Dr. David L. Haberman, University of Chicago | ON TRIAL: THE LOVE OF THE SIXTEEN THOUSAND GOPEES

Modem colonialism won its great victories not so much through itsmilitary and technological prowess as through ifs ability to createsecular hierarchies incompatible with the traditional order. [AsHisNanxpy, The Intimate Enemy)

On the morning of January 25, 1862, a small band of defenders of thelaw assembled before an excited crowd gathered at the monumental Su-preme Court building located on Apollo Street in downtown Bombay.British soldiers from the Mounted Police were present to enforce thepeace. The trial that was about to commence was deemed by The IndianReformer �the most extraordinary of any case tried in any of Her Maj-esty�s Courts in India.�! This trial, a great public spectacle lasting threefull months, became known as the Maharaj Libel Case. Close examina-tion of this case promises much, for during its course Hinduism itselfwas put on trial. A close look at this trial can tell us something of thespecific way the British Raj effected change within Hindu traditions andcan give us a glimpse of the role Orientalists played in the nineteenth.century transformations of Hindu culture, particularly regarding thatbranch of Hinduism known as the Hindu �Reform� Movement.� More-over, since nineteenth-century Western constructions of Hinduism are

' June 6, 1867; reprinted in the Appendix of Karuandae Mulji, History of the Sect ofMaharajas, or Vallabhacharyas, in Wester India (London: Trubner, 1865), App. 163

2 | employ this term in a rather general way throughout this article to refer to thoneecholan whe studied Indian culture with a commitment to search for the essential andwhe were guided by a certain historical perspective that equated the authentic with thencn.
in many ways shill very much with us, this will be a valuable exercisein scholarly self-reflection. The metaphor of later scholars� standing onthe shoulders of previous generations for better vision is well-known,but in some cases it may be more important to step down and carefullyexamine the cultural �sieve� constructed and used by previous scholars,with the hopes that we might better be able to see what has been deniedby them. It may turn owt that there is much that is vital and interestingin the shadows of their denial.

On October 21, 1860, a young reformer of Bombay by the name ofKarsandas Mulji published an editorial article in his Gujarati newspa-per, the Sarya Prakash, entitled �The Primitive Religion of the Hindusand the Present Heterodox Opinions.� It was this publication that setthe events of the trial in motion. Mulji argued in his editorial that thesect of Hinduism known as the Vallabhacharya Sampradaya, or PushtiMarga, a sect that has roots in the interpretive activity of the sixteenth-century saint Vallabhacharya and is devoted to the god Krishna, was a�new� and therefore �false religion.� He based this judgment on hisbelief in an original and singular form of Hinduism rooted in the �gen-uine books of the Veds." �The course of religion and of morals,� heinsisted, �must be one only.� He claimed that the Vallabhacharvas de-Viale from the �straight road� leading from the Veds and therefore pro-nounced them �heretical.� His statements directly challenged thevalidity of the Vallabhacharya Sampradaya bul were meant as a partic-ular challenge to its current figures of authority, the Maharajas. Muljidid not stop his attack on the Maharajas here: his article further ac-cused them of being disgustingly immoral and �lost in a sea of licen-tiousmess.� Specifically, he accused the Maharajas of sexually enjoyingthe �tender maidens, wives and daughters� of their male devotees.�Alas!� he writes, �in writing this, our pen will not move on.� But itdid�he went on to mention one Maharaj in particular by name: Jadu-nathji Maharaj.

Jadunathji Maharaj was a direct descendant of the sixteenth-centurysaint Vallabhacharya and as such was a figure of traditional religiousauthority for a large number of Hindus living in the Bombay area, pre-dominantly from the wealthy Bania and Bhatia merchant castes. OnMay 14, 1861, Jadunathji Maharaj filed a plaint in the Supreme Courtof Bombay, claiming that Mulji�s article was libelous and asking dam-ages amounting to fifty thousand rupees. This is an important fact toremember as the trial proceeds and the judgmental weight of the court
bears down on the Maharaj and the religious tradition he represents.Why a Maharaj, a figure of the highest authority in his tradition, ap-pealed to the authority of the Supreme Court of Bombay remains amystery. He was the first such figure ever to have done so."

A British court at Bombay was first inaugurated on August 8, 1672,by Bombay's governor, General Aungier, with the following statement:�The Inhabitants of this island consist of several nations and Religionsto wit, English, Portuguess and other Christians, Moores and Jentues,but you, when you sit in this seat of Justice and Judgment, must lookeupon them with one single eye as [ doe, without distinction of Nalionor Religion, for they are all His Majesties and the Honble.� > Thesewords of General Aungier were repeatedly celebrated throughout thelong history of the court of Bombay. The lack of any sense that the de-tached �eye� of judgment sitting on the bench is located within a par-ticular cultural perspective that might determine notions of justice issignificant. The assumption is that law is one, natural, and available toall reasonable people; this assumption carried the court through the de-velopments of the nineteenth century.

The Supreme Court of Bombay was established in 1824 under acharter granted by George IV. Its jurisdiction was confined to the townand island of Bombay, and it consisted of a chicf justice and twojudges, being barristers of England for not less than five years. In dis-putes between landlords and tenants, the judges, trained in English ju-risprudence and borrowing their ideas from the feudal laws of England,sided with the landlords in nine cases out of ten.� It is clear, from theplaint he filed in court, that Jadunathji Maharaj viewed Mulji�s articleas an attack on his authority. Since the Supreme Court of Bombay hadbeen siding with established authority in land disputes, perhaps theMaharaj expected it would do the same for him. He was wrong. TheMaharaj seems to have misunderstood what the British court repre-sented in India, The later words of a judge looking back on the triallend plausibility to the idea that the Maharaj took his case to the courtwith the expectation that it would uphold his authority, stating that theHindu orthodoxy of Bombay thought the Maharaj would win �becausethe Chief Justice was known to be a strict Catholic,�
In 186], British Parliament enacted the Indian High Courts Act,which abolished the Supreme Courts and established a High Court ineach of the three presidencies of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay. TheMaharaj Libel Case was tried during the early months of 1862, andthough the act was not enforced until shortly after the trial waa over,power was in the process of being extended and concentrated in theSupreme Courts of the three presidencies. Sir Matthew Richard Sausse,the chief justice who heard the Maharaj Libel Case, became the firstchief justice of the High Court of Bombay. This trial was therefore ashowcase for the developing new power of the court.

The Maharaj Libe] Case must be understood within the context ofhistorical developments of the nineteenth century; it took place justthree and one-half years after the �Mutiny,� or First War of Indepen-dence. English traders had established the East India Company in theseventeenth century primarily to make money. After the battle of Plas-sey in 1757, however, the East India Company under the governorshipof Robert Clive and the first governor-general Warren Hastings (theState took control of the company with the Regulating Act of 1773)found itself ruling the political affairs of Bengal more and more. Bnit-ish hegemony was firmly established in India during the years immedi-ately after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. Colonialism proper beganin India only with the rise of power of the middle class in Britain in the1820s. After the Napoleonic Wars, commercial interests in Britaingrew strong cnough to break the company's trade monopoly and sup-ported with increasing conviction the notion that political control ofIndia was necessary for exploitation of the great wealth that India wasperceived to contain. The events of those years �transformed the Com-pany'�s dominion in India to the dominion of India.� Thus began thegreat debates of the nineteenth century to justify British rule of India.

