Williams found that India is almost a continent like Europe, and from the earliest times has attracted various and successive immigrants and invaders, Asiatic and European. He termed the aboriginal tribes, to be of Scythian origin, and who, migrating from the steppes of Tartary, entered India by successive incursions. Such of these primitive races as did not coalesce with the Hindús are still to be traced in the hills and mountain fastnesses. They are called in ancient Sanskrit works, Mlechchhas, Dasyus, Nishádas, etc.; and are now identified with the Gonds of central India, the Bheels inhabiting the hills to the west of the Gonds, the Khonds (or Kus) occupying the eastern districts of Gondwána and the ranges south of Orissa, the Santháls and Koles in the hills to the west of Bengal, the Khásias and Garrows on the eastern border, and various other tribes in the south. According to Williams, they have little in common with each other and speak dialects mostly unintelligible to the more civilized races of India.
The great Hindú race, Williams found, are original members of the primaeval family, who called themselves Áryas or noblemen and spoke a language, the common source of Latin, Greek, and Sanskṛit. Starting at different periods from their home in central Asia, they separated into distinct nationalities and peopled Europe, Persia, and India. The Indo -Áryas, after detaching themselves from the Persian branch of this family, settled in the Panjáb and near the sacred "Saraswatí, the Holy Land" of the Hindús. Though Williams referred to Saraswati as the holy land, in the Vedas, it is a river, between the Yamuna in the east and the Sutlej in the west, and the Mahabharata mentions it as dried up in the desert.
Williams records: "Thence by successive invasions they overran the plains of the Ganges, and spread themselves gradually over the whole peninsula, coalescing in many places with the primitive inhabitants, and driving all who declined to amalgamate with them to the south or towards the hills".
Williams Continues: "It was thus that the fusion of the Áryas with the Scythian tribes gave rise to the Hindú race, which constitutes the mass of India’s population. It was thus, too, that the blending of the Áryan Sanskṛit with the various Scythian dialects gave rise to the Hindú dialects now current in India.
"Next to the Hindús, but with a long interval, came the Parsís. This small tribe of Persians were expelled from their native land by the conquering of Muhammadans under Khalíf Omar.
"Then came the Muhammadans (Arabs, Afgháns, Moguls, and Persians), who entered India at different times. The great majority of them are supposed to be the descendants of Hindús converted to Islám. Politically they became supreme but were never able to supplant the Hindús, as these had done the aboriginal inhabitants. Their compulsory proselytism led to the retention of Hindú habits and customs by the Musalmán converts. It was the policy of the Muhammadan conquerors to bend, on many points, to the prejudices of their Indian subjects. Hence the Moslems of India became partially Hindúised".
In the entire speech, Williams could be seen using the term "Aryan" in a misleading and dishonest manner. In the Sanskrit-Indian Dictionary that he compiled, he gives a fake authority of the word Aryan, to Rig Veda. The word "Aryan" doesn't exist in Rig Veda. "Aryan" is not a Sanskrit word at all but is an Anglicised/Germanised manipulation of the Sanskrit adjective ‘Arya’ which generally means a reliable, person who experiences truth and witnesses the same. Evangelists like Monier Williams and later English dictionaries have manipulated the Sanskrit word "Arya" into a foreign proper noun, "Aryan" – the name of a race, which is not its original meaning. Then, the Eurocentric mindset manipulate the name Persia into Iran in 1935, using the fabricated European term ‘Aryan’, making people believe that ‘Iran’ comes from the root word ‘Aryan’. This manipulation came in the wake of German racial fever of being ‘Aryan’ and ‘Iran’ being the home of the ‘Aryans.’ Thus, the theory of the Aryan conquest of India got invented. Hence, the authenticity of the dictionary of Williams itself is questionable because the eurocentric paradigm is incapable to understand the Vedic paradigm.
Also, in the long introduction of the Dictionary, Williams stresses that Sanskrit "is not only the elder sister of Greek but the best guide to the structure of Greek, as well as every other member of the Aryan or Indo-European family…a keynote of the science of comparative philology." Calling Sanskrit the 'sister," not the "mother", reveals the diabolical design of Williams-he wants to sustain the fake narratives of Indo-European or Proto-Indo-European families of language.
Despite all these, Williams agrees in his speech, the Hindú or Sanskṛit-speaking element lost its ascendancy in India, notwithstanding the accession and admixture of European ingredients. The Portuguese, the Dutch, the Danes, and the French have one after the other had a footing on India's shores. Last of all the English overran India, and its political supremacy was greater than that which once belonged to the Musalmáns. Yet the mass of the population is still essentially Hindú, and the moral influence of the Sanskṛitic race is still paramount. So, why India had to face serfdom?
Disunity and Casteism
Williams focuses on the disunity and casteism among the Hindus. He records: "Were they a nation at unity among themselves, no foreign power could withstand their united will. But they are not one people. The Hindús of different provinces differ as much as English, French, and Italians. There is the spirited Hindústání, the martial Sikh, the ambitious Maráthí, the proud Rájput, the hardy Gorkha, the calculating Bengálí, the busy Telugu, the active Tamil, and the poor submissive Pariah of Madras.
"Contact with the aboriginal races and with Muhammadans and Europeans operated differently in different parts of India. Even in districts where the Hindús are called by one name and speak one dialect, they are broken up into separate communities, divided from each other by barriers more difficult to pass than those which mark the social distinctions of Europe. This separation constitutes, in point of fact, the very essence of their religion. The Hindús, are a people with strong religious feelings, whether by religion meant passive reliance on a Superior Being or dependence on ceremonial observances; and there are two noteworthy peculiarities in their religion—one is its intimate connexion with social or caste distinctions, and the other its comprehensiveness and spirit of almost universal toleration, admitting every variety of opinion between an unthinking surrender of reason and its complete independence."
