Pandita Ramabai, Social Reform, and Orthodox Nationalist Critique

 

Pandita Ramabai, Social Reform, and Orthodox Nationalist Critique

SR Darapuri I.P.S. (Retd)

                    (Special on Jayanti of Pandita Ramabai)

Introduction

The late nineteenth century in India was marked by intense debates over the relationship between social reform, religion, and nationalism. Within this intellectual and political milieu, Pandita Ramabai (23 April,1858–5 April,1922) emerged as a pioneering yet controversial figure. A Sanskrit scholar, social reformer, and later a Christian convert, Ramabai articulated one of the earliest systematic critiques of gender inequality within Hindu society. Her work, particularly The High-Caste Hindu Woman (1887), exposed the structural oppression of women, especially child widows.

However, her critique provoked sharp opposition from leading nationalist figures such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak and drew critical responses from Swami Vivekananda. This essay examines Ramabai’s life, mission, and ideas, and analyses why her work was perceived as threatening by orthodox Hindu leaders.

Life and Intellectual Formation

Pandita Ramabai was born into a Chitpavan Brahmin family in 1858. Her father, Anant Shastri, defied social conventions by educating her in Sanskrit, a domain traditionally reserved for men. This early exposure to sacred texts enabled her to later critique Hindu religious traditions from within.

Following the death of her parents during the famine of the 1870s, Ramabai travelled widely across India. These travels exposed her to the harsh realities of women’s lives—especially those of widows, who faced social exclusion, economic deprivation, and religiously sanctioned suffering. Her scholarship earned her recognition in Calcutta, where she was conferred the titles “Pandita” and “Saraswati.”

Her personal life further shaped her reformist outlook. Her inter-caste marriage and early widowhood brought her into direct confrontation with the oppressive structures she later critiqued. These experiences transformed her into a committed advocate of women’s emancipation.

Critique of Brahmanical Patriarchy

Ramabai’s most influential work, The High-Caste Hindu Woman (1887), provides a detailed analysis of the structural subordination of women in Hindu society. She argued that religion permeated every aspect of social life, making it impossible to separate social practices from religious sanction. As she observed, “there is not an act that is not performed religiously.” ¹

This insight allowed her to advance a radical argument: that the oppression of women was not merely social but deeply embedded in religious doctrine and practice. Drawing upon texts such as the Manusmriti, she demonstrated how women were placed under perpetual male authority—first under the father, then the husband, and finally the son.

Ramabai was particularly critical of child marriage, which she saw as a root cause of women’s suffering. Early marriage deprived girls of education, exposed them to premature motherhood, and often resulted in early widowhood. Widows, especially child widows, endured extreme forms of social exclusion. They were subjected to harsh ascetic practices, denied property rights, and stigmatized as inauspicious.

She also highlighted the systematic denial of education to women, arguing that ignorance was deliberately maintained to sustain patriarchal control. Education, in her view, was essential for women’s liberation and self-respect.

Reformist Mission and Institutional Work

Unlike many critics of her time, Ramabai combined intellectual critique with practical reform. She established institutions such as Sharada Sadan in Bombay (later Pune) and the Mukti Mission at Kedgaon. These institutions aimed to provide: Education, Vocational training and Shelter for widows and destitute women

Her approach differed significantly from earlier reformers. Rather than seeking to reintegrate women into traditional family structures, she emphasized autonomy, dignity, and self-reliance.

Ramabai also engaged in transnational advocacy. Her travels to England and the United States enabled her to raise funds and mobilize support for her work. However, this international engagement also exposed her to criticism from nationalist leaders, who viewed such activities as reinforcing colonial stereotypes about Indian society.

Conversion to Christianity and Its Implications

Ramabai’s conversion to Christianity in 1883 marked a turning point in her life and career. While she remained critical of Western missionary paternalism, she found in Christianity a framework that emphasized spiritual equality and compassion.

However, her conversion became one of the primary reasons for opposition from Hindu orthodox leaders. It was seen not merely as a personal religious choice but as a political act that aligned her with colonial and missionary interests. Her institutions, especially those that provided refuge to widows, were accused of facilitating religious conversion.

Opposition from Bal Gangadhar Tilak

The opposition of Bal Gangadhar Tilak must be understood within the broader framework of cultural nationalism. Tilak believed that social reform should not undermine national unity or weaken resistance to colonial rule.

Through his editorials in Kesari, Tilak criticized reformers who, in his view, relied on colonial support or missionary backing. He opposed legislative interventions such as the Age of Consent Act (1891) (Raising of Mariage age of Hindu girls from 10 t0 12 years), arguing that they represented colonial interference in Indian society. ²

Ramabai’s critique of Hindu social practices—especially when articulated before Western audiences—was perceived by Tilak as damaging to the image of Hindu society. He viewed her work as contributing to colonial narratives that justified British rule.

Tilak also upheld traditional gender roles, emphasizing the importance of women’s domestic responsibilities. In this context, Ramabai’s advocacy of women’s education, independence, and public participation appeared radical and destabilizing.

Critique from Swami Vivekananda

The response of Swami Vivekananda was more nuanced. Vivekananda supported women’s education and acknowledged the need for social reform. He famously stated that “there is no chance for the welfare of the world unless the condition of women is improved.” ³

However, he differed from Ramabai in his approach. Vivekananda emphasized reform from within Hinduism rather than external critique. He argued that Hindu philosophy contained the resources necessary for social transformation and rejected the idea that the religion itself was fundamentally oppressive.

