- The conventional narrative about Rammohun Roy as an Indian reformer fails to stand up to close scrutiny.
- The Christian missionaries, aided by Roy, exaggerated the entire ‘Sati’ narrative to portray Indians as a backward society requiring their ‘civilization’ mission.
Chinua Achebe, Africa’s best-known novelist and the founding father of African fiction, once made a curious observation about historical events and the art of chronicling the time gone by: “Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.” Clearly, what he meant was that the gaze with which we witness and document history matters a lot more than actual events itself. Add to that the fact that only the victors set the tone of the commentary and control the narrative.
Many a time, the victor’s civilizing mission could be the vanquished’s holocaust, and unless the gaze is reversed, one could never arrive at the truth of what happened. Reversing the gaze toward the aggressor can sometimes take centuries. Whenever that has happened, most historical icons and towering personalities have come across as mere mortals with clay feet. This has been true in the case of the histories of the Americas, Africa, and, of course, the Indian subcontinent.
India’s case is probably the most curious when it comes to historical re-evaluation, as it is the only civilization that went from being portrayed as the ‘golden sparrow’ that served as a beacon of culture and enlightenment to being a dark continent of barbaric savages that ravaged its women and children, in a matter of a mere couple of centuries. How did that ever happen? That is precisely where the colonial gaze comes into the picture when suddenly Indian heroes went from being all-conquering gallant warriors to those propped up by colonialists as their new civilizing fathers. No wonder the 19th century is riddled with these new-fangled icons sold to the Indians as ‘Father of Renaissance in India,’ ‘Father of modern India,’ ‘Father of India,’ etc.
It is only now that most Indians realize that the history they were taught was the history of the invaders and colonizers, and the legendary names they held in awe as their liberators were simply Brown Sahibs and loyalists of the invader class.
With this spirit of re-examination, it is only fair to revisit the contributions of one particular reformer – Raja Rammohun Roy, towards India’s cause. Why Raja Rammohun Roy? Simply because the issues he dealt with have redefined India’s image in the world… Even today, the sandbox that limits the discussion of Indian culture is walled within the confines of Sati or Widow Immolation, Caste, Infanticide, and Illiteracy – the very issues that Raja Rammohun Roy identified with. The moot question remains: was Roy’s attempt to civilize India a success? And most importantly, was Roy a hero or a villain for India’s cause? To answer this correctly, one has to cast their gaze wider and look at the cultural and geopolitical dynamics of the world three centuries ago and look at the genesis of the very issue of Sati.
The A to Z of Sati
For starters, the word ‘Sati’ does not even imply fire or brimstone but simply originates from the Sanskrit word ‘Sat’, which translates as goodness, chaste and virtuous. Pious and holy women in the annals of Indian holy texts have been accorded the designation of ‘Sati’ without any one of them even immolating themselves. Ancient Indian texts are replete with stories of Sati Savitri, Sati Sita, Sati Anusaya, etc., describing them as devout saintly women who were accorded the Sati status when they were alive. [1]
Even if you take the case of India’s timeless epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata, the occurrence of widow immolation is very spotty. In Ramayana, King Dasharata’s wives did not immolate on his funeral pyre. Similarly, in Mahabharata, we have the case of Queen Kunti, who also did not immolate, while Queen Madri chose to do so despite being convinced otherwise by the King’s court, as she remorsefully believed that she was responsible for the death of King Pandu. Did the practice of widow immolation become rampant in the latter ages then? Hardly… Historian Meenakshi Jain poured through all the documents and tales of global visitors to India across ages, and much to her surprise, she discovered that the practice of widow immolation was extremely rare throughout the subcontinent. The first self-immolation case was recorded in 3rd BC at the time of Alexander; the 2nd case was recorded 800 years later in 500 AD. The 3rd and 4th cases were in 606 AD, and the 5th and a few more cases came after 200 years during the Chola dynasty rule.
