Chatterjee 1

Abhinaba Chatterjee

M. Phil (Delhi University)

Bankim and the rise of Nationalist Historiography through transformation of Babu

How do we associate Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya with the rise of nationalist

sensibility in Bengal? What were the causes that were identified by Bankim for the downfall

of Indian (Bengali) nationalism? How far was the contemporary social situation respnsible

for the downgraded state of Bengal? This paper seeks to analyse these questions. In the

course of the discussion, it will also discuss to what extent was Bankim responsible for the

advent of Bengali modernity. I propose to read Bankim as an author who introduced

democratic discursive practices but who did not have conceptual tools that would have

enabled him to articulate the key moves that he was making as an innovator. I take this stand

in response to well-known extratextual facts – specifically, the way Bankim went about his

work.

The origins of the Indian nationalist movement, as opposed to sporadic anticolonial

peasant insurgencies, lie in the colonial state. To a large extent, Indian nationalism in its early

phases was the ideology of the indigenous bureaucracy of the Raj. The colonial state

apparatus was the principal avenue for upward mobility and became the principal employer

of a new, professional class of anglicized Indians fulfilling the role assigned to them by

Macauley who had, in 1835, envisaged a ‘class of interpreters between us and the millions

whom we govern - a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in

opinions, in morals and in intellect.’ In the latter part of the nineteenth century, it was this

class of interpreters who initiated and backed a nationalist movement which attempted to

capture the state apparatus. The Anglicized elite class both competed and collaborated with

the British in their search for power and privilege (Seal 1968). Established in 1885 by a group
 Chatterjee 2

of middle-class, upper-caste lawyers, the Indian National Congress (INC) is largely credited

with leading the ‘freedom movement’. Initially, INC demands reflected the narrow interests

of its membership and failed to mobilize the silent vernacular agrarian majority.

 A whole new way of living evolved around new Babus and gave rise to what is

known as the "Babu Culture” of Calcutta during the reign of the British Raj. The educated

Bengali ‘Babu’ or ‘Bhadralok’ that we are referring to is a class that rose in the first half of

the 19th century. The Hindu School, established in 1817 and upgraded to a college in 1825

and brought under direct Government control led to a massive expansion of English

education among Bengalis. Besides Hindu school, instructions like David Hare Academy,

Oriental Seminary School, Metropolitan Academy, Dharmatala Academy established by Mr.

Drummond much before Hindu School, contributed to this phenomenon. In 1828 Derozeo led

to the formation Academic Association. Throughout the 19th century, the middle class

intelligentsia evolved through a process of seminars –conferences–debates–associations to

open up a new dimension of practice of knowledge. Among subject of popular discourse &

practice were – European philosophy, rationalism, elocution, recitation, debate and acting.

It is very possible that even though we find no specific mention of rakes in the works

about the babus, it was indeed the rakes who were the babus’ models for emulation. There are

so many parallels between the lives of the rakes and the lives of the babus that an exploration

of them affords an interesting, unique, and fruitful study. A criticism made by Gauri

Vishwanathan further points in this direction: “English education came to be criticized for its

imitativeness and superficiality and for having produced an uprooted elite who were …

imperfect imitators of the West” (G. Vishwanathan 159). The babus were indeed an

“uprooted elite” who clung to the rakish lifestyle of their models making the rest of Hindu

society afraid of the dangers into which they were bringing themselves and their society by

refusing to follow Hindu traditions and blindly emulating the British (G. Vishwanathan 159).
 Chatterjee 3

Even though it is undoubtedly true that Western education enlightened many minds, ushered

in new ideas, and in some measures was responsible for rooting out problematic practices, it

came to be largely blamed for producing this class of young men whom the vast majority of

Bengalis found threatening to their culture, to their traditions, and to their religious

principles.In “Babu,” Bankimchandra Chatterji writes of the babus: “The English will be

their supreme Gods,” and indeed the babus worshipped, supported, and “blindly imitated the

English” (S. Raychaudhuri 68).

Bankimchandra acknowledged the influence of English utilitarianism and French

positivism on his political thought but asserted all the same his independence of them by

critiquing them where they, in his opinion, deserved such criticism. As a philosophy,

utilitarianism sought to judge all actions and policies, particularly governmental, in the light

of the ability or utility of such policies and actions to promote the good of the greatest

number of people. Such a philosophy, Bankimchandra reasoned, was flawed on two counts.