Before 1828, cultural policy in India was guided by Governor-GeneralWarren Hastings, Marquess Wellesley, and Marquess Hastings and wasinformed by Orientalists such as William Jones, Henry Colebrooke, andHorace H. Wilson, who were firmly committed to the notion that deep inthe past India had experienced a glorious golden age. | will demonstrateshortly, however, that this notion carried with it a critique of presentHindu culture. The Orientalists located this glorious past in Vedic timesand constructed a picture of the culture of those times that remainswidely accepted today. The historian David Kopf praises the effect ofthe work of Orientalists on those Indians with whom they came in con-tact: �The Orientalists imparted to him their evocation of an Indiangolden age... . On the one hand, the intelligentsia regarded themselves
as the products of an exhausted culture and on the other hand, as repre-sentatives of a culture organically disrupted by historical circumstancesbut capable of revitalization.�� Elsewhere Kopf writes: �Though thefruits of Onentalism were enjoyed at first by European academics, Ori-entalism's most profound impact was on Indians themselves. Orientalistsprovided Hindus with a systematic view of their own pre-Muslim pastorganized with chronological precision for the first time,�"� While |agree with Kopf that Orientalism has had a profound and lasting influ-ence on Hindu culture, [ do not wholly share his progressive view of thisinfluence. The view taken in this article is that British colonialism, andparticularly that branch of western scholarship that privileges a certainsense of history and is referred to as Orientalism, did much to undermineprecolonial worlds of meaning within Hindu culture. | agree more withthe sentiment expressed by Ashis Nandy in my epigraph and withRonald Inden, who argues that Orientalism �denies to the Indians thepower to represent themselves and appropriate that power for itself.�"'Though a different ideology was soon to determine cultural policy inBritish India, the Hindu reformers continued to ally themselves with theworks of Orientalists who envisioned a truly splendid form of Hinduismsituated in a distant past. Whereas other Botish policymakers rejectedHindu culture outright, the Orientalists at least offered the reformers therelatively psychologically satisfying perspective of a historically qual-ified acceptance and appreciation of their culture. It was the views of theOrientalists that served as an authoritative basis for the political andtheological condemnation of existing forms of Hindu culture and author-ity in the Maharaj Libel Case.

The radicals, who believed passionately in the superiority of thewestern world and in its indefinite progress by means of the principlesof reason, and the evangelicals, who saw India as a land to be saved,began increasingly to determine colonial cultural policy and shiftingattitudes toward Hinduism after 1828. The ideas of the Evangelicalparty can perhaps best be glimpsed in the words spoken before theBritish Parliament by William Wilberforce: �The Hindu divinitieswere absolute monsters of lust, injustice, wickedness and cruelty. Inshort, their religious system is one grand abomination.�!* The British
middle class thus began to ascribe cultural meaning to political domi-nation and to develop a discourse of �reform� for India.

Lord William Bentinck, governor-general of India from 1828 to1835, was made responsible for implementing the new policy.Bentinck was the first governor-general to challenge the Orientalistcultural policy implemented by Warren Hastings and William Jones.Under Bentinck, Britain began to offer the benefits of its civilization toIndia. This policy was frequently administered in a well-meaning man-ner; the British thought that they had a great moral duty to perform inIndia. Even the critics of the British subjugation of India were con-vinced that colonialism was necessary for the advancement of that so-ciety. Karl Marx, for example, though sympathetic with the sufferingand the loss of �old worlds� and �ancient traditions,� finally arguedthat British rule was the �unconscious tool� for bringing about the endof �Oriental despotism� in India that �restrained the human mindwithin the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool ofsuperstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of allgrandeur and historical energies.�'* Bentinck himself had little sympa-thy with Indian cultural institutions and was dedicated to the spread ofa supenor Western culture. Two areas in particular were heavily deter-mined by Bentinck's policy: education and the law. The East IndiaCompany had followed the traditional pattem of governmental patron-age of Indian education; Bentinck launched a program of English edu-cation in India, a decision unique in colonial Asia at that time. In 1835the government began to establish schools for imparting Western ideasand values in the English language. Also during this time, English be-came the official language of the courts, and English law and legal pro-cedures were introduced into the courts.

By 1850 Indian society showed signs of strain. Dalhaousie, gover-nor-general from 1848 to 1856, continued a policy of British expan-sion, justified by a strong sense of cultural superiority. Tensionseventually erupted into violence with the �Mutiny� of 1857. Thoughthe motives that fueled the Mutiny were complex, it is significant thatthe British perceived the forces of religion to be its primary cause.Cartridges smeared with cow and pig fat for the new Enfield rifles werepolluting for both Hindus and Muslims. The Mutiny was fiercely sup-pressed in 1858, but the British remained shaken; religion was nowseen as a dangerous force lurking beneath the fragile surface of the em-pire. After the Mutiny, the British assumed a new caution in imple-menting their westernizing policy. Although religious forces in Indiawere now scen as a major threat to the British Raj, they could not be
attacked directly. Colonial policy, however, continued to be deeplycommitted to undermining established authority, The Maharaj LibelCase was an opportunity to implement that policy in a backhandedway. for the Maharaj himself had brought the case 1o the court.

Karsandas Mulji was born in Bombay on July 25, 1832, and grew upunder the educational policy established by Bentinck.'* Mulji was aKapol Bania by caste, the oldest and most prominent of the merchantcasies of Bombay, and belonged by birth to the Vallabhacharya Sam-pradaya. He entered an English school in Bombay when he was six-teen, and al age twenty-one he began studying al the famousElphinstone Institution, which was organized in 1834 as the first im-portant English school to be founded in India. Mulji spent six years atthe Elphinstone Institution, probably the greatest source for the flow ofWester ideas into the society of western India during the nineteenthcentury. The educational policy of the institution was set for the 1850sunder the leadership of President Erskine Perry, who desired to intro-duce Western learning in a manner that would bring about a moral andcultural transformation of Indian society. �Its aim was to create a classwhich would diffuse knowledge widely among the people, and thusraise India to her rightful position beside the nations of the West.�!>Although the literature, political ideals, and history of Europe domi-nated education at Elphinstone, the prevailing emphasis was on criti-cism of Indian life and society.'� Mulji was exposed to views in theElphinstone Institution that were to foster in him a burning sense of theneed for social and religious reform. English education, Ashis Nandyreminds us, was one of those forces of British colonialism that colo-nized minds in addition to bodies, released forces that were incom-patible with traditional order, and altered the recipient's culturalperspective once and for all? Mulji soon became one of the more re-spected members of the Bombay reformers; in fact, Christine Dobbincontends that he was the leading Gujarati reformer in the city of Bom-bay in the fifties. His editorial denouncing the sect of Vallabhacharyaand the behavior of Jadunathji Maharaj was an exemplary expressionof his new views.