Williams then tries to delineate the causes of disunion among the Hindús, and the importance of the study of Sanskṛit as the connecting link between all varieties of opinion.
The growth of the Indian caste system, according to him, is the most remarkable feature in Indian history. Caste as a social institution, conventional rules which define the grades of society, exists in all countries. In England, caste exerts no slight authority, marking society into distinct circles. But in Britain, caste is not a religious institution. In Britain, though religion permits differences of rank, such differences are to be laid aside in religious worship since all men are equal. But, the caste of the Hindús is different. Williams concurs that Hindú believes that the Deity regards men as unequal, proving that Williams does not know the basics of Hinduism. He further says that the Hindu God created distinct kinds of men, as he created varieties of birds or beasts: that Bráhmans and Śúdras are as naturally distinct as eagles and crows, or as lions and dogs; and that to force any Hindú to break the rules of caste is to force him to sin against God, and against nature. Williams forgets that the philosophy of Hinduism is Advaita, and it considers all manifestations, including a piece of dust and stardom as non-different. The Britishers should be reminded that the ultimate aim of Hindu philosophy, is the attainment of a state of experience which is free from birth, life and death. All gods in Hinduism undergo the experience of birth, life and death. So, the ultimate experience of truth in Hinduism is entirely different from the experience of god in Eurocentrism. And the several gods in Hinduism denote pluralism, which is a democracy, whereas the monotheism of Europe has only led to autocracy.
Williams alleges the endless rules of caste in India hinge upon three principal points,—1. food and its preparation, 2. intermarriage, and 3. professional pursuits; but among religious people who make these points the very essence of their religion, an offence against any one of them becomes the most enormous of crimes. In England, he says, the nobleman who eats with the peasant, marries into a family one degree beneath himself, or engages in occupations inconsistent with his rank, is not necessarily shunned, if his moral character remains unimpeached; but in India, if a Brahman does these things, his own peers have no choice but to cast him out, and ignore his very existence. As God created him a Bráhman, so when by an offence against nature he ceases to be a Bráhman, he cannot be re-bráhmanised. As far as his own social circle is concerned, he becomes like one dead or worse than dead: for when he really dies, his nearest relations refuse to touch his body or grant him a decent funeral.
Williams records: "It is a remarkable fact, that the jails in India are filled with hardened villains, whose crimes sink them in our eyes to the lowest depths of infamy, but who, priding themselves on the punctilious observance of caste, have not lost one iota of their own self-respect and would resent with frantic indignation any attempt to force them to eat food prepared by the most virtuous person if inferior in caste to themselves". Williams does this with no mention of the existing racism in his country.
But Williams could not ignore the fact that there was no casteism in India, in the ancient period. He records:
"Notwithstanding the awful severity of these rules, it cannot be proved that there is any religious sanction for them in the Veda or so-called canon of Hindú revelation. In Manu, which is (smṛiti) ‘tradition’ and not (śruti) ‘revelation,’ it appears first as a complete system, but even in Manu, there is much less strictness regarding marriage and the rules about eating than in the later law-books. One hymn in the Ṛig-Veda (usually called the Purusha-súkta or 90th hymn of the Xth book, and evidently more modern than any of the others) alludes to a four-fold origin of the Hindú race (viz. Bráhmana, Rájanya, Vaiśya, and Śúdra), all of whom, it is said, were originally portions of Purusha, the great universal spirit, the source of the universe. But this assigns no superiority to any one class more than would naturally arise from difference of occupation. In all probability, when the earliest hymns of the Veda were composed, that is about 1200 or 1300 years B. C., and when the Sanskṛitic race was settling down in the plains of the Ganges, social distinctions had not ‘crystallized’ into caste, and there was no hereditary order of priests."
Manusmriti and Authenticity
Then Williams blames Manu as the originator of castes, which has no historicity or factual proof:
"As time went on, an elaborate sacrificial system required that a particular class should devote their whole attention to ministration in sacred things, Hence arose a distinct caste, which claimed a complete monopoly of religion, and arrogated absolute control over the consciences of the laity. Whether Manu is a real or ideal personage, he serves as the impersonator of Indian priest-craft; He not only elevated the Brahmans to the highest rank in the social scale and fenced about their position by the most awful religious sanctions, but foresees the danger of combined opposition on the part of the laity, he took care to deprive the latter of all unity of action by separating them into classes marked off from each other by impassable lines.
"The Bráhmans, he declared, were by indefeasible right the chief of all creatures. They inherited pre-eminence as their birthright, and were born the lords of the world (II. 93). Their duties were to teach and explain the Veda, to repeat it, and conduct sacrifices. They were not to seek political power, but they alone were to be the king’s ministers and advisers. Next to them came the Kshatriya s or military caste, whose principal duty was to defend the people; and after them the Vaiśyas, whose duties were agriculture, trade, and keeping cattle. These two classes might sacrifice and repeat the Veda, but not teach it. The king was to be chosen from the military caste but was to submit himself to the guidance of Bráhmans: and, though dying of want, was on no account to take taxes from them (VII. 36.133). All three classes were called ‘twice-born’ (dwija), because at different ages (either at five or eight years old in the case of Bráhmans) they underwent a ceremony called upanayana, which was supposed to confer spiritual birth. A thin cord (the yajnopavíta), composed of several threads, was put on over their heads, and worn under the right shoulder and over the left, as it is even now by Brahmans.