First, it was not, ethically speaking, a foolproof philosophy. The Indian ideal, as laid down in

its ancient scriptures, of doing good to all, which found expression in the following

pronouncement of the rishis - ‘Sarvebhavantusukhinaesarvesantuniramayae;

Sarvebhadraiipauyantu ma kaucitduekhabhakbhavet. May all be happy; may all be free from

disease; may all realize that which is good; may none be subject to misery’ - was, to

Bankimchandra, an infinitely better ideal in terms of both religion and ethics than that which

utilitarianism gave to mankind.

Bankimchandra’s second objection was rooted in the ground reality prevailing in

India of his times. Whatever be the exhortation of English political philosophies such as

utilitarianism, the British government of India, had its own primary interests - such as

augmenting its own exchequer - and could not be expected to go to any great length in doing

good to a subject people. It was a better policy, therefore, for Indians to rely on their own
 Chatterjee 4

strength in terms of generating national awareness, preparing the people for struggle and the

self-sacrifice required for such struggle, and curtailing their dependence on the government

as an agency for promoting general welfare. It was from such a conceptualization of politics

that Bankimchandra criticized the politics of verbosity - of talks without constructive work -

that was in vogue in India during his time. He detested such politics and criticized it on the

following counts with a view to giving it a more constructive orientation: First, the prevalent

brand of politics was city-centric, mainly confined to a few cities like Calcutta. Second, it

was confined to the upper stratum of society - the city-bred leaders and their followers. Third,

its discourse was conducted in the English language, be it through the press or on the

platform. Fourth, its activities were, more often than not, one-shot affairs, ending either in

passing resolutions in annual sessions and begging the British government for some favour or

other or in writing articles in newspapers mildly chiding the British administration for some

omission or commission on their part. Such politics, far from doing any good to the people

actually alienated them. It widened the gulf between the city and the country, between the

educated and the uneducated and between the English-speaking leaders and the masses.

   Bankimchandra’s scorn for the politics of verbosity can be seen in the following

passage from his Kamalakanta: ‘Some think that by droning they will deliver the country -

gathering boys and old men together at meetings they drone at them. … Others again are not

given to this - they take up pen and paper, and drone, week after week, month after month,

and day after day.’

  What is the alternative to verbosity - ‘mere droning’, as Bankimchandra calls it? The

answer that Bankimchandra gives reveals his attitude to the prevailing brand of politics as

also his concept of nationalism, which he later articulated more fully. To quote

Bankimchandra: ‘Let me tell you the truth … you know neither how to gather honey nor how

to sting - you can only drone. There is no sign of work to go with it - only droning, day and
 Chatterjee 5

night, like a whining girl. Reduce your verbosity in speech and writing, and give your mind

to some work - then you will prosper.’

  By advising his countrymen to ‘gather honey or sting’, Bankimchandra meant to say

that without a grim resolve and the attendant struggle they could not really hope to get any

concrete benefit from the foreign government of India. The people of India had to fend for

themselves. The country had to be regenerated and towards that end the kind of effete politics

that was in fashion in those days had to be discarded in favour of a new sense of nationalism

and a new brand of politics in which the new mantra would be identity, unity and strength.

Bankimchandra held that Europe came up by virtue of its nationalist fervour and

asserted that India could also be raised if it could be sufficiently charged with nationalism.

The problem with India was that nationalism in its European sense, as the political expression

of the distinctiveness of a people living within a certain geographically defined territory and

united by race, religion, language, tradition, heritage, and culture, was something foreign to

her. Neither of the two essential constituent elements of nationalism - the identification of the

individual with the political community to which he or she belonged and the differentiation of

the concerned political community from other political communities - was historically

present in India.

  As for the first element, the Aryans of India were originally one single community

with members having an identity of interests with each other. As their number increased and

as, in course of time, they became dispersed all over the multifarious parts of India, they

became differentiated in respect of territories as also in respect of languages and sects which,

in turn, brought about differences in terms of tradition, heritage and culture. With differences

on so many counts being a pronounced fact of life in India, there was no sense of national

unity in the sense in which that term was understood in Europe.

  The Indians were deficient in the second constituent element of nationalism as well.

