The Occult and the Orient: The Theosophical Society and the Socio- Religious Space in Colonial India

The Occult and the Orient: The Theosophical Society and the SocioReligious Space in Colonial India Mriganka Mukhopadhyay This paper plans to present a broader, introductory outline of the theosophical movement of colonial India. At the very beginning, the background of the rise of the Theosophical Society from the yoke of New Age religious movements, such as Spiritualism, Rosicrucianism, Swedenborgianism, Mesmerism, Unitarianism and Freemasonry can be examined. In this regard, it will be interesting to examine the socio-political and intellectual climate of contemporary Europe and North America which influenced the rise of Theosophy. In this context, a brief explanation of Theosophical doctrine is necessary. For this purpose, I wish to concentrate mainly on the works of Madame Blavatsky and wish to examine the intellectual source of the theological doctrine of Theosophy. It will be interesting to write about Theosophy’s fascination with Aryan ideology and Blavatsky’s interest in India, and looking up on the Orient as the prime source of global spirituality. Following this, I would like to 10 Presidency Historical Review examine how the Theosophical Society established itself in India and manoeuvred the movement in the contemporary socio-political and intellectual environment. It began an interaction with other religious movements of India and was briefly associated with the Arya Samaj. However, the support base of theosophy and its reception amongst the western-educated middle class can be a matter of concern in our discussion. It can be argued that Theosophy provoked the Indian bourgeoisie as well as the aristocracy to use their Hindu identity as a political tool. The gentry in several parts of Madras, Bengal, Bombay and the United Provinces were deeply interested in Theosophy and evidences show that it was not very uncommon among westernised Indians to preserve theosophical texts or become members of the Theosophical Society. It can be suggested that it was a ‘fashion’ for the colonial bourgeoisie to get interested in Theosophy and practice spirituality. Lastly, some light will be thrown upon the nexus between Bengal Theosophical Society and the Bhadralok community of colonial Calcutta and discussion will be made on middle-class fascination with tantra. The nineteenth century served as a conjuncture for socioreligious awakening in India. It must be understood that a more stabilised political system in the later half of the 19th century and a reorganised and comparatively ‘comfortable’ economic situation than that of the previous century created a space for broader socio-religious reforms. The quest for Occult and the Orient 11 re-examining the idea of ‘Hindu’—and the idea of ‘India’— in the geographical, political, economic and social context of the subcontinent, gave rise to multiple socio-cultural movements. These movements were often entangled with each other and addressed interconnected socio-religious spaces. All these movements tried to remodel the conception of Indian spirituality with various approaches pulling it out from the orthodox yoke, and consciously or unconsciously proclaimed themselves stake-holders in the intellectual nourishment of the subcontinent. We have already spoken, in a generalised manner, about the multiple streams that led to the rise of a modern Hindu thought and their philosophical and social contribution to Indian spirituality and religiosity. The aim of these movements was to carve out a prominent position for India in the global intellectual map and to inform the global audience about the richness of Indian civilisation and heritage. There was an attempt to recreate the Hindu theological, philosophical, intellectual, cultural and political spaces and create a popular brand of Oriental spirituality in the West. Movements organised by the Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, the Ramakrishna Mission and the Mahabodhi Society, or the philosophical-spiritual standpoint of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan upheld spiritual modernism of the subcontinent in some form or the other. At the same time, Jain revivalism, the Harekrishna Movement or the Aurobindo Movement tried to address a similar socio-spiritual space. However, all these movements arose as religious forces from within the subcontinental society and carried the ‘native’ tag. This was the factor that made one of their contemporary partners different from them. In the true sense, it was its transnationality and western origin that gave the Theosophical Society a distinct position in the spiritual and intellectual map of the subcontinent. Interestingly, all these 12 Presidency Historical Review movements, ‘nativist’ or otherwise, had an aim to carve out a space for themselves in the South Asian spiritual space, for which, negotiating with western ideas became a necessity in most cases. These negotiations with occidental intellectuality gave these movements a distinction in the oriental religious, political and intellectual spaces. However, the Theosophical Society originated from various New Age religious movements of the 18th and 19th century in Europe and North America. Since late 18 th century, western society developed a curiosity for oriental spirituality and mysticism. The esoteric and mystic religious practices that started developing from this period, namely Rosicrucianism, Swedenborgianism, Mesmerism, Transcendentalism, Spiritualism or Freemasonry established themselves as counter-forces against the orthodox Christian church and laid down a scope for an alternative religious space. Among these movements, the Transcendentalists, among whom Ralph Waldo Emerson is probably the bestknown, were greatly influenced by Oriental religion and often quoted Hindu scriptures. They reflected a number of themes later to surface in Theosophy: eclecticism, antipathy to religious organisation and to Christianity, and sympathy for Asian religions. Besides, Spiritualism, another American New Age movement, depended on and gave expression to Western occultism. Spiritualism drew heavily from Mesmerism and Swedenborgianism, both of which were pioneers of western occultism. An occultist is one who operates outside established religion and has a concern for theories and practices based on esoteric knowledge. Occultism often includes the study of writings felt to contain secrets known to ancient civilisations but subsequently forgotten. A