Was the practice compulsorily followed in these few cases? No, it was an absolutely voluntary act, with no compulsion. In CE 606, Queen Yasomati, the mother of Harsha and wife of King Prabhakaravardhana of Thanesar, predeceased her sick husband by consigning herself to flames when it became apparent that he had little chance of survival. Though Harsha could not deter his mother, he did succeed in persuading his sister, Rajyasri, the widowed queen of King Grahavarman of the Maukhari family, to immolate herself. Then we have the case of the Maratha emperor, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, who stopped his mother, Jijabai, from committing Sati. However, one of his wives did undergo Sati after his death. Later, Queen Ahilyabai, the ruler of the Malwa kingdom, was persuaded by her father-in-law, Malhar Rao Holkar, not to undertake Sati, to which she agreed and led a reign of Hindutva revival across the country. However, when it came to her daughter Muktabai, who became an untimely widow, she could not dissuade her from committing Sati. Evidently, the decision of Sati was always at the widow’s discretion, while cases abound of several widows being persuaded otherwise.[2]
Although, feminists might still argue: isn’t it regressive to have only women undergoing immolation? However, the immolation outburst that followed the death of one’s beloved was never about women only. Kashmiri historian Kalhana comments in ‘Rajtarangini’ how during the Sati immolation of Queen Suryamati, a senior officer offers his head so that he can follow the Queen. Likewise, we have records of the death of a Chalukyan Queen, where a senior person also immolates with her. Later, in 1839, when the founder of the Sikh Empire, Ranjit Singh, died, his premier minister, Dhyan Singh, declared his commitment to perish in the flames as well. He had to be physically prevented from doing so by the other courtiers since they felt the Sikh Empire could not manage without Dhyan Singh at this point of crisis in history.[3]
Did Sati enjoy religious sanction in the Hindu texts and scriptures? Interestingly, even the oldest and most controversial of the law-givers – Manu, in his Manusmriti (Laws of Manu), does not mention the Sati custom at all. On the contrary, he makes sure that the widow and her kids are taken care of with this one statement: He who takes care of his deceased brother’s estate and his widow shall, after raising a son for his brother (by niyoga), give that property even to that (son). Medhātithi, one of the oldest and most famous commentators on the Manusmṛti, describes the Sati practice as Black Magic.
The Sati practice became prominent only after the Islamic hordes descended on India. With their barbaric traditions of raping even dead women, widows were left with no choice but to self-immolate.
Then we have the Maha-nirvana Tantra, which is allegedly spoken by Lord Shiva himself in a conversation with Parvati:
Bhartrā saha kuleśāni na dahet kulakāminīṁ || Tava svarūpā ramaṇī jagatyācchanna vigraha | Mohād bharttuścittārohāt bhaven naraka gāminī ||
(O Kuleshani, a wife should never be burnt with her dead husband. Every woman is your image – you reside, concealed in the forms of all women in this world. That woman who, in delusion, ascends her husband’s funeral pyre shall surely go to hell.)
Vedic Sage Yajnavalkya writes about how wives are God’s greatest gifts, and we must cherish them and love them; he says that when a woman becomes a widow, a chaste life is recommended for her. It is only in the ‘Strī-dharma-paddhati’, an 18th-century Sanskrit-language text written by the court pandit Tryambaka-yajvan in the Thanjavur Maratha kingdom of present-day Tamil Nadu mentions of Sati as a probable way out for a widow, considering the then-hostile environment of Abrahamic invasions. And even he recommends that a chaste life is better than Sati.
The Sati practice became prominent only after the Islamic hordes descended on India. With their barbaric traditions of raping even dead women, widows were left with no choice but to self-immolate. Besides individual satis, mass immolations – ‘jauhars’ had taken place at Chittor in 1303, 1535, and 1568 and at Jaisalmer in 1299, when large numbers of women threw themselves into the fire as their husbands met death on the battlefield.[4]
‘Project Sati’ by the Baptist missionaries
It would be interesting to see how Sati became the millstone around the Indian culture’s neck if the practice was the rarest of the rare occurrences. We must credit the ingenuity of the Baptist missionaries and Raja Rammohun Roy for that. To begin with, we have the East India Company during the mid-1700s and early 1800s, trading in essential commodities, including cotton, silk, indigo dye, sugar, salt, spices, saltpeter, tea, and later, opium. And even when they initiated the British empire in India after the Battle of Plassey, their focus was purely on trading and looting India to the fullest. Naturally, they were wary of enforcing any changes to the Indian ways of life and stayed away from all things religion. This meant that whenever a missionary priest landed on their shores, he was promptly despatched back home on the next ship. Even the rogue ‘Serampore Trio’ [5] of the pioneering English Baptist missionaries were not allowed to proselytize and were despatched to the Danish colony of Serampore. It was the frustration of the Serampore Trio that led them to document the ills, hassles, and travails of the Hindu society, which were later presented in an exaggerated form to the British Parliament to gain permission to civilize the unwashed Hindu natives.
