AN INDETITY CRISIS /AN IDENTITY/ WHERE AM I/ WHERE I STAND IN MY IDENTITY/ TO WHOM I BELONG.

                   Brahmabandhab Upadhyay

 The Life and Thought of a Revolutionary

                      Julius J. Lipner, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1999.

                                    Reviewed by dayanand bharati

(As Lipner uses both the parenthesis ( ) & [ ] I use { } to distinguish mine from him.)

***Introduction:

‘Does end justifies the means’? If this question is asked regarding Upadhyay, then ‘it depends upon which is the end and which is the means’ would be the answer.  Though few opined that his faith was only instrumental, ¹ yet considering his conviction, in spite of his conflicting personality—which forced him to change his means often yet when it comes to his faith and ideal (Nationalism) both enriched the other than becoming a means to the other to achieve his end.  But the driving force behind his life is ‘deliverance of India from foreign rule,’ both in political and (his Catholic) faith.  From his boyhood till his death he lived, struggled, fought and died for this one cause. 

The sad fact is that the life of this man which influenced some great personalities of India (like Tagore²) was neglected by the secular history of India.  But the cruel truth is that a pioneer in indigenous Christian theology crucified  (by his Church) while he was alive (except some passing remarks by some Dialogists and Liberals on him) remain buried till this day.  If at all he was ever referred or discussed it remained within the limits of intelligentsia.  All the biographies written about him were one sided, selective in their approach a comprehensive true picture about his life and contribution become ambiguous.  But nearly after a century through this marvelous book by Lipner we are in a position to understand the life and thought of a revolutionary.

The very first thing that inspires in this book is the author himself than the character.  The way Lipner tells the story of Bhabanicaran Bandyopadhyay (the surname is anglicized as Banerji-p.30) who became the Brahmabandhab Upadhyay is more fascinating than the story itself .  Bhabani cum Upadhyay walks alive before us by the magic touch of the author.  No doubt in it that a powerful writer like Upadhyay worthily waited till the arrival of such a gifted author like Lipner not just to resurrect him from history, but to make him alive hear after to walk with us (for those who read this book).  Thank you Lipner.

            Typical to any biography, Lipner first traces the setting scene of Bapani which not only helps us to understand the background of Bhabani, but in a precise way gives an overall picture of an emerging India³ under British rule, particularly relating to the socio-religious scene of that time, which paved and prepared the spirit of Nationalism⁴ which is still become a dominating fact at the end of this century.  ‘Clearly, Upadhyay was in the thick of that complex cultural process we call India’s “freedom movement”’. (p. xvi).  Lipner skill shines the way he could relate all those events shaping the character of his story.  Though this early part of Bhabani’s life is not only interesting to read but also for us to understand his entire life, we can precisely see about it now.*** 

Bhabani who later became Brahmabandab Upadhyay was born in a Kulin⁵ Brahmin family in Bengal in February 11, 1861 at Khannyan some 35 miles away from Calcutta..  He was brought up in the Bhadralok⁶ (modernized) environment of Bengal. His uncle Kalicharan Banerji became a Christian convert ***in 1864, often keep in touch with his family back in village⁷.*** After his early school education in the village and high school studies, coming under the influence of Narandarnath Banerjea he decided to become a soldier to chase away the Britishers from India to gain freedom.  After two attempt to join in the army at Gwalior failed, he discontinued his college studies and became a teacher in Calcutta.  From the age of 20 he become a member of Sadharana Brahmo samaj and came under the influence of Keshabcandra Sen. ***He actively involved ‘The Concord Club’ to which Kalicaran, his uncle on his request become even the editor (69).  By his involvement with the publication of this club, ‘Bhabani had entered a new phase of his enlarged nationalist aspirations’ (71).  Further:

Journalism had some advantages for Bhabani that teaching did not:  its field of operation could more readily be considered a battleground—here the pen becomes a sword, publications targets to be defended or attacked, arguments and counter-arguments the cut and thrust of combat, Truth the cause, and India the prize.  In this light, truly the journalist was a man of action, well suited for the way of the karmayogii.  Besides, larger armies of souls could be influenced and won over. (71)

Thus ‘It was not long, then, before the pen became Bhabani’s sword’. (p. 71)⁸***

After six years of formative periods, at the age of 26 he was initiated in the New Dispensation Church of Sen and went to Hyderabad in Sind province on an invitation of his friend Hiranand Shaukiram Advani.  With another friend (Nandalal Sen) the three started the Union Academy. Bhabani remained active as a Bhramo missionary, but recognizing the anti-Brahmo sentiment among the people because of their de-nationalized life,  Bhabani set a new course and remained Indian in every way. ***‘It was here, in the context of being a Brahmo “missionary” in Sind, that he realized the full implications of and developed his earlier patriotic inclinations towards indigenous dress and manners.  This was a lesson he took to heart…’(77)***

When his father became sick and was on death bed at Multan, Bhabani came across a book on Catholic doctrine (Joseph Faa di Bruno’s Catholic Belief or A Short and Simple Exposition of Catholic Doctrine…’78).  He returned back to Hyderabad after his father’s death with that book.  Already he knew something about the Bible and Christ through the Bible study class started by Sen and from his teaching time at a Christian school in Calcutta.  He started to publish a magazine called The Harmony to share his view as a Brahmo —synthesizing all the religions in line with his mentor Sen.  His long search for truth and spirituality was fulfilled through the in depth study of that Catholic book and he become a Christian; baptized by an Anglican (Rev. Heaton on February 25 or 26, 1891). ***{Though}

He was convinced of Christ’s divinity and followed the Gospel injunction to be baptized of water and the Holy Spirit.  He was not convinced of which Church to follow, indeed whether he should belong to any denomination at all.  At the time, ‘Like his uncle Kali Charan Banerji he used to say that Indian followers of Christ should not mix in the controversies of the [foreign] Churches.  They should form a national indigenous Church of their own and maintain good relations with all’ (Bl.p.43).  So it was that that same evening, when asked by a census official whether he was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant, he replied, ‘Neither.  Put me down as an Indian Catholic’ One step at a time. (85)***

But he later joined the Catholic church, as he considered it was not anti-Hindu in its approach. ⁹  Then he adopted the life of a Sannyasi, wearing saffron dress and living as a Sannyasi,  ***  ‘underwent a change of appearance…. from towards the end of 1894 Upadhyay went barefoot and his svadeshi clothes were exchanged for the traditional saffron robe of the Hindu renouncer.¹⁰ But ‘To ally a qualms and distinguish his Christian allegiance he wore an ebony cross hung from the neck’. (129)  He not only wear the saffron dress but several time followed the dharma of a Sannyasi by begging food. (p.149, and also see pp. 208,218).¹¹   ‘In Calcutta, in keeping with traditional sannyasi practices, he declined to live with his family’. (208)  But he never used his status as a Sannyasi to get any special privilege, during the trial against sedition he even removed his saffron dress and ‘dressed in simple white swadeshi clothes’. (383)  So for him this ideal of renunciation is more in spirit and not in strict out side observation in dress and food or in living.  At the same time this never remained only as an objective ideal.  He strictly implemented it in practical life:

For Upadhyay, reflection was not enough.  His very appearance, soon after his conversion, saffron-robed and becrossed, was a living challenge to the alienating modes of Christian behaviour, practice and teaching that had taken root in the land.  The Jabalpur monastery was a practical extension of his thinking and way of life; the experiment fizzled out for want of appropriate support, but reappeared decades later—and there was express acknowledgement of Upadhyay’s influence in the re-creation—in the Shantivanam ashram in south India.  Today, Indian Christian ashrams are a commonplace. (387)*** 

With the permission of the Catholic church he started a Catholic magazine Sophia in which he attempted to prove the validity of Catholic faith to win India for Christ.  *** Though there was a gradual transition in the vision of his mission to bring India to Catholic faith and this transition become one among the several controversies in his life whether he used his religious activities to achieve his political end.  Anyhow it will remain a point of debate all the time.  However, there is no doubt that ‘Upadhyay’s political ambitions were becoming more overt and strident, but this was because of rather than in spite of his heartfelt commitment to his Christian faith, and his “nationalism” such as it was, continued to be fired by the zeal to draw his country into the Christian fold.’ (255)***

Though he was anti-Vedantic in his early approaches later he changed his view and use Vedanta to bring people to Christ.  But in all his approaches he was more a traditional Catholic neo-Thomist than a Vedantian.*** Even his attempt to bring Indian to Christ or Catholic church began from here:

…the starting point of Bhabani’s  preparatio evangelica, of his intellectual attempt to bring educated Hindus to Christ, relied heavily on a Thomistic framework for the distinction between the natural and the supernatural.  This reliance he never really abandoned, even after he began to formulate a ‘Hindu-Catholic’ interpretation of that distinction. (115-6)

‘What concerns us in the analysis of his thought, is what was foremost in Upadhyay’s mind {in the formative period}:articulating a preparatory base for the reception of Catholic teaching by Hindus'(130) is nothing but a ‘simply repeated or expounded, in a western context, the Catholic, especially the Thomistic, thinking of the day.’ (130)  For example his argument against Advaita based on pure reason which ‘breaks the backbone of the Advaita theory…. coincides neatly with traditional Thomistic teaching.’ (135)  ‘In later years when he had started to reinterpret Advaita in a positive vein, … rather, he reformulated the Advaitic view … in Thomistic vein.’ (139) That is why in such later attempts ‘to articulate the relationship in certain areas between Vedanta and Catholic belief’,(188) Upadhyay:

….does it not by seeking to implant Christian concepts in Vedantic soil as to arrive at a genuine first-order indigenization of the Christian faith, but rather by constructing more or less exact correspondences between Vedantic ideas and Thomistic ones so that Vedanta in some respects may be seen as a form of crypto-(neo-) Thomism and Shankara as St Thomas in disguise. This is a mode of transplantation, not of implantation; it also tends to assume that language is made up of more or less complex combinations of word units, each with a specific semantic content (the ‘building-block’ theory of words), rather than of words whose meaning is derived from context.  Further, henceforth when Upadhyay criticizes Vedanta as ‘pantheistic’, he largely has in mind the ‘neo-Vedanta’ or ‘neo-Hinduism’, as he calls it, of Vivekananda.  For him, Vivekananda’s version is a distortion of the real thing.  Yet it was Vivekananda who was the catalyst for Upadhyay’s reappraisal of Advaita.(188)

Thus though he attempt to indigenize his Catholic faith through his theological endeavours and ashram programme, yet they ended as mere ‘western phenomenon’ its core.  And this is a lesson which we all should take seriously in our attempt to teach new believers in Christ or help themselves to learn about the doctrine side of their faith in the formative period.  Once their thinking level and trend is shaped by any particular form of approach, however they may later try to reform it, yet cannot avoid its influence.  Specifically in the area of Faith if a man is convinced first spiritually, then emotionally however he try to remove several blind spots later by reason, yet the deep impact which he derived on spiritual and emotional level several time would create some kind of attachment with the initial experience.  This I have seen in my personal life as well in others as well.  So we can create a permanent damage if not to the Faith, but to the doctrinal aspect of a new believer the way we allow him/her to shape it in the formative period.  Though we cannot and should not completely control a believer’s thinking level, if we were put in a position to guide him/her then we should take enough care not to impose our own liking to any particular form of theology however it may pleasing or convincing us because of our understanding or attraction to it (based on its influence in our formative period).  And to help a new believer to have a spontaneous expression and expansion of his/her Faith, we should nurture his/her Faith in the natural soil of his/her native thinking which alone will help him/her to stand on his/her own leg to be fruitful in his/her life.

