In India, colonialism generated néw classes. Along with the rise of the commercial bourgeoisie there arose a new middle class or intelligentsia which was a-product of the colonial educational system. This educated middle class was composed of members of the traditional elite or high castes—the Bhadralok in Bengal, the Brahmans in Madras and the Brahmans and the Prabhus in Bombay Presidency. Liberalism as a doctrine and programme was developed by this social class in Indian society, mainly. during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833), Dadabhai Naoroji (1825-1917), Surendranath Banerji (1848-1925), Pherojshah Mehta (1845-1915), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1866-1915), Gopal Ganesh Agarkar (1856-95) and a number of other prominent thinkers tried to present a liberal critique of Indian society and colonial state and to provide a set of liberal ideas for the transformation of Indian society and polity. But none of them succeeded in providing a comprehensive philosophical framework of Indian liberalism. With Raja Ram Mohan Roy it was just the beginning of what has been called the Indian renaissance or the period of Enlightenment when systematic thought could.not have been developed. Dadabhai’s contribution was restricted to economics. Pherojshah Mehta was mainly an activist and never devoted himself to serious philosophic enquiry. Surendranath Banerji was known for his political ideas. G.K. Gokhale was a direct disciple of M.G. Ranade and tried to more or less follow his guru. G.G. Agarkar. attempted to apply Herbert Spencer's evolutionary doctrine to Indian society. More than any one of these thinkers, it was M.G. Ranade (1842-1901) who presented in a fairly systematic manner a model of Indian liberalism in the second half of the nineteenth century.
Born in a Brahman family of Maharashtra, Ranade became one of the outstanding students of Bombay University. He began his career as a teacher in the University but later joined the British judiciary and rose up to the position of Judge at the Bombay High Court in 1893. His service in the government as a judge did not restrain him from involvement in social . and political reform.' A: strong believer in all-round reform, he was associated with a number of social, religious, educational, political and economic institutions of Poona and Bombay, either as a founder or as a leading member. His association with the Prarthana Samaj (Prayer Society), Social Conference, Poona Sarvajanik Sabha (Political Organisation from Poona), Indian National Congress and Industrial Conference was very close and significant. Besides being a government servant and a leader of social and political reform movements, Ranade was one of the most sophisticated thinkers of nineteenth century India. In fact, he provided a philosophical foundation to the Indian liberal movement. He could do this because he was well grounded in Indian and European philosophy and had a historical and comparative understanding of socio econoinic and political developments in India and the world at large. In ‘his writings, Ranade has attempted to solve the conflict between the actions of the state and liberty of the individual.
The Role of the State
The focal point of Ranade’s argument about the state is his critique of the laissez-faire doctrine which assigned a ‘minimal role to the state. In place of it he advocates an alternative principle which assigns a positive role to the state especially in economic matters. His advocacy of state intervention is based on his reading of the Indian economy and society. He felt that India’s economic problem was two-fold, namely, (a) phenomenal poverty, and (b) dependence on agriculture and that its solution lay in (a) industrialisation and (b) commercialisation of agriculture. The country, in his opinion, was in a transitional stage. It was passing from semi-feudal and patriarchal conditions into a commercial order, from laws of customs to -. the rule of competition. It was going to enter a stage of capitalist economy having freedom of contract and growing activity of commerce and manu factures. In fact, Ranade believed that unless the Indian economy followed the capitalist road of development her fundamental economic problem would not be solved.’
In the agricultural sector, for instance, he argued that the institution of private property would help to solve the problem of poverty without disrupting the established relations in a major way. In this context, he cited the progress achieved by French, German and Russian agriculture in the nineteenth century due to the establishment of peasant proprietorship.> The magic of property and free institutions were responsible for the wonderful change in French agriculture. The Prussian state encouraged the growth of absolute property both in the landlord class and in the peasantry. It removed the hurdles which prevented the individual from attaining the degree of well-being which he was able to achieve by his own efforts and capacity. In Russia, the emancipation of the serfs had led to ‘ material and commercial prosperity. Ranade wanted similar principles to be followed while enacting the laws regulating land relations in India. Indian agriculture (on which the national prosperity depended) was controlled by the ‘thriftless.and poverty-stricken peasantry’. ‘One found a dead level of small farmers all over the land.” In place of the existing type of land relations, Ranade wanted a mixed constitution where there would be two classes, the petty peasantry having full propnetary rights and the class of capitalist farmers and landlords enjoying complete ownership of huge lands. Ranade thought that agriculture in India needed ‘the leading and the light of propertied men’. Therefore, he defended the rights of the landlords of Bengal which were being limited by the Bengal Tenancy Bill of 1883, though he also wanted to confer full proprietary . rights on the ryots. He believed that, according to the law of providence, the property in land or other goods must pass from the hands of ignorant, improvident and poor persons to the class having intelligence, foresight and the habit of abstinence. Comparing the Brahmans and the Banias with the ‘military and cultivating classes,’ Ranade predicted that property would go into the hands of the former because of their superior habits and education.°
In fact, an average Indian was the very negation of the economic man. His position in life was determined by his family and caste. Self-interest was not the principal motivation of the majority of the people. They lacked any desire for free competition. The strong belief in the concepts of karma and fate defeated the spirit and capacity of enterprise among them. Therefore, both capital and !abour were immobile and unenterprising.* In such conditions of backward economy, Ranade knew that capitalism would not develop and deliver the goods without aid and encouragement from the state. He realised that the economic conditions of India were so different from those of England that the theories of economics (such as the laissez-faire doctrine) which originated in England would not be useful to solve Indian economic problems. After all, no principle of economic science holds good universally and for all stages of civilisation. He distinguished between political economy as a hypothetical, © a priori science and applied political economy. He pointed out that economic theories applicable to the peculiar conditions of backward ‘ societies like India were altogether different from those developed in England. He found that the conditions in the Indian economy were in many respects similar to those in Germany, Italy, France and America and hence the study of continental economy had more practical bearing for Indians than the textbooks of English political economy. The state in these countries was increasingly recognised as the ‘national organ’ for taking care of the ‘national need’ in all the fields in which individual efforts were not likely to be effective and economic. Theorists of this trend from Germany, France, Italy and America influenced Ranade’s views on intervention by the state in backward countries. In England, J.S. Mill represented a similar viewpoint. Ranade fully concurred with _ Mill when he advocated state aid to encourage and nurture the spirit of individual effort and the state’s guidance and direction to voluntary enterprise as far as possible in the form of education so as to alleviate the helplessness of individuals.’