They not only did not have a sense of emotional oneness as members of one single entity,

they also failed to develop a sense of differentiation of interests from the communities that

were not Indian. The European communities that developed as nations were so actuated by

their sense of differentiation from other nations that they were always ready to promote, and

often did actually promote, their own interests at the expense of other nations. In contrast to

the Europeans, the Indians could not go for the throats of other nations and promote

themselves at the expense of others. They were not sufficiently hostile to other nations, even

to those who invaded their country, occupied it and ruled over it.

  Before the advent of British, we had a psychological and geographical image of one

India but then it was quite loose in its conception. It was loose because of the pluralistic

structure of Indian society. But, at the same time a multilingual, multiracial, multi-religious

and multicultural India had some kind of an integrative framework of a nation governed by

dharma.Whether India followed the polity of confederated republics or monarchial state, it

was dharma, the religious, ethical, social, political, juridical and customary law which

governed the life of the people.

Dharma was our ethical, social constitution. The king was only the guardian, executor

and servant of the dharma. It was with the British rule that the idea of a modern-state entered

Indian society but then it was also opposed by many nationalist Indians like Bankim Chandra

Chatterjee and others. Bankimbabu would always say that do not forget that the highest

dharma is the love of one’s country. Love of it is not European patriotism, which is an

abominable sin. Under the influence of this pernicious patriotism, the original people of

America have been wiped out from earth. Bankim constructed an idea of a nation based on

dharma and explained it in terms of manusattava and samanjasya , humanity and harmony

and turned it into universal humanism. In other words here in India nation reflects universal
 Chatterjee 7

humanism. Nation for India is just not a geographical territory.There were three reasons for

this. First, the governing in India had traditionally been the preserve and special province of

the caste of warriors (kshatriyas) and the other castes had kept aloof from it, with the result

that people as a whole never presented a united front to a foreign invading army. Second, the

people of India were not bothered about who ruled so long as those who ruled did it well.

Good governance, and not independence, was what mattered to them. Third, the religious

attitude of the Hindu people of India stood in the way of their cultivating a sense of hatred

and hostility to foreign people. They believed that God was the indwelling spirit of all beings

and that the distinction between a foreigner and a native was artificial. To cultivate hatred

towards one just because he hailed from a different land or belonged to a different race was to

insult the God within him. As a result of such a religious attitude, resulting in an inability to

differentiate themselves politically from others, the Indians failed to counter the foreign

invading nations. To quote Bankimchandra, ‘Muslim kings followed Hindu kings, and the

people did not object - for the Hindu, Hindu and Muslim were equal. An English king

followed the Muslims, and people did not object…. For the Hindu had no hatred for the

Englishman on the ground of his different race.’

During the second half of the 19th century, India witnessed two “rational”

developments that formed the ground of historical novels: the rise of nationalism and the

emergence of a new literary genre called “Upanyas” or novel. The novels showed a deep

interest in evoking the past and attach it to the formulation of a national awareness.

The façade of civilising mission which European imperialism used to camouflage its

oppressive brutality necessarily projects the colonial intrusion as beneficial for the colonised.

Foucault's concept of the omnipresence of power may, in this context, be of help to

understand the intricate strategies of subordination European colonialism practiced. In his

opinion, power functions through a net-like organization in which individuals not only
 Chatterjee 8

become affected by, but are rather actively instrumental in, its operation. "They are not only

its inert…target; they are also the elements of its articulation. In other words, individuals are

like vehicles of power, not its points of application". (qtd. Gandhi 1998: 14). In the colonial

context, individuals become "vehicle" or agents in the process of colonisation, not so much

perhaps when institutionalized coercion is exercised openly, as when colonialism takes on the

guise of the "disinterested purveyor of cultural enlightenment and reform".(Gandhi, 14) The

European discourse on the colonised invariably presents the latter as uncivilised, irrational,

primitive, their culture and customs, degenerate, barbaric and anti-modern and their history as

one of defeat and subjugation. Contrasted sharply to this definition of the colonised,

European civilisation emerges as the locus of modernity, rationality, liberty and prosperity.

Complicity on the part of the colonised becomes inevitable as the latter, convinced of his

racial-cultural inferiority allows his culture's alterity to be eroded by Western hegemony.

