Sharankumar Limbale and Urmila Pawar have created alternative versions of classical stories that highlight Dalit characters and challenge upper-caste narrative perspectives.¹⁷ These literary experiments represent a form of counter-editing that maintains engagement with traditional stories while fundamentally altering their social and spiritual messages.

What Would Have Changed?

The absence of reformist and radical movements would have fundamentally altered the development of modern Hindu identity and social transformation. Scholarship suggests several major areas where these editorial interventions proved decisive.

Textual Accessibility and Authority: Julius Lipner argues that reform movements fundamentally democratized Hindu textual culture by translating Sanskrit sources into vernacular languages and challenging Brahminical interpretive monopolies.¹⁸ Without these efforts, Sanskrit texts might have remained largely inaccessible to non-elite communities, preserving traditional patterns of religious authority based on birth and education rather than interpretive insight or spiritual experience.

Social Reform and Scriptural Legitimacy: The reformist strategy of using textual authority to challenge social practices created new possibilities for internal criticism that might not have emerged otherwise. Gail Omvedt notes that figures like Dayānanda and Roy "provided scriptural ammunition for social reform that made change seem traditionally legitimate rather than foreign innovation."¹⁹ Without such arguments, social transformation might have been more difficult to achieve or might have required more complete breaks with Hindu identity.

Constitutional Development and Religious Identity: Ambedkar's critique of Hindu textual authority directly influenced his role in drafting the Indian Constitution's provisions for religious freedom and anti-discrimination measures. His argument that Hinduism was incompatible with equality helped establish constitutional principles that protected religious minorities and scheduled castes.²⁰ Without this radical textual critique, India's constitutional framework might have been less protective of religious and social minorities.

Global Hindu Identity: Vivekānanda's editorial approach profoundly shaped how Hinduism was understood internationally and how Hindu diaspora communities presented their tradition to non-Hindu audiences. Vasudha Narayanan argues that "the Vedāntic Hinduism that became dominant in American and European understanding owes more to Vivekānanda's selective editing than to any traditional Indian priorities."²¹ Alternative approaches might have produced very different patterns of global Hindu engagement and interfaith dialogue.

Scholarly Perspectives on Reform and Radicalism

Contemporary scholars debate whether modern Hindu reformers successfully transformed tradition or merely created new forms of elite domination. Anantanand Rambachan argues that figures like Vivekānanda, despite their progressive intentions, ultimately reinforced certain forms of Hindu exclusivism by privileging Advaita Vedānta over devotional and ritual traditions that had broader popular appeal.²² His critique suggests that reformist editing, while challenging some hierarchies, may have created others based on philosophical sophistication rather than birth status.

Postcolonial critics like Ashis Nandy argue that many Hindu reformers internalized colonial values while claiming to defend indigenous tradition. Nandy's analysis suggests that reformist movements often accepted European criteria for rational religion while rejecting Hindu traditions that appeared "superstitious" to Western observers.²³ This perspective raises questions about whether reform movements represented authentic internal development or colonial influence operating through indigenous voices.

Dalit intellectuals like Kancha Ilaiah have extended Ambedkar's critique by arguing that most reform movements failed to address fundamental structures of caste domination. Ilaiah contends that even radical reformers like Dayānanda ultimately preserved Brahminical textual authority by maintaining the Vedas' sacred status rather than challenging the principle of revealed scripture itself.²⁴ This analysis suggests that genuine equality might require more fundamental rejection of traditional textual hierarchies than most reformers were willing to undertake.

Feminist scholars offer diverse perspectives on women's engagement with Hindu textual traditions. While some critics argue that reform movements largely excluded women from interpretive authority, others note that figures like Pandita Ramabai and Tarabai Shinde used reformist arguments to claim new forms of religious and social agency.²⁵ Contemporary feminist scholarship increasingly emphasizes how women have always engaged in informal textual editing through oral traditions, domestic practices, and alternative narrative frameworks that operated alongside formal scriptural authorities.

Traditional Hindu institutions present complex responses to reformist legacies. While some orthodox organizations reject reformist innovations as foreign corruptions, others have selectively adopted reform arguments that strengthen their positions. The Viśva Hindū Pariṣad, for example, embraces certain aspects of Dayānanda's Vedic emphasis while rejecting his critique of image worship and caste distinctions.²⁶ These selective appropriations demonstrate how traditional institutions can incorporate reformist insights while maintaining conservative social positions.

Contemporary Relevance: Reform Legacies in Modern Practice

The tension between reformist and radical approaches to Hindu textual authority remains central to contemporary religious and political debates. Modern Hindu nationalism often employs reformist rhetoric about returning to ancient Vedic values while simultaneously promoting practices that reformers like Dayānanda explicitly rejected. The Rām Janmabhūmi movement's emphasis on temple construction directly contradicts Ārya Samāj teachings about the futility of image worship, yet both movements claim authentic Hindu identity.²⁷

Educational curricula across India continue to reflect reformist editorial choices. School textbooks typically emphasize philosophical texts like the Upaniṣads and Bhagavad Gītā while marginalizing devotional poetry, regional traditions, and ritual literature. This approach follows Vivekānanda's model of presenting Hinduism as primarily philosophical rather than devotional or ritualistic, shaping how young Indians understand their own religious heritage.²⁸

Contemporary movements for temple entry by women and Dalits explicitly invoke reformist arguments about scriptural interpretation versus traditional practice. The Sabarimala temple controversy, for instance, involved competing claims about whether traditional restrictions on women's entry were based on authentic scriptural authority or later corruptions.²⁹ These debates demonstrate how reformist editorial principles continue to provide resources for challenging existing religious hierarchies.