After a failed attempt by the defendant for the dismissal on thegrounds that since this was a religious dispute the court had no legiti-mate authority over it and after a related conspiracy trial in which sev-
eral of the Maharaj�s supporters were found guilty of trying to influencewitnesses, the trial got under way. The case was tried by Chief JusticeMatthew Sausse and Judge Joseph Armould. Karsandas Mulji was de-fended by the �able� Mr, Anstey; the Maharaj was represented by the�learned� Mr. Bayley.

In the plaint filed by Jadunathji's attorney, the Maharaj insisted thathe was not �guilty of holding heterodox opinions in matters connectedwith his said religion,� nor was he �guilty of offenses and improper con-duct.�'* Moreover, he maintained that he was a legitimate religious au-thority, a valid guru, within his tradition. During the first day of the trialthe Maharaj�s barrister, Mr. Bayley, stated: �Now your Lordships willsee the article [i.c., Mulji's editorial) divides itself into (wo parts. Thefirst is to a certain extent historical; in the second, the writer singles outthe plaintiff, and in the company with other Maharajas charges themwith the most filthy and obscene conduct.�!? The Maharaj was forced todefend his claim as a legitimate authority on both historical and moralgrounds, the two issues that were to determine the structure of the de-bates of the trial. 1 will therefore examine the treatment of the institutionof the guru and then proceed through the tnal focusing particular atten-thon on the two related issues of historical and moral legitimacy.

From the court records alone, it is impossible to tell with any cer-tainty whether the Maharaj was involved in some kind of sexual activitywith his female devotees; all that we know is that he demed the accu-sation in the courtroom. We must conclude from this cither that he sim-ply was not involved in such activity or that for some reason he chosenot to tell the truth. Perhaps he understood the terms of the moral dis-course in the courtroom and understood that it would be impossible tojustify his actions within the limits set by the British and reinforced byreformers. Note in the very words of his own lawyer��the most filthyand obscene conduct"�that the Maharaj was already defeated in thebattle of representation before he began if he was involved in any kindof ritual sexual activity with is female devotees. How could anyonehope to communicate a rationale for behavior so represented in a courtof law? Nandy writes:

Obviously, a colonial sysiem perpetuates itself by inducing the colonized,through socio-economic and psychological rewards and punishments, to acceptnew s0cial norms and cognitive categories, But these outer incentives and dis-incentives are invariably noticed and challenged; they become the overt indica-tors of oppression and dominance. More dangerous and permanent are the innerrewards and punishments, the secondary psychological gains and losses from
suffering and submission under colonialism. They are almost always uncon-scious and almost always ignored. Particularly strong is the inner resistance torecognizing the ultimate violence which colonialism does to ils victims, namelythat it creates a culture in which the ruled are constantly tempted to fight theirrulers within the psychological limits set by the latter.

Nandy�s last line is particularly periinent and particularly poignant. Iiis surprising how litth the Maharaj was allowed to speak throughoutthe trial, and when he did, he rarely attempted to delend his tradition.He seems to have been silenced by the moral assumptions of the court;the battle was fought on grounds established by the reformers.

The trial proper began with the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Bayley calledseven witnesses to testify that Jadunathji Maharaj was a legitimate au-thority for his tradition. A different basis for moral judgment was uncov-ered, only to be dismissed, One witness remarked: �1 cannot say if it isthe duty of female devotees to love the Maharajs and to be connected inadultery and lust with them. [f such doctrine or passage was shown me inany of the books I call Shastras, | would take it as good and true.�*! Herewe see a different moral standard than that of the reformers. This stan-dard, however, had litthe chance of competing with the morality of the re-formers, which was accepted by the court as natural morality.

The institution of the guru was questioned extensively in the cross-examination by the defense. The guru is a complex institution in Hindutraditions, involving notions of ontological hierarchy. The deity is, ofcourse, the highest of all beings, though a guru is frequently comsid-ered to be a means of direct access to the deity. In many traditional un-derstandings the guru is a hierarchically superior being whose presenceis considered extremely beneficial. Throwgh various transactions withsuch beings, one can further refine one�s own state and thereby moveup the hierarchical scale of being. Exchanges with a superior beingtypically involve food. Food gifts are given, transformed through con-tact with the superior being, and then returned as prasad, a highly fa-vorable and grace-bestowing remnant. The guru, or more precisely theMaharaj, is additionally important in the sect of the Vallabhacharyas,since being a direct descendant of Vallabhacharya, he is the only onewho can perform the requisite initiation rite. A significant part of Val-labhacharya�s revelatory vision was that impurities could be removedand one could move freely in the world of samsara by offering everyact, thought, and possession to Krishna before enjoying it.2* At the
time of initiation, a Maharaj ties a necklace of tulasi around the neckof the candidate and has the initiate �repeat a formula by which hededicates his mind, body, wealth (mana, tana and dhana), wife, house-hold, senses, and everything else to Shri Krishna,�*" The interpretationof this initiation was at the heart of the trial,

The inquiry focused on the distinction between God and guru. Theinability of the court to begin to understand the subtleties of the doc-trines associated with the guru would be funny if the consequences hadnot been so serious, The following is an example drawn from the courtrecords:

Mr. Anstey�Do some Banias beliewe the Maharaj to be a God?

Witness�We consider him to be our gooroo.

Sir M. Sausse�Tell witness if does not answer the question, he will be sentto jail.

Witness� What is the precise question? (Interpreter explains) Some considerthe Maharaj a god in the shape of gooroo.

Mr. Anstey�lIs Gooroo a God?

Witness�Gooreo is goorca.

Sir M. Sausse�Tell him if he does not answer the question, most indubitablywill he go to jail,

Sir Joseph Armmould�tTell him he is asked what others believe, not as to hisown belief.

Witness�I don't know if others believe him as God; | consider him as simply

a FOOrOO.(The witness is fined fifty rupees for mot giving a direct answer. )"*

Moments before, this witness had stated that he believed �the Maharajis a representative of Krishna.� The previous day, another witness hadreported: �When I say �worship the Maharaj,� [ don't mean to say it is thesame thing to worship the Maharaj just as he worships the image: thereis a slight difference between the two. The image is bathed and dressed,and food is presented to it; but the same is not done to the Maharaj. TheMaharaj eats of the food presented to the image, and also distributes itamong the Vyshnavas."�> The hierarchy of prasad referred to at the endof this passage is significant. Here the guru, who receives prasad fromthe deity, is clearly understood to be subordinate to the deity. The de-fense, however, wanted to blur this distinction, since it maintained thededication of the mind, body, wealth, and especially wife were made tothe guru directly, instead of through the guru to Krishna.�� The potential
power of existing figures of religious authority in Indian culture washighly problematic for the British. Colonial policy was deeply commit-ted to the erosion of precolonial authority. The Mutiny had taught theBritish that religion could not be attacked directly; here was a perfectopportunity to implement this policy in a backhanded way, for the Ma-haraj himself had brought the case to court. The institution of the gurualso violated the reformer's expressed belie! in the authority of the in-dividual in religious matters.