The state in India had already enlarged its functions to include the working of iron and coal mines, and support to cotton, tobacco, tea and coffee plantations and railway companies. But these attempts, according to Ranade, were not sufficient compared to the needs of the economy.’ The Indian economy required aid and encouragement from the enlightened state not only in liberal and technical education, railway and cana! communications, or post and telegraphs but also in pioneering new enterprises and industries. The state could encourage the growth of new industries by subsidising such industries in their initial stage or starting such industries under the aegis of the state itself. The state could also regulate the cooperative efforts, help to form deposit and finance banks and provide loans at low interest to the industries. He agreed that finding capital for industries was not the function of the state according to the classical economic theory. But, at the same time, he indicated that the government was already providing capital for railways, canals or tea and coffee plantations. Secondly, cheap capital was an important need of India’s economy. The savings of. the people were very negligible and these savings were invested either in government stock or post office accounts. The people had not developed the skill of forming joint stock companies. Owing to these conditions, the capital available for investment at low interest had become ‘national want’ which could not be adequately met-by private efforts. In this connection, Ranade found the experiment made by the Netherlands government (to improve the economic condition of its colony of Java through supplementing private efforts both in agriculture and industry) worth imitating.’ The colonial rulers of India, Ranade felt, should follow this pattern and discard the non-interventionist policy. Non-intervention should be discarded in foreign trade as well because the industries of the backward economy of India were not able to stand the competition of British industries. Here, again, Ranade cited examples of France and Germany where the state did not follow the orthodox — English doctrine of free trade. The upcoming and new industries of India, according to Ranade, required a protection from the state in the form of differential tariffs on the lines of these countries. But at the same time he realised that it was futile to expect colonial rule to go in for the protection of industries in its colony.'®
In this manner, Ranade provided a kind of rationalisation to the early phase of Indian capitalism. Though he belonged to the new middle class which was a product of the Western educational system and not of economic changes, he could be looked upon as an ideological spokesman of capitalism. He sincerely believed in state-supported capitalism as a solution to India’s economic problems. Ranade wes theorising in the early phase of Indian capitalism. Therefore, his ideas on economic liberalism could be seen as having ‘scientific character’ rather than ideological colour on the lines of Adam Smith’s and Ricardo’s ideas in the early capitalist phase of Europe.
Ranade advocated state action, not only for supplementing and supporting private enterprise or protecting indigenous industry from foreign competition but also for protecting the weaker sections of the society. He upheld the attempts to protect the poor tenants by ensuring fixity of tenure and the fixing of rent because he thought that agricultural workers and tenants were unable to organise effectively for their own protection. Similarly, he supported the fixing of rates of interest for loans taken by the unorganised, indebted peasants from money-lenders. He held that when the parties were not equally matched in intelligence and resources, the freedom-of-contract theory cannot claim to be upholding equality and freedom. ‘The distribution of produce among the needy many and the powerful few has to be arranged in a spirit of equity and fair play.’ These views appeared in Ranade’s. celebrated essay entitled ‘Indian Political Economy’ which was one of his last essays on economic problems (written during the years 1891 to 1893). It seems that by this time he had come to accept the idea that the state had to intervene to protect the interests of the weaker groups of the society within the framework of capitalism. ] :
On similar lines, he advocated state action to implement social reforms especially about the marriage and family system of high caste Hindus. He refuted objections to legal intervention in regulating the age of marniage and argued that even though widows and children do-not complain about the injustices they suffer, the state should come forward to redress them effectively.'2 According to him, the state should intervene to minimise social evils if individuals or groups cannot check them adequately, speedily or effectively. He, however, saw tne limits of state action for social reforms. Social reforms, he maintained, are valuable if they become the ‘work of the people,’ and not merely an ‘act of the state’. The people must work for themselves to reform their social institutions. ‘The agencies from outside’ (such as the state) are not a substitute for individual efforts. The inner self of the individual, his thoughts and ideas deterrnine his outward actions. The inner selves of the individuals have to be changed if © real reform is desired. A change in outward forms and institutions alone will not bring out real reforms. Nothing great or good can be achieved unless the conscience is stirred up; outside agencies can only touch the surface.