Of course later both the teacher and the student raising above from their subjective experience shaped by the formative influence (spiritual, emotional etc.) should test their doctrine by the objective doctrine of the Scripture, viz., the Word of God.  Agreeing with the fact that as there exists no ‘objective’ doctrine, as all the doctrines are in one sense is again mere interpretation of the Scripture, yet in stead the Word of God become the normative for our doctrine if we substitute it with any particular doctrine then we cannot avoid creating many more Upadhyay’s in the days to come also.***

After his attempts to start a Catholic ashram to train Catholic sanyasis to preach the gospel failed, he returned back to Calcutta and continued to write in Sophia which now become a weekly magazine.  *** One among the several reasons for the failure of his ashram venture is that Upadhyay in his anxiety to prove the worthiness of his ashram and its activities as the right model to evangelize India to win for Catholic faith, created more enemies for his project than supporters:

‘In our humble opinion it is the foreign clothes of Catholic faith that have chiefly prevented our countrymen from perceiving its universal nature….’  Upadhyay, perhaps unwisely, goes on to give examples of this unseemly carapace.  He mentions the ‘supernatural virtue of poverty’ as generally practised by the Catholic clergy.  Such practice makes little impact on Hindus.  ‘They cannot understand how poverty can be compatible with boots, trousers and hats, with spoon and fork, meant and wine.’  These are ‘objects of luxury’ to the Hindus…. To make an impression poverty must be practised ‘in Hindu clothing, poverty synonymous with abstinence from meat and drink, living as mendicants in humble dwellings.’

One may well wonder how Upadhyay’s Catholic Episcopal readers, European to a man, and on the whole not averse to a little meat and wine, would have taken to criticism that in effect discredited their way of life…’ (211-12) And after giving all the information about the programme, function analysing the failures of this attempt of Upadhyay Lipner says:

Perhaps it was just as well that the matha-experiment failed, for, we may ask, how indigenous would it really have been?  Was it not in crucial respects destined to be a very western phenomenon?  Administratively it was conceived as highly centralized; ¹² the meticulous routine of its discipline was nothing if not imitative of that of western monasteries.¹³…. Moreover, in an important aspect of its envisaged life-style, Upadhyay’s scheme would have run counter to Christian precept (if not practice), namely, that of the rigid maintenance of caste and racial divides.  Even here a good case can be made for saying that Upadhyay’s stance was not consonant with traditional Hindu teaching for, according to this teaching, the true sannyasi or renouncer has transcended the social and racial barriers of the human condition and is not bound by them.  For important reasons, then, it is perhaps just as well that the Kaasthalika matha was not a success. (223-4)***

However his attempts to indigenize the gospel both by the ashrma and through Vedanta were opposed by Church authorities and his magazine was banned.  But not giving up his hope he started another magazine The Twentieth Century and continued to write in the same way.  He also openly criticised the western way of life and approach by his church.  Again this magazine was also prohibited in Catholic circles.  ***Because

…as his thinking developed it did not turn out to be as simple as that.  Within the framework of the natural/supernatural distinction … he sought to reconstruct Catholic commitment in terms of a Hindu basis for the reception of the Gospel.  This is where problems with ecclesiastical authority arose.  Till that reconstruction took shape he basked in his Church’s benign tolerance of the novelty of his approach.  But as the Hindu features of his approach went deeper and became more insistent—intrusive, in the eyes of relevant authority—opposition mounted, and disenchantment set in on both sides. (130)*** 

Meanwhile with the help of Rewachand (Animananda), he started a school to give education to students in an Indian way.  ‘An Indian way’ in his view included the celebration of Saraswati puja, one of his most controversial actions.  *** Before his visit to England Upadhyay’s Nationalism was more based on a ‘cultural nationalism’ (317), but after his return from England this nationalism took more political form.  Only in this context alone we have to evaluate some of his controversial (only for the Christians) activities like organizing Sarasvati puuja, giving lecture the ‘Sriikrsnatattva’ (SKT) against the ‘alleged attack on Krishan by the Scottish missionary scholar J.N.Farquhar in his Gita and Gospel,’(325).  Therefore the ‘subtext of the ceremony, of course, was the public image of the school that Upadhyay wished to project, a proper Hindu establishment run on traditional, “Aryan” lines, where no proselytism was practised by the persons in charge, who happened to be Christians.’ (324) ***

He also played an important role in establishing Santiniketan by Tagore.  Along with his magazines banned in Catholic circles, he also wrote in Bagadarsan edited by Tagore.  But most of his writings were in opposing British rule and demand for self rule. After the death of Vivekananda Upadhyay went to Oxford and gave several lectures in continuance of Vivekananda’s mission to spread Vedanta in the west.  Of course this was his interpretation about his visit to England later.  His visit was with several motives about which we cannot say anything clearly (P.293).  From there he also wrote several articles to Bangabasi against western civilization and praising Indian culture and civilization.   After he returned from Oxford he got actively involved in political activities and through Sandhya (a new paper) he wrote vehemently against British rule.  Though he was a moderate at first, later he joined hands with extremists.  The result is that a case was failed against him by the British govt. for sedition.  During trial in the court he become sick and died in the hospital in 1907.   Two months before his death he performed prayaascitta¹⁴ to join Hindu community and took back the holy thread which he discarded even before his conversion as a member of Saradhan Samaj.  He died as he lived—a Hindu Catholic.

HINDU CATHOLIC:

If at all Upadhyay is ever remembered or talked about in Christian circle it is not for his contribution to Indian Christian theological writings or his attempts to indigenize his faith but only for the controversies he created.  And among other matters, his claim for himself as a ‘Hindu-Catholic’ is the issue which figures in most of the discussions—if at all he is ever discussed.  Lipner in his outstanding study points out that:

Upadhyay can be an embarrassing figure to contend with for would-be admirers…. while in his at times original theological explorations, the specter of unorthodoxy raises its head (What does it mean to be a ‘Hindu-Catholic?).  Again, many Hindus do not take kindly to the claim that an important figure of India’s struggle for independence kept a high profile as a Christian for a prolonged period of his life, while many Christians look askance at the prospect of a pioneer Indian Christian nationalist being referred to (not least by himself) also as a Hindu. There is an ill-concealed prickliness about Upadhyay that makes him hard to evaluate and potentially unattractive to tackle. (xvi)

So some of his admirers, in order to avoid any embarrassment, tried to project him as they wished:

In the Bengali works, Upadhyay is generally regarded primarily as a Hindu patriot from a social or political point of view, while his allegiance to the Christian faith is underplayed as an aberration or as of little account.  Where his Christian commitment is not underrated, the work is largely silent about it. (xix) 

The Christian source material, on the other hand, tends to show embarrassment or hostility in respect of Upadhyay’s ‘Hinduness’ or the socio-political involvement of his last years.(xx)

In any case, commentators in general, Christian or Hindu, fail to grasp the ideological thrust—nationalist in the broad sense—of Upadhyay’s Christian conversion from its inception. (xx). 

However … any study of Upadhyay that seeks to do him justice must take his Christian concerns and commitment seriously and cannot forbear to analyse them, and that the rationale underlying his self-description as a ‘Hindu-catholic’ was pivotal to his life. (xix)

A Hindi proverb says: ‘dhobi ka kuta na raha garka na ghatka’, which has no equivalent in any other language but can be roughly translated as: Washerman’s dog neither belongs to his house nor to the river side where he washes cloths.  Upadhyay’s Hindu-Catholic identity caused him to be disowned both by the Christians and Hindus, each seeing him only from their point of view.  Even before his baptism he was termed as a ‘convert to Christianity’, by Hiranand’s (on whose invitation Bhabani went to Hyderabad to work in Union Academy) biographer.  But:

This statement was somewhat precipitate….he {Bhabani} was nowhere near converting to Christianity if by ‘Christianity’ is meant the way European Christians dressed, ate, worshipped and behaved socially.  In other words, he was far from converting to Christianity as a western cultural phenomenon.¹⁵  It was the Christian faith and its perception of Jesus to which he was drawn inexorably.  Nevertheless, these distinctions were lost not only on the public at large but also on his next of kin….(80) 

But not minding about what other’s think about his Life and Faith as a ‘Hindu-Catholic’, Upadhyay from the beginning set his goal clearly.  This began first through his name change:

The change of name is an important, self-determining act. It seems not to have been ratified legally (e.g. by deed-poll).  But it was a public declaration of intent, the outward form of an inner frame of mind to live and act in a certain way.  He declares publicly that henceforth he will live a religious life; by this his celibate status is affirmed.  Further, his approach will be Hindu, so far as this is consonant with his Catholic faith.  The new Sanskritic name signifies this.  Who will determine the Hindu form of his Catholic faith?  He will. (127)

Though later in his life and writings he idealized his Hinduness, yet immediately after his conversion the Hindu-Catholic means that, ‘one can remain a Brahmin{or any caste} “by birth” and a Catholic “by faith”…. This distinction is a derivative of the more basic natural-supernatural divide {Catholic neo-Thomist theology} discussed earlier’.(161)  His eagerness to establish ‘A Catholic Monastery in India’, was to produce more Hindu-Catholic for the ‘conversion’ of India.  He was very clear what he meant by this term.  In an important article published in Sophia in July 1898 entitled ‘Are we Hindus’ Upadhayay says:

Where religious faith is concerned, answers Upadhyay editorially, we are Catholic.  This is a universal faith, proclaiming universal truths, transcending particularities of country and race.  But ‘by birth we are Hindu and shall remain Hindu till death.’  To be Hindu in this sense prescinds from the content of belief.  Hindus have always believed different things, from monism to various forms of theism, without ceasing to be Hindus.  To be Hindu is to be prone to a certain way of thinking and living; it is an orientation the world. ‘We are more speculative than practical, more given to synthesis than analysis, more contemplative than active.’  Further, in our life-style, affirms Upadhyay, ‘in observing caste … in eating and drinking … we are genuine Hindus.’ (209)

Here again we have to understand Upadhyay in the overall context of his Nationalism, from which we cannot divorce any of his activity or ideology:

The more committed one is to the Catholic faith, the more one follows the ‘genial inspiration of the perfect Narahari (God-man), our pattern and guide’, he declares, the better ‘Hindu’ does a Hindu become, ‘the more we love our country’.  This link between Catholic devotion to Christ and patriotism is neither explicated nor justified.  But clearly it serves his cause well to state it…. Upadhyay attempted to justify it on the grounds of his Cartesian-like distinction between natural and supernatural:…. Hence Hindu ‘naturalism’, living and thinking as a Hindu, was compatible with Catholic supernaturalism or faith. (209)

Of course ‘the statement that Catholic faith actually enhances patriotism’, is questionable, but ‘Upadhyay never actually sought to argue this stance.  It was taken for granted.’ (209)  To be a  Hindu-Catholic is possible because where

physical and mental constitution is concerned one can be a Hindu and regard to the immortal souls can be a Catholic.  By implication, the human being is split in two: on one side there is an immortal soul, detached from context, space and time, the inhabitant of a world of universal and timeless revealed truths; on the other side there is a body and mind embroiled in the empirical reality of thinking and behaving.  On the basis of this division, it is all the more easy to affirm and follow one’s ‘Hinduness’. (209-10)

Thus this dichotomy between Hindu naturalism and Catholic Supernaturalism served as a base for Upadhyay not only to defend his patriotism as a Hindu-Catholic but also later in all his defenses of Hindu religious values.  Already we have seen how he allowed or even instructed his students in Sarasvata Ayatan to celebrate Saraswati puuja; and all his writings he mentioned Krsna and Durga as heroes and role models.  But it is important for us to see in detail one incident which will clearly present his stand and life as a Hindu-Catholic.