"Youths of the first three classes, thus initiated, were permitted to learn the sacred verse of the Vedas, called Gáyatrí, repeated by every Bráhman to this day, at his morning and evening devotions. The fourth and last caste was that of the Śúdras. They were not slaves, but their duty was to serve the three higher castes, and they were not allowed to offer sacrifices or repeat the Vedas. This caste was probably formed from the more respectable of the aboriginal inhabitants, who joined themselves to the conquering Hindús and preferred serving them to leaving their homes. Though placed immeasurably below the others, they were reckoned a pure caste, and are so considered to this day in southern India (Manu X. 4). According to Manu’s theory the low castes were the mixed classes, which resulted from illicit marriages between the others (described in the Xth book), such as the leather-sellers (dhigvaṇas), fisher-men (nishádas), car-drivers (sútas), attend-ants on women (vaidehas), carpenters (áyogavas) etc. But, in all probability, these low classes represent the more degraded aboriginal races, made slaves by those more powerful and refined Scythian tribes who afterwards formed the pure Śúdra caste.
"Hindú society, as thus depicted by Manu, no doubt represents what the Bráhmans aimed at more than what they actually affected. Still, there was a general conspiracy on the part of the Brahmans to monopolize temporal and spiritual power without personal risk or labour. Having the Veda to learn by heart, and a complicated ritual to master, they had too much on their hands to undertake the actual government; and satisfied with a dignified and lucrative repose, did not relish the risk of fighting. These duties, therefore, they delegated to the Kshatriyas but took care to check the inconvenient growth of kingly power by entangling it in a thick network of sacerdotal influence. The king was to do nothing without his advisers, the Bráhmans. If he taxed them or provoked them in any way, could they not immediately, “by sacrifices and imprecations, destroy him, with his troops, elephants, horses, and chariots?” (IX. 313.)
But, the very understanding of Williams about Manusmriti seems to be misplaced. Srilanka-born American Indologist Patrick Olivelle has rightly pointed out that the aim of the text is to “present a blueprint for a properly ordered society under the sovereignty of the king and the guidance of Brahmins". (2)
It was meant to be read by the priestly caste and Olivelle argues that it would likely have been part of the curriculum for young Brahmin scholars at colleges, and would have been referenced by the scholarly debates and conversations on the Dharmasastras at that time. It means that the text had only limited application. The philosophy of the Hindus remained Advaita.
The fact is, Manusmriti, which had no significance in Hindu life, came in handy for the proselytizing British scholars like Williams. It was the first Sanskrit text to be deliberately translated into a European language, by the British philologist Sir William Jones in 1794. Subsequently, it was translated into French, German, Portuguese and Russian, before being included in Max Muller’s edited volume, Sacred Books of the East in 1886. For colonial officials in British India, the translation of the book served a practical purpose. In 1772, Governor-General Warren Hastings decided to implement laws of Hindus and Muslims that they believed to be “continued, unchanged from remotest antiquity”. For Hindus, the dharmasastras were to play a crucial role, as they were seen by the British as ‘laws,’ whether or not it was even used that way in India. It is also possible that the British mistook Manusmrithi, a later legal text, as a philosophical text. Olivelle adds that numismatic evidence, and the mention of gold coins as a fine, suggest that the text may date to the 2nd or 3rd-century CE. (3) Olivelle, credited with a 2005 translation of Manusmriti published by the Oxford University Press, states the concerns in postmodern scholarship about the presumed authenticity and reliability of Manusmriti manuscripts. (4) He writes:
"All the editions of the Manusmriti, except for Jolly's, reproduce the text as found in the [Calcutta] manuscript containing the commentary of Kulluka. I have called this the "vulgate version". It was Kulluka's version that has been translated repeatedly: by William Jones (1794), Arthur Burnell (1884), George Buhler (1886) and Wendy Doniger (1991). The belief in the authenticity of Kulluka's text was openly articulated by Burnell: "There is then no doubt that the textus receptus, viz., that of Kulluka Bhatta, as adopted in India and by European scholars, is very near on the whole to the original text." (5) This is far from the truth. Indeed, one of the great surprises of my editorial work has been to discover how few of the over fifty manuscripts that I collated actually follow the vulgate in key readings.
 |
| Speech of Williams |
Brahmins never ruled India; they were always the advisers of the kings. During the Veda and Mahabharata periods, they just thrived on alms in the jungles. Moniere Williams in his speech admits that there are weak points in the system of Manusmrithi, of which the Kshatriyas in process of time became strong and the Brahmins weak. He comments: "All Bráhmans being theoretically born equal, any scheme of general subordination among themselves became impossible. They were bound together by the most stringent rules, and their minutest actions were regulated with the microscopic strictness of a convent; but they were without a central authority, without a council, and without any general system of graduated ecclesiastical government. Discipline, therefore, was relaxed, the Bráhmans became careless, and the Kshatriyas more vigilant."
He continues: "It is clear from various legends, that long and severe struggles took place between the sacerdotal and military classes; Paraśu-ráma, the mythical champion of the Bráhmans is said to have cleared the earth thrice seven times of the whole Kshatriya race, and the names of various kings are recorded who perished from their resistance to the encroachments of the priesthood. On the other hand, the power of the Kshatriyas prevailed. The celebrated Viśwámitra, a Kshatriya, is fabled to have raised himself to the rank of a Bráhman, and various legends are narrated which indicate successful opposition on the part of other kings."