For this very purpose, they found an able ally in Raja Rammohun Roy, who alternated between his allegiance to his ancestral faith and a vainglorious infatuation with the Christian traditions of the ruling British class in Bengal. Roy was pitch-perfect for their cause – a scholar with a flair for languages and a landlord Brahmin to boot – who kept publishing religious pamphlets of unremarkable “amateurish eclecticism.” [6] The trio collaborated with Roy in his bid to reform the Hindu society off Sati, infanticide, and women’s emancipation. Roy happily played along with his new-found fame as a reformer. Eventually, all the bile he had published was used to vilify the Hindu customs and the traditional Indian system of education.
Interestingly, while Roy was paving the way for the British to open up conversion activities in India and anglicization of Indian culture – under the garb of Sati reforms, the British were still burning women back home under the 1735 Witchcraft Act, which continued to be used until the 1940s to prosecute individuals such as spiritualists and gypsies.
Somehow, Raja Rammohun Roy, in his infinite reformer wisdom, never bothered to query his new British masters over the witch trials happening back home around the same time, wherein 80000 women were tried for witchcraft, and half of them were executed, often burnt alive.[7] Come to think of it, the concept of this very witch-hunt probably galvanized the Serampore Trio of Baptists to attack the Sati system of Hindus and perhaps provided a template for their attack. Economists Peter Leeson and Jacob Russ of George Mason University in Virginia argue that the trials reflected “non-price competition between the Catholic and Protestant churches for religious market share.” As competing Catholic and Protestant churches vied to win over or retain their followers, they needed to make an impact – and witch trials were the battleground they chose. Or, as the two academics put it in their paper: “Leveraging popular belief in witchcraft, witch-prosecutors advertised their confessional brands’ commitment and power to protect citizens from worldly manifestations of Satan’s evil.” [8]
Interestingly, while Roy was paving the way for the British to open up conversion activities in India and anglicization of Indian culture – under the garb of Sati reforms, the British were still burning women back home under the 1735 Witchcraft Act, which continued to be used until the 1940s to prosecute individuals such as spiritualists and gypsies, till it was eventually repealed in 1951.[9] Also, much to the chagrin of the missionaries, the management of most Hindu temples too was under the Company’s Government, a task which they had taken over from their Hindu predecessors and was described by the missionaries as ‘the office of dry nurse of Vishnu“. [10]
Will the real Raja Rammohun Roy please stand up?
Much has been written about Roy’s background and his being the ‘Father of Indian Reform,’ so let’s address the gaps, errors, and dichotomies in his story. Was Roy really the prime mover behind the banning of Sati? Not exactly. It is evident from the letters of William Bentinck that he had already made up his mind on the abolishment of Sati, even before he had stepped foot on the shores of India. Remember, Bentinck was part of the same evangelical society that had sent the infamous Serampore Trio of Baptists. Roy simply provided a local Brahmin face to Bentinck and the missionaries that helped them mask the real intentions of the proselytizers of destroying the Hindu culture. Also, let’s not forget that Sati was outlawed for decades in many kingdoms, including the Maratha kingdoms of Thanjavur and Sawantwadi by then.
“Conquest is very rarely an evil when the conquering people are more civilized than the conquered because the former brings to the latter the benefits of civilization. India requires many more years of English civilization so that she may not have many things to lose while she is reclaiming her political independence” – “Raja” Ram Mohun Roy
Was Raja Rammohun Roy an ardent freedom fighter? Au contraire… Historian R.C. Mazumdar wrote that “Rammohan Roy had an unbounded faith in the sense of justice and goodness of the British government and accepted the British rule as an act of Divine Providence…and glorified the role played by them for civilizing the Indians”. In 1829, in a meeting at the Calcutta Town Hall, Roy publicly stated that “the greater our intercourse with the European gentlemen, the greater will be our improvement in literary, social and political affairs.” Around the same time, he also wrote to the French botanist and geologist Victor Jacquemont: “Conquest is very rarely an evil when the conquering people are more civilized than the conquered, because the former brings to the latter the benefits of civilization. India requires many more years of English civilization so that she may not have many things to lose while she is reclaiming her political independence.”[11]
His vacillation continued even with his policies on education. He denounced the Hindus as ungrateful for not remembering that the Christians had given them civil liberty and education, but he refused to accept that he owed his education to Christianity. For that, he said, he was indebted to our ancestors for the first dawn of knowledge. Did he respect the Indian holy texts? About the sublime philosophical doctrine of Vedanta, he derisively asked what improvements could arise from themes such as the ultimate nature of Atman and Brahman. “Nor will youths,” he wrote, “be fitted to be better members of society by the Vedantic doctrines which teach them to believe that all visible things have no real existence.” “This is from a man who had authored scholarly works on the Upanishads only a few years before and brought out a compendium of the Vedanta doctrines, Vedantasara.”