two-millennia-old alternative to Christianity, occultism has had several periods of florescence. However, Occult and the Orient 13 the idea of a secret mystical group called the Rosicrucians made its first appearance in 1614 and 1615 in Germany, with the publication of three anonymous treatises. The most important, the Fama Fraternitatis, told of a secret brotherhood founded by Christian Rosenkreutz, a noble German youth who had travelled widely and studied occult lore. The brothers, or 'adepts', were mysterious persons who possessed superior knowledge or powers. They were said to go about 'doing good, shedding healing influences, disseminating knowledge, and bringing mankind back to its paradisal state.' Recent scholarship has confirmed what was widely believed at the time: that there never was a Christian Rosenkreutz. The tracts were a means for a group of Lutherans to present an apocalyptic message of universal reform. They formulated a Pansophia or theosophy, which they hoped might serve as a non-sectarian foundation by which people of differing religious views could live peacefully. Probably, Theosophical Society drew its idea of Mahatmas or Adepts from Rosicrucianism. Rosicrucianism was probably also a strong influence on Freemasonry. Both combine an esoteric approach to religion, religious tolerance, an emphasis on good works, and an attachment to Egyptian symbolism. The ideas of initiation and lodges, utilised later in the Theosophical Society and elsewhere, were developed by the Masons. The Freemasonic movement dates from 1717, when the Grand Lodge of London was established. It can be assumed that Theosophical Society borrowed its organisational structure, particularly the idea of the Lodges, from the Freemasonry Movement. The ‘New Religions’ and the modern western esoteric traditions became prominent spiritual forces for 19th century western society and drew supporters from the materialists coming from urban elite circles. According to an estimate 14 Presidency Historical Review given by Bruce F. Campbell, the number of participants at the height of the spiritualist movement around 1855 has been estimated between one and two million. The population of the United States was then about twenty-five million, and only one in seven Americans was officially a member of a religious group. Thus, even though only a small portion of those who participated in spiritualism were ever officially part of a formal spiritualist church, the level of participation in the movement is a significant fact of nineteenth-century American religion. 1 Interestingly, these above-mentioned religious groups functioned as secret societies for a long period of time and their members published articles under pseudonyms. All these practices were adopted by the Theosophical Society as well when it came into being in 1875. It has often been argued that the esoteric occult practices provided an alternative to the anxieties of the industrialised West. A section of the society felt an urge of connecting religion with established science, or to put it otherwise, to look beyond the scientificity that had already become a ‘convention’ for the modernised, industrialised Occident. 2 There was much concern focused on the controversy over evolution, which had begun in 1859 with the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species. American scientists had supported it, and by the 1870s there was a growing pressure to harmonise religion and evolutionary theory.3 The alternative obviously lay in the Orient, and the occultists and spiritualists started believing in the Orient as a spiritual treasure trove they had suddenly discovered. Issac Lubelskyhas termed this the ‘Oriental Fantasy Syndrome’4 , which indeed meant a perception of the Asian world as a land of magic and spirituality. Unconsciously, for many of these movements, the Orient remained an ‘other’ whereas for some, like the followers of Unitarianism, Freemasonry Occult and the Orient 15 or Theosophy, the ‘other’ gradually grew up as a familiar world as all three of these movements established centres in India. What is interesting to note here, is that the ‘other’ was always contained within the ‘self’. The esotericism and the mystic occult lore that the Orient symbolised was an underlying, secretive tradition of all religiosities: western or eastern. These organisations were somehow trying to address this issue. However, the Theosophical Society was more successful than the other two above-mentioned movements and for the Theosophist leaders, India started becoming a part of their self-perception. However, these movements had underlying motives to gain a foothold in the subcontinental religious spaces where they had to face strong competitions from several ‘indigenous’ movements. But it must be kept in mind that the Theosophical Society drew largely from the New Age Movements, both in terms of ideology as well as organisational structure. The American social situation from which the Theosophical Society emerged was one of great upheaval and the religious situation posed a challenge to orthodox Christianity. The forces that had surfaced in spiritualism included anticlericalism, anti-institutionalism, eclecticism, social liberalism, and belief in progress and individual effort. Occultism was mediated to America in the form of Mesmerism, Swedenborgianism, Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism. Contemporaneous developments in science led to a renewed interest in reconciling science and religion. There was also a hope that Asian religious ideas could be integrated into a grand religious synthesis. However, Theosophy was not an easy thing. Emerging out of a complex spiritual web, it upheld a theological doctrine that was a conglomeration of multiple philosophical strands. The basic doctrine is derived from two importanct works of Madame Blavatsky: Isis Unveiled and the two 16 Presidency Historical Review volumes of The Secret Doctrine. Blavatsky claims that it is the Mahatmas or the theosophical masters who dictated these books to her and hence these texts stand as the outline of the theosophical principle. Some important theological inputs also come from the works of Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater: two most prominent theosophist ideologues in the post-Blavatsky era. However, important ideological variations took place after the split of the theosophical movements, and Katherine Tingley of America and Rudolph Steiner of Germany offered important theological standpoints for theosophy, which