Finally Buddha, the great reforming Kshatriya, himself the son of a king, styling himself ‘the Awakened or Enlightened one,’ disseminated a creed which denied the authority of the Veda, prohibited the killing of animals for sacrifice, and repudiated altogether the supremacy of the Brahmans. A system which proclaimed all men equal preached universal toleration, and opposed the tyranny of the priests, had no difficulty in attracting proselytes. Buddhism gradually gained ground in India; and though for a long period ignored by the Brahmans, acquired the end of political supremacy. The best proof of its success was that the three pure castes which re-presented the Hindú laity became confused under its influence, and even Śúdras and Vaiśyas were made kings, upholding the pluralism ingrained in Advaita. There was even a Buddhist Emperor, Ashoka, and materialistic philosophy, Samkhya had ruled over India for several centuries.
But, according to Williams, the Bráhmans, however, were not to be ejected from their position so easily. Under Śankarachárya, in the eighth century, they recovered their ascendancy, but they lost much of their sacerdotal character and became parcelled out into a multitude of sub-divisions or sub-castes, some tribal in their origin, some local; while in place of the pure Kshatriya, Vaiśya, and Śúdra, arose a countless number of mixed classes, separated by difference of occupation, and fenced off from each other by barriers more insurmountable than those which Manu had created. These modern castes, in their tenacity of social and professional privileges, are not unlike the guilds of Europe. "Their jealousy of encroachments is even more marked", Williams asserts. "Those belonging to a higher stratum of society are ever vigilant to refrain from acts which would be deemed beneath their position and to hinder the class below them from any effort to rise to their level. Thus each caste practises an exclusive haughtiness, responded to on the part of the inferior class by outward servility and inward hatred." The solace for Williams is, among Hindus, "mutual confidence or sympathy is, of course, impracticable; nationality and patriotism are all but impossible".
This solace had already been destroyed by the 1857 rebellion and the following Sanyaai rebellion.
The Two Revelations
Williams further speaks of the vagueness and uncertainty of Hindú religious belief as another source of disunion. The Hindú religion is truly many-sided. Though nominally founded on the Veda, the very vagueness of this word, which means ‘knowledge,’ well expresses the character of the religion. The term Veda is usually applied to several books which are supposed to constitute the collective canon of Hindú revelation; but the true sacred knowledge contained in these books was only to be transmitted through a series of priests who were, therefore, named Brahmans.
Williams records: "Here, then, we may note the distinction between the Christian and Hindú idea of revelation. We, Christians, believe that a succession of sacred books, and not a succession of fallible men, constitute the repository of our faith and that God communicated knowledge to inspired writers, permitting them at the same time to preserve the peculiarities of style, incident to their respective characters as men. Our canon of scripture is limited to one compact volume, furnishing a complete directory open to every Christian, so that nothing in faith or practice is required of him which is not contained therein or cannot be proved thereby. Now a Hindú of the old orthodox school repudiates this idea of revelation.
"His Veda, when written down, loses much of its sacred character. Revelation with him is an eternal sound, only to be received by Bráhmans and transmitted orally by them. It is God, himself identified with ‘knowledge,’ making that knowledge heard through the Bráhmans. As this knowledge after a series of revelations increased beyond the capacity of human memory, it came, at last, to be preserved in writing, but this was done to aid the Bráhmans in recollecting not so much the sense as the true sound. They were still to be ‘the only mouth’ through which the sacred Śruti was heard, and they alone could repeat it with the intonation and accent necessary to secure its efficacy. Hence the uncertainty of that so-called ‘divine knowledge,’ which, claiming an eternal existence, was really the work of numerous men during several centuries, each pretending to communicate revealed truth, and each composing hymns or laying down rules in endless succession without method or harmony of design. Most of these hymns and rules have been preserved in the collections called Ṛig, Yajur, Sáma, and Atharva-Veda; but these constitute a mere fraction of the Veda. The Bráhmaṇas, vast rambling treatises, and the philosophical supplements called Upanishads claim to be equally integral parts of Hindú revelation and to contain all the most important precepts relative to the practices and opinions of the Bráhmans".
At his absurd best, Williams terms the Upanishads as parts of Hindú revelation which contain the most important precepts relative to the practices and opinions of the Bráhmans!
At the same time, cancelling his arguments himself, Williams sees Hinduism as comprehensive: "A Bráhman, therefore, may enunciate almost any doctrine, and declare it to be part of the revelation of which he is the depository. Hence the comprehensiveness of Hindúism. Starting from the Veda, it appears to embrace something from all religions and present phases suited to all minds. It has spiritual and material aspects, esoteric and exoteric, subjective and objective, its pure and its impure. It is at once rigidly monotheistic, grossly polytheistic, and coldly atheistic. It has a side for the practical, another for the devotional, and another for the speculative. Those who rest in ceremonial observances find it all-satisfying; those who deny the efficacy of works and make faith their all in all, need not wander from its pale—those who delight in philosophizing on religious subjects may here indulge their taste".
Being at the heights of ignorance and never caring to use the word Advaita, Williams asserts that "the Hindú religion, as it presents itself in operation, is best expressed by the word caste". He says the actual worship of the Hindús at present is as multiform, variable, and elastic as caste itself. He says: "The gods of the Veda are now out of fashion. Fire is still revered, but Indra, the god of the atmosphere, has been altogether superseded by Kṛishṇa. This latter deity is an incarnation of Vishṇu and is the most popular member of the Hindú Pantheon, and he is celebrated in the Puráṇa called Bhágavata." If that is the case, the Britishers should bear in mind that Hinduism was an ever-changing, transforming and adaptable religion.