While Roy co-opted with the Christian missionaries to berate Hindus, was he aware of the filth he was associating with? “It has to be remembered that most of the missionaries came from the lowest strata of Western society.” Their motive in joining the mission was not entirely a love for Jesus. Dr. Dick Kooiman has studied the social background of some nineteenth-century missionaries. He says their “spiritual motives did not exclude the possibility of missionary employment bringing substantial improvement in their social and economic position, whether anticipated or not.”
Did Roy at least stay loyal to the Baptist missionaries without whom his legacy would have been already lost in the sand of times? In 1820, he set up the Brahmo Samaj, founded on the principles of one God and universal brotherhood beyond distinctions of caste and creed. Evidently, he was hugely enamored by the Unitarian principles of austere worship amongst the Christians, and this resulted in a pamphlet war with his Baptist masters. “What is known for sure is that he presented the founder of Christianity only as a moral preacher in his book, The Precepts of Jesus, published in 1820,” leaving out all the miracles, prophecies, divinity of Christ and doctrines of atonement, in favor of rigorous monotheism that he advocated in his Brahmo Samaj. “He raised a very inconvenient question: How was the doctrine of Trinity different from Hindu polytheism?” Clearly, Roy was a harsher monotheist than the Baptists themselves.
Roy went so far as to advocate “a mixed community of India,” mixed with European stock, so there would be “no disposition to cut off its connection with England.”
This contradiction with the Baptists might force you to believe that perhaps Roy was slowly reverting to his Hindu roots with the passage of time. Wrong! During the last years of his life, Roy, on a visit to England in 1832, was given the privilege to speak at the Select Committee of the House of Commons. In his remarks, he strongly argued for the settlement of Europeans in India, the cultivation of the English language throughout the country, and a permanent connection between Great Britain and India. But that was not all. Roy went so far as to advocate “a mixed community of India,” mixed with European stock, so there would be “no disposition to cut off its connection with England.” His real mission was to erase Hinduism from India and turn it into an English-speaking Christian nation occupied physically, mentally, and spiritually by the Europeans. Roy pointed out the possible dangers of Indians revolting if they become too wealthy and “intelligent” thanks to the Europeans. Although this problem could be avoided if the British converted India into a Christian country with the same “language, religion and manners” as Britain. Roy declared that Indians would be fortunate to be occupied by the British, who would teach the ignorant Indians agriculture and commerce and deliver the heathens from their “superstitions and prejudices,” which disqualify them from doing anything useful. [12]
Roy called Krishna a murderer, molester, debauched adulterer, and unhygienic and described his devotees as debauched and indecent. To him, Mahadeva’s symbol (Shiva Linga) was so indecent that he was ashamed to talk about it in public.
How much did he hate the Hindu heathens and their Gods? Let me begin with what Roy said about Bhagwan Krishna as quoted in the Baptist magazine of 1817: “Can I worship a god (Krishna) sunk lower than my menial servant – the man who washes my water closet (toilet)?” Roy called Krishna a murderer, molester, debauched adulterer, and unhygienic and described his devotees as debauched and indecent. To him, Mahadeva’s symbol (Shiva Linga) was so indecent that he was ashamed to talk about it in public. Roy also mentions that the stories about Mahadeva told in the Tantras were offensive to any respectable person’s ears. Kali worshippers were described as a similar debauched and despicable group who performed human sacrifices, drank wine, indulged in criminal sexual intercourse, and sang dirty songs. To Roy, Hindu gods were constantly engaged in a “continued series of debauchery, sensuality, falsehood, ingratitude, breach of trust and treachery to friends.” According to him, there was no way the Hindus who revered such gods could be expected to have any good moral conduct. He was horrified that Hindu gods were “in the shape of a monkey, fish, hog or elephant” and “destitute of every virtue.”[13] Go back and read Roy’s rambling again – does it read like a defense of a committed monotheist or the drivel of a rabid Hinduism hater?