Freedom and Equality
Ranade’s views on the limits of state action are embedded in his theory of ‘ndividual freedom, which, in turn, is based on his theistic metaphysics. He maintained that our notions of the individual and socia! well-being depend. upon the answers we give to the questions: What is ultimate reality? What is the relation between man and the Infinite? According to him, the problem of existence determines the problems of morals, legisla: tion and government."
Ranade’s mataphysical position was influenced by the theistic philosophy of A.C. Fraser. Fraser’s lectures on theism in 1894-95 at the University of Edinburgh were interpreted from an indian perspective by Ranade ina talk on Indian theism in 1896.'" His views were also influenced by Joseph Butler’s ideas. Butler’s ‘The Analogy of Religion’ was one of the textbooks on moral philosophy in the University of Bombay in Ranade’s student days. He reviewed: Butler’s Method of Ethics in 1892, justifying his ideas on religion and morality.'* Though Ranade was influenced by European theistic ideas, his metaphysics was deeply rooted in Hindu tradition. It goes as far back as the Upanishadic doctrines on the nature of ‘the Infinite to locate the roots of theism:.In Ramanuja’s visistadvaita (modified non-dualism), he finds the beginnings of a higher concept of -theism.'® The Vaishnava sects (which believed in visistadvaita) also furnished instances of Indian theistic doctrines to Ranade. The Bhagwat Dharma, which was an. offshoot of Ramanuja’s Bhakti Yoga, provided ‘him with a system of Indian theism. Ranade’s article on ‘Hindu ©
Protestantism’ was an attempt to interpret the Bhakti movement of Maharashtra in the light of the doctrine of theism which he had adopted. The movement of religious reform under the banner of the Prarthana Samaj was interpreted by Ranade as a continuation of the theistic movement of the saints. In the light of the doctrine of theism, Ranade argues that one should ~ not exaggerate any one of the three postulates of existence—(i) the ‘I’ or ego, (ii) the non-I or non-ego, and (iii) existence of the Infinite. He ‘rejects mysticism because it exaggerates the first postulate—the ego or powers of man. He criticises the. materialism of Europe and that of Sankhya and the atomistic system of India on the ground that they over-emphasise the second postulate of existence—the non-ego or material forces. Similarly, he also rejects German idealism as well as the advaita philosophy of Sankara because they believe that the supreme spirit, the third postulate, alone exists. At the same time, Ranade does not accept the agnostic view that the problems of existence and ultimate reality are insoluble because of want of logical proof. On the contrary, he believes that it is sufficient to have strong moral convictions about these matters of existence. In this manner Ranade rejects mysticism, materialism, idealism and agnosticism and follows the framework developed by European and Indian theism.'? The three-fold postulates of existence (according to Ranade’s theistic argument) are distinct and at the same time harmonised together. They are not like disjointed parts of a mechanical whole. They are one, and at the same time many. Nature and man have definite relations of subordination to the Infinite. The Infinite rules over them and harmonises them. God is immanent in everything in the universe. -God’s immanence in nature is seen in the order and the purpose which animates nature. God is the cause of all natural changes. In this way, nature is supernatural in character. Similarly, man has also a superhuman element in him and that element distinguishes him from other animals. The distinguishing feature of. man is his self-conscious reason and his free will which makes him responsible for his actions. Free will is not present in brutes. Man has, on the other hand, a delegated freedom to choose between right and wrong, and good and evil. Man’s relations with God are manifested by this sense of conscience in him. The spirit ummanent in the universe manifests his presence in man through this faculty of conscience. Conscience is man’s human nature in its fully developed stage and is the divine voice in man’s heait. This distinguishing nature of man provides bases for all law, government, morals, manners, social and family relations, literary and scientific '7 MW, pp. 68, 116, 193-94. See also RSR, pp. 21, 103, 259, 265-68 and 278. culture as well‘as religion and worship. According to Ranade, the freedom of conscience is the real freedom and the rights of conscience are paramount over all other considerations of mere-political and social expediency. Man should not submit himself to any outward force or the authonty of customs, religious scriptures, usages, traditions or great personalities but should submit to the voice of his inner-conscience. Men must nse to the dignity of self-control by making their conscience and their reason the supreme guide of their conduct. Men are the children of God. It is the voice of God which men are bound to listen to. Ranade points out that because of neglect and dependence on outside help, men have benumbed their faculty of conscience within them. In place of this kind of dependence and helplessness, individuals should nurture a true freedom based upon conscience. Ranade agrees that we should have regard for wise men and ‘great personalities but this regard for them should not come between us and God—‘the Divine principle enthroned in the heart of évery one of us.’ We must cultivate a sense of self-respect or rather respect for God in us. It is true that human authority, prophets and revelations should be respected but, again, the reverence for them should not come in the way of ‘the dictates of conscience’ or ‘Divine Command’.in us. The same is true about the customs and conventions of society. Ranade observes that under the influence of customs and traditions, men usually do injustice to ‘human nature’ and to the sense of right and wrong and thereby limit the development of their higher life.