differed substantially from Besant’s ideas. Nevertheless, it was Blavatsky’s teachings which remained the basis of Theosophical Society across the world and still remain the starting point of Theosophical understanding. Theosophy comes from two Greek words: Theo and Sophia. It literally means ‘knowledge of God’. The attempt of Theosophy is to seek the direct knowledge of the unknown, esoteric nature of the Divine. The investigation of humanity, the universe and the divine stands as the central tenet of Theosophy. Theosophical teaching puts man in the centre of its description of the cosmos, because the final salvation, which shall bring unity with the divine, and which has consequences for both man and cosmos begins in man and his growing spiritual realisation and liberation. According to Madame Blavatsky, the ancient wisdom lay hidden in the ancient civilisation and the cradle of civilisation is undoubtedly the Orient. Although initially she looked upon ancient Egypt as the spiritual heartland, thus concentrating upon Hermetism and Kabbalism as secret oriental spiritual lore, she soon turned her attention to ancient Indian civilisation, proclaiming that Hinduism was the oldest and spiritually most endowed wisdom of the ancient world and Indian civilisation with its culture and spirituality stood Occult and the Orient 17 as chronologically senior to any European civilisation and heritage. She also claimed that the Great White Brotherhood—the community to which her Mahatmas belong—lay in Tibet, and in order to communicate with them it was necessary to turn towards India. Following Max Mueller, the famous Indologist of the 19th century, Blavatsky claimed Indian civilisation as necessarily an ‘Aryan’ civilisation and hence for her, the Hindus were a distant cousin of the western men. Now, this idea of an Aryanised, golden ancient past of Hindu India was an outcome of the research done by Max Mueller. Max Mueller, a Germanborn linguist who later became the Professor of Comparative Philology at Oxford University, reached his conclusion by studying the linguistic structure of Sanskrit, grouping this age-old language with the Indo-European branch of languages. In his view, India had been the cradle of civilisation, which stood at par with European civilisation. However, his notion of the greatness of Indian civilisation was shared by a section of British officials who viewed India from a romanticised and idealised point of view. This trend started from William Jones, who with the establishment of the Asiatic Society of Bengal set the tune for romantic Orientalism. Several colonial officials including Warren Hastings, Colonel Mackenzie or Thomas Metcalf preferred to view Indian society and culture from a romantic lens and encouraged ‘Hindu’ learning. Blavatsky took lead from the works of William Jones and Max Mueller. She often quoted Max Mueller while claiming India as a land of the Aryans and Hinduism as the oldest and richest wisdom across the world. From here, the Theosophical Society developed a fascination for the Aryan ideal. Blavatsky’s doctrine claimed that Aryans are the fifth and highest root race of the present universe, and hence built up a racial hierarchy placing the 18 Presidency Historical Review Aryans in a dominant position. Her initial interest in India and Hindu spirituality dated back to the 1850s when she visited India and made a failed attempt to reach Tibet via Nepal.5 Her ventures all over the world, and particularly in India, made her understand that India can provide a broad space for cultivating and spreading her theosophical ideas. Probably this big socio-spiritual space in the subcontinent as well as the spiritually conscious masses of India provoked the thought in Blavatsky’s mind to launch her movement on a grand scale in the subcontinent itself. At the same time the shrewd lady might also have realised that the Indians would gladly welcome a foreign organisation eager to promote and discuss their religion and culture. As theosophy attempted to legitimise the Hindu past, taking ancient Hindu heritage to the world stage, it suited the Indian purpose both spiritually as well as politically. It provoked the western educated middle class of India to use their Hindu identity as a political tool. However, these are questions that can always be raised although their answers are not easy to obtain. As a matter of fact, Blavatsky found Hindu spirituality a very distinctive belief system suitable for her mystical and spiritualist purpose and guided her theosophical movement on the lines of Hindu spirituality. The uniqueness of the theosophical movement in India rests on the fact that theosophy initiated its own brand of modernity, thus creating a nexus between religion and politics in a much more pronounced way than the other neo-Hindu organisations did. Professor Gauri Vishwanathan tells us how the theosophists cite race theory to get Hindu converts.6 As shown earlier, the ‘Aryan myth’ found great popularity in 19th century Europe and German Idealism started viewing Indian upper castes as Aryans: though much degenerated Occult and the Orient 19 than their European counterparts due to long intermarriages with Indian aborigines. Blavatsky and her followers saw Aryans as the fifth root race on earth and the highest in contemporary times. Vishwanathan writes on certain related themes—syncretism and conversion, nationalist ideologies, and the construction of alternative religious traditions—to reveal how emerging spiritual trends proclaimed a much popularised idea of ‘universal brotherhood of man’ in theories of racial hierarchy in 19th century culture. As one of the most influential of these movements, theosophy appeared in response to decolonisation and home-rule appeals. Theosophy was contextualised as an activity grounded in the domestic and international alignments of the 19th and the early 20th centuries, and created a greater appeal than the other eccentric, mystic fringe movements of contemporary periods.7 The idea of common brotherhood provided an ideology for mass mobilisation for nationalist cause and was vastly used by a variety of thinkers: from Dayanand Saraswati and Vivekananda to Tagore and Gandhi, and from Tilak and Malaviya to Savarkar and Golwalkar. Though not all of them showcased an internationalist ideology, and many of these thinkers expressed in fact a certain kind of ‘xenophobic’ narrow nation-centric Hindu ideology, all of them significantly contributed to the growth of modern Hindu thought, thus bringing