Such a strategic construction of the 'Orient' thus replicates the hierarchical relations between

the dominant political and economic power and the subordinated colony. Orientalism then

becomes, in Edward Said's words, a cultural means "for dominating, restructuring and having

authority over the Orient" (Said 1995: 88). Said elucidates the term 'Orientalism' as a

particular construction of the colonised world and its culture, which emerged most

conspicuously in the era of Occidental political ascendency beginning from the end of the

eighteenth century and helped to bolster the West's complacent confidence in its unequalled

civilisational superiority.

The nationalist historiography of Bengal drew its prime inspiration from

Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay who is regarded as the philosopher and the preceptor of

modern Indian nationalism. He felt aggrieved when he had found that our country’s history

was not properly written and India of the Indians was almost absent from the accounts
 Chatterjee 9

taught in the schools. Rajendralal Mitra’s researches had raised high hopes in his mind. But

he was disappointed when he had found that Rajendralal ultimately could not produce a full-

fledged history of Bengal. However, the silver lining was discovered by him behind the dark

cloud when Rajkrishna Mukhopadhyay’s Prathama Śikṣā BāṅgālārItihāsa had been

published. He found in it a true picture of Bengali society and culture for which it was

referred to by him as ‘a fistful of gold’. He also appreciated the literary qualities of

Isvarachandra Gupta. Because, in his literary works on the lives of Bengali rural poets, he had

proved his native quality. However, Bankinchandra Chattopadhyay deeply felt the necessity

of reconstructing the socio-economic-cultural history of Bengal. He gave a clarion call to

the nation, Bengalis in particular and said:

A history (proper) of Bengal is needed; other wise, Bengal has no hope. Who will

write? You will write, I will write and all will write. Let us all search for a (true)

history of Bengal together.

The attitude of Bankim was well demonstrated in several essays published in the

Baṅgadarśan from 1872 to 1882. In his essay ‘Bhāratkalaṃka’ Bankim raised the question

why India had lost her independence. The Europeans criticised the weakness of the Hindus.

But, at one time, the Hindus had conquered Kabul and the English had been defeated by the

Marathas and the Sikhs. So far as the ancient Indians were concerned, it was difficult to know

exactly about their military achievements due to the paucity of historical materials. The

history of wars in India as found in the Greek and Muslim accounts is biased and

exaggerated. In spite of that, the military skill of the Indians could be traced from their

accounts.

According to Bankim, the stigma brought on the Hindu character could be explained

by two facts. Firstly, they had no history. Secondly, as they did not make an aggression

against their countries or kingdoms, their military skill was not recognised. Thirdly, their
 Chatterjee 10

political subjugation -was the main cause of the slur on the forehead of the nation. Bankim

proved that the Indians could by dint of their military strength expand their political and

commercial empire in Southeast Asia. Hindu kingdoms were established in Champa and

Kamboja, Java and Bali. In his essay ‘Bhāratvarṣer Swādhīnatā O Parādhīnatā’ (Bhādra, 1280

BS) drew a comparison between ancient India and modern India to settle the question of

independence and subjugation and determine the question whether India had her happiness in

ancient or modern period. In modern India, “we are not being educated in the art of

administration (rājyarakṣā O rājyapālan) and therefore the nation is not flourishing.

Therefore, it is to be admitted that political dependence arrests the progress.” On the other

hand, under English rule European literature and science spread in India. From that point of

view, foreign rule might prove to be beneficial. However, in ancient India daṇḍanīti or

political science had made remarkable progress. Bankim referred to the dialogue between

Nārada and Yudhiṣṭhira in the Sabhāparvan of the Mahābhārata in which the main principles

of daṇḍanīti were enunciated. Incidentally, Bankim made a significant observation in which

he equated the status of Chandragupta Maurya as a conqueror and founder of empire with

that of Charlemagne, Frederick II and Peter I.

Bankimchandra may reasonably be considered as the propounder of a new agenda of

the Nationalist Historiography, not only for Bengal but, of the whole of India. While

Mrityunjay Vidyalankar represented the pre-colonial nationalist historiography,

Bankimchandra upheld the cause of nationalist historiography in the colonial period after

having adapted European methodology of historical writing. The adaptation of Western

methodology lay in the logic of history.