No wonder the missionaries looked at Roy as nothing more than a puppet while the Hindus hated him entirely. “He has not renounced his caste, and this allows him to visit the richest families of Hindoos. He is said to be very moral but is pronounced to be a most wicked man by the strict Hindoos,” writes Sophia Collet in her book ‘Life and Letters of Raja Rammohun Roy.’
With this backdrop, we must re-evaluate why the British pushed Roy as the ‘Father of Indian Renaissance’ and a great reformer. He practically ensured the smooth sailing of a lot of obnoxious Parliamentary Bills that eventually tightened the noose around Hinduism and Indian culture. Roy’s speech in 1832 resulted in Britain’s Charter Act of 1833, which took away all former restrictions and permitted all Europeans to have access to settle permanently in India. Again, Roy’s breathless demeaning of Sanskrit and local language education eventually ensured the Macaulification of the Indian education system, as acknowledged later by Lord Ripon: “It took twelve years of controversy, the advocacy of Macaulay, and the decisive action of a new Governor-General, before the Committee could, as a body, acquiesce in the policy urged by him [Rammohun].”
Rajah or Pariah?
While we accept that Raja Rammohun Roy was a convenient yes-man in the hands of the British and the missionaries, it would be interesting to theorize why Roy turned out to be the way he was. Interestingly, various other parts of the country were already revolting against the East India Company’s reign when Roy yearned to be ruled by the British in perpetuity. One of the reasons could be that the morale of the Hindus in Bengal was at an all-time low after being under the thumb of various oppressive Islamic regimes. Hence, when the Britishers eventually defeated the Muslims, Hindus were immensely grateful for it, as the new rulers were quite benevolent compared to what they went through before. Raja Rammohun Roy’s worldview – just like many other Bengali intellectuals – was significantly shaped by these circumstances.
The inferiority complex that Roy suffered from is evident in his “Appeal to the Christian Public,” as quoted by historian R.C. Majumdar. In the Appeal, he laments the inability of the Hindus in Bengal to effectively resist the Islamic regimes while praising Sikhs and the Marathas for overthrowing the tyrants. In the end, he declares the British victory over the Islamic tyrants as the ‘Divine Providence’ for the ‘Natives of Bengal.’[14] Did Roy imagine the faith of Britishers to have played some part in their victory over the Mughals? Did he believe that the emasculated Bengali culture could benefit greatly if the Hindus emulate the faith of the Britishers? Entirely possible…
Did his inferiority complex also stem from his ancestry and descendency from a Kulin Brahmin family, as those from the Rarhi district of West Bengal were notorious in the 19th century for living off dowries by marrying several women?[15] Kulinism was a synonym for polygamy and the dowry system, so was Roy overcompensating psychologically to cover up for his hideous roots and a shady source of income? Again, entirely possible…
Maybe the entire clique of Bengali intellectuals looked at the British invaders as a relief from the Islamist hordes. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, who gave us the legendary ‘Anandamath’ and ‘Vande Mataram’ also invokes a similar sentiment: “For without the support of the English, there is no way to revive the eternal religion“[16] and “So long as the Hindu is not wise and virtuous and strong once more — English rule will remain intact.”[17]
Concluding Remarks
Where does all this reasoning place Raja Rammohun Roy within the pantheon of Indian leaders? Does he still deserve to be branded as a Father of Indian Renaissance? Or does the title of ‘Father of Indian Pseudo-Secularism’ suit better? Keep in mind that it was Roy who presented the British and the missionaries with the stick of Sati to beat Hinduism into submission. It has been 250+ years since then, and even now, ‘Sati’ or ‘widow immolation’ has been globally hyphenated with Hindus and Hinduism, forcing Hindus to answer to the wokes and feminists even today, about a perceived evil that was rarely practiced in India. To this date, there are books, novels, and case studies on Sati making it to the bookshelves regularly.