Vivekananda was also critical of Christian missionary activity, which he saw as a form of cultural imperialism. Ramabai’s conversion and her association with missionary networks were therefore viewed with suspicion. He believed that presenting Hindu society negatively to Western audiences undermined national self-confidence and cultural pride.

The Core Ideological Conflict

The conflict between Ramabai and her critics reflects deeper ideological tensions in colonial India.

First, there was a divergence between social reform and political nationalism. While Ramabai prioritized the emancipation of women and the transformation of social structures, Tilak emphasized the importance of political unity and resistance to colonial rule.

Second, there was a fundamental disagreement over the role of religion. Ramabai viewed religious texts and traditions as sources of oppression, while Vivekananda regarded them as resources for reform.

Third, there was a contrast between transnational and indigenous approaches. Ramabai’s global advocacy contrasted with nationalist concerns about cultural autonomy and self-representation.

Conclusion

Pandita Ramabai remains one of the most significant figures in the history of Indian social reform. Her critique of Brahmanical patriarchy, her commitment to women’s education and empowerment, and her willingness to challenge entrenched social norms set her apart as a radical thinker of her time.

The opposition she faced from Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Swami Vivekananda was rooted not merely in personal disagreement but in fundamentally different visions of society, religion, and nationhood. These debates continue to resonate in contemporary discussions on gender, religion, and social justice in India.

Ramabai’s legacy lies in her insistence that true freedom must include social equality and gender justice, a vision that remains relevant even today.

References

1. Ramabai, Pandita. The High-Caste Hindu Woman. Philadelphia, 1887.
2. Rao, Parimala V. “Tilak and Social Reform.” Indian Historical Review 35, no. 2 (2008): 215–240.
3. Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 5. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.
4. Forbes, Geraldine. Women in Modern India. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
5. Chakravarti, Uma. Gendering Caste. Permanent Black, 2003.

The Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism and We

 The Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism and We

        

India, the largest parliamentary democracy in the world, celebrated its 73rd Independence Day on Saturday, August 15. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as per the protocol, addressed the 1.3 billion people of the country from the Red Fort in Delhi. In his speech, he promised to bring universal health cards, provide internet access, through optical fibre lines, to all villages across the country, including the islands, within the next 1,000 days. And in his characteristic way, he had warned the two neighbouring states. Standing in the Red Fort on the same day, the Prime Minister said, “Be it terrorism or expansionism, India is standing up to both and defeating it.”

It is to be noted that,ever since he became the Prime Minister, the issue of the security of India has come up time and again in his speeches. Earlier in 2016, when a militant attack on an army camp in Uri took place or in more recent times after a militant attack on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama,Modi was seen to issue a stern warning to Pakistan. India had responded to Pakistan with surgical strikes after the Uri attack and with airstrikes in Balakot after the Pulwama incidence. Although 20 Indian soldiers were killed in Ladakh, at least 35 Chinese soldiers were killed. The Prime Minister has repeatedly highlighted this glorious ballad and heroism of the Indian Army.

Even this year’s Independence Day speech was no exception. The PM had said, “The country has embarked on a remarkable journey with an extraordinary goal. The walkway is full of adversity. Recently some unfortunate movements on the border have challenged the country. But whoever has challenged the sovereignty of the country in the Line of Control or the Line of Actual Control, the brave soldiers of the country have given them fitting response. The world has seen what the Indian Army is capable of doing to protect the country in Ladakh. Today, from this premise of the Red Fort, I pay my homage to the soldiers who sacrificed their lives for the motherland.”

In this article, I will not write anything special to analyse the speech and action of Mr.Modi and his government. Instead, I will quote the political scientist Lawrence W. Britt’s writing ‘The Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism’. Lawrence Britt has identified fourteen signs of fascism by analyzing the regimes of Adolf Hitler of Germany, Benito Mussolini of Italy, Francisco Franco of Spain, Suharto of Indonesia and Augusto Pinochet of Chile.

These 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism—Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights—Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need”.  The people tend to ‘look the other way’ or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause—The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. The supremacy of the Military—Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamourised.
5. Rampant Sexism—The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media—Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security—Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined—Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology are common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected—The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed—Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts—Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free-expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment—Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption—Fascist regimes are almost always governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections—Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Continuing with my initial remark on the Prime Minister’s speech on India’s security, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech at the Red Fort summed up the security situation, I want to stress that the speech on the Independence Day is not an one-off incidence. Rather, it is a continuation of his speeches on national security since his coming to power in 2014. His carefully crafted strategy on religion-politics-administration centres around Ram Mandir and is evident in his 5^th August-speech in Ayodhya:  “Ram Mandir will become the modern symbol of our traditions. It’ll become a symbol of our devotion, our national sentiment. This temple will also symbolise the power of collective resolution of crores of people. It will keep inspiring the future generations.”The rule of the BJP-led NDA government under Narendra Modi  is marked by the imprisonment ofthe intellectuals-professors-social workers in the country. His government is also instrumental in taking decision to sell government agencies to corporates, bring in new labour law or the labour code. Do these speeches and actions not remind us of Britt’s characterisation of fascism?

Asish Gupta is a senior journalist

Courtesy: Countercurrents