The recreation of past has been an important task for the historians to invigorate

nationalism in their writings. The writing of history stems from the necessity to question the

credibility of the already set history of India written by the British Colonial power and to
 Chatterjee 11

replace it with a substitute that includes writing an enormous body of history textbooks and

novels to create the cultural and political self of a nationhood. While the historian focuses on

the facts, the novelist takes resort to myths, legends in his recreation of history. Having

claimed Rajsingha to be his only historical novel, Bankim Chandra uses both fact and fiction

to recreate the lost glory of the Rajput dynasty. While he adheres to the larger social and

political history, his exploration of the relationships and enmity between the Rajputs and the

Moghuls gives it a special colouring. The distinct historical phenomena, such as the clash

between Rana Rajsingha and the Moghul Emperor Aurangjeb, the eventual fall of Aurangjeb,

have been effectively intermingled with their influence upon the personal lives of the

characters. The greater social and political history coincides with the personal that happen

indoor. According to the accounts of JadunathSarkar, Bankim Chandra relies exclusively on

James Tod’s Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan and the accounts of Manuchi and Bournie

for historical information as source texts for laying out the background for Rajsingha.

Though later historians discovered some major deviations in Bankim’s history, his portrayal

of the chief historical characters remains loyal to the historical facts.

Bankim’s genius lies in the ways he works out a beautiful synthesis of history and the

novel. The background against which the battles are fought between Rajsingha and

Aurangjeb is historically correct. Appended to it are some personal causes of the fictional

characters like Nirmal, Dariyabibi, Chanchal Kumari,Mobarak, which give to the history a

human angle in the novel. Such small bits of appendages help to bring back the characters of

the historical figures more vividly. Chanchal Kumari’s mashing of Aurangjeb’s picture and

Aurangjeb’s desire to marry Chanchal Kumari, Chanchal’s letter to Rajsingha with a plea to

save her from the Muslim Emperor and Rajsingha’s acceptance of this, are events purely

fictitious and that work upon the novelist’s impassioned imaginings of the personal

relationships between the individuals as connected to the broader history. We are aware of
 Chatterjee 12

the history that taints Aurangjeb’s figure for being a merciless ruler. In the novel, his

unemotional nature is very much akin to history as he imposes “Jijia” tax not only on his

subjects but also on the inhabitants of Rajsingha’s territory. And he flies into a rage as he

receives a daring letter from Rajsingha:

“ The Rana remonstrated by letter, in the name of the nation of which he was the

head, in a style of such uncompromising dignity, such lofty yet temperate resolve, so

much of soul-stirring rebuke mingled with a boundless and tolerating benevolence,

such elevating excess of the Divinity with such pure philanthropy, that it may

challenge competition with any epistolary production of any age, clime or condition”

But his rough, magnificent personality takes on an unusual tinge when he reveals his

heart to Nirmal Kumari and affectionately calls her “Imli Begum”:

আমি প্রাচীন হইয়াছি, কিন্তু কখনো ভালোবাসি নাই. এ জন্মে কেবল তোমাকেই ভালোবাসিযাছি. তাই,

তু মি যদি বল যে, তোমার স্বামী না থাকিলে তু মি আমার বেগম হইতে, তাহা হইলে এ স্নেহশূন্য হৃদয়-পোড়া

পাহাড়ের মত হৃদয় একটু স্নিগ্ধ হয়.

Or এ পৃথিবীতে আমি কেবল তোমায় ভালোবাসিয়াছি. তোমাকে পাইলাম না. তোমায় ভালোবাসিয়াছি, অতএব

তোমায় আটকাইবো না- ছাড়িয়া দিবো. তু মি যাহাতে সুখি হও তাহাই করিব. যাহাতে তোমার দুঃখ

হয়, তাহা করিব না, তু মি যাও. আমাকে স্মরণ রাখিও. যদি কখন ও আমা হইতে তোমার

কোনো উপকার হয়, আমাকে জানিও. আমি তাহা কৰিব.