religion into the fold of intellectual and cultural spaces of India. For this reason, it was obvious for the Theosophical Society to encounter the other socio-religious forces of contemporary India. The first movement that the Society came in contact with was the Arya Samaj of Dayanand Saraswati. The Arya Samaj, an organisation based on the ideals of Vedic revivalism and Aryan supremacy, was also established formally in 1875 like the Theosophical Society and had a 20 Presidency Historical Review motive to retrieve and rejuvenate the ancient Hindu past that had remained, dominated and degenerated for ages. The ground for the Arya Samaj’s birth was already prepared by the Prarthana Samaj: an organisation actively working for socio-religious reforms in the Bombay Presidency. Both the Theosophical Society and the Arya Samaj needed each other’s support to strengthen their nascent organisation and hence they closely allied with each other. Blavatsky, while writing for a New York-based journal, called the Arya Samajists 'learned mystics', comparing them with the Gnostics. She further opined that Arya Samaj was a society “instituted to save the Hindus from exoteric idolatries, Brahmanism and Christian missionaries”. 8 The Christian missionaries were the common enemy for both these organisations as well as for other neo-Hindu organisations that were aiming for a refinement and modernisation of Hindu spirituality. These organisations viewed Christian proselytisation as a dangerous threat to Hindu society and to India as a whole and hence, winning converts from both Islam and Christianity folds became a common part of their programme. It was quite logical for the Christian missionaries as well to launch counter-propaganda against the theosophists and other organisations. The anti-theosophist stance of the Christian groups in India was reflected in the work of J.N. Farquhar, who was the Literary Secretary of the YMCA in the late 19th century9. Interestingly, the attack from Christian opponents was not threatening enough to fetch a longstanding bonding between the neo-Hindu religious groups. The Theosophical Society and the Arya Samaj had to address the similar spiritual space as both Blavatsky and Dayanand claimed themselves as spokespersons of the Hindu past and wished to act as agencies of Hindu revivalism. Hence, an Occult and the Orient 21 impending conflict was unavoidable between the two organisations although none could foresee the unavoidable face-off at the initial stages. Their correspondence began cordially through the active middleman-ship of Moolji Thackersay, a Gujarati wealthy mill-owner whom Colonel Olcott met during a sea voyage in 187010. Moolji introduced Olcott to Harrychand Chintamon, who in turn, helped the theosophists to get in touch with Dayanand. However, Harrychand soon turned an adversary to the theosophist founders when they landed in Bombay in 1879, although the connection with Dayanand and his Arya Samaj continued until 1882, when a dispute led to the split between the two organisations.11 The Arya Samaj wanted to fund its revivalist project with the American money and Dayanand thought that he would manage to secure funds from Blavatsky; while the Theosophists wished to use the Arya Samaj as the launching pad for their movement in India and thus they started from Bombay, one of the strongholds of the Arya Samaj. So it would not be illogical to assume that the shifting of the theosophical headquarters from Bombay to Madras in 1882 was a consequence of the split, as theosophists realised that it would neither be wise nor safe to continue their work at a place that was a base camp of a newly born ally-turned-enemy, and hence they required a new base of operation. Olcott speaks of the first sparks of the dispute in March 1882 when they went to visit the Adyar property for the purpose of buying in May, after repeated request from a young theosophist from Madras.12 Even the Madras Theosophical Society was a newly formed branch and was comparatively less stable than the centres at Bombay or Calcutta, both of which originated before. The only plausible reasons, as cited by Olcott, are the amicable 22 Presidency Historical Review climate of Madras and its proximity to Ceylon, which was a centre for Buddhist revivalism: a project that much interested Olcott. However, both these logics sound lame as there were many other places in India where the weather would have been suitable for people unaccustomed to Indian tropical climate; and as far as the proximity with Ceylon is concerned, the distance could have even been avoided by shifting the headquarters to Ceylon itself! Actually, what the theosophists were willing at this point was to establish a new base of operation from where they could create a significant dent in the socio-religious space of India. It must be kept in mind that many overlapping religious movements were at play in this period and almost all of these operated in interconnected religious spaces. Although the Theosophical Society had some friends among the English social circle of India, including the Sinnets, the Humes or the Gordons, it was a limited patronage13 and they were desperate to enlist the support of the native intelligentsia: both among the bourgeoisie as well as among the aristocracy. Northern India, including Bombay, Punjab and the United Provinces, were already under the firm grip of the Arya Samaj, while the Brahmo Samaj was still a powerful social force in Bengal. Bengal would become a tougher battlefield for the theosophists with the advent of the Neo-Vedantic movement of Swami Vivekananda in the 1890s. Keeping all these issues in mind, Blavatsky and Olcott chose Madras as it was a less threatening area and they rightly assumed that it would be easier to establish lodges in this part of the country, thus enlisting a greater mass support than any other area. Nevertheless, the Theosophical Society was never successful in penetrating into the rural or semi-urban areas of India. In fact, it remained more of an urban, elite, upper Occult and the Orient 23 class movement. In this regard, it was definitely lagging behind the Arya Samaj or the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda movements as both of these movements were successful in gaining support from rural or semi-rural populace and thus maintained a sophisticated as well as a rustic flavour at the same time. Apart from these ‘indigenous’ socio-religious movements, there was another organisation whose quiet presence in the Indian socio-spiritual scene led to the rise of another competitor for the Theosophical Society. It was the Freemasonry movement which, in spite of not getting as much attention as its America-born kin, continued its work in the Indian religious space. In the nineteenth century, few institutions within the British Empire could rival the importance and prestige of freemasonry and many prominent members of the royal family, as well as bureaucrats and military leaders were part of Masonic lodges. In that sense, it received great favour from the British state, much unlike the Theosophical Society. As Jessica L. Harland-Jacobs observes, it was perhaps the very first secular nongovernmental organisation to offer its membership a worldwide presence. 