J.N. Farquhar is famous as a proponent of fulfillment theology and wrote a striking little book on this theme entitled ‘Gita and Gospel‘, wherein he claimed that the Gita pointed to Jesus Christ, whom Farquahr call ‘the founder of Christianity’ (or of ‘the Christian religion’).  Christ fulfill the basic message of the Gita and Christianity is the true religion all should follow.  *** It is important to note that, ‘as Farquhar intimates, Krishna became the Hindu’s—really, the bhadralok’s—own construct as the counterpart to Christ, especially in early religio-nationalist ideology.’ (327)  That is why, ‘Like Bankim, he focused on Krishna as a potentially national purpose.’ (329). We can see such a trend even today.  In the present Hindutva movement some leaders like (Advani) though have no personal faith in Rama, yet he is identified with ‘Nationalist ideology’, which of course is ‘hindutva’.¹⁶  ‘But there were significant differences in his interpretation of Krishna, which reflected his own particular religious commitment and agenda, as well as the changed socio-political circumstances of his time’ (329-30).***Lipner describes what further happened:

But how might a Hindu-Christian, or more precisely, a ‘Hindu-Catholic’, as Upadhyay on occasion famously described himself, meet Farquhar’s challenge?  Here lies the subtlety of he matter for Upadhyay.  It was originally intended that Pandit Mokshadacaran Samadhyayi (one of the new managers of the Sarasvata Ayatan) would deliver the counter-attack to Farquhr’s thesis.  But the Pandit declined and asked Upadhyay to act in his place.

            This request was quite remarkable.  It speaks volumes not only for Upadhyay’s reputation for knowledge, but for the image he had cultivated, presumably still as a Christian, among the circle of observant Hindu Bengali intellectuals.  It was agreed among this circle that Upadhyay would answer Farquhar’s thesis from a Hindu point of view.  This is where the delicacy of his own position as a Hindu-Catholic comes in.

It seems that Upadhyay was faced with a dilemma: either rebut Farquhar and abandon your Christian commitment in the process, or let his thesis pass, and relinquish your identity as a Hindu.  Indeed, it may well be that many in both camps looked forward to Upadhyay’s response as a test of his true loyalties. (326)

But this is not only a challenge for Upadhyay as a committed Hindu-Catholic but to we who call ourselves as Hindu Christ bhaktas.  Of course we have one advantage, as we have learnt from History that unlike Upadhyay we are only Hindu and Christ bhaktas and not Hindu-Christians.  But in our lives also several times we too face similar situation, where we have to defend our Indian values while not compromising with our commitment to Christ.  Thankfully, based on our present better understanding of both Hinduism and the Bible, in defending certain aspects of cultural and social heritage of one’s country a Christ bhakta need not compromise his conviction in Christ

In all my teachings on Hinduism whenever the challenge comes to defend our Hindu religious views I try to be honest and accept the dark side of the truth; I will be as much objective as possible in my assessment.  So though I would accept all the true and valuable criticism on our values, if I were faced a situation like that of Upadhyay, I would have focused on the wrong interpretation of Hindu Scriptures and values by others (without hiding my own identity as a Hindu Christ bhakta).  I know this is easier to say than to implement.  But based on my past experience, I hope that both Hinduism as cultural phenomena and the Gospel which can be incarnated in any culture—with a better and proper understanding of one’s cultural, social and religious values–can be embraced without any compromise or confusion.  But now let us return back to Upadhyay to see how he handled that situation.  Lipner says:

            As well known, the way to overcome a dilemma is to slip between its horns.  This is what Upadhyay tried to do, though there can be little doubt that the majority of his hearers would not have appreciated the manner of his attempted escape, so subtle does it appear to have been.  The exit that Upadhyay sought lay in the theology of his position—more in what he did not say about Christ and Krishna than in what he did say about them.  In the process he made a number of other points that were to his purpose. (326-7)

Throughout the lecture, Upadhyay is clearly projecting himself as Hindu, if not a Hindu.  In other words, he is implying that if his words are to be understood in a Christian light, this can be done only on the basis of the appropriate interpretation of their avowed Hindu framework.’ (333) 

The theological balance which Upahdyay maintained is very subtle and ambiguous:

 Upadhyay seeks to balance the claims of Krishna as an avatar, on the one hand, by the requirements of his Christian commitment to Christ, the only incarnation of God, on the other…. In Jesus, according to traditional Christian doctrine, there was one divine person and two natures: the divine and the human.  Krishna’s personhood, on the other hand, in Upadhyay’s interpretation, was human.’¹⁷ (337) 

This theological subtlety may be used either to accuse or appreciate Upadhyay; but probably most of his audience for this lecture did not even understood him.  ‘But’, says Lipner:

from Upadhyay’s point of view, a great deal hung on it theologically.  It is not to my purpose to explore the theological consequences of this distinction, or indeed to inquire if Upadhyay had said enough to justify the making of it, on the basis of either textual or theological analysis.  It sufficed for him to have made it in the way he did, for thereby he could claim that he had not violated either his (and his hearers’) Hindu susceptibilities or his Christian commitment.   On the face of it, Krishna could function as the moral exemplar for his (Hindu) compatriots, while, behind the scenes, Christ would remain the spiritual Saviour of the world, and of India in particular. (337-8)

Only in this light can we evaluate his future writings on Ramakrishna Paramahamsa¹⁸ also, where he is

a unique human being in whom the power of God manifests uniquely, just as Krishna was.  In this extended sense, he is Krishna (and Rama) come among us again, the ‘presence of God in our midst’, our inspirer, our saviour, guardian of the Veda, a guru, a luminous one, god-man/man-god, the result of a gracious God uniquely adopting and manifesting in a human representative.  He is not the divine person itself incarnated in human nature—as Christ was.  Understood in context—in the context of Upadhyay’s private understanding of the distinction between ‘incarnation’ and avataara, there is no sliding away from his Christian commitment. (374-5)

The reaction from the Christian circles was understandably negative.  Upadhyay’s response was that ‘he was much grieved that any one who knew him could ever think that he was disloyal to Christ’. (Fn.32, p.338).*** We have to restrict our temptation to point out two important points in all his dialogue with Hindus: (1) what all he spoke and wrote about Krishna, Durga etc. are equal by ‘today’s standards in some dialogic circle’  as ‘he continued to interpret Hinduism to his compatriots in a way that he thought was not incompatible with his adopted faith’. (369)  And (2) ‘Upadhyay is showing the maximum reverence a Christian can show to a Hindu religious figure in Hindu idiom.’ (375)***

Lipner suggests that after Upadhyay’s return from England the tension between the two identities increased and in fact created a new person in Upadhaya:

From the sources available, a rather curious picture of Upadhyay seems to emerge, after his return from England.  It is almost as if two Upadhyays come into view, alternately merging and separating: one struggling to maintain his socio-religious profile of good works as a Hindu-Catholic (the Atur Ashrama, the Sarasvata Ayatan), the other increasingly gaining strength as a militant Hindu nationalist, both culturally and politically.  In the public eye at any rate, the second Upadhyay engulfs the first.  The first Upadhyay, the Hindu-Catholic, the educator of the young and minister to the afflicted, fades away.  We shall see whether this Upadhyay lives on in some way in private till the very end, and whether the two Upadhyays can be reconciled at all. (344)

The analysis puts the lecture under discussion in a different light:

But could public scrutiny appreciate the carefully honed subtlety of the distinction between public and private in the editor of Sandhya and Svaraj?  Hardly.  Did Upadhyay make public pronouncements at the time, about his Christian allegiance?  No.  Was he not guilty of dissembling then, of allowing observers to naturally assume from his words that he had abandoned his adopted faith?  The issue is certainly not straightforward,¹⁹ but he chose to follow a different course of action from that of his famous patriot uncle Kalicaran, whose Christian allegiance though by no means trumpeted, remained unambiguous.  In support of our interpretation we shall note in due course how Upadhyay in these last days continued to observe Christian rituals, though not on a regular basis, and acknowledged his Christian faith, though only in private circumstances. (375-6)

And in this struggle with a double identity led at last to the performing of  praayascitta and again wearing the holy thread.  Not only his life and writing but even his death created a never ending controversy.  However, Upadhyay preferred to maintain his Hindu identity in public, leaving his Catholic faith not only personal and private but also a point of debate and discussion for ever:

            Did Upadhyay die a Christian?  If to die as a Christian entails personally acknowledging Christ to the end as one’s divine saviour, then he seems to have died a Christian.  But if part of dying a Christian means that one must be recognized in the public forum to have lived ritually as a Christian before death, then it is doubtful if Upadhyay died a Christian.  Did he die a Hindu?  If self-ascription has a bearing on one’s answer, then he did, since he famously described himself in considered terms both as a ‘Hindu-Catholic’ and a Hindu, and never repudiated this description.  Certainly, for reasons already given, so far as the general public was concerned he died a Hindu.  I have added these comments because for some people applying religious labels to dead individuals is an important matter, as it seems to be in the case of Upadhyay.  Perhaps he died as he lived: as a Hindu and a Christian according to his own distinctive lights.  That by his life and death he has raised such an issue for serious debate can be one of his most rewarding legacies.  How narrow must our religious labels be?  How open to hyphenate religious identities should we become?  What is the scope for religious dialogue in a religio-culturally divisive world? (385)

Thus after reading this book it is very difficult to define what is meant by Hindu-Catholic in the sense Upadhyay used it.  Though he accepted Catholic doctrines as it was relevant for him to accommodate his idealized Hinduism based on the Natural and Supernatural distinction between Reason and Revelation, yet he never totally submitted to the authority of the Catholic church as a Catholic Christians is expected to do.  Like wise, Upadhyay’s Hinduness is mostly an idealized hindutva, a product of his time.  ‘The complexity of the man and … no less complex nature of his times’ (xxiv) makes this topic, Hindu-Catholic, very difficult to draw definite conclusion on.  No doubt in it that at least at the end of his life he played a double role—in private a Catholic and in public a Hindu.  But who is responsible for pushing him to this level? 

