- Assess the contribution
of Lokhitwadi Gopal Hari Deshmukh to the growth of Liberal Thought in
Maharashtra
- ‘The Shatpatre and the
Swadkyaya hold the key to an understanding of Lokhitwadi G. H. Deshmukh’.
Elucidate
- critically examine
N.R.Pathak’s statement that ‘Lokhitwadi was the first Maharashtrian to attempt
an analysis of the Hindu society from the economic point of view’.
- Discuss the nature of
religious dissent and social protest expressed by Lokhitwadi Gopal Hari
Deshmukh through the press.
- Examine Lokhitwadi
Gopal Hari Deshmukh’s critique of the contemporary society.
The
English educated generation in Maharashtra began to examine the old traditions,
the old institutions, old values, old customs and visages, subjugating them to
the test of reason. On such re-examination, they felt the urgent need to reform
the society to suit the new environment. Three thought currents of different
types emerged as a consequence. These were represented by three outstanding
personalities viz. Gopal Hari Deshmukh alias Lokhitwadi, Vishnubuwa Bramhahari
and Jyotiba Phule. These thought currents may be designated as ‘all sided
reformism’, ‘revivalism’ and ‘populism’ respectively.
Gopal
Hari Deshmukh, popularly known as Lokhitwadi, was the pioneer of all sided
reformism in Maharashtra. He was a fine product of the new learning of the
West. He laid the foundation of a broadbased intellectual renaissance in
western India. He possessed a rare foresight and could predict the future
course of events. Lokhitwadi was active throughout his life.
His
name is connected with the establishment of a number of public institutions.
His greatest impact however, was made through his journalistic and literary
work. He wrote a number of booklets on current religious, social and economic
problems.
His
bigger books are mainly on historical topics. From 1848 onwards, he published a
series of short articles in the periodical ‘Prabhakar’ on religious, social,
political, economic and educational subjects. These one hundred and eight
articles known as Shatapatre, were collected in 1860 as part of ‘Lokhitwadikrta
Nibandhasangraha’. The Shatapatree represents an outspoken, impatient,
penetrating analysis of the ills of society. He published a book entitled
Svadhyaya Athava Aryavidyancha Krama, Vichar ani Pariksana (study of sequence
of the Aryan learnings, thought and review) which is more moderate in its
diction, gives the opinions of the experienced, mature reformer. The
Shatapatree and the Svadhaya hold the key to an understanding of Lokhitwadi. Both
books contain basically the same teaching; but the latter is more clearly in
praise of the vedic times.
The
Shatapatree reveals his unusual grasp of the new trend of events. One is
surprised to see the modernity and the secularity of his outlook in so young an
age. As he explained the effect of writing these letters in letter no.100, he
wished that the people should know the real situation, reform themselves,
achieve well-being in this world and attain happiness in the other. He wanted
people to renounce their time-honored prejudices, indiscretion and foolishness.
He appealed to his readers again and again to think for themselves and welcome
the new learning with open mind. He spared no body and no follies of his
countrymen, which were responsible for the present downtrodden state of the
country. He was the first to challenge the age-old authority and traditions. He
realized the importance of the western learning and the power of knowledge.
True learning is search for knowledge. He earnestly wished to place before his
fellowmen the new thought and the new vision.
He
was convinced that this was essential to reform the society. He defined reform
as a way to public good. The hundred epistles reveal his considered reflections
on religion, politics, economic, social matters and administrative affairs. His
criticism of social matters had a comprehensive bearing. The Epistles show his
patriotic fervor and the deep love for his own country. They express the
poignant grief felt by the intellectual class of Maharashtra at the loss of
political independence of the country. He was the first to ponder over the
causes, which were responsible to the loss of our independence. He attributed
the loss to eight causes, which he called as ‘Hindushashtak’ (eight aggregate
causes of the ruin of Hindus). To avoid overlapping in his argument, the causes
he enumerated were ignorance, loss of learning, dominance of foolish Brahmin’s,
misguided notions about religion, fatalism and blind traditionalism.