He further speaks the nonsense that the "Bráhmans are generally worshipers of Śiva", and others, especially in Oude and Hindústán proper, prefer to adore another celebrated incarnation of Vishṇu, called Ráma-Chandra, whose history and exploits are related in the great epic poem the Rámáyaṇa. another gem of absurdity: "Vast numbers of the Hindús, who pretend to be followers of Kṛishṇa, Ráma, or Śiva, are secretly worshipers of the Śakti or female power, personified as the consort of Śiva, and variously called Ambá, Jagad-ambá, Durgá, Kálí, Párvatí, etc. As these commit excesses deemed repugnant to the spirit of the Hindú religion, they are generally ashamed of their own creed, which is called the Váma-márga, or left-hand system of worship".
Williams is unaware that no Hindu in this world of ashamed of worshipping the Devi, and Hindus adore the Devi Bhagavatham.
Williams says that even the worshipers of Kṛishṇa, Rama, Śiva, and Jagadambá, are not unity among themselves. The followers of each deity are divided into several sects. He records: "The Sikhs of the Panjáb, are disciples of Nának Sháh, who attempted to reconcile Hindúism with the faith of the Musalmáns, and promulgated the Grantha to supersede the Veda". Williams is wrong- Sikhism was founded as an alternative to Hinduism or Islam, but not to reconcile both.
 |
| Williams and his Wife Julia Grantham |
He records that since Hindúism allows any amount of free-thinking on metaphysical subjects, the number of educated Hindús has really no other creed than that which they derive from one of the systems of philosophy. These are six in number: viz. Nyáya, Vaiśeshika, Sankhyá, Yoga, Vedánta (or Uttara-mímánsá), and Mímánsá (or Purva-mímánsá). All of them agree in deferring to the Veda as their ultimate authority, but the only school which has really impressed itself on the popular mind is the Vedánta. All Hindús, according to Williams, "whatever their nominal form of worship, are more or fewer philosophers; and Vedántism holding the external world as an illusion, and the supreme spirit as the only existing thing, is the natural current which drifts the thoughts of thinking Hindús towards a dreamy, inactive fatalism".
The problem with Williams and the Eurocentric is that they know only the physical world and hence they were after conquests and the resultant looting. India had, through its great sages imparted centuries ago, an important lesson to emperor Alexander. The inner life is more important than the worldly.
Veda is the rallying point for Williams: according to him, Hindúism begins with the Veda and ends with the Vedánta. He says: "This system of philosophy is in fact the full expression of the one leading idea of the Hindú religion—that idea which is supposed to underlie the primitive elemental worship of the Ṛig-Veda, to be gradually developed in the Bráhmaṇas, to be more clearly revealed in the Upanishads, to be completely manifested in the Vedánta, and to be consistent with all the variety of religious worship prevalent in the present day. This leading idea is the existence of a supreme universal spirit, the only really existing and abiding principle (vastu), which in fact constitutes the universe; and into which the soul, regarded as an emanation from it, but really identified with it, must be ultimately absorbed; such absorption being the highest object of man and only to be effected by a course of discipline, during which the soul is gradually released from the bondage of existence and arrives at the conviction that it is indeed God."
Here Williams traces the origins of the Vedic philosophy to the time "when the Indo-Áryan races first arrived in upper India", and he affirms that then "they had not lost the active habits natural to their character, and conspicuous in their brethren of Europe to the present day". This inference will hold good only if his theory of the arrival of Aryans to India is confirmed. There is also the theory of reverse migration. Here too, Williams ignores Advaita and the authority of a common group of texts called the Prasthānatrayam, translated as "the three sources": the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita.
Clinging on to the theory, Williams says that, "when the Hindús settled down in the plains of the Ganges, their devotional tendencies began to develop. They became conscious of spiritual cravings which the cold formality of the Vedic ritual could not satisfy. There is in the human soul an inherent instinct which tends spontaneously towards its appropriate object and seeks union with the great Father of spirits as its natural resting place." He wonders: "Had a true revelation given the right direction to these yearnings, who can tell what an elevation the Hindú character might not have attained?"
Williams then finds solace in absurdity: "But left to think out for themselves the problem of existence, and acted on by a climate which stimulates the intellect while it indisposes to muscular activity, they (Hindus) lapsed into dreamy speculations. The present lost all reality. The future became all-important. The external world was an illusion (Máyá); life and activity were the sources of pain and evil. The only real thing was the divine soul, and the only real object to get rid of the fetters (guṇa) of existence, and merge all personal identity in the Infinite, as the river mixes with the ocean. This, without doubt, was the history of the pure theory of Hindúism, derived, as was supposed, from the Veda."
These views, according to him, were reconciled with the actual practice—with a complex ritual, a ponderous sacrificial system, and the idolatrous worship of later times. In the Veda, knowledge may be exoteric and esoteric. Sadly, Williams equates the Veda with the Qurán and says it has two parts, the outer and the inner; the one plain and obvious to all, the other hidden and intelligible to the few. The first called the Purvá-káṇḍa placed man’s chief end in works and ritual observances; the second or Gyána- káṇḍa held that knowledge of the supreme spirit was the all in all. "The esoteric doctrine being mystical and vague gave room for all shades of metaphysical investigation, and enabled its teachers to explain it differently, according to their several theories", Williams infers. He deliberately forgets that the Quran is considered to be the revelation accorded to one individual, whereas the Vedas extol pluralism. He scales the Everest of absurdity by commenting that "it is in the supplements to the Bráhmaṇas, called Upanishads, that we discern the first distinct traces of the spiritual doctrine."