DOUBLE ROLE:

After his active involvement with National movement, in his anxiety to prove his Hindu identity because of the varnaasramadharma ideal which he upheld, Upadhyay seems to have kept his religious faith more on a personal level and decided to prove his Hindu identity in several ways as seen above.  Most of his writings in Bangabasi, Svaraj, Sandhya and others never say the writer is a Catholic to the readers.  At least in all his Bengali writings there was no clue that the writer is a Christian.  So naturally the question ‘we may ask of Upadhyay’s socio-religious model: could it be proposed by a Christian?  Was it in accord with Christian principles?  Certainly Upadhyay thought it could and was….’ (244)  Upadhyay would argue that the content of his writings is not un-Christians.  ‘This is where the natural-supernatural distinction, so central to his theological reasoning again comes into play’. (244)

Thus once he returned back to Calcutta around 1900 and began to be actively involved in public life, Upadhyay kept his Christian commitment as a private matter.  This became important for him as he wanted to establish his patriotism at least before the public. (294)  But what is interesting to note is that in spite of the controversy surrounding his involvement with The Twentieth Century, in which he wrote after weekly Sophia was officially band by church authority (particularly by Monsignor Ladislaus Michael Zaleski, the Apostolic (Papal) Delegate to India, for whom Christianity was synonymous with Europeanization), he had powerful backers in the local hierarchy.  This becomes evident in that ‘before he boarded a ship bound for Genoa, on October 5, 1902 … he was careful to solicit and obtain an official recommendation (written in Latin) from the Archbishop of Calcutta.  Clearly he intended to be active in Catholic circles in England.  The text of the recommendation runs as follows:

By means of this statement we declare Brahmabandav (Theophilus) Upadhyay, a Calcutta Brahmin, to be a Catholic of sound morals, burning with zeal for the conversion of his compatriots.’(294)

What is important for us to note is the declaration he made four years later, that his visit to England on hearing the Vivekananda’s death was ‘to seek to fulfill Vivekananda’s vow of conquering the foreigner by establishing Vedanta’. (295) Whereas on his arrival to England with the recommendation letter what he wrote to ‘for the conservative Bengali weekly, the Bangabasi,’  (299) and in The Tablet ‘a journal that …was the official British counterpart of the Bombay Catholic Examiner’, shows that ‘Upadhyay was writing somewhat opportunistically at the time’. (295) In the first article he wrote for The Tablet Upadhyay’s opening statement says:

Since my conversion to the Catholic faith, my mind has been occupied with the one sole thought of winning over India to the Holy Catholic Church.  I have worked as a layman towards that end, and we are now a small band of converts ready to work in the vineyard of the Lord.  My purpose in writing on the present subject is to show to English Catholics what stupendous obstacles stand in the way of India’s conversion, and to make certain suggestions towards their removal. (294-5)

But this double role at least during his visit to England, becoming ‘Catholic to Catholics’ and ‘Hindu to Hindus’ both in his life and writings, created a confusion and misunderstanding.  Apart from the theological inconsistencies between his interpretation on non-dualistic Vedanta and the ‘theistic dualism that characterized the standard Catholic theologizings of the day’ (298),his writings in Bengali and English never reconciled with each other:

In his Bengali writings, the Christian in Upadhyay receded out of sight; in his English essays at the time, he announced his intention to convert India to the Catholic faith.  The way to reconcile these two positions is to say that appropriate Hindu teaching  can act as a natural conceptual basis for receiving the revealed truths of Christianity.²⁰ But his Hindu readers, at any rate, may be forgiven if they (mis)read Upadhyay as a Hindu returning to the fold, or alternatively, as a go-between with suspect motives.  Writing simultaneously for two audiences with quite different expectations, Upadhyay had embarked upon a dangerous enterprise in this phase of his life.  It is not surprising that this led to misunderstanding, frustration and a confusion of identities, seemingly even in the man himself.  But this is to anticipate the unfolding turn of events. (298-9)

His Christian motive was to win Indian for Catholic faith and his Hindu motive was to win Englishman to the ‘path of knowledge’, to avenge our defeat at their hands. (312)  Of course,

these aims are not necessarily incompatible  where Upadhyay is concerned. But they were signalled by him in an increasingly confusing way.  Like St Paul, he wanted to be all things to all, or at least, Christian to his Church and Hindu to his Hindu compatriots.  He succeeded in misleading both.(312)

 After his return from England and active involvement in Nationalistic movements this confusion and misunderstanding increased.  Already we saw above how in his lecture against Farquhar’s challenge, Upadhyay clearly projected himself ‘as Hindu, if not a Hindu’ (333) through the ‘intended ambiguity in the lecture: another example, perhaps, of his cleverly projected Hindu image, which turns as much on what he does not say as on what he does’. (Fn.29, 335)  This is explained by his situation:

From time to time one comes across reports that Upadhyay’s display of patriotic feeling was not trusted by some, that they suspected him of being a kind of fifth columnist on behalf of his Christian faith with a view to ‘converting’ those who had been taken in by his so-called patriotism.  No doubt  Upadhyay was aware of this suspicion, and this may well have prompted an even more forceful reaction to the contrary.(Fn.10, p.350)

Indeed such a situation is not only crucial but even cruel.  We could imagine in which state Upadhyay might have lived, neither accepted nor appreciated by any one.  Poor man, he was caught between a rock and a hard place of a ‘public figure and a private person’.  In his response to Rev. Bimalananda Nag in response to his request to write a review for some lectures given in Calcutta by a Dr Cuthbert Hall, Upadhyay says: ‘I have entangled myself too much in political affairs … I seriously thought if I should not give up all these entanglements and begin to preach the religion of Christ as I was doing before (Bl.pp. 185-6).  He had not given up his allegiance to Christ’. (379). *** About this what Tagore in the Preface to the first edition of Car Adhyay says reveals the heart and mind of Upadhyay:

During those days of blind madness [as the partition agitation escalated], one day as I sat alone in my third-floor room in Jorasanko, Upadhyay suddenly arrived.  During conversation we spoke a bit of our earlier discussions [when we were together at Santiniketan].  When we had finished conversing, Upadhyay rose to take his leave.  He reached the door and turned to look at me.  He said, ‘Rabibabu, I have fallen grievously’ [rabibaabu, aamaar khub patan hayeche].  After he said this, he did not wait; he just left.  I understood clearly then that he had come just to say these heart-rending words.  By then the net of his activities had closed tightly around him; there was no chance of escape.(379)***

But what forced him to keep his faith more private and created this much misunderstanding and confusion in others?  If his church had been ready to acknowledge his ideas on indigenization, would he have openly come out with his faith identity?* ** The treatment received by Upadhyay from his church is noting but what all the prophets of God received all the time in the history.  In spite of his several shortcomings, personality problem etc. the one main reason for Upadhyay’s rejection by his Church was that he was ahead of his time in his thinking (‘he was thirty years in advance of his time’, says Vath. –Fn.23, p. xxii).  Those who think ahead of their time need two virtues: patience and hope.  Patience–in not get irritated by the cool and indifference in other’s understanding to their ideas.  Hope –that if not in their own time, at least in some distance future they will be taken seriously both positively and negatively. 

But a revolutionary like Upadhyay could not wait patiently as such pioneers always lived and worked in a situation where so many pressures forced them to ‘impose’ their agenda as quickly as possible to produce results.  However sincere they may be yet as they cannot run ahead of God, respecting their personality God allow them to do certain mistakes, from which others can learn lessons.  The many lessons which we can learn from Upadhyay, this stands primary, at least for me personally.

In this tight rope walking between Faith and Patriotism it is very difficult to draw any clear cut line which will divide his life in clear cut terms. When all his attempts failed to indigenize his Catholic faith, he turned his attention more towards Nationalism as it gave scope not to compromise his faith in personal level at the same time providing the opportunity to express his ideology.  If the Church co-operated with him to some extent , in spite of his writings against her foreign approach—‘sensitive topics that surely required a more sensitive treatment—that began to alienate those he should have set out patiently to win over’ (258), Upadhyay would have left a model where one could openly keep his Faith in Christ and Patriotism (Nationalism) without sacrificing the one at the cost of the other.  Of course, those who do not understand his writings in their contexts and ‘analysed with erudition and not a little wit against the pervasive backdrop of overt or covert patriotic ideals,’ can blame him playing a double role—privately Catholic publicly Hind.  After him, Indian Church never produced a Christian Nationalistic leader up to his mark of Nationalism. ***

 As a Christian he struggled alone. In the given circumstances he might have thought that his faith in Christ (or Catholic church) is not helpful for the common cause of Indians; where the majority are Hindus, he was forced to keep his faith private.  Even in Protestant circles, with rare exceptions no Christian leader was involved in the Independence movement, and when the Christians as a community failed to identity with a common cause of the Nation, individuals keeping their faith as a personal matter had/have to join with majority. Considering the freedom that Hinduism provides for one to keep his faith private, as a ‘Hindu-Catholic’, Upadhyay kept his faith private.  *** Thus for Upadhyay personal Faith in Christ and joining ‘national development’ or to say in other words ‘to join in the national main stream’, need not confront each other but can be compliment.  For him patriotism and love for one’s Mother land is related with self-respect, in spite of the short comings in the National life:

Upadhyay, says Guha, regarded his country with the eyes of a devoted son so that he might say of her: ‘I know that my mother is not beautiful in every feature, yet she is my mother, and at this I well up with emotion….Those who do not love our land, who have no self-respect [aatmamaryaadaa] either, and without this all else is vain’. (Fn.12, p.351)

That is why in all his (controversial) writings about Krishna (SKT), Durga (Kali) he saw nothing ‘incompatible with his adopted faith’, ²¹ as Lipner says very well:

There is nothing here that an empathetic Christian could not write—at least by today’s standards in some dialogic circles.  Upadhyay may have been ahead of his time, but the indications are that he continued to interpret Hinduism to his compatriots in a way that he thought was not incompatible with his adopted faith. (369)

Thus the line that one try to draw between faith and other vital issues of life is impossible.  Of course several Christians (and many Hindus even) always want to keep their faith above everything.  But true faith in God should motivate us to be sensitive to the contemporary issues.  Any attempt to separate ‘secular’ from ‘spiritual’ is artificial one.  At least we can confidentially say that Bible never divides the secular and sacred in watertight compartments.  As Leslie Newbigin points out, ‘one can almost say that the central stand of the Old Testament story is the struggle of the prophet to speak the word of the living god in relation to the secular events of his time, and against the religion of his time’.²²

What we saw in Upadhyay’s life is this combination of Faith and Patriotism or Nationalism.  ‘The consuming passion of his life was to be not simply a Christian, but a patriotic Christian for all to eventually appreciate and emulate.’ (387)  So Upadhyay to live as a Catholic in Faith and as a Hindu socially, nationally has no problem.  There existed no contradiction between the two according to his understanding. Though his Hindu identity is shaped by the issue of his time and was idealized by him, yet considering the fact that Faith in Christ can be exercised in any cultural, social and national context is the crux of the matter. *** 

No doubt in it that Christian faith is always expressed only as a community and in the community and through the community.  Yet the concept of ‘community’ which the church inherited from the Old Testament as ‘a called out nation’ and the New Testament demands based on personal commitment to the Person Jesus irrespective of community allegiance, is a subtle issue. It really can be used to prove any point as biblical.  And neither the Bible nor the church history will show any situation quite like that which Upadhyay faced—though we can trace similar incidents in the life of Paul and others. 