The defense proper began with the historical assertion: �The sect ofthe Vallabhacharyas is a contemptible sect of 400 years old, and is notan ancient ruling sect.� [t was, therefore, declared to be invalid. Thisis perhaps the most important dimension of the trial, certainly the onein which the effects of the Orientalists can be seen more clearly. Herewe begin to see the political implications of the Orientalist�s view ofhistory and privileging of the orginal. We also begin to see clearlythat this trial concerns the judgment of far more than the behavior ofan individual,

As mentioned above, the Orientalists were deeply committed to a be-lief in a glorious classical past. However degenerate and corrupt Hindusmay now appear, in some earlier age they were splendid. Orientalistsdiscovered within India a wonderful golden age, which they located inVedic times, and as mentioned before, they created a representation ofthat culture that survives today. The Orientalists supported their claimto authority with a privileged reading of the correct books. �ModernHindus,� omy Colebrooke argued, �seem to misunderstand their nu-merous texts.�*" The Orientalists� portrayal of Vedic culture depicted apeople whose behavior was strikingly different from modern Hindus;the reconstruction of a golden past clearly carried with it a critique ofthe present. The Orientalist Max Miller, for example, expressed a greatlove for India yet would not allow his students to visit the present India.
The real India, he insisted, was to be found in ancient texts. The mes-sage was fairly clear: You Hindus were once greal. You had a mag-nificent civilization, but that was mm the past. You are now corrupt, lost,far from your golden past. Indeed, you have completely forgotten thatpast. We are here to help you, to tell you about your past. We are hereto guide you on a return to that golden past. Without us you cannot besaved. You are not capable of representing yourself, for in your presentstate you are blind, You need our scientific methods and knowledge totell you who you really are. You should accordingly put your trust inour interpretations of your tradition, not in the interpretations of thepresent religious authorities.

On the seventh day of the trial Karsandas Mulji took the stand. Histestimony lasted three full days. He presented himself as a learned au-thority capable of interpreting the scriptures of the Vallabhacharyas forthe court. The Maharaj's attorney objected but was overruled, Muljihad been educated at Elphinstone after all. Mulji began his attack byasserting that the Maharajas �are not the preceptors of the ancientHindu religion to any body.� �The ancient religion,� Mulji insisted, �isone of self-denial, mortification, and penance.� ? The Orientalists" �an-cient� is clearly evident im his words. Mulji then proceeded to presentthirty-three translations of Vaishnava texts for the court to examine.The issue in these texts identified as most problematic was the �adul-tenine doctrines of the sect.�

A text written by Jadunathji Maharaj was examined in this process.Passages quoted from his text referred to the cowherd women's�thegopecs ��adulterine love with Krishna� and the outrageous fact that�Shn Krishna married sixteen thousand princesses.� [t would be help-ful to know which Gujarati or Sanskrit word was being translated as�adulterine love.� My guess is that it was most likely sringara ofmadhurya, which means �an intense amorous love,� or perhaps parak-iva, which is a particular kind of madhurya love experienced betweena man and a woman married to someone else. The love of the sixteenthousand gopees was of this latter type, After analyzing all types of hu-man emotions, this type of love was declared by the Vaishnava theolo-gians to be the most intense kind of love possible for a human beingand therefore to be the most appropriate type of love to be cultivatedtoward Krishna.*�
Vaishnava texts are difficult to interpret without knowing theirspecific religious context. The defense, however, who controlled thediscourse of cxamination, again and again pulled Vaishnava stones outof their particular cultural comtext and interpreted them for their ownend. Several stories were presented to demonstrate how the Vallabha-charyas celebrate adultery; removed from their specific context themeanings of these stories seem completely twisted, Here is one cxam-ple that was said to have been told by Vallabhacharya himself.

Once there was a husband and wife who collected wood in the forestwith another man. The wife and the other man eventually fell in loveand took to meeting secretly in the forest. They would rendezvous at atemple dedicated to Vishnu deep within the jungle. Before making lovein the temple these two would prepare a suitable space by sweepingand cleaning the temple. Eventually the woman's husband figured outwhat was happening. He followed her to the temple one day, watchedber make love with the other man, and then killed them both. When theangels of Dharmaraj (the deity who judges the dead and punishes thewicked, we are told) came for them, the angels of Vishnu stopped themand asked: �Why have you come here? Shri Thakurji has conferred onthem the best place [in beaven].� The angels of Vishnu then took thetwo to Vishnu�s heaven. The couple were greatly puzzled and askedVishnu why they had been saved, for they had committed �a verymean act.� Vishnu replied, �It is true you two persons have committeda mean act, but you cleaned a temple of (God) and Shn Thakur hasfavourably accepted the service performed by you. and therefore youboth have obtained the best place [in heaven). }

This story seems to me to be about the saving power of Vishnu foranyone who offers service to him and certainly not a story thal praisesadultery, as the defense argued. In fact, adultery is called a �very meanact� in the text, and the real strength of the lesson lies in understandingit as such. If Vishnu's power can save even adulterers who sweep histemple a few times for their own selfish purpose, think what it can dofor the worshiper selflessly devoted to his service.

Erotic poems addressed to Krishna by the gopees were read oul incourt as part of the defense�s proof of the immoral character of theVallabhacharyas. The immoral nature of the Vallabhacharyas was heldto be due to the fact that theirs is a late tradition. Another text wasread, which went so far as to tell how even the Vedas, the sacred textpar excellence of the Orientalists and reformers, desired to becomewomen in love with Krishna: � �When the Saraval age shall arrive, you[Weds] will be born as Gopis in Vrij. There, in the forest of Vrinda, Iwill gratify your desire in a chorus; and your adulterine love for me
will exceed all [other love). By means of such a love, you will gain meand your object will be accomplished.� In this manner Shri Krishnatold the Traditions to gain [him] by adulterine love, These Traditionsof the Veds who became the Gopikas are called the Traditional per-sons.�"* From the perspective of the reformers this was the ultimateblasphemy. Karsandas Mulji argued before the court: �The story of thegopees and the incarnations of Vishnoo are believed in by severalsects, bul are opposed to the ancient religion... . I do not believe themodern stories in books which are written after the Veds.""*