The reader now views Aurangjeb not as a despicable Moghul king as described in

history but as an emotional human being, pining for love. Bankim’s imagination brilliantly

weaves such minute details to create a life-like figure of this historically significant

personality. The reader is thus able to see into the other side of the character which is not

bereft of the basic human tendencies. Aurangjeb’s plea for love and Nirmal’s genuine

sympathy for him add a human appeal to the imaginative aspects of the historical novel. The
 Chatterjee 13

writer testifies to it by saying that Aurangjeb was no Mark Antony but man can never be

heartless. Nirmal Kumari remains steadfast in retaining her Rajput identity despite

Auranjeb’s threats. Such juxtaposition of the non-historical elements further associates the

historically significant characters with the fictional characters more flexibly, thereby making

the history come alive and turning the course of action as consequences of not only political

disputes but also the intricacies of personal relationships in an era of decadence as the

powerful Moghul Empire collapses with Aurangjeb.

The story of Raj Singha is derived from a short paragraph in Tod's Annals and

Antiquities and the narrative structure of the novel builds up a multilayered saga of Hindu

prowess against Muslim invasion. The princess of Roopnagar, a small state in Rajasthan,

writes a letter to the valiant Rana of Udaipur, Raj Singha, seeking his protection against the

lecherous designs of Aurangzeb who had planned to attack Roopnagar and abduct the

princess Chanchal kumari. In the course of the novel, however, the idea of preserving the

honour of a damsel in distress gets fused with that of resisting territorial aggression. After Raj

Singha's valour thwarts the Emperor's intention of abducting Chanchal kumari, Aurangzeb

seeks to vent his wrath on all the Hindus residing within his empire. He imposes an unfair tax

called the 'jejeya' on the Hindus, while the Muslims are exempt from it. The Emperor has

been successful in forcing all the provinces of Rajputana, except Udaipur, to agree to pay the

tax. The indomitable Rana of Udaipur, Raj Singha, refused to succumb to the unjust demand

and, in consequence, Aurangzeb prepares to devastate his territory. The conflict of the Hindu

Rana with the Muslim Emperor over the latter's debauched intention of marrying a Hindu

princess, thus, ultimately takes the form of a violent clash over the possession of a territorial

space. As Meenakshi Mukherjeee observes, the princess of Roopnagar seems to be a

metaphoric incarnation of the motherland as the narrative conflates "sexual assault… with

territorial aggression". (Mukherjee 2008: 158)

In this context it is pertinent to note that nationalist iconography often represented the

colonised nation as a feminine figure. In some instances, the nation was imagined as a

distressed woman, plundered by alien invaders and waiting to be avenged by redoubtable

native heroes. This image corresponds perfectly to Bankim's depiction in Raj Singha of the

heroic struggle as a means to protect the endangered chastity of a woman, as well as of Hindu

religion and a Hindu state, against the threats of the Mughal.

Nationalist thought appears to oppose the dominating implications of post-

Enlightenment European thought at one level and yet, at the same time, seems to accept that

domination at another (Chatterjee 1986:37). Nationalism takes issue not with modernity itself

but with the mode in which modernity came to the colonies. It seeks not to abolish the main

instruments of colonial governmentality but to nationalize them. Therefore, the capture of

state power soon became the central nationalist demand, even though the nation was yet to be

invented (Gellner 1983) or imagined (Anderson 1991). The insistent demand for a nation-

state represented the urge to establish an Indian modernity: an indigenous modernity which

differed from that of the West (Prakash 1999:201). This explains why, in the Indian case,

‘state power was not seized in a single historical movement of revolution but through

prolonged popular struggle on a moral, political and ideological level’ (Chandra 1989:220).

An Indian modernity took time to be forged in the crucible of the independence movement.

As Bipin Chandra has written, ‘the national movement was the process through which the

Indian people were formed into a nation and a people…it was the existence of a common

oppression by a common enemy and the struggle against it which provided important bonds

uniting the Indian people’ (Chandra 1984:210-emphasis mine).

Both ‘critical modernist’, which sought to christianize Hinduism, and ‘critical

traditionalist’, which sought to defend Hinduism against public encroachments, strands of

Brahmo Samaj, are evident in the writings of Bankim. Partha Chatterjee has seen Bankim’s
 Chatterjee 15

thought as constituting a ‘moment of departure’ for Indian nationalism (Chatterjee 1986). For

Chatterjee, the moment of departure lies in the encounter of a nationalist consciousness with

the framework of knowledge created by post-Enlightenment rationalist thought, producing

the awareness of an essential cultural difference between East and West. The West is

characterised by its materiality, exemplified by science, technology and the never ending

quest for progress whilst the East is characterised by poverty, subjection and spirituality.