When Indian Christians of past and present still consider British rule as a blessing of divine providence, a True patriotic like Upadhyay living in his situation was forced to keep his faith private.  When the spirit of positive nationalism is strong, one will never consider others’ opinions as the guiding principle for deciding his/her conviction.  Who can judge a person like Upadhyay ? Not the Indian Christians, considering their plight.

 It is important to note that this keeping of his faith personal did not developed all of a sudden.  We cannot blame his church entirely for such a development, as his project of ‘Vedantic Theism’ (379) as the basis of Indian Christianity was not acceptable to his church for various reasons.  Their reason for opposing his projects (ashram) and theology may be genuine.  And the way he forced his views on the church (because of his personality) and the way they withdrew (because of their concern for their theology and church system) polarised Upadhyay and his church further.*** His ideology in general (idealized Hinduism based on varnaasramadharma) and theology in particular (‘apologia for what he regarded as representative features of Hinduism, … and a “Hindu-Catholic” faith in terms of Advaitic philosophical theology’ -p.100) and his attempts to indigenize his faith (the Catholic matha at Jabalpur) suffered a major set back.  ‘He was not the first to come up against an adamantine wall of ecclesiastical authority.  In his case, it sowed the seeds of bitterness against his Church as an institution and set the stage for the last, explicitly political phase of his life. For this was a decade in which he glimpsed that his great experiment of indigenization was doomed’. (100).

            But it is important to note that ‘Upadhyay’s indigenizing theology was in effect an attempt to give Neo-Thomism, rather than directly “the religion of Christ”, a new (Indian) garb.’ (Fn.5, p.262)  It is a sad fact that his opponents in the Church remain blind to this fact.  The way Zaleski fight against Upadhyay stopping in establishing the ashram and banning his magazines are breath taking events.  But nothing new in these events considering the fact that the Church repeated it past history—only the stage and players are new.  Considering the fact that Robert de Nobili in spite of his theological training and member of Jesuit Order faced same kind of treatment by his ecclesiastical authority, where stands a new, untrained convert like Upadhyay? However:

            But the charge that Upadhyay was theologically incompetent, that he had ‘but an imperfect knowledge of Christian philosophy and theology’, must have hurt keenly, especially after all the testimony we have adduced, both public (newspaper and other reports) and private (Boedder’s responses etc.), to the contrary.  Upadhyay should have tried harder to give a more sustained argument for his views, rather than simply insisting that they were timely.  But the die was cast. (262)

Though a free thinker, Upadhyay too, if not in spirit at least in word become a slave to a system. But, ‘if only the whole affair had been handled differently, both by Upadhyay and by his ecclesiastical authorities, the course of the history of the Catholic Church in India might have been very different.’ (277)

A hostile home is better than a friendly but suspecting neighbour.  In the life of many converts while their Hindu family, community and society remain a hostile home because of their changed allegiance to Christianity and Church in the name of  their faith in Christ, most of the time the Church remains a suspecting neighbour.  Considering the history and present trend, the Church will never become a home to any ‘convert’.  So it is left to the bhakts of Christ to make their home friendly by not clinging too much on their suspecting neighbour.  By remaining a Hindu Christ bhakta one need not strive to indigenize his/her faith as he/she has comprehended and assimilated his/her faith as a Hindu.  So his/her theology, ideology and model will be more acceptable to his/her own family, community and society.  Of course Christians and Church may not agree with us.  But why should we bother about their attempt to ‘indigenize’ their ‘Christian faith’ in their own terms and conditions—as we have seen in the case of Upadhyay?

As rightly pointed out by Lipner Upadhyay attempted to indigenize a ‘theology’ (Neo-Thomism),– a Church ideology and system and rightly he faced all those opposition.  Because as an outsider either he has to adjust himself to fit in their system or should have attempted to indigenize their theology, ideology and system in their terms and conditions as they cannot give up their security and identity.  But as he attempted to blend two different entities without having any common ground—an organized religion (Christianity) with an organized society (Hindu) he disappointed both.  However at least he was instrumental for his Church to raise and think this question:

…if a convert finds our churches and our way of worship unfamiliar, it is because we have transplanted our western ritual into a land where people prayed and worshipped in their own way for long centuries.  And the same question always arises: Does conversion to the Catholic faith imply a conversion to western standards and manners?  If an Indian shows his respect to a holy place by taking off his shoes, should we insist on wearing shoes or socks, as though that was the  only way of showing respect to God?  Kissing the altar or the hand of the celebrant makes no sense to the Indian, while touching with the forehead is his normal way of paying veneration.  These instances are given here with a view to stimulate reflection.  We cannot innovate without the sanction of the hierarchy, and the Church is very wise in not allowing any individual to tamper with the liturgy.  But the Holy Spirit is present in every Christian heart.  Christians fully aware of their faith must never avoid the problems which christianisation is bound to raise, under the pretext that the hierarchy is there to think them out.  It is the prayerful and submissive initiative of the faithful which alone can give the hierarchy the necessary data for their authoritative decisions.(italics added) ²³

But in the name of authority if the hierarchy think only of suppression instead of co-operation, as we saw in case of Upadhyay, then submission to God and conscience alone will give hope of any initiation on the part of the faithful.  Because for the church (in R. Antoine ‘s word) the outward form of their liturgy and authority is much more important than any accommodation to the need of the faithful to grow spiritually while keeping their cultural and social identity become important, then the question that comes to our mind is: whether to obey God or men? Of course there may be a communication gap between the church and the faithful which is wrong in every way.  Lipner in his analysis on Upadhyay’s journalism which failed to communicate, particularly in the area of indigenizing his faith with its outward form says:

So far, then, as its proper targets of influence for a desired reconstruction or reappraisal were concerned, Upadhyay’s journalism generated a failure of communication.   As such it was ineffective.  It was sensational, entertaining, knowledgeable, and relevant for the mass of its readers, but it was also highly confrontational and misdirected arguably where it mattered most. (263-4)

But anyone like Upadhyay while caught up in a restrictive religious system and with a freedom within to express often has to walk alone in such situation.  Personally I feel that his failure is not in his ability to communicate, but he thought and wrote ahead of his time. Considering the fact that ‘Upadhyay’s Indigenizing theology was in effect an attempt to give Neo-Thomism, rather than directly “the religion of Christ”, a new (Indian) garb’, (Fn.5, p.262) the lack of perceptiveness on the part of people like Zaleski closed their heart and mind for Upadhyay to communicate.  Accepting all his weakness in writing which ‘irritate more’ than encouraged to think, at least by pouring down his heart, remaining strong in his conviction— now he challenges the church.  Such a prophets like Upadhyay has to walk alone—because that is the call of every prophet.  Those who become slaves to any men made system cannot think independently, where such thinking is always ‘controlled’ than ‘corrected’, if it does not agree with their theological convenience (see R.Antoine’s quote in de Smet under in Ecclesiastical authority).

Thus disappointed by his church***  when the emerging violent Nationalism gave him hope and freedom of expression, it took a new turn and he was carried by the current against his will.  It is certain that his withdrawal from his church was gradual:

‘The Blade reports that already in 1897, on a visit to Calcutta, Upadhyay wanted a “dispensation for not attending” Church services.  Animananda continues, “early in 1904 he did not approve of my letting an Orthodox Brahman know that we were both Catholics.  Hindus as a rule, he thought, have such an extravagant notion of Christianity.  Until this notion has been corrected, it is better not to mention the matter.  His intimate friends among Hindus knew it, of course, and did not mind”’. (378)

Thus the evidence is that his personal commitment to Christ (however private because of circumstance) was genuine.  When the end of his life is about to come,

oppressed with pain … {he} exclaimed ‘O Thakur’ (Bl., p.175).  Thaakur is often used by Bengalis as a friendly expression for God (rather as Christians might say ‘The/Our Lord’ when referring to Christ).  The Blade recounts evidence for Upadhyay’s regular use of this term in reference to Christ, as when he conducted the weekly Wednesday devotions in Kartik Nan’s house.  There can be no doubt that by Thaakur in these dire moments Upadhyay was referring to Christ  as his divine Lord. (384)

As a final comment, we can say that the relevance of all labels attached to a person when he is living ends at his death. In case of Upadhyay his struggle came to an end by his union with Christ, putting an end for his search for identity.  If he had lived a few more years he might have been  in a better position to clarify his views.  But perhaps it is good that he died, leaving future generation to wrestle with the issue rather than giving a one time answer which might have closed the issue permanently within his context.  And this question of identity  is open before us; seeking to resolve our own identity we who are struggling in similar situations can learn from Updhyay and be encouraged that we are neither alone nor the first to face this challenging issue.

ANALYSIS:

We all are the product of our own time, and Upadhyay is no exception to this.  But living in the concrete reality of our own time, how best we can live and serve to our time depends upon the lesson that we learn from the history.  The best lesson that we can/should learn from the history, particularly that of individuals, who made history is not to repeat those mistakes which they were prone to make as the product of their own time.  If any biography can teach this—in spite of the inspiration which it leaves on us to do what the character has done—I think that it has fulfilled its very purpose.