He continues:
"The material aspect of Hindúism, on the other hand, admitted that God had no form, but contended that he might assume various forms for particular purposes, like a light in the rainbow, and that external ceremonies and visible images of the Supreme, were necessary to impress the minds of the ignorant and bring down the Incomprehensible to the level of human understandings. According to this view, the vast system of Hindú mythology was nothing but the natural incrustation with which, by gradual accretion, the spiritual doctrine became overlaid, Ráma and Kṛishṇa were great kings and heroes; and as every human being was an incarnation of the Supreme, so in an especial manner were the great men of the earth, who thus became worshipped as portions of the one God by the intelligent, and as actual gods by those to whom the higher doctrine was unknown. But deified heroes and every god in the Hindú pantheon might become inferior to any mortal man, who by self-discipline and mortification assimilated himself more closely to the supreme spirit.
"However multiform, then, the various aspects of Hindúism, are all reconcilable by one Sanskṛit word derived from the root vid ‘to know, implying knowledge of the Deity according to two views, one popular, the other mystical. He who would seek either of these views in the Veda or in the Bráhmaṇas would seek in vain. It is in the Upanishads, that we discern the first distinct traces of the spiritual doctrine; and it is to the Epic poems and Puráṇas, which are comparatively modern works, some of the latter being as recent as the seventh or eighth century of our era, that we must look for the more popular view."
Advising the Missionary
Thus, Williams concludes that everything converges into Sanskrit and the use of it is important to the missionary. Sanskrit, he avers, is the sacred and learned language of India, the repository of the Veda in its widest sense, the vehicle of Hindú theology, philosophy, and mythology, the source of all the spoken dialects, the only safe guide to the intricacies and contradictions of Hindúism, the one bond of sympathy, which, like an electric chain, connects Hindús of opposite characters in every district of India. Without a trace of shame, he adds: "There can be little doubt that a more correct knowledge of the religious opinions and practices of the Sanskṛitic Hindús, or as we may call them the Hindús proper, is essential to extensive progress in our Indian missions". He advances some lessons to the missionaries then:
"This knowledge is best gained first-hand from Sanskṛit books. The Christian missionary who attempts to hold discussions with educated natives without an acquaintance with the Sanskṛit language may be strong in intellect and faith, but resembles a man shod in iron walking on ice. He has no certain standing ground and must either slip altogether or advance with timid hesitating steps. Not that the Hindús with whom he converses are likely to be Sanskṛit scholars. Real Pandits are, after all, rarely to be found in India, except in the neighbourhood of the great seats of learning, and the ignorance of the mass of the population is notorious. But what we assert is, that the national character is cast in a Sanskṛit mould and that the Sanskṛit language and literature is not only the key to a vast and apparently confused and unmeaning religious system, but is also the one medium of approach to the hearts of the Hindús, however unlearned, or however disunited by the various circumstances of country, caste, and creed.
"It is, in truth, even more to India than classical and patristic literature was to Europe at the time of the Reformation. It gives a deeper impression to the Hindú mind than the latter ever did to the Europeans; so that a missionary at home in Sanskṛit will be at home in every corner of our vast Indian territories. To the Indian missionary, first, the use of Sanskrit as the root and source of the spoken languages; and, secondly, its use as a key to the literature, and, through that, to the opinions and usages of the Hindús."
According to Williams, when the Sanskṛit-speakers (Aryans) migrated towards the East, they brought their language with them. The language of the Ṛig-Veda is perhaps the nearest approach to the original speech of the early settlers; and the simple style of the code of Manu, the two heroic poems, and the dramas, which are full and vigorous, but not artificial, is probably a fair representation of the more formed dialects of the Hindús when they had settled down in the plains of the Ganges. As this language gradually worked its way towards central and southern India, it found the ground already occupied by the Scythian dialects of the primitive immigrants. The collision of these rough tongues with the powerful Sanskṛit was like the conflict of a sturdy dwarf with a strong man armed. The rude dialects, of course, gave way, but not until they had left indelible traces of the struggle on the Sanskṛit of both high and low, Bráhmans and Śúdras. As time went on, however, the effects of the collision grew fainter in the Sanskṛit of the Bráhmans, and the language of learning and literature gradually perfected itself, till it reached an excess of elaboration and refinement, quite unsuited to the purposes of ordinary speech. In the dialects of the lower classes, on the other hand, the impression of the original tongues grew deeper and stronger, till it disintegrated the language of the people into Prákṛit."
Why the missionary should study Sanskrit? Williams answers:
The Prákṛits or vernacular tongues of the present day represent Sanskṛit in its later stages of decomposition, and variously modified by collision with the primitive dialects of different localities. Hindí is the speech of 30 million people. This has a multitude of modifications in various provinces. Urdú is Hindí mixed with the Arabic and Persian of the Muhammadan conquerors. Bengálí maintains a closer connection with its parent Sanskṛit than any other form of Prákṛit. Maráthí and Gujaráthí, neither of them wide departures from the original Sanskṛit. In Orissa, there is Uriya, closely united to the same stem, and nearly related to Bengálí. In the Panjáb we have Panjábí; in Sindh, Sindhí; in Nepál, Nepálese; in Asam, Assamese; in Kaśmír, Kaśmírian; all branches from the Sanskṛit stock. In every one of these dialects, the proportion of Sanskṛit words varies from 75% to 90% of the entire vocabulary. As to the south of India, the more powerful and civilized Scythian tribes retained their independence, and with it the individuality of their native tongues. Yet the four South-Indian languages, Tamil, Telugu, Kanarese, and Malayálam, though distinct in structure, and referrible to the Scythian or Turanian type, take from Sanskṛit an infinity of words relating to science, law, religion, caste, and the various incidents of Hindú life.