He
had not produced a fictitious description based on somebody’s words or
teachings. He did not write for profit or wealth, not with the purpose of
gaining fame. He laboured so that the people might recognize their true
condition and improve and some long outstanding opinions, which have taken firm
root through thoughtlessness or stupidity may become fewer and disappear. For
this purpose, he had laboured without renumeration as well as he could and of
his own free will.
To
many an old-fashioned person, several opinions of Lokhitwadi will appear
unfavorable and against the Hindu religion. But this is mere imagination on
their part, because there is nothing in them, which is unfavorable to the Hindu
religion. All it is against is stupidity.
His
letters give us an insight into what guided his journalism and his reform
efforts throughout his life. He wrote: ‘I request all you people to begin to
read, to read new books and newspapers and observe what is happening around
you. Begin to realize that the British have many a good quality. God brought
the British and you together in order that you may acquire these qualities.
Become religious and intent on God. Without these virtues, everything is vain.
Speak the truth, give up vicious desires, work for the improvement of religion
and do not cast it aside, but interpret it according to the times. Spread the
knowledge of God and the world among all the people. Stop being lazy. Appoint
the really intelligent among you as leader. Proceed according to his
directions. Let there be unity among all men. Keep in mind that there should be
no split among us. Increase your knowledge and forge ahead. Watch continuously
how the government functions, who is ruling and how he behaves. Stay well
informed.
Compare
with your ancient sciences, books, opinions, ideas, a hundred times better as
many more. Sciences have now risen, examine them all. In your regard for
wealth, do not stick to your laziness. Know that the bhats and pandits are just
fools. Search for true morality. Learning means knowledge, it makes man pure,
inquisitive, powerful’.
This
text exhorts the people to open their minds to become inquisitive, to improve.
At the same time Lokhitwadi pointed out equally clearly that their society was
crippled by abuses.
Blue
prints for a new outlook on life
Lokhitwadi
used these and strong words to arouse people. But his criticism did not remain
negative. He strove to pull down the ramshackle old hut, but he already had the
blue prints of a new building to be erected in its place. The positive
substance of his writings had stood the test of a century, and has kept its
value even to this day.
Religion
In
Lokhitwadi’s view a rational approach must be made to religion. He wrote:
‘Hindus have not yet started to think for themselves. It is still not clear to
them that the mind is a big sacred book and that the written sacred books are
all inferior to it’.
Judging
his own religion from a practical point of view he came to the conclusion that
the saying of the holy scriptures needed to be tested by reason. The Vedas were
written by rishis who were writers and great saints, but not divine persons.
Castes were originally based on the qualities of the people and their
occupations, and not on a divine dispensation. The avatars were brave and
virtuous heroes. The belief in reincarnation arose only in the Puranas. The
effigy of mantras is imaginary. Astrology is false. It is proper to fight
against the customs of Sati, cutting of hair of the widows, child marriage,
prohibition of remarrying widows and similar practices. But religion,
understood as a way to God, should not be disapproved.
The
philosophical outlook of Lokhitwadi was that of the Prarthana Samaj. He held
that there is only one ruler of the universe. The human soul and the absolute
being are essentially different. The human soul is of inferior nature and God
is almighty without limitation. The origin, preservation and destruction of the
universe depends on him. The changes which effect the universe do not make it
unreal. The reality of the world is a fact of experience. Lokhitwadi restricts
the content of our knowledge of God, more than other members of the Prarthana
Samaj did.
He
also contributed his share to the growth of a liberal philosophy of political
government. For this, he drew his main inspiration from the dynastic sequence
of Jeremy Bentham, James Mill and J.S. Mill.
The
state, he held is established to bring about the good of the people. After
mentioning in praise of the British government, the new system of appointments
based on competitive examinations, he wrote approvingly that: ‘all thoughtful
people admit that the second aspect of the present form of government is that
it preserves happiness and peace and promotes learning, justice, good behavior,
freedom and many a work useful to the people. By this it strives to keep the
people flourishing and satisfied; and the result of this can be easily
experienced’.