14 The Freemasonry Society allowed people from all faiths in its organisation and English scholar Andrew Prescott tells us that even Charles Bradlaugh, the celebrated Atheist and a close associate of Besant in her pre-theosophist career, was a member of the English Freemasonry Society. 15 These connections are often intriguing as they speak of overlapping worlds of spiritualism and materialism, once again expressing the fact that spirituality and materiality are not two binaries, but are complementary to each other. In an interesting article, Vahid Fozdar reveals that western-educated Indians were attracted to freemasonry because of its emphasis on equality while 24 Presidency Historical Review the movement in turn fostered imperial pride and loyalty. However, as Indian freemasons discovered, equality did not equate to the assumption of Indians in positions of high office in the Raj. Unsurprisingly, when faced with such limitations of occupation, freemasonry extended well beyond imperial boundaries, allowing its brothers to view themselves as citizens of the world16. However, the reception of the Theosophical Society among the Indian elites needs some serious attention. Since the Theosophical Society originated outside India, they had an urge to become a force from within by familiarising themselves with the local gentry. This is the reason why theosophist leaders like Blavatsky, Olcott or Annie Besant toured and lectured all over India, making an attempt to turn their movement into a pan-Indian force. Olcott vividly describes these lecture tours and claims that they were well received by the indigenous elites.17 They preached of the necessity of becoming conscious about the ancient Hindu past, which was the ‘golden age’ of India, and aroused the ‘Indian-ness’ in the native heart. As Colonel Olcott claimed, his mission was to arouse the India that was ‘dead’; that had become an ‘inert mass’. 18 The nationalist press was supportive of the Society’s Hindu revivalist project. Newspapers like Indian Spectator, Deccan Chronicle, Indian Mirror and Amrita Bazaar Patrika took up their cause. Among these, the editor of Amrita Bazaar Patrika, Sisir Kumar Ghosh, deserves special mention. This newspaper had a strong patriotic fervor and had to face the wrath of the colonial government. Sisir Ghosh was a spiritually driven individual. He was a staunch Vaishnavite and had published a collection of essays on Vaishnavism titled Lord Gauranga or Salvation for All in 1897. This book became an influential text for the Harekrishna Movement that emerged in colonial Occult and the Orient 25 Bengal. 19 However, these lecture tours of the theosophists became less spiritual and more political in purpose with the arrival of Annie Besant. Prominent author Mulk Raj Anand had once spoken about one such lecture of Annie Besant at Khalsa College, Amritsar, which turned violent and led to student protestation and mass arrests.20 However, in the initial stages, when the theosophists were carving out a space of their own, their motives were apparently non-political although the Society was not above suspicion for the British authorities. Not only government documents, but Olcott’s account also states that the British police appointed spies to track the activities of Blavatsky and Olcott.21 Nevertheless, the theosophists were successful in attracting a sufficiently large following. They made inroads into Indian social circles, targeting the spiritual space. Parsis, Jains, Buddhists and Hindus were their main targets. Although the founders of the Theosophical Society came in contact with many Muslim individuals, the motive behind those contacts was to convert them to Hinduism. It is noteworthy that the Theosophical Society did not get in touch with any particular Muslim reformist organisation as they did in the case of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or Parsis. Although a couple of theosophical texts were written on Islam, even in these texts Islam was not as favoured as Hinduism22. We may assume that the contact with Muslim individuals was aimed at a project of ‘Re-Aryanisation’, if we can call it so. The prime motive of conversion had always been to put the individuals back to the Hindu fold. However, to return back to the issue, the following of the Theosophical Society came mainly from educated and professional bourgeoisie, mainly lawyers and judges like Nehru, M.M. Chatterjee or Muttuswami Chetty, Orientalist scholars like Ram Das Sen, journalists like 26 Presidency Historical Review Narendra Nath Sen of Indian Mirror or Sisir Kumar Ghosh of Amrita Bazaar Patrika, teachers like Dinanath Sen as well as many government employees like Parbati Charan Roy. Interestingly, many Brahmos from Bengal were also attracted to the theosophical movement and many prominent Brahmo Samajists became important personalities of Bengal Theosophical Society when it was founded in April 1882. Among these Brahmo Samajists the names of Dwijendranath Tagore— eldest son of Debendranath Tagore—and his sister Swarnakumari Devi Ghoshal, Peary Chand Mitra, Nabin Kumar Banerjee and Maharaja Jatindramohan Tagore are noteworthy. While Jatindramohan Tagore was the biggest patron of the early theosophists in Bengal, Swarnakumari Devi (whose husband J.N. Ghosal was also a notable theosophist) became the President of the Ladies’ Theosophical Society when it was founded in 1883. A plan for establishing an all-women sub-group was already floating since a couple of years. In a letter from Mahatma Morya to A.P. Sinnet, a discussion was made about forming a ‘female branch’ (February, 1882)23. Endeavour was taken in order to provide women with a distinct space in the theosophist movement, reiterating the fact that there has always been a feminine aspect in Indian spirituality. 