Sanskṛit then, represented by the code of Manu, the Rámáyaṇa, Mahá-bhárata, and the drama, though called a dead language, is really the living stem through which the vernacular tongues of India draw sap and substance and life itself. By its means, an entrance may be made good into every dialect, spoken by Hindús, in every corner of our Eastern empire. It is therefore the best general language that can be studied in England by those who are destined for Indian life, and ignorant of the particular locality in which their lot may be cast. Williams advises:
"The second use of Sanskṛit, for the missionary, is, as the only vehicle of Hindú literature. In European countries, literature changes with the languages. Each modern dialect has its own literature, which is the best representation of the actual condition of the countries and the characters and habits of its present inhabitants. But the literature of the Hindú vernacular dialects is scarcely yet deserving of the name. In most cases, it consists of bad reproductions of the Sanskṛit. To understand the present state of Indian society, which varies little from the stereotyped laws ever stamped on Eastern manners, to enable us to unravel the complex texture of Hindú feelings, and explain inconsistencies otherwise inexplicably, we must trust Sanskṛit literature alone. Sanskṛit is the only language of poetry, drama, religion and philosophy, and of that celebrated code (Manu), composed many centuries before the Christian era, which is still the basis of the civil law of the Hindús."
Finally, Williams preaches the overthrow of Hinduism, through Sanskrit:
"If the missionary desires to understand the system which he seeks to overthrow, if he wishes to gain a correct insight into the national mind, to acquire any real hold on the hearts of the natives, and conciliate respect for himself and his office, he ought to know Sanskṛit. Many will imagine that we are here proposing an impossible task. Sanskṛit may be presented in an aspect so forbidding as to deter the most venturesome and discourage the most ardent. The very word Sanskṛit expresses, as we have seen, almost infinite elaboration. We may so direct our attention to the language and the literature, that its vastness and complexity will appear overwhelming. Quality with a Hindú might be said to mean quantity, were it not that it often consists of the most laconic brevity. No arithmetical rule seems to be so cultivated by them as that of multiplication, yet no mental operation is so well understood as that of concentration. The excellence of grammar is measured by the multiplicity of rules, and the excellence of rules by the oracular obscurity with which they are expressed. Although in history, geography,- and some of the natural sciences,
"Sanskṛit is avowedly defective, scarcely a subject can be named, in other departments of literature, on which a greater number of treatises, ranging between the two extremes of prolixity and condensation, could not be produced in Sanskṛit than in any other language. The dictionary may be made to teem with roots, each root multiplying within itself till it becomes prolific of innumerable words. Words, again, may be linked together, till one compound occupies two or three lines, and every sentence becomes a riddle, which even a good scholar may spend hours solving. The study of the language thus presented will seem like the attempt to reach the highest peak in a range of hills. The weary traveller, when, after long toil, he reaches the apparent summit, sees other heights stretching out before him in an interminable vista. It is clear, that if there were no other aspect of Sanskṛit, and if nothing could be done to simplify its study, it must ever remain a terra incognita to the missionary. Armed to do battle with Indian superstition, he feels that he must be equipped with other weapons besides Sanskṛit. He must, before all things, be a skilled divine, properly versed in Biblical knowledge, and ought not, therefore, to be ignorant of Greek and Hebrew. He should be acquainted with the general structure of Arabic,—a language peculiarly interesting to the missionary from its close relationship to Hebrew, and most important as entering largely into Hindústání, and embodying the sacred literature of the Muhammadans. He will have to be a perfect master of at least one vernacular; and he ought to be trained in logical disputation, to cope with acute and argumentative Pandits."
How to master the language? Here is Williams' prescription to the missionaries:
"Little help in this respect can be looked for from native Pandits. To them, the difficulty of Sanskṛit is its chief merit. They regard it as evidence of the sacredness of the tongue, which they worship as a deity. Their whole object seems to be to prevent the intrusion of the vulgar by surrounding the grammar with a thorny hedge of technicalities. To facilitate reading through modern typographical improvements is a desecration of their divine alphabet, which was invented to enshrine the divine sound, and not to carry ideas most quickly to the brain through the eye. Hence it happens that very few natives, except Pandits, can read Sanskṛit; still, fewer can understand more than the commonest proverbial aphorisms; but all will listen to the sound with the utmost reverence as if the sense were immaterial.
So, study Sanskrit in England. Williams enumerates the advantages:
"In studying Sanskṛit in England, these views need not, or rather cannot, be maintained. We are ready to bend to Sanskṛit more than we have done to ancient Greek. The pronunciation need not be Anglicized: but all that relates to writing and printing must bend to us. Our practical spirit peremptorily requires that the eye, already overtasked, shall be consulted in Sanskṛit, even more than in less difficult languages, by the distinctness of typography, spacing, and punctuation. The notion of printing to suit the ear more than the eye is to us as incongruous as that of using a locomotive on the water or driving it over a mountain instead of through it. Such notions must at once be repudiated. Again, Sanskṛit grammar must be stripped of its mysticism, and its technicalities swept away, with all needless incrustations. A railroad must be carried through all its difficulties, and no affectations of the scholarship must interfere with our reaching our terminus as easily and rapidly as possible."
Williams stresses that the job of the missionary is different:
"Our end is not Sanskṛit, but something beyond. We wish to know the spoken languages, to know the people, and to gain most shortly and quickly the mind, the heart, and the soul of the native. Nor is there any reason why Sanskṛit should not condescend to be made easy, like other languages. With the aid of many elementary works, and useful editions already published in this country, the missionary may gain all the knowledge of it he requires before leaving England. The difficulties, at least, of the language should be conquered in this country.