However, far from regarding spirituality as an impediment to progress, nationalist thought at

the moment of departure asserts that the very superiority of its culture lies in its spirituality.

Indigenous modernity lies in combining the superior material qualities of western cultures

with the spiritual greatness of the East (Chatterjee 1986:50-1). Indeed, Bankim argued that

the materiality of western culture reinforced indigenous spiritual values. Although Bankim

admitted that ‘it was true that there is no scientific proof of the existence of the Trinity’, he

asserted that:

it must be admitted that in comparison with Christianity, the religion followed by

those great practitioners of science, the European peoples, the Hindu worship of the

Trinity is far more natural and in accordance with scientific theories. The worship of

the Trinity may not be founded in science, but it is not in opposition to it. On the other

hand, Mill’s arguments have shown conclusively that the Christian belief in an

omnipotent, omniscient and all merciful-God is entirely contrary to scientific

principles. The Hindu philosophies of karma or maya are far more consistent with

science. (Bankimchandra Chattopadhyaya [1875] in Chatterjee 1986: 68)

In other words, Bankim argued that indigenous spiritual values were more modern than those

of the colonizer and that, by adopting western scientific techniques, indigenous civilization

could once again surpass the achievements of the west. In his novel, Anandamath, ‘English

rule’ was seen as necessary for the cultural regeneration of indigenous culture. It is unclear,
 Chatterjee 16

however, what indigenous culture Bankim considered his own: ‘Indian’, Bengali or Hindu.

His nationalist anthem, Bande Mataram, refers to a mother (mata) without specifying her

identity and despite which is now widely considered to be Bengali, despite of its subsequent

adoption of the ‘Indian’ national anthem by the INC. Certainly, Bankim’s later works

appeared to carry strong anti-Muslim overtones. According to Chatterjee, Bankim

‘recognized in Islam a quest for power and glory, but he saw it as being completely devoid of

spiritual or ethnical qualities, a complete antithesis to his ideal religion, irrational, bigoted,

devious, sensual and immoral’ (Chatterjee 1986:77). Although critical of those Hindu

religious practices considered discriminatory, the spirituality celebrated in his later work was

unmistakably a Hindu spirituality and the ‘motherland’ was conceived of in religious terms as

a Hindu ‘nation’.

Bankim’s sense of history comes close to resound Lukacs’ when the latter talks about

the circumstances before the French Revolution and how it has necessitated the need to see

history as something that continually changes and regulates the lives of common people.

Bankim’s painstaking effort highlights each of the characters as they experience the surge of

oppositional violence and feel trapped in it.For example, Jodhpuri Begum, during a

conversation with Nirmala, is highly morbid for having lived as a Hindu wife of a Muslim

Baadshah and wants to escape. Their fate is entwined with what is going on in the larger

social and political context. The psychological underpinning of an individual’s sense of

seeing his/her position in a specific period is as important as the foundation of the larger

history that affects him/her. Bankim thus consciously invites the present readers to link

themselves to their past and reexamine their position in relation to history. Lukacs subscribes

to the same opinion as he says,

“What matters therefore in the historical novel is not the re-telling of great historical

events, but the poetic awakening of the people who figured in those events. What
 Chatterjee 17

matters is that we should re-experience the social and human motives which led men

to think, feel and act just as they did in historical reality. And it is a law of literary

portrayal which first appears paradoxical, but then quite obvious, that in order to bring

out these social and human motives of behavior, the outwardly insignificant events,

the smaller relationships are better suited than the great monumental dramas of world

history.”

In the exploration of individual psychology, Bankim Chandra excels Walter Scott and

delves deeper into the complexities of human mind. Rajsingha bear instances of his

adroitness in bringing out the complex psychic turmoil inherent in an individual mind. His

way of seeing history through fiction ceases to be a mere representation of facts and allows

him to transcend the limitations that history cannot overcome. It is a world more lively and

picturesque and the characters throb in it with all their innate goodness and idiosyncrasies.