24 This particular endeavour of forming a Ladies’ Theosophical Society culminated in the foundation of the prominent contemporary journal Bharati, which went on to become an influential periodical in Bengali literature. However, a considerable section of the Tagore family was always enthusiastic supporters of the Bengal Theosophical Society. Although Rabindranath himself never became a member of the Theosophical Society, he held frequent correspondences with Annie Besant and both shared opinions regarding intellectual, spiritual and national issues.25 It is worth noting Occult and the Orient 27 that the Tagores were interested in séances, occultism and tantric practices, although at a very sophisticated level, and held frequent dignified discussions on spiritual and esoteric issues with their friends and associates.26 Blavatsky even ushered praise on Rammohan Roy and his movement back in 1878, eulogising Rammohan as 'combined Fenelon and Thomas Paine of Hindustan'.27 This tendency of the Brahmos of supporting the Theosophists might have had an underlying motive. Both of these groups were against ritual practices of Hinduism and faced serious challenges from orthodox Hindu hardliners. It was truer of the monotheist Brahmos since becoming a Brahmo in colonial Bengal led to a certain kind of social ostracisation. 28 So it was obvious for the unorthodox Brahmos to align with a group that showed sympathy—at least in their official doctrine—to undogmatic religious practices. The situation became more challenging for the Brahmos as well as for the Theosophists with the advent of Swami Vivekananda’s Neo-Vedantism. Swami Vivekananda promoted a rigorous missionary Hinduism much more openly and systematically than any other organisation. This is the reason why there is a common perception in academia that the Theosophical Society could not gain a strong foothold in Bengal as Vivekananda was averse to their interpretation of Hinduism and even termed it a ‘false interpretation of Hinduism’. Anagarika Dharmapala and his mentor, the Theosophist founders, both faced the wrath of Vivekananda, who severely criticised the movements of the Theosophical Society and the Mahabodhi Society.29 Even Olcott mentioned his serious disagreement with Vivekananda over central tenets of Hinduism but admitted his respect for Vivekananda for his brilliant oratorical skills, eloquence and deep knowledge of Upanishadic philosophy. 30 However, the 28 Presidency Historical Review Ramakrishna-Vivekananda movement, in spite of its strong presence in Bengal, could not deter the Theosophical society from building up its movement. Not only did the Society establish a prominent centre at the heart of Calcutta, but the same building of the Theosophical Society also played host to the Mahabodhi Society. Both the organisations still stand at the same location and are actively promoting their spiritual activities. At the same time the Theosophical Society came up with important centers in Bengal and Bihar. Theosophical lodges came up at the towns of Dacca, Berhampur, Krishnanagar, Jessore, Narails, Darjeeling, Chinsura, Ranigunj, Bhagalpur, Bankipur and several other smaller towns. Though these centers could only enlist a handful of members, they became a part of the strong theosophical network that was gradually growing stronger across the world. Many of the individuals associated with the theosophical movement made important contributions to national political life. Many others even made it a ‘fashion’ to study theosophy and to preserve theosophical texts in their personal collections. Tapan Roychowdhury, in his autobiography Bangalnamah writes that his grandfather, a zamindar in East Bengal, had a number of theosophical books in his personal library. 31 This was true for many other wealthy, educated men of Bengal and other parts of India. In the context of the Bengal Theosophical Society, it would be apt to spare a few sentences on Mohini Mohun Chatterjee, one of the highly controversial figures of the Society in the 19 th century. Chatterjee, a lawyer by profession, joined the Society in 1882 and even served as a direct ‘chela’ to Master Koot Hoomi: a distinction which indicates a higher position in the theosophical hierarchy. He was a descendant of Rammohan Roy’s family and Occult and the Orient 29 married into the Tagore family. Thus he was closely related to two of the most progressive families of renaissance Bengal and hence, a very prized possession for the Society. When Olcott opened the first Sunday School in Calcutta in March 1883, Chatterjee was put in charge of it. He accompanied Blavatsky and Olcott on their Europe trip as Olcott’s Private Secretary. In 1885, he went to Ireland and helped W.B. Yeats, George Russell (AE) and Charles Johnston in establishing the Dublin Lodge of the Society. It is also claimed that he influenced Yeats and Russell in their oriental turn of writings and Yeats even wrote a poem titled ‘Mohini Chatterjee’.32 It is noteworthy that though Yeats, AE and Johnston lost touch with Chatterjee later on, they continued to be important members of the Theosophical Society of Ireland and initiated the Irish Literary Movement: a cultural movement that became an important precursor to Irish Nationalism. Annie Besant, it must be noted, was also closely connected with Irish Nationalism and her active engagement in the Indian political scene renewed the connection between Irish and Indian nationalist movements in the early 20 th century. However, though Chatterjee later left the Theosophical Society in 1887 following a scandal, one of his associates in Ireland, Charles Johnston, joined the Bengal Civil Service and became an enthusiastic patron of the Bengal Theosophical Society. It was James Henry Cousin, a prominent Irish litterateur and theosophist, who served as an important connection between Rabindranath Tagore and W.B. Yeats. In the early 1920s, when Mulk Raj Anand— who was inspired by the theosophical doctrines in his early college days—went to England to pursue his doctoral studies, he was deeply inspired by the Irish Literary Movement and carried the marks of Bloomsbury Activism or Irish Literary influences in his earlier works33. In this entire discussion 30 Presidency Historical Review made above, I spoke about multiple intellectual and spiritual activities, beginning my discussion from Mohini Chatterjee. By doing this, I wished to show how theosophy engaged itself in multiple spiritual and cultural dynamics of India and Europe, thus making itself a versatile