Digital technology has created new possibilities for both reformist and radical textual editing. Online platforms enable communities to create alternative versions of classical texts, annotate traditional sources with contemporary commentary, and circulate previously marginalized interpretations to global audiences. The Ambedkar Mission's digital archives make Dalit critiques of Hindu texts widely available, while feminist scholars use social media to promote alternative readings of traditional stories.³⁰

International Hindu communities often navigate between reformist and traditional approaches depending on their local contexts. American Hindu organizations typically emphasize the philosophical and ethical aspects of Hindu tradition that reformers highlighted, while maintaining devotional practices that reformers sometimes criticized. This synthesis reflects the complex legacy of reform movements that sought to make Hinduism globally relevant while preserving its distinctive character.³¹

Understanding the history of modern Hindu textual editing reveals the contingent nature of contemporary religious authority and interpretive methods. Rather than accepting current canonical boundaries and interpretive approaches as eternal, this historical perspective demonstrates how communities can engage creatively and critically with inherited traditions while maintaining spiritual depth and cultural connection. Such understanding can deepen rather than threaten faith by revealing the rich history of internal debate and transformation that has always characterized Hindu tradition.

The legacy of reformers and radicals lies not in their specific conclusions but in their demonstration that communities can take responsibility for editing their own sacred traditions in response to new circumstances and moral insights. This principle continues to guide contemporary Hindu communities as they navigate between honoring inherited wisdom and addressing contemporary challenges of justice, equality, and spiritual authenticity.

Notes

Dayānanda Sarasvatī, Satyārth Prakāś, 7th ed. (Delhi: Ārya Pratinidhi Sabhā, 1966), 318-325.
B.R. Ambedkar, "Why I Take to Buddhism," speech delivered at Kathmandu, 1956, in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol. 17, part 3 (Mumbai: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1991), 51.
Dayānanda Sarasvatī, Satyārth Prakāś, 275-290.
Kenneth W. Jones, Arya Dharm: Hindu Consciousness in 19th-Century Punjab (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), 89-134.
Lajpat Rai, The Arya Samaj: An Account of Its Origin, Doctrines, and Activities (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1915), 167-203.
Rammohun Roy, The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, ed. Kalidas Nag and Debajyoti Burman (Calcutta: Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, 1945), 2:145-234.
Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1962), 1:3-24.
Vivekananda, Complete Works, 2:295.
M.K. Gandhi, The Bhagavadgita According to Gandhi, ed. John Strohmeier (Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books, 2000), 45-67.
Gandhi, Bhagavadgita According to Gandhi, 89.
B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol. 1 (Mumbai: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1979), 23-96.
Times of India, December 26, 1927, quoted in Dhananjay Keer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission (Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1971), 102.
B.R. Ambedkar, "Krishna and His Gita," in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol. 4 (Mumbai: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1987), 454.
E.V. Ramasamy, Ramayana: A True Reading, trans. C.S. Lakshmi (Chennai: Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, 1972), 23-45.
Volga, The Liberation of Sītā, trans. T. Vijay Kumar and C. Vijayasree (Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 2003).
Nabaneeta Dev Sen, "When Women Retell the Rāmāyaṇa," Manushi 108 (1998): 18-20.
Sharankumar Limbale, The Outcaste, trans. Santosh Bhoomkar (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003), 156-189.
Julius J. Lipner, Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2010), 234-267.
Gail Omvedt, Ambedkar: Towards an Enlightened India (New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2004), 123.
Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 89-134.
Vasudha Narayanan, "Diglossic Hinduism: Liberation and Lament," in A Sacred Thread: Modern Transmission of Hindu Traditions in India and Abroad, ed. Raymond Brady Williams (Chambersburg: Anima Publications, 1992), 189.
Anantanand Rambachan, The Advaita Worldview: God, World, and Humanity (Albany: SUNY Press, 2006), 267-289.
Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983), 45-78.
Kancha Ilaiah, Why I Am Not a Hindu: A Sudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy(Calcutta: Samya, 1996), 67-89.
Uma Chakravarti, Rewriting History: The Life and Times of Pandita Ramabai (New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1998), 234-267.
Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), 234-278.
Peter van der Veer, Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 145-189.
Krishna Kumar, Political Agenda of Education: A Study of Colonialist and Nationalist Ideas (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1991), 156-203.
Flavia Agnes, "Sabarimala and the Discourse of 'Religious Freedom,'" Economic and Political Weekly 53, no. 47 (2018): 12-15.
Digital Archive of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, accessed November 15, 2024, https://www.mea.gov.in/ambedkar-digital-archive.htm.
Prema Kurien, A Place at the Multicultural Table: The Development of an American Hinduism (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2007), 123-167.