But the freedom of man is not unlimited. Delegated freedom Is to be properly exercised. Man is responsible to exercise his freedom, with a deep sense of duty. His conscience comes to his help in this context. The faculty of conscience accuses him when he goes wrong and gives him satisfaction " when he performs his duty. This kind of feeling is the connecting link between man’s soul and God. Ranade seeks a change from a society based on the constraints of custom to a society based on freedom. But this freedom is the freedom of the individual’s higher powers and not of his weaker nature. The freedom of higher powers implies a deep sense of duty and responsibility. Therefore, men must seek and realise the dignity of self-control instead of outside control. The freedom of action is a great force but Ranade thinks that this freedom is limited by the fact that it should not encroach upon the equal freedom of others or harm the social morality.
Man’s freedom is also restrained greatly by his family background, early education and the environment in which he is brought up. The duties and limits of action are fixed for most of the people by the circumstances over which they have no control. But Ranade thinks that there is still a large margin left for freedom of action. This margin should be used in a responsible manner without doing any harm to morality.
This means that the freedom of action is to be used in such a way that it in no way imposes restraints on the equally free rights of other people in the society. Ranade has followed the theistic doctrine while arguing that all men and women are equally the children of God. In God’s sight all men occupy only one level. God is the common father and, therefore, all men are brothers. The common divine element which is present in all men provides, according to Ranade’s theism, a basis of union and a common bond of love and help.
His criticism of the caste system and justification of Bhagwat Dharma or the Bhakti movement is based on his belief in these doctrines. According to him, the saints asserted the dignity of the human soul quite independently of the accidents of birth and social rank. They elevated the conception of man’s spiritual nature and tried to lessen the degree of caste intolerance. They rejected the idea that the Brahmans are the creations of God and that other castes should serve and worship them. In spite of their low origin, the low castes were free to attain salvation through faith and love. He preferred the Bhagwat Dharma or Bhakti Marg to the Yogamarg and Jnana-marg because the latter two systems do not allow any rights to Sudras. The Jnana-marg is meant for a selected few while the Yogamarg is difficult for ordinary men. '8 Compared to these two, the Bhagwat Dharma is simpler and is open to all castes. The members of the Mahar, barber, cobbler, butcher and other low castes could become saints. In this way, the movement of the saints raised the Sudra classes to a higher spiritual and social status almost equal to that of the Brahmans. Ranade has thrown light on this particular aspect of the movement of the saints because he was of the opinion that the caste factor is the main blot on the Indian social system. The caste system had developed discrim‘nations and distances in social life (e.g., in matters of food and marriage) and had fostered a feeling of pride in belonging to the smallest community. In place of such a tendency of isolation and exclusiveness, Ranade wanted Indians to cultivate ‘the spirit of fraternity or elastic expansiveness’ and to recognise the essential equality between man and man. Ranade has also emphasised the equality between man and woman. He surveyed the history of female rights in India and pointed out that in the ancient period, especially during Vedic times, women used to take an equal part in religious rites and the deliberations of the state. The Aryan institution of marriage recognised female liberty and the dignity of womanhood. Among the Ksatriyas, a woman was free to choose her husband through the Swayamvara form of marriage; and, among Brahmans, women devoted to study and contemplation were free to remain unmarried without losing any of their importance.'° In the Middle Ages, these Vedic institutions were abandoned. New usages, which developed during this period, limited female liberty and lowered the dignity of woman in the society. Ranade argued that the status and dignity of women should be reestablished by reforming the marriage and family system and by allowing them to avail of the benefits of education. Thus Ranade felt that Indian society should undergo a transformation so that the liberty of the individual is enlarged, social equality is established and the status of women is improved.