transnational movement. This entire discussion addresses multiple interconnected intellectual and socio-cultural spaces where Bengal was a prominent site in the whole network. Theosophy’s connection with the Bhadralok community of Bengal is worth noticing and hence forms an important aspect of the social history of Bengal. However, the Bhadralok community of Bengal was always awestruck by the occult and esoteric aspects of Hinduism. Colonel Olcott writes how his mesmeric healings gained popularity during his first trip to Bengal, and in a way, he had turned into a part-time doctor.34 The spiritual healings indeed played a major role in making theosophy popular and prominent in Bengal. The report of these mesmeric healings was even published in the daily Indian Mirror on 18th April, 1883. However, Bengalis’ fascination with Tantric practices continued throughout the colonial period and this factor has been critically examined in Kathleen Taylor’s monograph on Sir John Woodroffe. 35 Taylor speaks about the split personality of John Woodroffe, a judge in the Calcutta High Court in 20th century colonial Bengal, who wrote about tantric practices under the pseudonym of Arthur Avalon. He was responsible for introducing Kundalini Yoga to the western audience, a topic on which Besant’s close associate, George Arundale would write a few years later. Although a staunch advocate of Hindu culture and Indian national awakening, Sir John was not an Indologist per se. In fact, he was more of an amateurish practitioner of tantric studies. Despite his official Occult and the Orient 31 position in the service of Great Britain, he spoke openly several times at conferences and in articles, to highlight the values of Indian culture and to defend them against westernisation that seemed harmful.36 He was even briefly part of the Congress at the time (1917), when Annie Besant presided over it. He wrote small booklets under his own name: in 1918, Is India civilized?, and in 1919, Bharata Shakti, which were pro-Indian and a great public success. In 1918, Woodroffe published a translation of the sat-cakranirupana under the title The Serpent Power. The Serpent Power itself is one of the major works that introduced the notion of Kundalini Yoga to the West, and, together with Charles Webster Leadbeater’s 1927 book The Chakras, largely responsible for the popularisation of the seven-chakra schema into New Age and occult discourse. Woodroffe’s world of ‘Oriental mumbojumbo’ was full of Bengali intelligentsia. His chief associate was Atul Behari Ghosh, a high court lawyer who actually provided the intellectual inputs to the tantric works Woodroffe produced under the name of Arthur Avalon. Taylor opines that Arthur Avalon represented a combined personality of Woodroffe and Ghosh and this association continued as long as Woodroffe worked in India. She presents evidence that the mastery of the Sanskrit literature of Tantra, which is evident in the Arthur Avalon books, is actually due to the expertise of Ghosh, not of Woodroffe; that although Woodroffe studied Sanskrit, he could not actually read the language fluently. Besides, Woodroffe’s publications do give the names of a number of the people who worked with him: for instance, Siva Chandra Vidyarnava, writer of the Tantratattva; Jñanendralal Majumdar who prepared the first draft of its English version, Principles of Tantra; Vimalananda Swami, who explains and introduces the Karpuradi Stotra, a major tantric hymn 32 Presidency Historical Review to Kali. We are also told about his initiation by two tantric gurus: Siva Chandra Vidyarnava, and a woman aptly named Jayakali Devi. Sivacandra Vidyarnava was a Sakta tantrika who founded the Sarvamangala Sabha – an organisation aimed at uniting Bengali Saktas, and building bridges between Saktas and both the Bengali Vaishnava and Baul communities. This gentleman was also the mentor of A.B. Ghosh. Taylor actually develops a picture of Woodroffe as an upper class amateur whose was familiar with earlier (often hostile) writings in English about Tantra; and who was able to play the role of a scholar due to the under-acknowledged work of Ghosh and other Indian associates. One reviewer of Taylor’s work quite interestingly writes that the irony of Woodroffe’s situation is that his condition is exactly the opposite of a charge leveled against Blavatsky, who had been charged with dressing up his or her own concepts as the doctrine of a mysterious teacher or secret community. Sir John Woodroffe, by contrast, stands accused of letting a secret (or semi-secret) community do nearly all the work.37 This comparison stands interesting as it puts these two western pupils of Hindu esotericism on two opposite poles of social representation. The biography of Sir John is actually a study of social and intellectual relations of colonial Bengal in the context of Hindu esotericism. Taylor tells us that the Judge was friendly with Annie Besant, Ananda Coomaraswami and the Tagores: particularly Abanindranath and Gaganendranath, and E.B. Havell. Together they formed the Indian Society for Oriental Arts (1907). Taylor notes that Woodroffe’s wife Ellen was a member of the Theosophical Society, and both the Woodroffes were friendly with Annie Besant: she points out that Woodroffe’s books are almost entirely free of references to Theosophical or Western esoteric ideas—and that several pages of The Serpent Occult and the Orient 33 Power are devoted to correcting theosophical interpretations and appropriations of the chakras.38 It was this tantric and esoteric space that the theosophists were trying to address from the very beginning, and to do this by creating mass appeal, they often went to great lengths. For example, Olcott on one occasion accepted the sacred thread, Gayatri mantra and the gotra from a Kulin Brahmin, thus initiating himself to Brahmanism. He writes about this incident with great pleasure and proudly showcases himself as a Brahmin. 