The source of Mulji's ideas regarding the �old religion� become in-creasingly apparent as the next witness took to the stand�Dr. JohnWilson. Wilson was a well-known Indologist and leading Scottish Pres-byterian missionary, who had been actively engaged in criticizing thecontemporary forms of Hindu culture in the vicinity of Bombay sincethe carly 1830s.�* Here is the �expert� whose opinion seems to havebeen valued over all others. Wilson assured the court of his authoritywith his opening words: �I am a member of the Royal Society of GreatBritain and Ireland, and a member of the Bombay Branch of the RoyalAsiatic Society. For seven years I was its president, and since 1842have been its honorary president. I am a corresponding member of sev-eral societies in Europe. [ am author of certain works of the ancientHindu religious systems, and have prosecuted studies in the literature ofthe East. 1 commenced such of my studies in the University of Edin-burgh, and prosecuted them on my arrival in this country.�

Wilson goes on to make some classical Orientalist statements. Hispnvileging of the �onginal� ts particularly relevant. �It is an historicalfact, that the more modern religions are less moral and less pure. Verygreat changes have occurred in India with reference to the gods, posi-tively for the worse, as admitted by Hindus themselves... . The sect ofthe Vallabhacharyas is a new sect, inasmuch as it has selected Krishnain the ae of his adolescence and praised him to supremacy in thataspect." This judgmental perspective was then used to undermine theauthority of the Maharajas. �The Maharajas in a general point of viewmight be looked upon as preceptors, bul not as preceptors of the Hindureligion,�*� The Orientalists know the real tradition; modern Indiansdo not. Orientalists are here to teach the Indians what Hinduism really
is. In fact, Wilson states: �I cannot say that any sect al present strictlyfollows the ancient Hindu religion.�

Why did the Orientalists privilege the �ancient� as Wilson does soclearly? The reasons were complex, but important among these wasthat Orentalists were influenced by eighteenth-century historians, suchas Voltaire and Gibbon, who were committed to a nostalgic view of theglorious past. Edward Said offers additional insights. He has demon-strated how the Orientalist�s approach to the study of other cultures fa-vored books. He calls this a �textual attitude.�*? Orientalists attemptedto understand a people by applying what they had read in a book. Textswere favored over the disorientations of direct encounters with people.This necessarily led to a disappointment with the modem �Oriental�who did not exactly resemble the picture they had constructed frombooks. Said argues that the conclusion was that modern Oriental cul-ture was a degraded form of the real Oriental culture that survives onlyin ancient texts.

Such ideas bed John Wilson to a moral condemnation of the sect ofthe Vallabhacharyas, for he pronounced that whatever is modem inHindu tradition must be morally inferior. To add weight to his con-demnation, he evoked the name of perhaps the most influential of allOnientalists in India, Horace Hayman Wilson. �I agree.� he pro-nownces, �with Dr. Hayman Wilson that the sect is impure.� He con-cludes: �The sense of shame and public opinion are outraged by thedoctrines of the sect.�*� His underlying assumption seems to be thatmorality and public opinion are one, natural, and best represented bythe British and their reflection in Indian culture, the reformers.

Finally, differing views of plurality were also at stake in this culturalconflict. Hindu traditions had expenenced many changes over theirlong history: however, these were changes that tolerated diffcrence, asexemplified by the development of the notion of the legitimacy of thedifferent margas or paths. The Wedas had long been used by Hinduthinkers as a point of reference for legitimizing authority, but im amanner that allowed for tremendous plurality of interpretation.*' Thereformers were the first to insist on a singular and exclusive tradition.Mulji and Wilson both spoke of a singular interpretation and a singlepath, which is taken to be the one and only true path. Mulji had writtenin his editorial: �Jadunathji Maharaj says thal in the same way a3 some
one gocs from the gates of the fort to Walkeshwar and some one toBycculla, so exactly the original courses of the Veds and Purans hav-ing gone forward, have diverged into different ways. What a deceitfulproposition this is. Out of one religious system ten or fifteen by-waysmust not branch off. The course of religion and morals must be oneonly." The position of the Orientalists does not permit explicit plu-ralism; they are committed to a singular, ancient, and essential conceptof religion.�* The road must be one only, and because of their superiorscientific techniques, the Orientalists are the ones who know it. �TheMaharajas,� declared John Wilson, �are not preceptors of the Hindutradition.�

The defense was followed by the rebuttal for the plaintiff. This con-sisted of calling an additional thirty-five witnesses to reassert the goodcharacter of the Maharaj. The last of these was Jadunathji Maharajhimself. The Maharaj appeared in court on the twentieth day of thetrial. His entrance into the courtroom was very dramatic. The recordssay: �All eyes were strained in every direction of the hall of justice tosee His Holiness coming in.� The Maharaj was conducted to the wit-ness box and asked to remove his shoes. He was then made to take anoath on a copy of the Bhagavad-gita.*� After denying all chargesbrought against him, the Maharaj was cross-examined by the defenseattorney, Mr. Anstey. Mr. Anstey first questioned him on his views re-garding the status of a guru. The Maharaj replied: �I am a man, not aGod. I am a man and a Guru to my followers.� The Maharaj went onto claim that Krishna was part of the ancient tradition, which promptedMr. Anstey to test his knowledge of Sanskrit and the �ancient� books.By this act the court set itself up as judge of legitimate Hindu authorityand gave expression to the kind of expertise the Orientalists value.

The Maharaj then proceeded to deny what appear to me to be centralVaishnava doctrines. The amorous love of the gopees, for example, isa central Vaishnava paradigm for devotion, however, the Maharajstated: �| cannot say whether it is the belief of my sect or not that thegopees loved God as their paramour and that God loved them andmade them happy.� It is difficult to discern why the Maharaj was sohesitant to take a position on this issue, Was he or his attorney afraid
that the court would take offense at this doctrine�? Was there any possi-ble way to present it in a justifiable fashion within the discourse of thecourt? The Maharaj continued to dodge seemingly central Vaishnavateachings; however, he did seem to rally for one brief moment whenpushed by Chief Justice Sausse:

| have said that adultery is a greal sin according to the Shastras of my sect. Therecommendation in the essay, already referred to, which | approved of, is nowto commit adultery, bul to love God with love akin to what is called adulterinelove. Adulterine passion is intense love, and the same intensity of lowe shouldbe shown towards God, Such love towards God is very good; towards a strangewoman, it ix bad.

I believe it is stated in the Bhagavat that lowe should be entertained towardsGod akin to the love of the gopees.�*

After giving his testimony, the Maharaj blessed the judges and lefthe courtroom, thus concluding the examination of witnesses. Every-thing about the Maharaj upset the British colonial sense of decency. Hewas an individual with significant religious authority who admitted tobeing married to two women. No matter what he or others said, he wasportrayed again and again as a lusty tyrant, as opposed to the construc-tion of masculinity expressed through sexual distance, abstinence, andself-control that was promoted under colonialism.*�

Mr. Anstey concluded the case for the defense. He began by drawingthe court's attention to the difference between the witnesses for the de-fense and plaintiff. The witnesses for the defense, he stressed, �weremen of position and respectibility.� Therefore, he argued, their testi-mony should be given greater weigh! than �the unfortunate devotees ofthe Maharajas who had been drawn from the lower classes of soci-ety.� There is something to the distinction highlighted by Mr. An-stey; many of the witnesses for the defense occupied importantpositions in the new social structure of the British Raj. Colonialismcreates new hierarchies that open up new positions of authority outsidethe existing structures of order. Many of those who gathered to con-demon the Maharaj and his followers occupied these new positions andnow considered those who occupied respectable positions in the olderstructure �lower classes."