Organic Conception of Society
The transformation was to be brought about in all spheres of the society. Ranade believed that society is an organism which develops as a whole and that its parts are interdependent. He followed the evolutionary thesis of Herbert Spencer, who had constructed an analogical connection between society and a biological organism while formulating his theory of social evolution. Ranade, like Spencer, held that there are several simularities between the society and a living organism or human. body. The interdependence among the parts is the most significant of them. In the case of the human body, one cannot develop the chest without developing the other organs or one cannot starve oneself and desire to have good muscles and elastic nerves. Ranade observed that one cannot separate the fragrance from the beauty of the rose; if one does it one would destroy both. This interdependence is to be found in the society on exactly similar lines. In the case of the social organism, one cannot separate the various activities except for convenience and that too provisionally. It is not possible to make progress in one aspect and neglect the other aspects of society. The change in accordance with the values of liberalism was to be sought, therefore, in all the fields of society. ‘You . cannot be liberal by halves’ was Ranade’s dictum.”° He argued that one cannot be liberal in politics and conservative in respect of religion or the social system. The heart and the head must go together. Ranade emphasised the need for social and religious reform while the extremist nationalist school emphasised political reform. Ranade’s writings in this context were mainly addressed to the followers of this school whose philosopher was Lokmanya Tilak (1856-1920). But at the same time, it must be mentioned that Ranade nowhere gave priority to social reform. He believed in the mutual natural dependence of the social, political and economic spheres of society. Nowhere did he condemn the political aspirations of the people. He thought that politics represented an important department of human activity and that without the rights and duties of citizenship no one would feel the full dignity of human ‘existence. The Indian National Congress (which strove for political reform) and the Social.Conference (which strove for social reform) were regarded by Ranade as two sisters who should go hand-in-hand if they wanted to make real progress. Ranade insisted that people cannot have good social institutions when they do not enjoy political liberties. They are not fit to exercise their political rights unless their social institutions are based on reason and justice. Similarly, if their social system is imperfect they are unable to achieve real economic progress. If their religious institutions are degenerate, they cannot succeed in the social, political and economic fields. No question is purely political or economic. It is a mistake to suppose that there are separate departments in the composite nature of humanity. Therefore, liberation was to be sought not in one sort -of activity or one sphere of social acticn but in all aspects of social life. There was, in Ranade’s opinion, a need for developing the whole social being and renovating the whole human existence.?' Unless Indians reform their social institutions like the family, it was, according to Ranade, hopeless to fight: for political freedom. Even if people succeeded in achieving political freedom it would be impossible to preserve it without _establishing the liberty of the individual in the social sphere and extending equal rights to women in society; the social and political spheres of the society are dependent on each other and they change simultaneously. The transformation of the society as a whole was to be achieved gradually and slowly. This belief in gradualness was a second important feature of Ranade’s liberalism. Here, too, he agreed with Spencer's analysis of social evolution, according to which growth is always structural, organic and slow. !.anade maintained that change towards the liberal society and polity was to be achieved step-by-step over a long period of time. The process of social growth is always slow and it would be so if you want real and sure growth. Some people desire to shorten the period of change but Ranade argued that this kind of temptation should be resisted by social and political reforms. He rejected the method of rebellion and preferred the moderate method of attempting each day to take the next step in ‘the order of natural growth’ and doing the work which lies nearest to the hand of the reformer in a spirit of compromise and fairness.” The moderate methods included legislation, executive action, public preaching, popular enlightenment and enforcing reforms by means of penalties. by the state. But the last one (namely, the coercive method) was to be used only after the other methods were tried. In fact, Ranade believed that appealing to the conscience of the people, to their sense of right and wrong, sinful and virtuous, was the best method of reform.
Ranade also favoured what he called-the ‘method of tradition’.*” By this he meant the method of basing reforms-on the old Hindu religious texts and tradition. He believed that a reformer does not write on a clean slate. His task is to complete the half-written sentence. The reformers of the nineteenth century were only carrying out the work left unfinished by the earlier generations. Ranade was proud of the rich. inheritance of Indian society and never entertained the idea of breaking from the past. He thought that he and his generation of reformers were parts of one continuous stream of life. He agreed that the Hindu community was conservative but pointed out that conservatism was its real strength. He thought that a nation which changes its way of life and social institutions all too easily does not find a lasting place in the history of mankind. Though the Indian nation is conservative, it has absorbed new ideas and practices gradually. Ranade wanted to see a similar kind of slow change in the traditional Indian social institutions in the light of the new liberal principles of the nineteenth century. He pointed out that Indian society had changed in history without the shock of revolution or sudden conversion. The old order of society had changed over a period of time with the slow process of assimilation of new ideas. He favoured such a gradual transformation on the basis of the liberal values of liberty and equality. He justified the method of tradition on the ground that it would, not make the orthodox sections of society more reactionary. By basing. new reforms on ancient religious texts or tradition, the reformers can present the changes as palatable to the conservative sections of the Hindu community. It must also be noted that Ranade was himself a strong believer in tradition and always tried to establish a link between contemporary liberal reforms and the ancient tradition of the Hindu community. As seen earlier, he attempted to present the Indian variant of theism by linking the Prarthana Samaj to the movement of the saints and to Ramanuja’s philosophy. Similarly, he advocated equality between the sexes and reforms in the marriage system by reminding the Hindus that their women-folk used to enjoy equal status in Vedic times. He claimed that he was not imitating any foreign model but was attempting to restore the freedom and dignity of the ancient period. His justification of the new social reforms on the basis of ancient tradition cannot be interpreted as — mere revivalism. There is no simple revivalism in social evolution. The dead past cannot be revived except by reforming the. ‘old materials into new organised being’. Accordingly, Ranade thought that a reformation of India’s inherited tradition was the task for Indian liberals. Ranade felt that Indians were not yet ready for full-fledged representative institutions. He was, therefore, very cautious about introducing representation even at the local government level. He felt that the Indians should acquire enough experience before making experiments in representative government. The Indian nation, he maintained, was going through a period of political apprenticeship and unless the people received sufficient training in administration and representation, even partial self-rule would be unwise and worthless. He, therefore, advocated gradual progress towards representative and responsible government in India.