"When a missionary has the fatigue of daily preaching, and, perhaps, native churches to superintend, he is utterly unequal to the drudgery of Sanskrit grammar. In England, with judgment in his method of study, he may effect much. The language and the literature have really two aspects, one simple and natural, the other complex and artificial. In the one, words are made subservient to ideas; in the other, ideas are subservient to words. We have already shown, that the simple and natural form of Sanskṛit leads directly to the spoken dialects, and contains all the useful portions of the literature. The missionary need only make good such an acquaintance with the grammar as will enable him to understand any passage in the simpler and more useful departments of the literature.
Then the missionary will have to teach the Hindus, the Bible:
"In translating the Bible, composing, and preaching, he will have to draw all his religious terms from a Sanskṛit source. It cannot be too often repeated, that if the millions of India are to be enlightened, it must be principally through native instruction conveyed in the vernacular tongues. It is, therefore, a fortunate circumstance that there exists in India an inexhaustible fountain of supply for modern terms of science and theology. Sanskṛit is not merely the key to the dialects as they are at present spoken: it is also the best and most appropriate instrument for purifying and enriching them. Such, indeed, is the exuberance and flexibility of this language and its power of compounding words, that when it has been, so to speak, baptized and thoroughly penetrated with the spirit of Christianity, it will probably be found, next to Hebrew and Greek, the most expressive vehicle of Christian truth."
What should the missionary read in Sanskrit?
"(The missionary's) attention will probably be confined to works illustrating the principal successive phases of the Hindú religion, such as the hymns of the Veda, the Upanishads, the systems of philosophy (darśanas), Manu, the two heroic poems, and Puráṇas. About the Veda, since portions of it, serve to this day the purpose of liturgy, both in the domestic and public rites of the Hindús, such portions should, of course, be understood; although, as repeated from memory and not from books, they are difficult to procure. Some of the hymns of the Ṛig-Veda should be read, especially the hymn at the end of the second volume of the printed edition, which contains the Gáyatrí, or holy verse, repeated by every Bráhman at his morning and evening devotions. If the text is not within the missionary’s reach, Professor Wilson’s translation may be consulted without difficulty.
"As to the philosophy, it is absolutely essential he (missionary) should have a clear idea of the leading features of the Vedánta system. This may be done with the aid of Dr Ballantyne’s various works and valuable translations. Still, a careful examination of the Vedánta-sútras would be of great advantage; and in some localities, as at Benares, it would be desirable to master the Nyáya and Sánkhya as well as the Vedánta. At Nuddea, the Nyáya should have the preference. The Bhagavad-gítá should also be well examined, and its meaning thoroughly sifted. All Pandits are, more or less, philosophers; and as they are an influential class of men throughout India, the missionary should win their attention, and disarm their animosities, by showing them that he understands and appreciates their views and attainments. If he can quote from philosophical books like the Bhagavad-gítá, his own religious instruction will come with greater weight.
"Many Pandits, to this day, are convinced that religious truth expressed in any of the modern languages is like milk in a dogskin vessel, rendered impure by its vehicle, whereas conveyed in Sanskṛit it is like pure milk in a pure vessel.
"About the Post-Vedic literature, the code of Manu is written in the simple style of Sanskṛit, and particular portions should be studied. Many of its enactments are now, however, out of date and have been superseded or amplified by more modern legal works, of which the code of Yájnavalkya, with its commentary on the Mitákshara, is, perhaps, the best known. The Rámáyaṇa and Mahá-bhárata belong also to the non-artificial style of composition and are most important in their bearing on the present forms of Hindú religious worship. Unfortunately, they are far too long to be read consecutively. Abridged vernacular translations exist, and the originals should be consulted in particular passages. As to the Puráṇas, the Vishṇu-Puráṇa, translated by the late Professor Wilson, gives a good idea of this department of literature. The most important, as we have already shown, is the Bhágavata. A fair knowledge of the most essential part of it (the tenth book) may be acquired from its Hindí paraphrase, the Prem Ságar.
"The moral, political, and didactic Ślokas, called Chánakya, current throughout India, containing brief sententious precepts in the proverbial style, often in praise of learning and virtue, should be studied by every missionary. Many useful ones will be found scattered through the Hitopadeśa, Manu, the Mahá-bhárata, and Bhartṛi Hari, and a certain number of them might be committed to memory with the greatest advantage."
Williams finally propounds from the pulpit of Oxford, a distribution of the Bible to all Hindus:
"Without such knowledge, the truths of Christianity may be powerfully preached, translations of the Bible lavishly distributed, but no permanent influence will be gained, no mutual confidence enjoyed, no real sympathy felt or inspired. Imbued with such knowledge, all Englishmen resident in India, whether clergymen or laymen, might aid the missionary cause more than by controversial discussions or cold donations of rupees. A great Eastern empire has been entrusted to our rule, not to be the theatre of political experiments, nor yet for the sole purpose of extending our commerce, flattering our pride, or increasing our prestige, but that a benighted population may be enlightened, and every man, woman, and child, between Cape Comorin and the Himalayas, hear the glad tidings of the Gospel. How, then, have we executed our mission? Much indeed has been done; but it may be doubted whether much real progress will be made till a more cordial and friendly understanding is established between Christians, Hindus, and Musalmáns, — till the points of contact between the three religions are better appreciated, and Englishmen are led to search more candidly for the fragments of truth lying buried under superstition, error, and idolatry".
Moniere Williams thus showcased not his scholarship, but his missionary zeal and bigotry.