Mr. Anstey went on to fault the plaintiff's rebuttal for trying to show�that there is no standard by which we may judge the plaintiff.� Mr.Anstey had a clear standard in mind. He argued �that the position in
which the plaintiff sued is a position offensive to the laws of nature andof natural morality. The doctrines he professed and taught were borri-ble to think of,"*' Here is explicit expression of the idea of �naturallaw� that the colonizer uses to justify rule. Mr. Anstey repeated thewords of the Orientalists in reminding the court that it was not alwaysthe case that [ndian religion lacked sensible morals; this was the resultof the passage of time. �The religion of this sect is a new system set upat a modern date; and it is a distinctly established fact thal, in the pro-portion that these new and monstrous doctrines have gone forward, theancient doctrines of morality have gone back and have been super-seded.�"* Here is the familiar judgment: Indians used to be great, nowthey are lost. They need the benefits of Western civilization and theguiding hand of the British to free them from their present bondageand allow them to return to their golden past. Here the judgmental pos-sibilities of Orientalist doctrines become clear. Here too is a rationalewith which to undermine existing religious authority and pass it on tothe reformers, those calling for a �return� to what once was. Ansteytells us, �the ancient religion of the Hindus contained in the Veds.. .comprehends books of the philosophy and morality, and...is fardifferent from the doctrines of the wretched, miserable, and pestilentialsect of the Vallabhacharyas.�>*

Though the statement for the plaintiff by Mr. Bayley stayed wellwithin the bounds established by British morality, his efforts seem sin-cere. Mr. Bayley highlighted the religious nature of the conflict. He de-fended the history of the sect of the Vallabhacharyas by pointing outthat the sect is older than Protestantism, and he presented the conflictas an attack by the reformers on the very religion they had renounced.He asked the court whether it was more willing to listen to the inter-pretation of those who had rejected the tradition than those who remainwithin it. He drew attention to the fact that the witnesses called by thedefense either had renounced the traditional religion or were never pariof it (i.c., John Wilson). He went on to argue that the doctrine of�adulterine love� was to illustrate the intensity of the love one shouldhave for God, certainly not to promote the practice among members ofthe Vaishnava community, �The only conclusion to be drawn from it,�he maintained, �was that in the same way as a woman loved her par-amour, so we must with such intensity of love, worship God."*" Heended by asking the court not to judge the case by the standard of
European notions of morality and religion, but his efforts seemed invain; the court was much more inclined to the side of the defense.After hearing the case, Chief Justice Sausse delivered his judgmentfirst. Although he found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on three minorpleas, the great force of his judgment came down favorably on the side ofthe defendant, Karsandas Mulji was to walk away victorious with costs.Sausse declared that the charges contained within the libel were true andwent on to highlight the corrupting nature of the doctrines of the sect.

All songs connected with the God Krishna, which were brought before us wereof an amorous character and corrupting licentious tendency, both in the ideaand expression, are sung by young females to the Maharajas, upon festive oc-casions, in which they are identified with the God in his most licentious aspect.In these songs, as well as in stories, both written and traditional, which latterare treated as of a religious character in the sect, the subject of sexual inter-course is most prominent. Adultery is made familiar to the minds of all; it isnowhere discouraged or denounced, but on the contrary, in some stones, thosepersons Who have commitied thal great moral and social offence are com-mended, and in one of them, the actors are awarded the highest position in theheaven of the Vaishnavas, although nominally. for some attention paid on oneoccasion to the clearing of a temple of the God*

Note how the meaning of the story is given, then taken away. with theword �nominally.� The chief justice knew what to make of this story;be had the authoritative position of Onentalists like Wilson to providehim with the proper perspective to account for and judge the moralcharacter of the Vallabhacharyas. �These doctrines and practices areopposed to what we know of the onginal principles of the ancientHindu religion which are said to be found in the Veds... . Therefore,so far as we may be called upon to express an opinion upon this part ofthe plea, the defendant has successfully shewn, that the doctrines of theVallabhacharya sect are in those respects contrary to those of the an-cient Hindu religion.��

The judgment of Judge Arnould favored the defendant on all pleas.His statement is a remarkable text in which we see a British judge,backed up with the force of the police, army, and the more subtleforces Nandy has made us aware of, making theological judgments,condemning some forms of Hinduism, and giving his nod of approvalto others. Far more than any other portion of the trial, it was Arnould�sjudgment that was picked up and quoted in hundreds of newspapersthroughout India.
He began by praising Karsandas Mulji as a righteous reformer whoused the press to carry out a moral mission. �To expose and denounceevil and barbarous practices; to atlack usages and customs inconsistentwith moral purity and social progress, is one of its highest, its most im-peralive duties.� (The = interests of the press are completelymasked by such words. ) � From there, his statements took on an evenmore religious tone. He compared the Maharajas to the sons of Eli andKarsandas Mulji to the early church fathers. Significantly, he went onto make theological judgments on Hinduism and, in so doing, de-nounced Krishna and the cult associated with him. After repeating Wil-son's condemning statement thal the sect of the Vallabhacharyas is newand devoted lo an erotic deity, he pronounced:

This succinct statement seems to contain the essence of the whole matter. lt isKrishna, the darling of the 16,000 Gopees; Krishna the love-hero�the hus-band of the 16,000 princesses, who is the paramount object of Vallabhachar-vas worship. This tinges the whole system with the stain of carnal sensualism,of strange, transcendental lewdness. See. for instance, how the sublime Brah-minical doctrine of unition with �Brahma� is tainted and degraded by this sen-sucus mode of regarding the Deity. According to the old Brahminical tenet,�Brahma,� the All-containing and Indestructible, the Soul of which the Uni-werse is the Body, abides from ectemity to etermity as the fontal source of allSpiritual existence; reunion with Brahma, absorption into Brahma, is the beat-itude for which every separate spirit yearns, and which after animating its ap-painted cycle of individuated living organisms, it is ultimately destined toattain. The teachers of the Vallabhacharyan sect do not absolutely discard thisgreat tenet, but they degrade it. | have no wish to wade through all the theo-soptuc nonsense and nastiness of the plaintiffs own chapter on �AdulierineLowe.� but one of the myths he thus cites on the authority of the Brahad Va-man Puran, perfectly illustraies what | mean. [He then goes on to retell thestory of how the Veds became gopees in Jove with Krishna in the land of Vraj.]Thus then is the pure and sublime notion of the reunion of all spirits that ani-mate living bul perishable forms, with the Eternal spirit, not limited by formdebased into a sexual and carnal coition with the most sensuous of the mani-festations or �avatars� of God.*�

Sir Arnould�s statement directly condemns Krishnaite theology andsupports the new Brahmanical theology of the neo-Vedantic reformers.According to Arnould the sect of the Vallabhacharyas involves �a weakand blinded people; a rapacious and libidinous priesthood; a God whosemost popular attribules are his feats of sexual prowess; a paradise
whose most attractive title is that of �a boundless ocean of amorousenjoyment.� �60 1) was his final words, however, that were to be quotedby scores of newspapers throughout the country.