The Role of the Elite
The third:and probably the most important feature.of Ranade’s liberalism was its elitism. He thought that only the elites were capable of providing direction and control over the complex process of India’s transition from feudalism to liberalism. He believed that in all backward countries. like India‘... there is always only a minority of people who monopolise all the elements of strength. They are socially and religiously in the front ranks, they possess intelligence, wealth, thrifty habits, knowledge and power of combination ... .24 Such a minority, because of its exceptional qualities, can play an influential part in all the spheres of society. Ranade’s elite group was composed of Brahmans, Banias, zamindars and the educated middle class. These sections of the contemporary Indian society possessed qualities like intelligence, wealth, unity and initiative while the masses were ‘unlettered, improvident, ignorant, disunited, thriftless and poor in means.’. The masses, on their own, were not capable of understanding the significance.of the principles of liberalism or of participating in the liberal movement.
Ranade held that ‘power must gravitate where there is intelligence and wealth’. His scheme of introducing representation to Indians from the local to the provincial level contained provisions for giving political power to the rich and educated classes. At the municipal level, the elected seats were to be divided in the ratio of two to one between the propertyholders and the ‘intelligent class’. To the District Committee, one representative was to be elected from every taluka by those who pay Rs 100 as tax. Due representation was also to be given to the inamdars as they were an intelligent and influential class. Moreover, they were the natural leaders of their local communities. The educated class represented the intelligence of the district and it ‘had special aptitude and an anxious desire to make a proper and intelligent use of the right of election’.** This _ class, according to Ranade, was to get two seats in the District Committee. At the provincial level, the non-official members were to be elected not by the people directly but by the members of the Municipal and the District Committees. Such a body, Ranade admitted, would be ‘far from democratic in its character and results,’ but would nevertheless provide adequate representation to the people. The masses, he believed, were yet incapable of electing worthy men as their representatives. He held that full-fledged democracy could not be suddenly transplanted into Indian soil;?¢ it required training and education for generations to come. . Ranade’s views on representation indicate that he had assigned. an important political role to the educated class. He thought that the educated classes were ‘the brains and the destined leaders of the people’. Against the conservative forces which were at work in India, the educated minority ‘represented the soul of Indian liberalism’. He thought that the educated class was unconsciously supported by the masses. In one of his essays, he described the special duties of young educated men towards their country and people.’ Those who had taken higher education, and had achieved competence equal to those of the Englishmen, should be given equal opportunity in the civil service. He suggested that one-third to one-fourth of the appointments should be reserved for educated Indians.”*
As Ranade believed that the educated class was to be the agent of change, he expressed his deep concern over the status of higher education. Defending state support for higher education, he argued that those who take advantage of it come from the middle or ‘rather the hereditary literacy and mercantile classes’ who are supposed to lead the work of regeneration in this country. Unless new ideas weré communicated to them through higher education, the country could not hope for great progress. It was, therefore, in the interest of the state itself to provide sound and useful education to the ‘elite of the rising generation’. Besides, the majority of students in high schools and colleges belonged to the poor middle classes who needed the help of the government.”® The masses, on the other harid; were extremely poor and did not care for education. They wanted food and employment and not education.
Those who aspired for higher education and for positions in the civil service and in the legislative councils came predominantly from the Brahman caste.2® Kanade wanted the Brahmans to play a leading role in the contemporary efforts for the all-round progress of the country. He pointed out that it had been the Brahman’s privilege to be poor and “ambitious. This privilege had heiped the society before and must be cherished now. In his address to the Industrial Conference, Ranade explained the necessity of the industrialisation of the Indian economy and ‘said, ‘I can only appeal to the fact that it has been the Brahman’s hereditary privilege to formulate the Nation’s wants and suggest remedies.”*'
Along with the Brahmans and the other educated middle class, Ranade included the zamindars and the vatandars in his category of elite. In his scheme of extending self-rule in India, he wanted special! representation to be given to this class. He maintained that the vatani zamindars played a beneficial role.*? In his essay, ‘Chiefs of Indian States in Maharashtra, he pointed out that the nich vatandars of Maharashtra spent their time lazily and their money in conspicuous consumption. They did not utilise the opportunity of learning from the government teachers specially appointed for their education. The zamindars of Bengal, on the contrary, took to higher education, went abroad and rubbed shoulders with the Englishmen and served their people.” Ranade exhorted the nch classes of Maharashtra to go to the cities like Bombay where they would receive a good education and come to know how the outside world was progressing. They would thereby be able to face the challenge of the new era and assume the leading role which they had been playing traditionally. Ranade also believed that agriculture, which was the principal and dominant sector of the Indian economy, needed ‘the leading and the light of propertied men’ for its development.