The easiest way to see through the facade of Raja Rammohun Roy is to look closely at how his legend is packaged to attract attention even today. His entire backstory of being pained while watching his sister-in-law undergo Sati is a hoax and a latter-day concoction, as he was not around then. He was never a Raja but acquired the title later as he represented a depraved Mughal king in the British courts, yet his name never appears in any records without the regal title. His majestic portraits, canvases, and illustrations are all-pervading in the Anglosphere, while none of his illustrious peers are depicted similarly. All of his obnoxious writings are available in the public domain, yet Roy’s reforms have been an eternal part of Indian civil services studies; a casual search of YouTube reveals several videos depicting his biography as compulsory study material for various exams. From a British minion, Roy has now graduated to becoming a darling of the Left-liberals, as his writings still provide a convenient whipping stick against any practicing Hindu. And that is precisely what constitutes his legacy – Raja Rammohun Roy was, is, and will always remain a useful idiot for Hindu haters.
Citations
[1] Yajur Arora. 2022. “Sati Pratha – The Practice and The Propaganda | Dr. Meenakshi Jain.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_CH4Nq2Fb0.
[2] Chavda, Abhijit. 2022. “Dr. Meenakshi Jain: Sati Myth – A Colonial Evangelical Fabrication | Abhijit Chavda Podcast 6.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH9EhyB9gEo.
[3] Chattopadhayay, Purnima. 2016. “Anumarana.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anumarana.
[4] Jain, Meenakshi. 2017. “Missionaries and the debate on Sati in Colonial India.” Indiafacts. https://www.indiafacts.org.in/missionaries-sati-colonial-india/.
[5] Powell, Avril A. 2016. “Serampore Trio.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serampore_Trio
[6] Wikipedia. 2016. “Raja Ram Mohan Roy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_Ram_Mohan_Roy.
[7] McCarthy, Niall. 2019. “Infographic: The Death Toll Of Europe’s Witch Trials.” Statista. https://www.statista.com/chart/19801/people-tried-and-executed-in-witch-trials-in-europe/.
[8] Doward, Jamie. 2018. “Why Europe’s wars of religion put 40000 ‘witches’ to a terrible death.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/07/witchcraft-economics-reformation-catholic-protestant-market-share
[9] Soldan, Wilhelm G., and Charles C. Mierow. 2016. “Witch-hunt.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt.
[10] Goel, Sita R. 2018. ““History of Hindu-Christian Encounters” by Sita Ram Goel – Encounter with Raja Ram Mohun Roy (Part 7).” https://hindupost.in/history/history-of-hindu-christian-encounters-by-sita-ram-goel-encounter-with-raja-ram-mohun-roy-part-7/.
[11] Varma, Pavan K. 2024. “Just Like That | Raja Ram Mohan Roy and his many contradictions reflect the schism between scripture and reform.” Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/just-like-that-raja-ram-mohan-roy-and-his-many-contradictions-reflect-the-schism-between-scripture-and-reform-101708768200244.html.
[12] Mumukshu, Savitri. 2023. “Savitri Mumukshu – सावित्री मुमुक्षु on X: “1 What was Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s (RRMR) real legacy? His true desire was to erase Hinduism from India, & turn it into an English speaking, CHRISTIAN nation, occupied physically, mentally & spiritually by the …” https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/1649480854509613056.
[13] Mumukshu, Savitri. 2023. “Savitri Mumukshu – सावित्री मुमुक्षु on X: “1 “The sweeper of my house would not do such an act, and can I worship a god (Krishna) sunk lower than the man who washes my floors?” These words referring to Sri Krishna were spoken by Raja Ram Mohan Roy …” https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/1615251907437809665.
[14] Bhattacharjee, K. 2019. “The Great Cultural Revolution: The debate surrounding Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s legacy is symbolic of it.” OpIndia. https://www.opindia.com/2019/05/the-great-cultural-revolution-the-debate-surrounding-raja-ram-mohan-roys-legacy-is-symbolic-of-it/.
[15] Wikipedia. 2023. “Raja Ram Mohan Roy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_Ram_Mohan_Roy.
[16] Mukerji, Smita. 2019. “Rajarshi Rammohun Roy–I.” Hritambhara. https://hritambhara.com/2019/06/02/raja-rammohun-roy/#_ftn9.
[17] Trivedi, Harsh. 2017. “De-Demonising ‘Anandamath’: Why We Must Read Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in 2017.” Swarajya. https://swarajyamag.com/culture/de-demonising-anandamath-why-we-must-read-bankim-chandra-chattopadhyay-in-2017.