It 18 oot a question of theology that has been before us! [1 1s a question of mo-rality. The principle for which the defendant and his witnesses have been con-tending is simply this�that what is morally wrong cannot be theologicallyright�that when practices which say the very foundation of morality, whichinvolve a violation of the eternal and immutable laws of Right�are estab-lished in the name and under the sanction of Religion, they ought, for the com-mon welfare of Society, and in the interest of Humanity itself to be publiclydenounced and exposed.�!

The trial in general, but specifically Judge Arnould's judgment, re-ceived tremendous coverage in the Indian press. The conclusionsworked out in the Apollo Street building were publicized with a speedand range few ideological statements achieved in the nineteenth century.The court records were published and circulated throughout the subcon-tinent and the outcome of the tnal was discussed in hundreds of editori-als. The Phoenix records that �this case has formed a prolific subject ofcomment for almost every journal in the country.�* Arnould�s judgmentfunctioned as a national rule with which to evaluate Hinduism. The Ori-ental Christian Spectator informs ws that �Sir Joseph Armould's admira-ble judgment should be translated into the various languages of India,and published as a tract."*" Plans were already in motion to do so.

The newspapers and journals echoed Amould'�s condemnation of theVallabhacharyas and the amorous Krishna. An editorial in The Dawn,for example, enlightens us, remarking: �The Vallabhacharya religionwhich they profess is no religion at all, but a system of lies and delu-sions�a system wholly opposed to the glory of God, and the well-beingof man.� The editors of The Bombay Saturday Review were convincedthat �the whole truth has now been revealed to them; they have learntthat their faith is a foul and wretched superstition unknown to thefounders of the Hindu religion, and that all intelligent men look uponthem with amazement and with scorn as votaries of a creed which sanc-lifies their worst passions of our nature and deifies the most degraded ofmankind.� The Poona Observer observes: �The religion of the Valla-
bhacharyans will not survive this blow; and we hope so for the honor ofhuman nature... and the worship of Krishna is indirectly but most de-cisively struck at in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Bombay."

The neo-Vedantic reform given approval by Judge Arnould was fur-ther promoted in the press. The Oudh Gazette encouraged that branchof the reform founded by Rammohan Roy: �Let all reformers rejoice,then, and let the members of the Bruhmo Samaj of Lucknow learn, anduse the strength of the weapon thus put into their hands by law.� Thepurity of the original �Vedic� religion was highlighted by The Friendof India: �Every century as it rolls on steeps the people and theirpriests in deeper defilement, and removes them from the comparativepurity of those Vedic days, to which some youthful reformers are striv-ing to return.�""* Significantly, even the Hindus who operated TheHindu Patriot accepted Judge Amould and the Orientalists� view ofHindu tradition. They write: �The Hinduism of to-day is not the Hin-duism of our forefathers three thousand years ago; an avaricious andlicentious priesthood has engrafted on a simple system doctrines ofwhich we find no trace in the beautiful and spirit-illuminating texts ofthe Veds, and which by the mmmorality they inculcate and the bondageof degradation in which they yoke the people, are precisely the very re-verse of what the great teachers of a nation of Rishis, as Max Millercalls the Hindus, taught in the golden age of creation.�*� Moreover, theOrientalist�s privileging of the �book� is accepted as the measure tojudge contemporary forms: �Ask them to produce authority from theWeds for their ceremonies and festivals, the orgics and indecencies ofthe Holi for instance, and they will, if they think at all about it, look onit as an implied desecration to their holy books, to suppose there isanything in them to sanction such rites at all. Anyone who has studiedthese books and had opportunities of learning the views of Hindus withregard to them, would have expected as soon as to have seen a chiefjustice announcing that the carth went round the sun as a mew thing,that people in general were unacquainted with, as gravely devotingtume and labour to elucidating the fact that the Hinduism of the presentday, was not the Brahminical philosophy of the Veds.���

The Ceylon Times makes the political implications of the trial and itspublicity clear: �With such a code of religious morality, the natives ofIndia must remain debased to the level of brutes, Until they be utterlypurged of these iniquities they must not talk about equal rights and
social advancement.�'' As Michel Foucault reminds us, morality in-deed involves issues of power.

Since the days of the trial, this case has continued to be cited and cele-brated as a monumental event. In 1962 the Indian government held acentennial celebration for the High Court at Bombay. During this cele-bration, the Maharaj Libel Case was singled out and praised as a primeillustration of how the courts improved moral character in India.�� Thechanges that the forces represented in the Maharaj Libel Case unleashedin India have been so thorough among English-educated Indians that it isdifficult to find a negative reading of the outcome of the trial among thisgroup. In a recent article, for example, the Maharaj Libel Case is used toillustrate the process of social change in nineteenth-century India. �* Theauthor, Makrand Mehta, demonstrates how this trial checked the eroticpractices of the Vallabhacharyas and freed the individual from �variousforms of authority.� Mehta accepts the Onentalist's judgment by furtherarguing that British rule was necessary for the advancement of Indiansociety: �A traditional society may produce a few individuals who mightreact against existing forms of authority. But in a traditional socictywhere the forces of conservation would not permit or tolerate any inno-vation within its social framework, no cultural change would be possiblewithout the change in the attitudes and value systems, which may re-quire an active interaction with the culturally advanced society. Karsan-das Mulji... and a host of nineteenth century reformers of WesternIndia were in their youth involved with the social, economic and cduca-tional process initiated by the British.��

Moreover, this trial has been used significantly to represent the Val-labhacharya tradition in scholarly works. One is challenged to findbooks written on the sect, both within and outside of India, that do notemploy the Maharaj Libel Case as a device to cxplore the true natureof the sect. The trial is discussed as a significant feature of the Valla-bhacharyas in the influential revised edition of H. H, Wilson's The Re-ligious Sects of the Hindus: �Much light was thrown upon thedegrading practices of the Vallabhacharis by the Bombay suit in 1862.Mr. Karsandas Mulji, an intelligent Vaishnava, sought to exposethem... .Is there any parallel to such degradation to be found evenamong the lowest savages?� "> A work entitled History of the Sect of
the Maharajas or Vallabhacharyas in Western India appeared shortlyafter the trial.�� It continues to be read and cited�very often in an un-critical manner�as a major source of knowledge about the tradition.The primary focus of the book is the Maharaj Libel Case; although itwas published anonymously, it is clear that it was writien by the defen-dant in the trial, Karsandas Mulji.