 Considering the complexity of his time and his personality it is difficult to arrive  at a particular conclusion about Upadhyay.  However if we can identify one crisis in his life between his ideology and personality it is IDENTITY.  Instead of asking the question to whom he belong (Catholic Christian or Hindu Catholic) we should ask whom he represented.  This is the ‘ill-concealed prickliness about Upadhyay that makes him hard to evaluate and potentially unattractive to tackle’ (xvi) in this area.  And here we can say with some confidence that he represents the struggle of every new believer.  This identity crises is become more dominant at present not only in India but all over the world (East Timor and Kosovo are the recent global example).  And coming to India:

This prickliness is to the point in an India beset today by various crises of identity.  Hindus and Christians in particular must grasp the nettle Upadhyay represents.  What does it mean to be a Hindu, a Christian, an Indian today?  An inquiry into the life and work of Upadhyay raises these questions in an acute form, and begins to shape answers.  Christians especially need to be concerned.  Culturally and religiously they have for the most part been an ambivalent {irresolute, hesitant, unstable, indecisive, changeable, weak-willed, wishy-washy, doubtful, unsure} minority in India.  Now Upadhyay is becoming something of a cult figure among members of the India Christian intelligentsia.  We have noted that he has been called a ‘prophet disowned’.  He has also been called the father of Indian (Christian) theology (see Aleaz, 1979: 77, 1994: 243).  Buildings have been named after him in prestigious Protestant and Catholic theological institutions.  Those interested in the process of indigenizing the Christian faith in India and elsewhere are looking to Upadhyay as a model for their purposes.(xvi-xvii)

But our fear is that considering the ambivalence of Christians particularly in their cultural and social identity on the one hand and the interest shown only in the ‘Indian Christian intelligentsia’ on such issues make a person like Upadhyay to remain as a cult figure for scholarly study.  And mere promotion of such personality cult will never promote the ideology of that person to the grass root level for whom he struggled.  This becomes true considering the fact that Upadhyay still remains unknown to most of the Indian Christians and he will remain captive within the scholarly and theological circle.  So the warning of Lipner against mere promotion of such cult is to be taken seriously:

In the end this adulation may be justified.  But it must rest on due discernment.  Too often critical veneration of the person, as if intellectual acumen invariably entails moral irreproachability.  The problem with Upadhyay is that he tends to be held up on the basis on insufficient knowledge.  Let me come clean and say that I believe he is an important man—in much, an admirable man.  Yet in the course of this study I hope to present evidence—lost to sight hitherto—that may well give the cult makers pause for thought.  If Christian churches are to take this remarkable man to heart, as well they might, he must be encountered face to face, ‘warts and all’.  That goes for his political and cultural admirers as well.(xvii)

As far as I understood, (not agreeing with the argument that Upadhyay’s Faith is that ‘it was utilitarian in motive, that it had a kind of “instrumentalist’ rationale’, rendered by Haridas Mukhopadhyay, co-author of UBBJ-p. 87) he defended a system (R.C) first and later deserted it.  Like wise he attacked a theology (Advaita) and later upheld it.  As a product of his time (extreme Bengal Reasoning) instead of depending upon faith based upon the Scripture, he merely reasoned with men made systems and thoroughly disillusioned.  Like his mentor Keshab did he think that he was that ‘chosen’ man to reform the church and Hinduism?  Any reform will fail when it aims to preserve personal interest than paving the way for regeneration.

Though Upadhyay’s faith (RC) may not be instrumental, but if it was only an ideology to uphold some of his personal vision of freedom, celibacy, anti-British, pro-Hindu etc., (unlike the evangelicals of his days) then it was a poor substitute for faith—however sincere he might be in his ideology.  Keeping these limitations in mind, his contribution both through his theology and ideology is remarkable one.  And, ‘the time has come, in a world more sensitive to human frailties and ambiguities, to recover and reassess Upadhyay.  He was and could still be of immense consequence in a number of areas.  In modern times, in the context of interreligious relations, he did more by thought and deed than perhaps any other Indian Christian to raise key issues for debate.'(386)

*** ‘Though Upadhyay’s theological conclusions are controversial….’, says Lipner and continues, …but their message raises key questions of the patriotic aspirations of the convert.  Specifically, is Christianity as believed and practised in its multifarious forms in India (or in any traditionally “alien” environment) perceived by the majority to be an indigenous phenomenon, furthering the common weal?  Certainly it should be, if native Christians are to play their rightful part in shaping the destiny of their nation.  To consider Upadhyay is not only to be unable to evade this crucial question, but is also to be impelled to seek some practical response.  The consuming passion of his life was to be not simply a Christian, but a patriotic Christian for all to eventually appreciate and emulate. (387)****

Upadhyay as a Patriot, Nationalist, Theologian, Sanyasi, Dialogist, Journalist, above all his influence on others make his life both colourful and challenging one.  And this beautiful study on Upadhyay by Lipner though ‘is not intended to be definitive, of course, or even exhaustive’, yet in the words of Lipner:

The complexity of the man and continuing research into the no less complex nature of his times render any pretensions to ‘definitive’ studies in these areas hollow.  Further, … there are aspects of Upadhyay’s thought we shall not go into.  I have but sought to inquire searchingly into someone who I believe is richly deserving of study and of whom various reasons have conspired to make a shadowy figure in the world of scholarship.  To this end I have quoted extensively, not least from Upadhyay.  Let the man speak for himself.(xxvi)

In my anxiety to liberate Upadhyay from the scholarly captivity and to give a glimpse about him to the Hindu bhaktas of Christ in particular I dare to attempt this endeavour.  So considering our need in our struggle for our identity as Hindus and Christ bhaktas I prepared this paper asking forgiveness both from Lipner and Upadhyay for all the misinterpretation, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of this remarkable man and this study by Lipner from my end.  Therefore:

Last but not least, one must take note of Upadhyay’s powerful charisma.  Such a contentious man, yet so persuasive of apparently improbable dreams and ideas, and such a purveyor of profound and lasting loyalties!  It was his deep spirituality, earnestness and intensity of commitment that won people over, and led them to look for extenuating circumstances in the face of his excesses.  As India and the world look to the future through the turbulent past of its nationalist history and post-independence years, may Brahmabandhab Upadhyay, ‘friend of God’ and ‘teacher’ of the people, stand out as a salient marker—religiously, socially and politically—of battles still to be fought and victories yet to be won.(390)

                        Notes

1. ‘Another kind of explanation given of Bhabani’s conversion is that it was utilitarian in motive, that it had a kind of “instrumentalist” rationale.  It is tendered by Haridas Mukhopadhyay, co-author of UBBJ.  ‘Patriotism was with [Upadhyay] the first instinct and passion, religion the second.  Religion was harnessed by him as an instrument of national regeneration.  He changed that instrument several times—Hinduism, Brahmonism, Anglican Christianity or Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Vedantism—according to the exigencies of the situation in order to serve the supreme ends of Indian Nationalism.’—p. 87

2.  Though, ‘it is not well known that it was Brahmabandhab Upadhyay who helped propel Rabindranath Tagore to fame’, (281) yet ‘it seems that by the first half of 1901 Upadhyay and Tagore had established fairly regular contact’. (281). ‘Upadhyay and Tagore entered upon a deepening relationship that, as Pal says, was to affect Tagore profoundly’. (284) ‘In fact, that Upadhyay became the inspiration for more than one of the characters of Tagore’s novels’. (Fn.9, p.284)

3.  ‘It is true that the setting scene I limited to the “Bengal of that time” (p.24), but it is one way gives the setting scene of nationalism which emerged in whole India.  Of course “past is a ready-made child of a ready-made present”.  But the “present” too is in the process of being shaped, not least by its own past.  The relationship between these two is symbiotic.  So it was in the Bengal of this book, and indeed, in the Bengal of that time that you, and I, now perceive.’—p.?

4. ‘…the recognition of an inalienable right to self-rule, which characterize a modern “nationalist” consciousness.’ ²–p.1

I realize that this notion of nationalism is itself problematical.  On the kind of construction of individual and collective self-identity that it entails, see, e.g. A. Nandy, 1994.—Fn.2, p. 1

5. ‘Kulin’ signifies the ritually purest and socially most elevated stratum of the caste.  This attribute made (male) Brahmins the most desirable of marriage partners in a caste-conscious society, and gave rise to ‘Kulinism’, Kulin sons.  The husband spent his time visiting his (often far-flung) wives in their parents’ homes, to fulfill his marital obligations and collect the husband’s ‘fee’….Kali Charan’s …grandfather, Madan Mohun Banurji….had fifty-four [wives].–Fn. 4, p. 31

6. ‘Bhadralok’—‘…What was formed by English education in Bengal was a new kind of Bengali usually referred to as the “bhadralok”.  In essence, bhadralok-mindedness consisted of cultural adaptability and migrational flexibility on the part of mainly the upper-caste Bangali.’—pp, 8-9

7. ‘…One of the main aims of Kalicaran’s life was to show that one could be a Christian and remain a patriot.  In this attempt he was something of a pioneer…’–p38

‘…A statement of Nistarini’s on Kalicaran the Christian is worth noting (p.39): “No one in the family disregarded him because he was a Christian; rather, when formal respect was to be shown this fact would be ignored.  Kalicaran laid to rest the view that by becoming a Christian one separates from one’s Hindu kin so decisively that later the missionaries found it very easy to make Christians.  He would observe the customs of Bhai-phota and jamai-sasthi; during Sarasvati Puja he would do worship to his books; he regarded his mother as a deity.”’—Fn. 24, p. 38

8  ‘The whole {matha} experience, including this editorship, which rode high on his disillusionment, was a turning point in his life.  For what may well have started as a coincidence, a more narrow politicizing of his journalistic skills, led more and more to its own self-justification…. Having, so to speak, journalistically sniffed the blood of the Englishman and his foreign ways at Karachi, he soon realized that he could wage a more effective campaign at the heart of it all, in Calcutta, the political and cultural capital of British India.  So … “having conceived the idea of carrying on a powerful propaganda of press and platform … he … shifted to Calcutta”‘. (224-5)  And as “journalistic bug was itching to find expression; now journalism became Upadhyay’s chief vocation.”‘ (227)

9. Unlike the evangelical Protestants of his time:

…the potential complementarity of the natural/supernatural divide in Catholic thinking permitted a tolerance of those “natural customs” that did not seem to militate directly against the exigencies of one’s (supernatural) faith.  This would have been of crucial importance for Bhabani, who was both proud of his ancestral culture and sensitive to the charge that conversion to Christianity tended to “denationalize” the Hindu. (94-5)

The ‘natural truths of reason and revealed truths of faith … an established Catholic principle, also ratified by the First Vatican Council in its constitution, Dei Filius’ (124, see notes 29) provided the rational for Upadhyay  to ‘pursue and endorse Hindu behaviour, so far as this was possible, on the natural level, while affirming allegiance to Catholic faith (the essence of which was supernatural).  In fact, this was the only way to proceed.  The Protestant way of denigrating Hinduism was by implication destroying “the supernatural religion of Christ”.  Bhabani could be a patriot and a Christian simultaneously (and so could all his Indian readers) a far from uncontentious combination at the time’. (126-7)  Of course, ‘the leap from potential to actual compatibility here is a crucial one and requires justification, not to mention the statement that Catholic faith actually enhances patriotism.  Upadhyay never actually sought to argue this stance. It was taken for granted.’ (209)

10. ‘ Most Christians (not least the clergy) and Hindus would have been bewildered by this, if not suspicious.  Hindus might read it as a trap for the unwary!  For Christians it might signify that Upadhyay was perhaps still consorting with the enemy, or a convert in name only.’ (129)  Though he faced initial opposition from the local church, he won his cause through the Archbishop of Bombay and was finally allowed wear the saffron grab.