The
same utilitarian function of the government is also mentioned in a list of thirty-nine
propositions, which in his view, had been neglected in India for a long time,
but revived again through the influx of new ideas. One proposition runs as
follows: ‘It should be the policy of the government to increase the knowledge
and the wealth of the people day by day. Government has the duty to protect the
freedom of the individual. In a good state, the views of the people are
considered and its administration is based on their consent. The ruler should
be elected by the people and can be removed if he abuses his position. Kings
are not constituted by divine institution. The exercise of government should be
based on law. All the citizens have the same rights and duties. For the
protection of the state, the legislation should therefore be equal for all
without distinction of caste or creed.
Lokhitwadi
understood that this principle of equality should be applied also to the
relations between the English and the Indians. He stated impatiently that both
are men and contradiction some of his other statements, he added that the
present form of government was not for the good of the Indians and did not give
them the rights which were due to them. He wrote this as early as 1848. He
called for the establishment of a Parliament in India for which the wisest
should be elected irrespective of caste or religion or whether they were
foreign or indigenous. This was a bold proposal. M. G. Ranade never went so
far.
According
to Mathew Lederley, ‘Lokhitwadi was not an utilitarian. He was not baffled
therefore by the problem of how to reconcile in the utilitarian scheme, the
clash of interest between Indians. The utilitarian tells the Indian to give up
his interest, his ‘self regarding interest’ in Bentham’s words and to accept
the assurance of his governors that in doing this he is following his true
interest.
Views
on economic matters
Lokhitwadi
had acquired a varied experience in the course of his official duties in
different parts of Maharashtra and a place like Ahmedabad which formed a part
of Bombay Presidency. His rationalism inspired him to spot out inconsistencies,
pretensions and absurdities. Just as he critically viewed the social condition
of the Hindu society, he also turned his attention to the inequalities and
injustices perpetuated by the nature and English officials in matters of taxes
and levies. The excise on liquor gave the exchequer a substantial amount.
Drinking was being encouraged so that more money could be available to the
government. He condemned the attitude of the government to ruin the health of
the people for filling the coffers of the government. He declared, ‘People are
the mother of the government. If the government, disregarding the health of the
people, would result in the poverty of the people the government finance would
be adversely affected.
In
1894, he wrote, ‘History of Gujarat’. He added an appendix entitled,
‘Comparison of Governments’ (Rajyatulana). He compared the merits and demerits
of the native and foreign rule. He concluded that in the British regime taxes,
customs, excise duties and other charges were excessive as compared to the late
government. It does little credit to the enlightened government of the East
India Company that they have kept the rayat dissatisfied with their revenue
policy. It would be better if this government would adopt welfare measures as
the Marathas had done. He also denounced the policy of favoritism and
distinctions followed in dealing with natives and European persons. In the
course of his official duty, he came across many instances of Partisan spirit
and economic injustice to the people of Maharashtra.
Swadeshi
and boycott
Padhye
and Tikekar would consider Lokhitwadi as a pioneer of the Swadesh and boycott
movements of later years. While analyzing the poverty and unemployment in
Maharashtra, he focused light on the dumping of goods by the Englishmen in our
markets to the detriment of native merchants. Our people should resolve not to
buy goods of other countries and buy only indigenous articles even though they
may be of inferior quality. The cotton buyer should decide not to sell raw
cotton to the foreigners and sell them only textile goods. He advised them to
stop buying English goods and selling our finished goods. We should shun the
foreign goods and patronize indigenous goods even if they might be coarse
textiles. It is remarkable for Lokhitwadi to show the audacity to hurt the
rulers at the most vulnerable points inspite of his being in the service of the
English government. However the approach was amateurish.
Lokhitwadi
respected Justice Ranade in more than one respect. Like Ranade, he considered
social reform absolutely necessary for the political emancipation of India.
Like Ranade, he regarded British rule in India as divinely ordained but he was
not a blind admirer of the British rule. Both were students of economics and
champions of swadeshi. Both advocated industrialization of the country. He was
however, so very radical in his prescription of the method of achieving self
government that he may be called the morning star of the National Movement of
India.