Ranade’s justification of the aristocratic classes was similar. to the conservatism of Edmund Burke, while his elitism was comparable to that of J.S. Mill. Mill had said that it was the privilege of the intellectual elite to see the ‘futurity of the species’. Their knowledge was, according to him, the key to progress. The well-educated men were the wisest and best men and should, therefore, be elected to office at all levels. Mill sought to reconcile democracy and rule by the educated elite. He sought to undermine the influence of landed interests on politics. He considered aristocracy as the sole cause of bad government in England.** In India, Ranade recognised that the landlords were the natural and traditional leaders of the people and that their importance should not be undermined. He tried to combine the interests of his own educated class with those of the aristocratic class. He suggested that some posts in the civil service should be reserved for the members of the aristocratic families of sardars.35
With some variations of detail and emphasis, Ranade’s ideas were shared by the other Indian liberals, namely, Gokhale, Mehta, Baner)1 and Naoroji. They all advocated the reform of Indian social institutions along liberal lines, economic.development through industrialisation, and the extension of liberal-representative political institutions. The transition to liberal society and polity was to be brought about in all the spheres of society under the leadership of the elite by using moderate methods.
Mahatma Phule
A liberal thinker who did not belong to the Ranade school or believe in Ranade’s framework was Mahatma Phule (1827-90). He came froma low caste, mali (gardener) family and was educated in a Mission school.** The strategy of the capitalist path of development and the high caste politics of the Ranade school could not appeal to him. He opposed the elitism of the Ranade school and put forward an alternative liberal framework for the liberation of the sudras and atisudras, i.e., the low-and downtrodden castes.
In his philosophical outlook, Phule was influenced by the revolutionary liberalism of Thomas Paine. Phule’s book, Sarvajanik Satyadharma Pustak, restated the liberal principles contained in Paine’s Rights of Man. Phule stated that all men and women are born free and equally capable or enjoying rights. The creator has made men and ‘omen possessed of equal human rights and no man or group of men: iould suppress other men. The creator has bestowed upon all men and women equal religious and political liberties. They should, therefore, have equality before law and equality of opportunity for entry into the civil service or municipal administration.”’
When Phule looked at the position of the sudras and atisudras in the light of these principles of liberalism, he found that these social groups were slaves for generations. They were deprived of human liberty. This slavery was sustained by Brahmanical rules. The Brahmans, according to Phule, cunningly devised mythologies, established an intolerable caste system and formulated cruel and inhuman laws. He exposed the falsehood and selfish motives behind the Hindu mythology and the cunningness of the codes of conduct propagated by the Brahmans in their own interest. For centuries the masses were kept in chains. The sudras and atisudras, according to Phule, experienced greater hardships and oppression than the slaves in America.
Phule observed that what little improvement had occurred in the contemporary position of the masses was due to British rule. While Ranade wanted larger state support to higher education, Phule blamed the British government for diverting large funds to higher education at the cost of the education of the masses. Phule argued that it was an injustice to neglect the education of the masses as a greater portion of the revenue came from the peasantry. He wanted to re-orient the whole educational system for the upliftment of the masses. He realised that, due to their education, the Brahmans were able to capture the administration from the top to the bottom. He suggested that the Brahmans should be appointed in government services in proportion of their number and that due share should be given to the other castes. The sudras should be educated to qualify themselves for positions in government.
Phule criticised the various organisations established by the liberals of the Ranade school. The Prarthana Samaj, he said, was used by the Brahmans to confuse the sudras and atisudras. He pointed out that ‘ though the ‘Sarvajanik Sabha’ was claimed to be a public organisation, it was, in fact, monopolised by the Brahmans; he did not find in it any Kunbi, Mali, Dhangar, Koli or Bhil. The Sabha demanded more seats for the Hindus but the word Hindu was misleading because only Brahmans reaped the advantage. The same was true of the Indian National Congress. He hoped that no sudra would join the Congress because the Brahmans would deceive the sudras at any moment. He exhorted the lower castes to acquire education and political unity.
While Ranade was proud of the Hindu tradition, Phule wanted to break with it. He criticised Hindu religion, its mythology and sacred books like the Smritis and the Vedas. He maintained that the history of Hinduism was the history of Brahman domination over the sudras. The Protestant Hindu saints, whose role Ranade had eulogised, were also criticised by Phule for their limited pro-Brahman vision. He wanted to. substitute Hinduism with ‘Sarvajanik Ishwar Pranit Satya’.
British rule, Phule believed, was meant by the Creator to rescue the sudras from slavery. Owing to English education, true knowledge was being imparted to the ignorant sudras and thereby they were becoming conscious of their rights and had begun to think of complete freedom from the cruel system of slavery. Phule wanted the sudras to exploit the golden opportunity given by British rule to get themselves emancipated from Brahman domination. Phule’s views on the economy were also different from those of Ranade.
The former’s views were guided by concerns for the peasants and the masses. He thought that they were being exploited by the Brahman elite and feudal rulers. He concentrated on the problems of agriculture while the elitist liberals had favoured industrialisation.** In this way, Phule’s liberalism was radical, while that of the Ranade school was moderate and elitist.