The preindependence British verdict on the trial and representationof current forms of Hinduism were perhaps stated most clearly in thewords of D. Mackichan, M.A., D.D.. LL.D. (Glasgow), LL.D. (Bom-bay), former principle of Wilson College, Bombay, and vice-chancellorof the University of Bombay, in his article �Vallabha and Vallabha-charyas,� which appears in the 1922 Encyclopedia of Religion andEthics. The Maharaj Libel Case informs most of the article; after re-counting a brief history of the case, Mackichan writes:

This episode in the history of the Vallabhacharyas has been narrated here forthe reasons, that it led 10 the full disclosure of the real character of the teachingof this sect and the width of the gulf which lies between morality and rehpionin the current conceptions of multitudes of the people of India, and thal 11 alsoiMomemates the powerlessness of the public opinion, as it exists im India, tograpple with social customs that rest on religious sanctions having their roots

deep down in the amorphous soil that is the product of ages of pantheisticthinking. "*

I began this essay by asking how the Bnitish Raj specifically effectedchange within Hindu traditions. Although the Maharaj Libel Case isonly one incident among many that determined the course of changeunder colonialism, it affords us a glimpse of the means and methods bywhich precolonial worlds were marginalized and new worlds muchmore closely aligned with colonial policy were supported in India in thenineteenth century. Whatever the behavior of the Maharaj, so muchmore than his individual actions were condemned by the court. Manyinnocent were judged guilty. The trial itself, Judge Arnould�s judg-ment, and concomitant journalism made the following claims ringthroughout the subcontinent: (1) The erotic dimensions of Hinduismare wrong and should be eliminated; the true tradition is ascetic.(2) Krishna as currently worshiped in northern India is cither a falsegod created by �lewd and crafty pests� or has been corrupted over
time from his proper manly status as a warrior. (3) The Orientalists� his-toncal reconstruction of the Hindu tradition is true and authoritative.(4) Hinduism is a singular path. (5) Medieval Vaishnava Bhakti is afalse form of religion; the �old religion� of Vedic times is the only trueform of Hinduism. The neo-Vedantic religion of the reformers (whichstresses the spiritual over the senswal) is given the approval of the Su-preme Court. (6) Traditional gurus are not valid religious authorities;individual authority, guided by �natural morality,� is declared to be su-preme. (7) Hindu theology must be in line with British morality, whichis taken to be founded on eternal and natural laws,

The �heroes� of this cultural encounter were the reformers. I haveintended to indicate that the reform movement in India was one resultof a psychological invasion wherein Western values were internalizedin the colonial process and that it was one consequence of the shadowcast on Indian society by the colonial policy of the Orientalists that un-dermined certain precolonial realities while promoting its own inter-pretation of the �original.� Is it amy wonder that all forms of Hinduismthat first successfully ventured out of India to the West were neo-Vedantic? Karsandas Mulji walked away from the trial triumphant. OnJuly 14, 1862, Dr. John Wilson held a public gathering of the elite ofBombay's society to honor the reformer �in acknowledgement,� hesaid in a letter to Mulji, �of the noble stand for truth and purity whichyou have made in the Maharaj case.� Because of this trial, KarsandasMulji became one of the most famous and respected leaders of the re-formers in India. He also benefited economically. Traditional Baniaswould not cross the ocean to deal goods with the British. The reform-ers, however, got rich doing so. After the trial, a successful reformerbusinessman contributed a large sum of money to finance Mulji in abusiness adventure to England. �Truth� and �purity� apparently trans-lated into good economic relations with the British,

Those who suffered most, of course, were those living in the preco-lonial world of Vaishnavism. Sixteenth-century northern India had wit-nessed among its Hindu population a flowering of devotion to theplayfully erotic deity Krishna and his cowherd lover Radha, The resultwas a tremendous output of poetic and artistic expressions, the celebra-tion of the amorous couple was popular and public throughout most ofthe two following centuries. In the nineteenth century, however, thiskind of Hinduism became increasingly suspect. Dayananda Sarasvati,the reformer who founded the Arya Samaj in 1875, singled out theVallabhacharyas as a special target for his attack on Hindu corruption.
His criticism of Vallabha, the current Maharajas, and their theology ofKrishna in his Saryarth Prakash comprises a longer section than anyother in the book.*" This is not surprising when we learn that the AryaSamaj was founded in Bombay and grew out of the anti-Vallabha-charya movement started by Karsandas Mulji and continued after hisdeath in 1873 by those Banias and Bhatias who had supported him inthe Maharaj Libel Case.*' On the other coast, the Bengali writerBankimchandra Chatterji published an cssay on Krishna in 1886 inwhich he expressed disgust with the �sensual� and �effeminate� natureof Krishna and attempted to marginalize this side of Krishna by recov-ering a �manly� and �moral� Krishna,** Nandy writes that Bankim-chandra�s �goal was to make Krana a normal, non-pagan male god whowould not humiliate his devotees im front of the progressive Western-ers,""* The authority of the traditional transmitters of the medievalKrishna cults was clearly undermined in such arenas as the MaharajLibel Case. Vaishnava arts and scriptures were ridiculed, and the amo-rously playful Krishna became increasingly marginalized. The cult ofRadha and Krishna diminished as more and more Indians viewed theirtraditions through cultural lenses shaped by colonial power. Marginal-ity differs from oblivion, however; perhaps innocence has a way of de-fending itself.

We have now examined in one instructive case how the academic re-constructions of British Orientalists, which employed such concepts asthe �real,� �true,� �essential,� and �ancient,� can be and were used tojudge, guide, and influence the development of the religious traditionsof India. This is perhaps an extreme case, but frequently much can belearned by examining extreme cases; the judgmental force of the Ori-entalist position is all too clear in the Maharaj Libel Case. In suchmoves, the scholar as �expert� usurps the role of cultural agency, arole that aims explicitly to determine the production of culture. Colo-nial policy was committed to such action, but if we are to free our-selves from the politics of colonial academics, it is necessary that wecarefully examine and struggle to move away from the dynamics ofthis position. Though we have no control over how our work may be
used by those involved in the production of Indian culture, | wouldmaintain that our concern should be with the interpretation of culture,not with the normative production of culture. As a field of inquiry, re-ligious studies belongs within the humanities, Our task as scholars is tostruggle to expand our awareness of human possibilities, as educatorslo communicate these possibilities to others, and not to rule oul possi-bilities in the judgmental search for a single truth. One way to free our-selves from the policy of previous generations of Indologists is toabandon the search for the real and essential culture and instead trainourselves to listen to the multiple voices within Indian culture. It mayturn out that there are many interesting cultural voices yet to be heard,voices that do not stand a chance of being heard over the judgmentalshout of the expert.

Indiana University