39 However, Olcott had already formally converted to Buddhism before this incident and now he initiates himself a second time to an Indian religion. Would it be wrong to view this action as a ‘marketing strategy’ on the part of the theosophists? Or was it just another example of romantic Orientalism? It is often not easy to establish any perfect answer to these troubled, grey areas. However, this tendency of romanticising the Orient might be understood as an attempt to perceive the ‘other’ as a part of selfunderstanding. The spiritual culture that the theosophists were propagating at the regional space of South Asia was not limited to subcontinental geographical space but was an international project that had a bigger design behind it to spread occult culture or ‘occulture’ at a global level. So, in a way, the efforts that were carried out in Bengal and elsewhere were an attempt to globalise the local space and to develop a transnational touch in the indigenous mystic culture. Nevertheless, we can conclude that the Theosophical Society was a melting pot. It gathered multiple trends from across the world, ranging from western New Age Religions to Oriental ancient wisdoms, from spiritual culture to material culture; and at the same time it gave rise to multiple parallel socio-cultural, religious and political streams which, rising 34 Presidency Historical Review from theosophical embryo, found way on their own. This versatility of the Theosophical Society is the most interesting part of its history. In this essay we have spoken numerous times about the interconnected religious spaces and overlapping spiritual and material cultural circles. These spaces are important for our understanding of the sociocultural scenario of colonial India. It cannot be claimed that the Theosophical Society was at the centre of this arrangement but, indeed, it was a very important and unavoidable part of this system. The Theosophical Society emerged as a transcultural agency that connected the Orient with the Occident, highlighting the occultist and esoteric lore of Hindu religious tradition. The mysticism, though not part of the mainstream, was a very important part of Hindu cultural core. The secret trends of South Asian religiosity became part of elite socio-spiritual practices. This is where the Theosophical Society stood apart in South Asian spiritual culture. Notes 1 Bruce F. Campbell, Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical Movement (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980): 6 2 Alex Owen, The Place of Enchantment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004); Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern (Harvard University Press, 1993) 3 Campbell, op. cit.: 8 4 Issac Lubelsky, Celestial India: Madame Blavatsky and the Birth of Indian Nationalism (Equinox Publication, 2012) 5 Alvin Boyd Kuhn, A Modern Revival of Ancient Wisdom (New York, 1930): Chapter 3 Occult and the Orient 35 6 Gauri Vishwanathan, Outside the Fold: Conversion, Modernity, and Belief (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998): 147 7 Ibid: 186. 8 H.P. Blavatsky, Arya Samaj: Alliance of Theosophy with a Vedic Society in Far Orient (New York: Echo, 1878) 9 J.N. Farquhar, Modern Religious Movements in India (New York: The McMillan Company, 1915) 10 Olcott, Old Diary Leaves, Second Series: Chapter I 11 Ibid 12 Ibid: 361. 13 It can be assumed that the English society of the 19th century could not accept the leadership of the Theosophical Society, judging by their Victorian standard of morality. The lifestyle and the habits of Madam Blavatsky lacked Victorian feminity (at least one scholar claims so: Joy Dixon, Gender, Politics and Culture in the New Age (1993), stating that Hodgson’s unfavourable report was actually an angry critique of Madame Blavatsky.) and both she and Olcott were suspected as Russian agents. So it was unlikely for most of the Englishmen to mingle with an assumed enemy. Even Olcott claimed that they consciously stayed away from the European population in India. Those who still joined the Theosophical Society in India, did so either due to sheer interest in theosophy, like Sinnet or Hume, or due to some kind of vested interest, like the Coulumbs. However, this tendency changed when Annie Besant assumed the leadership. She appeared more acceptable due to the Victorian nature and her repute as a materialist in London. 14 Jessica Harland-Jacobs, Builders of Empire: Freemasonry and British Imperialism, 1717-1927 (Chapel Hill: University 36 Presidency Historical Review of North Carolina Press, 2007): 44, 101 15 Andrew Prescott, “The Cause of Humanity: Charles Bradlaugh and Freemasonry”, Ars Quatuor Coronatorum (20th February 2003). 16 Vahid Fozdar in Durba Ghosh and Dane Kennedy ed. Decentering Empire: Britain, India and the Transcolonial World (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2006) 17 Olcott, Old Diary Leaves, Second, Third and Fourth Series. 18 Idem, Old Diary Leaves, Second Series: 40 19 Haripada Adhikary, Unifying Force of Hinduism: The Harekrsna Movement (Author House, 2012): 131 20 Mulk Raj Anand, Transcript, Oral History Archives, NMML, Teen Murti Bhawan, New Delhi. 21 Olcott. op.cit.: Chapter V 22 See, for instance, Annie Besant, The Religious Problem in India (Theosophical Publishing House, 1909) ; Baijnath Singh trans. Letters from a Sufi Teacher (Theosophical Publishing House, 1909). 23 A. Trevor Barker ed. The Mahatma Letters: Letter no. 38, February 1882 24 For a discussion on the feminine space, see Thomas Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj: Chapter 3 25 Rabindranath Tagore, Krishna Dutta and Andrew Robinson ed. Selected Letters of Rabindranath Tagore (New Delhi: Cambridge University Press) Letter No. 133: 211 26 See Kathleen Taylor, Sir John Woodroffe, Tantra and Bengal: An Indian Soul in a European Body?(Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 2001); Abinash Chandra Bose, Three Mystic Poets: A Study of W.B Yeats, A.E., and Rabindranath Tagore (Kohlapur: 1945); Edward J. Thompson, Occult and the Orient 37 Rabindranath Tagore: Poet and Dramatist (2nd Ed., London: 1948) 27 Blavatsky, “The Arya Samaj”, Echo (New York: 1878) 28 This issue was reflected in contemporary literature as well. See, for instance, Rabindranath Tagore, Gora 29 See Torkel Brekke Makers of Modern Indian Religion for more on this. 30 Olcott, Old Diary Leaves, Fourth Series. 31 Tapan Roychowdhury, Bangalnamah (Kolkata: Ananda Publishers, 2009) (2nd edition): 73 32 Open University Website: http://www.open.ac.uk/ researchprojects/makingbritain/content/mohini-chatterjee [accessed July 20th, 2015] 33 Mulk Raj Anand, Interview, Oral History Archives, NMML, Teen Murti Bhawan, New Delhi 34 Olcott, Old Diary Leaves, Second Series: Chapter XXVII 35 Kathleen Taylor, Sir John Woodroffe, Tantra and Bengal: An Indian Soul in a European Body (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 2001) 36 Ibid. 37 Colin Robinson, Review Article, http://weareferment.net/ sirjw.html [accessed July 20th, 2015] 38 Taylor, op. cit.: 249 39 Olcott, Old Diary Leaves, Second Series: 411