Abbreviations Used in References
RSR M.B. Kolaskar, ed., Religious and Social Reform, A Collection of Essays and: Speeches by Mahadeva Govind Ranade (Bombay: Gopal Narayan and Co., . 1902). MW Miscellaneous Writings of the Late Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.G. Ranade (Bombay: The Manoranjan Press, 1915). . EIE Essays on Indian Economics (Madras: Natesan, 1906), 2nd edition. DV Dharmapar Vyakhyanen (Religious Discourses by Ranade) (Bombay: Nimayasagar Press, 1902). VV N.V. Sovani, ed., Vyaparasam bandhi Vyakhyanen (Lectures on Trade and Commerce by Ranade) (Poona: Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, 1963).
1 For a biography of Ranade, see Richard P. Tucker, Ranade and the Roots of Indian
Nationlism (Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1977).
2 EIE, pp. 66, 325 (see Abbreviations Used in References at the end of article). See also N.V. Sovani, ‘Ranade’s Model of the Indian Economy,’ Artha Vidhyena, Vol. 4 (1962), pp. 12-13; V.S. Minocha, ‘Ranade on the Agrarian Problem,’ Indian ‘Economic and Social — History Review, Vol. 2 (Oct. 1965), p. 359; and Tucker, op. cit., p. 147.
3 EIE, pp. 254-56, 276. See also Tucker, op. cit., pp. 147-48.
* EIE, pp. 284-87. See also Bipan Chandra, The Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India (New Delhi: Peoples Publishing House, 1966), pp. 286-88 and 489-90. 5 EIE, p. 326.
° EIE, pp. 9-10, 43 and 89. See also B.N. Ganguli, /ndian Economic Thought: Nineteenth
Century Perspectives (New Delhi: Tata Mcgraw-Hill Publishing Co Ltd, 1977).
" ELE, pp. 165-79, 189-93. * EE, pp. 91-92.
? EIE, pp. 89-90.
© EJE, pp. 24-25, and 189. See also VV, pp. 19-63.
'' ELIE, p. 31. See also VV, pp. 57-58.
'2 MW, pp. 103, 137,172-73, 192.
' RSR, p. 5.
. 1 See A.C. Fraser, Philosophy vf Theism, Being the Gifford Lectures, University of
Edinburgh in 1894-95 (Edinburgh: William Black Wood and Sons, 1895).
'S For Butler’s influence on Ranade, see Mathew Lederle, Philosophical Trends in
Modern Maharashtra (Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1976), p. 93.
16 For details about Ramanuja’s philosophy see P. Nagaraja Rao, fundamentals of
Indian Philosophy (New Delhi: India Book Company. 1976), pp. 133-46. For Ramanuja’s
impact on Ranade see RSR, pp. 6 and 12.
'8 For his views on equality, see DV, pp. 8-10, 25. See also MW, pp. 170, 193, 236, and
RSK, pp. 270-74.
'° For Ranade’s views on equality between man and woman see RSR, pp. 29-30. See also MW, pp. 72-75.
(20 NLR. Phatak, Nyayamurti Mahadeo Govind Ranade Yanche Charitra (Biography of Ranade in Marathi) (Bombay: Phatak N.R., 1924), p. 531. : 2) For Spencer’s influence on Ranade’s organic conception of society, see MW, pp. 113, 123-25, 230-32; and RSR, pp. 149-52. . 22 See MW, pp. 90, 117-18, 191; and Phatak, op. cit., p. 587.
24 M.G. Ranade, “The Agrarian Problem and its Solution,’ Quarterly Journal of Poona
Sarvajanik Sabha, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1879-80), p. 18.
28 See M.G. Ranade, ‘Administrative Reforms in the Bombay Presidency,’ Quarterly
Journal of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, Vol. 4 (April 1882), pp. 1-56: .
26 M.G. Ranade, ‘The Agrarian Problem and its Solution,’ p. 19.
27 Phatak, op. cit., p. 63.
28 G.N. Singh, Landmarks in Indian Constitutional and National Development, Vol. 1,
1600-1919 (Delhi: Atmaram and Sons, 1950), p. 50.
*? See MW, pp. 266-74 and 277-93.
20 MW, pp. 304-14.
3! BIE, p. 194.
22 Phatak, op. cil., p. 245.
Ibid., pp. 63-65.
* Joseph Hamburger, Intellectuals in Politics: John Stuart Mill and Philosophical Radicals (New Haren: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 63 und 86. Sce also Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), p. 31.
33 Tucker, op. cit., pp. 163-64.
36 For a biography, see Dhananjay Keer, Mahatma Jotirao Phule (Bombay: Popular
Prakashan, 1964). . .
*” For Phule’s principles of liberalism and his criticism of Brahman domination, see Dananjay Keer and S.G. Malshe, eds., Mahatma Phule Samagra Vangmaya (Bombay: Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya and Sansknti Mandal, 1969).
38 Gail Omvedt, Cultural Revolt in a Colonial Society: The Non-Brahman Movement in — Western India: 1873 to 1930 (Bombay: Scientific Socialist Education Trust, 1976), p. 118.
--------------------------------------------------
म ( ) मध्ये प्रकाशित