‘What prompted this is not clear: perhaps a combination of different stimuli stemming from the life-style of Hiranand, some Arya Samajists and even Vivekananda….’—Fn.30, p. 129

11. ‘The Blade informs us (p.80) that early that year {1899} Upadhyaya, his friend Animananda and a third companion, all with their heads shaved, “were seen going barefoot through the streets of Jubbulpore”, begging for their food “by order of the Bishop” (surely a convenient exaggeration)’. (p.218)

12. ‘A dramatic statement from the Sketch (pt. I, p. 25) gives us a glimpse of the romantic idealism of it all.  “Each novice, after completing has course of studies, was to make a retreat and then had to roam about in the cities of India, all by himself, for six months, begging his way from place to place, and if he returned alive to the central matha he was to get the garic [renouncer’s saffron] garb”’. –p. 220

13.  Before the end come to the matha it will be interesting how it functioned.  In a rented house the matha started with five: ‘Two from Bengal, one from Sindh and one from Tinnevelly’(218) along with Upadhyay.  ‘It seems that each member was still required to beg regularly, and to cook his food separately in accordance with strict caste practice.  Each slept on the floor and used a single blanket, rising at 4 in the morning and retiring to sleep at 10 p.m.  The day was passed “in study, prayer and meditation”’. (219)

14. ‘By social expiation is not meant internal purification but the performance of a humiliating act prescribed by the injured society as a public confession of sorrow for the guilty attempt of breaking social integrity’. (376)

15.  ‘People here understand by the term … “Christian”, a man who drinks liquor and eats beef, who hates the scriptures of India as lies and her inspired men as impostors.  If we are called Christian in this sense of the term we are not Christian,’ the article continues.(in The Harmony, 1890)—p. 84

16. ‘Many commentators and scholarly analysts have argued that this fabric of religious imagery was merely a cover, a cynical exploitation of the religious sentiments of Indian people for political ends.  Even Advani seems to have shared this view some of the time, as when he spoke of turning Rama devotion into state power….– Richard H. Davis Ch.1. ‘The Iconography of Rama’s Chariot,’ in David Ludden (ed), Making India Hindu, Religion, Community, and the politics of Democracy in India, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1996. Pp. 51-52

17. ‘… Theologically, from the point of view of his personhood, Jesus was God the Son, the second Person of the holy Trinity, incarnate in human form.  God, in a mode of his infinite being, took on human nature in Jesus, without ceasing to be divine.  In Jesus, deity also truly became a human individual (but not a human person or agent).  Here lies the crucial difference from Krishna in Upadyay’s analysis of the avatar.  For Upadhyay, Krishna, though divine in a real sense, and sinless (and above the sway of ignorance and rebirth),  was, unlike Jesus, a “genuine human person“.  While Jesus was a real human individual, his personhood was that of God the Son who had assumed human nature.  In Jesus, according to traditional Christian doctrine, there was one divine person and two natures: the divine and the human.  Krishna’s personhood, on the other hand, in Upadhyay’s interpretation, was human.’—p. 337

18. ‘And just as the Krishna if his Srikrsnatattva lecture can be regarded as a unique and timely human manifestation of the divine presence among us, so can Ramakrishna’s appearance in modern times according to this interpretation.  God has not forgotten his beloved Hindu people; he reappears to give them guidance and succour.’—p.373-4

19. ‘A number of Upadhyay’s personal acquaintances, e.g. Tagore, were able to perceive that according to his own lights Upadhyay remained a Christian, or at least a Hindu-Christian of some kind, even if they were not able readily to understand the intricacies of this allegiance (cf. Tagore’s description of Upadhyay as a “Roman Catholic ascetic yet a Vedantin” at the beginning of the Introduction to this book); however, other acquaintances thought that he had returned to the Hindu fold.’—Fn.19. pp. 375-6

20. For Upadhyay, ‘Hinduism, properly interpreted, “leads to God”. (125)  Opposing strongly the current trend of his time among the Protestant (‘sectarian’ in his words) who are ‘incapable of finding anything true and good in India’,(125) in an article in Sophia (Sp-m) entitled, ‘Our attitude towards Hinduism’ (January 1895), Upadhyay writes:

What has been the result?  Educated India has been thoroughly estranged and she looks upon Christianity as a destroyer and not a fulfiller and perfecter of what is true and good in the country.’ (125) ‘Hence a true missionary of Christ, instead of vilifying Hinduism, should find out truths from it by study and research.. (126)

21. ‘Heaven we do not want.  Deliverance we seek not, O Mother! Let us be born again and again in India till your chains fall off…’—p. 381

22. Newbigin, L., Honest Religion for Secular Man, Lucknow Publishing House, Lucknow, 1966, p. 95.

23. Editors R.De Smet and J. Neuner ,Religious Hinduism, Fourth Revised Edition, 1997, Chapter 14. Rituals and Worship (R.Antoine), pp.208-209

.                                               .                                                           .

*****

SAT, CHIT, ANANDA:

Upadhyay wrote extensively to indigenize his Catholic theology.  Among all his writings his attempt to explain Trinity in Indian terms ‘saccidaananda‘ is unique one. 

 The short canticle ‘Vande Sac-cid-aanandam‘, which Upadhyay wrote to express his theology in the form of a Sanskrit hymn is remarkable one.  ‘After many years in obscurity it has made an impression in Christian circles in India’. (199)  Personally I use this stotra (which ‘is to be sung or changed, not recited’) in my private worship, enjoying the meaning and the language.  By reading its transliteration even a ‘non-Sanskritist may appreciate the tonal resonance and potential liturgical solemnity of the hymn’: (199)

            Vande Sac-cid-aanandam.

                        Bhogi-laanchita-yogi-vaanchita-caramapadam. [Refrain]

            Parama-puraana-paraatparam,

                        Puurnam akhanda-paraavaram,

            Trisanga-suddham asanga-buddham durvedam. [1]

                        Pitr-savitr-paramesam ajam,

            Bhava-vrksa-biijam abiijam,

                        Akhila-kaaranam iiksana-srjana-govindam.      [2]

            Anaahata-sabdam anantam,

                        Prasuuta-purusa-sumahaantam,

            Pitr-svaruupa-cinmaya-ruupa-sumukundam.      [3]

                        Sac-cidor melana-saranam,

            Subha-svasitaananda-ghanam,

                        Paavana-javana-vaaniivadana-jiivanadam.      [4](199-200)

‘A reading will reveal the humming resonance of this hymn, emphasized by the rhyming expressions at the end of each verse and the refrain; this gives the stotra its singing quality in the context of a rhythm that varies in terms of beat rather than syllable.  There has been no attempt to reproduce classical Sanskrit metres.’ (200) 

‘Thus the hymn is unambiguously sectarian.  It is meant to express Catholic teaching about the nature of the Blessed Trinity.  But this is only part of the picture.  The hymn is composed in Sanskrit, traditionally not a linguistic matrix of the official teaching of Christian doctrine, yet no attempt has been made to create or import neologisms from a non-Sanskritic source.  The hymn is a Sanskritic articulation of Catholic doctrine.  It is here that we can speak significantly of a different kind of resonance and even originality in Upadhyay’s hymn.’ (201).

Of course, as we have noted in his Theology above that ‘it is Upadhyay’s intention to put Sanskritic Hinduism to the service of Catholic teaching’ and ‘masterfully Upadhyay has achieved his purposes.’ (201)  ‘It will be noticed that while the refrain and first verse celebrate the Trinity as absolute being, consciousness/knowledge and bliss, the succeeding verses eulogize the Father, the Son and the Spirit respectively.  Though expressed in Sanskrit, the hymn is quite orthodox in that there is no obvious attempt to reformulate an understanding of the Trinity in reconstructive indigenous terminology.’ (201-2)

            But the words ‘Govinda‘ used for the Father (and ‘Mukunda‘ for the Son) is the exact word used by Hindus to Krishna in the Vaishnava tradition.  Though there ‘might be scope for elaborating a theology in which the Father {and the Son} is likened in familiar accessibility, if not in character to Krishna…. this idea was far from Upadhyay’s mind…. Thus, to play safe, Upadhyay translates govinda as “the preserver of the world”, an orthodox if anodyne phrase, though he might have been a little bolder and settled for the linguistically acceptable “Cowhered”‘. (202) 

But Fr R. Antoine s.j., of Calcutta discarded both the words ‘Govinda‘ and ‘Mukunda‘(which means ‘Giver of salvation/liberation’, is also a name of Vishnu (and sometimes of Siva)—Fn. 31, p. 202) ‘no doubt to expunge its Hindu resonance as Gispert-Sauch notes—and replaced by visvesam (Lord of all)’ (Fn. 30, p. 202) and ‘Jisu-Kristam‘ respectively.  ‘This was an unfortunate substitution, since reasons of censorship apart, it destroys the rhyming ending of the original and overlaps semantically with “Highest Lord” (paramesam) in the first line of the verse’.(ibid).

As usual, this hymn is too an entirely neo-Thomistic in its nature.  But this is a remarkable achievement for Upadhyay considering his struggle with his Church. 

This was also pioneering beginning as no ‘attempt made to divorce the terminology of the hymn from its cultural roots…. In Upadhyay’s day and circumstances, this was a marked and influential achievement … on the nature of the Trinity as Sac-cid-aananda‘. (203)

  ****

            Upadhyay’s own English rendering of the hymn errs generously on the side of Christian terminology.  Our (Lipner) own annotated translation follows:

I worship [the One who is] Being, Knowledge, Bliss,

The Highest Goal, whom ascetics yearn for but the worldly dismiss. [Refrain]

The Supreme, Ancient, Higher than the high,

[Who is] Fullness, Wholeness, Beyond yet nigh.

The Pure Threesome, unrelated Wisdom, hard to comprehend.   [1]

The Father, Impeller, Highest Lord, Unborn,

The Seedless Seed of the tree of being,

The universal Cause, who a watched-over creation doth tend.     [2]

The Word unsounded, Infinite,

The Person begotten, supremely Great,

The Substance of the Father, Form of knowledge, our saving Friend. [3]

The One who from the union of Being and knowledge doth flow,

The Sacred Breath and Cloud of Joy,

Who Cleanses, Moves swiftly, Speaks the Message and life intends.     [4]—p. 201

PERSONALITY:

Personality: 119,43,222,223, 249-50,274,293,  ‘So on his return he had something to live up to.  He was now in the public eye, allied to a public cause.’-p.317, a realistic-p.321,Fn.12-p.323,324, ‘relucrtant moderate (with ‘extremist’ tendencies).-p.345

362,363,364,383,

UPADHYAY’S INFLUENCE:

His influence:– ‘We are told by The Blade that the famous savant Justice M.G. Rande, who chaired the April 1 lecture, publicly remarked after its conclusion that ‘if Catholicism is what the lecturer places before us, I would not mind putting myself down as a Catholic’.-p. 151, Upadhyay: the Philosopher, Khemchand: the Journalist, Paramanand: The Scholar and Animananda: the Educator.—p.153 on Tagore—281ff.,342,389,

AS A SANNYASI:

Sanyasi:

Dress, approval by the church, wearing a cross—p.129, Fn.21 p. 150,  begging food p.149, 208,218 but also asked support from Bishops, 149, militant sannyasi-p.165, 250,307,334,383, 387,

ASHRAM:

Asram: first mooted to settle down in south-p.155,209,210,216,218,219,222,223,224

UPADHYAY AND HINDUISM:

Hinduism:

‘Hinduism, properly interpreted, “leads to God,”’ based on the First Vatican Council constitution,–pp. 124-25, only in Vedic Hinduism,–125, ‘For Bhabani, Christian faith must fulfill, not destroy “what is true and good” in Himduism”,–and his criticism in this area against evangelicals—p.125,  only ‘it is in Hindu thought that “human philosophy”,…has reached its acme.’—p. 126, ‘a true missionary of Christ, instead of vilifying Hinduism, should find out truths from it by study and research.’—p. 126, 163, 179, 198-99, 295-96,297,301,318,Fn.16.324,349,Fn.12-p.351,370,371,Fn.38-p.390

UPADHYAY AND CASTISM:

Castism:

‘Brahmin status was still to mean much to him’,–this in name change from  brahmabandhu to Brahmabandhab.—p. 128, 160, 161,218,219,243,’not un-Christian’-p.244-45, 245, Hegglin’s opposition to Upadhyay—Fn.24, p. 246,321,un-Brahminical to sell knowledge-p.322,Fn.32.-p.359,376, 377—383,

RACIALISM:

Racial: p.233,237-38, 240, Fn.21-p.240 248-49,349,350,376, ,242-43,

Atttitude towards west:6, 8, 27,59, 227,242-43, 301,Fn.46,-p.302,304, 305,309,311, 312, Fn.1.p.344,Fn.25-p.357,358,359,360-61,Fn.36.p.361,362,364,381,

UPADHYAY AND NATIONALISM:

A Nationalist:

 —xvi, 56,Fn. 24 p. 125, 207, ‘denationalized’ Christians—pp.244-45,317,322,325, 327,329,330,341,343,346,356, 358,359, Fn.3.-p.368,372,373,389,

A Nationalist:

Bhabani regularly identifies India with ‘Hindu India’.  His nationalist aspirations, like those of the majority of nationalist Hindu leaders in the first stages of the freedom movement, tended to marginalize non-Hindu minorities, especially the tribals and the Muslims.—Fn. 24 p. 125, 207, ‘denationalized’ Christians—pp.244-45,317,322,325, 327,329,330,341,343,346,358,359, Fn.3.-p.368,372,373

FAITH AND PATRIOTISM:

Faith and patriotism:

pp. 126-127, 209,220, 256,263,Fn.12.-p.351,369,381, 387,

HINDU CATHOLIC:

Hindu-Catholic:

Xvi, xix, 80, 84,p.127, 161, 209,209-10, 326,327,333,336, –344, 375-76, Fn.19, p. 375, 376, 385,

DOUBLE ROLE:

Double role-p.244, Fn.28-p.290, 294, ‘Upadhyay was writing somewhat opportunistically at the time.’-p.295, 298-99, 307,312,326,327,Fn.29-335,

Fn.10.-p.350,375-76, Fn.19. p.375,–But if the church was ready to acknowledge his ideas on indigenization, he would have openly come out with his faith identity.  As a Christian he struggled alone. In that given circumstances he might have thought that his faith in Christ (or Catholic church) is not helping for the common cause of Indians—where majority are Hindus, he was forced to keep his faith private.  Even in Protestant circles except rare exceptions no Christian leader involved in Independence movement and when the Christians as a community failed to identity with a common cause of the Nation, individuals, keeping their faith as a personal matter has to join with majority.  Birds of the same fether flock together.  Considering the freedom that Hinduism provides for one to keep his faith private, as a ‘Hindu-Catholic’, he too kept his faith private.  No doubt in it that Christian faith is always expressed only as a community and in the community and through the community,  yet the concept of ‘community’ which the church inherited from the Old Testament as a called out nation and the New Testament demand as personal commitment to the Person jesus, irrespective of community allegiance is a subtle issue, which can be used to prove any point as biblical.  Of course, neither the Bible nor the church history will show any such situation which Upadhyay faced—though we can trace such incidents in the life of Paul and others.  When the Indian Christians of past and present still consider the British rule as divine providence—a True patriotic like Upadhyay—living in his situation was forced to keep his faith private.  Above all the spirit of positive nationalism is strong, one will never consider about others opinion as the guiding principle about deciding his/her conviction.  Who can judge a person like Upadhyay—not the Indian Christians considering their plight, –all the time—both past and present.—DB, p.378—‘Most people thought that he ceased to be a Christian’-this is to be qualified by what does it mean by a Christian to that ‘most people’.  In 1997(?) December my mother used the soame kind of words telling about me to my brother-in-law.  But she and all my family members know that I never denied my faith in Christ.  Because to ‘most Hindus’ becoming Christian is not merely a theological issue but more a sociological fact.  See, ‘Animananda continues, ‘Early….did not mind’.-p.378 —DB., 379, 384,

UPADHYAY THE JOURNALIST:

Journalism:

Sophia’s success—p. 121, BCE’s support for Sophia as edited by a ‘Brahmin Convert’—p. 122, well received supported by church—p. 123, but several short comings—p. 123, only implicitly political against the stated aim—123-4, 131,147, ‘Sophia writings are not lacking in martial terminology.’-p.177, 227, 258, 259,262,264—[I too agree on this.  But the contemporaries of  Upadhyay, though few were sympathetic to his ideals, refuse to think.  As he was ahead of his time, even he wrote in such a way to persuade others to think, hardly any of his ideas towards indigenisation might have implemented.  By pouring down his heart, at least he remain strong in his conviction—which now challenge the church.  Such a prophets like Upadhyay has to walk alone—because that is the call of every prophet.  Those who become slaves to any men made system cannot think independantly. see p. 89-DB], Fn.11-p.266, ‘idealizing Hindu culture’-p.341, 347,349,361,365,366,368,388,

UPADHYAY AS A CATHOLIC:

Catholic—because of the evangelicals attitude in Bengal Bhabani prefered Catholic faith-5,21,22,90f.116,119,121, ‘universal Theism held by the Catholic Church’—126, ‘Destroy the religion of the nature and reason, you destroy the supernatural [Catholic] religion of Christ….Bhabani’s rationale for evangelization, in terms of the thinking already discussed, could not be stated more clearly.’—p. 126, Fn.19-p.149,  ‘Within the framework of the natural/supernatural distinction discussed earlier, he sought to reconstruct Catholic commitment in terms of a Hindu basis for the reception of the Gospel.  This is where problem with ecclesiastical authority arose.’-p.130, 162,’the uncompromisingly theistic, sin-affirming, contrition-demanding, pardon-offering, obedience-exacting, hierarchical and legalistic world of the official Roman Catholic theology of the time.’-169, Christianity is assimilated to Catholic thought.-p.186,  ‘but though in ‘substance’ it is everywhere the same in form the Catholic Christianity we have is a western phenomenon and therefore alien to Hindu minds.’-p.186, ‘in fact, Catholic theology completes Advaitic theology.’-p.196 ‘This leaves very little room indeed for an original formulation of Catholic faith in terms of indigenous tradition’-p.196 Fn. 22 also, p.211,212, Fn.2-p.257, 267,294-95,306

UPADHYAY AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY:

Upadhayay and ecclesiastical authority:

Xxi, Xxii,100,p.130, 131, 151-52,152, 194,203,207,211,212, 213,214—‘he [Zaleski] was…entirely out of touch with India’s mind and thought’-Fn.10, p.215, ,215,216,217,218 ‘Upadhyay was shielding himself and indeed exposing Pelvat.’-p.218,Fn.12-p.219,223,257-58,261,262,276-77,294,378,–it is remarkable how he obeyed his church in spite of the treatment he received from her—DB.

UPADHYAY’S WORK AND CONTRIBUTION:

Missionary enterprise— repudiatory and affirmative—‘Upadhyay’s thought can be distinguised under  two headings: repudiatory and affirmative…he attacked…traditional and contemporary.-p.131‘Upadhyay, in the first flush of his new-found daulist, theistic, realist and non-transmigrationist faith, set to work with a vengeance to warn his educated compatriots of the dangerous pitfalls of Advaita in terms of this understanding…’—p. 134, through writings, travel-149, first distructive method—p.154, p.156, 255,324,

Indigenization—59,77,100, ‘but though in ‘substance’ it is everywhere the same in form the Catholic Christianity we have is a western phenomenon and therefore alien to Hindu minds.’-p.186,211, ‘The Hindu mind …done’-212 p.280

Dialogue-p.203-04, one sided-,p.204,325,Fn.25.p.329,330,331,333,341,369,’Upadhyay is showing the maximum reverence a Christian can show to a Hindu religious figure in Hindu idiom.’-374-75,387

Theology: What is important in all these points is that Lipner brings out clearly the changed view of Upadhyay clearly which was neglected by his biographers. ‘These aspects of Upadhyay’s thought are given little or no attention by Animananda, Vath and other.-’—Fn.13, p. 144, undebated issues, p.187[how can he debated on these present day discussions of what Lipner says here?—DB], fulfillment theology-p.201,203,

331,335,387,

Western and Thomistic—western context and Thomistic thinkgin-114, 117,118,p.130, 136,139, 193, 194, ‘’We are given the impression that their ideas are …interchangeable, separated only by the historical accidents of time and language.’-p.195, matha was western-p.223, ‘At the level of deep structure, I submit, Upadhyay’s Hindu-Catholic theology thus far is more western Catholic than native Hindu’.-p.223, Fn.5. p.262,266,267,268-9,270

Advaita and Upadhyay—17, 23,134, His opposition of Advaita based on Pure Reason, 135,‘which coincides neatly with traditional Thomistic teaching’-136, all westernized interpretation of Advaita-p.135, ‘And yet, before very long, Advaita will be rehabilitated as the Hindu vehicle par excellence of an indigenous Catholic faith.’-135, ‘our one great object in life is to banish Advaitavad from India’ (‘The Light of the East and Ourselves’, August 1895), p.136, ‘Till about 1897 or thereabouts, that is, when this traditional target will start metamorphosing into a key weapon of Upadhyay’s revisionary campaign.’-136, 170, 179, 183, 184, 186 [Even in changing his view on Hinduism, he never took orbitrary decision, but consulted other Catholic Theologians like Fr John Castets s.j.—DB], Hindu-Philosophy is Vedanta-p.186, Vedanta is superior to Aristotelian-Thomistic synthesis…[and] should be made to ‘hew wood and draw water’ for the Catholic Church.-p.186,187, replacing the Greek platform by a Vedantic one…-p.187, suggestions to use Vedanta which was not completely developed-Fn.12, p. 188, Vedanta as crypto-(neo-) Thominsm and Shankara as St Thomas in disguise-p.188, neo-Hinduism of Vivekananda is pantheism not that of Shankara-p.188, the reason for this change from Vedic to Vedantic is because of Vivekananda’s influence on him., Advaita a chief religious instrument of collective svaraaj.-p.188, 195, ‘in fact, Catholic theology completes Advaitic theology.’-p.196,Fn22-196, 212,266,267,271, Hegglin’s opposition-p.274,275,297,298,302,312,

346,

Vedic—p.179,180, 182, 183, 185,332

Sat, Chit, Ananda-p.191,192-93 ‘This etymology is dubious, but it serves Upadhyay’s purposes-p.193 [—DB], 199, 203

Analysis-xvi, xviii,xix, xx,,xxi,xxii,xxiv, all the biographies written never presented a true picture about Upadhyay.-see Introduction, xxiii, 386,387,388,389,390.