The reader undergoes a nail-biting suspense when Jebunnisa sentences Mobarak, her

favourite, to deathAnd to her horror, Jebunnisa is later exposed to the realization that a

shrewd “politician” like her can also fall in love,

“জেব-উন্নিসা প্রত্য়শা করিয়াছিলেন তিনি এই সংবাদে অত্যন্ত সুখী হইবেন. সহসা দেখিলেন ঠিক বিপরিত

ঘটিল. সংবাদ আসিবামাত্র সহসা তাহার চক্খু জলে ভরিযা গেল - এ শুকনা মাটীতে কখন ও জল উঠে নাই.

দেখিলেন, কেবল তাহাই নহে, গন্ড বাহিযা ধারায় ধারায় সে জল গ্ডাইতে লাগিল. শেষ দেখিলেন, চীত্কার

করিযা কাদিতে ইচ্ছা করিতেছে. জেব-উন্নিসা দ্বার রুদ্ধ করিযা হস্তিদন্তনির্মিত রত্নখচিত পালন্কে শয়ন

করিযা কাদিতে লাগিলেন. ...বাদশাহজাদিরাও ভালবাসে; জানিযা হৌক, না জানিযা হৌক, নারী দেহ ধারণ

করে ওই পাপকে হৃদয়ে আশ্রয় দিতে হয়.”

Bankim’s Rajsingha is vastly different from the other novels in its assimilation of

history, while at the same time invoking a sense of pride in claiming collective (national)

identity of the self. At the same time, it is replete with the passionate love, friendship,

jealousy, hatred and enmity that characterize the theme of his other prominent novels. The
 Chatterjee 18

romantic flavor is not at all lost here. Aurangajeb, Jebunnisa, Mobarak languish in their

pathetic love leading to nowhere but death. The large vacuum inside Aurangajeb corresponds

to the hollowness of his surroundings and is synchronized with his tragic downfall. Unlike as

also like a historian, Bankim is able to transgress the historical limitation of factual truths and

with fiction makes it a combined whole,, while, through an introspection of his own location

in society, he has brought forth the existence of many levels of history. Rajsingha is a unique

combination of history, aesthetics, poetics and fiction in its attempt at foretelling a universal

truth of an era of a great change in history.

Although Bankim gave a decisive shape to the genre of historical novels, he was,

however, not the sole practitioner of the narrative form. The anti-colonial ethos of the era

demanded a spat of historical novels countering the European version of Indian history.

Bankim's younger contemporary Ramesh Chandra Dutt set his novel Maharashtra Jiban

Prabhat (Bangla, 1878) against the backdrop of the empowerment of the Marathas under

Shivaji, and Harinarain Apté, much inspired by his reading of the histories of the Maurya

empire and the Vijaynagar kingdom, wrote eight historical novels in Marathi. The impulse

for reconstructing a valiant Hindu past, thus, created a countrywide enthusiasm for historical

novels. The intimate connection that India's nascent nationalist struggle shared with this

literary genre is rendered perspicuous by M K Naik when he says -

…the nationalist upsurge had stirred the entire Indian society to the roots to a degree

and on a scale unprecedented earlier, making it acutely conscious of the pressures of

the present in all fields of national life; and it is out of this consciousness that fiction,

in Lionel Trilling's words, 'for our time the most effective agent of the moral

imagination' emerges (Naik 2004: 118)

The burgeoning national identity thus coincides with the emergence of the novel, or

more specifically, the historical novel, evokes a specific past with reference to which the

present is to redefine itself.

Nationalist historiography that dominated the literature of the late nineteenth century,

as Meenakshi Mukherjee rightly observes, is in many ways a reaction to the Englishmen's

representation of India as a weak and defeated nation. In his own journal Bangadarshan,

Bankim's exhortation to his readers expressed his consciousness of the nationalist imperative

to revive and reconstruct Indian past. Wittily mocking at the coloniser's biased account of

Indian history, he wrote –

The sahebs have written numerous tomes to chronicle our history. The book by Stuart

Saheb is so heavy that you can kill a strong young man by throwing it at him--- and

people like Marshman, Lethbridge and others have made a lot of money by writing

smaller volumes. But do these books contain anything that can be truly called history?

(qtd. Mukherjee 2008: 158)

The reinvocation of history through the historical novels then impelled the enslaved men to

undertake what Raymond Williams calls, a process of "unlearning" of received ideologies

(cited by Loomba 2008: 60). Books like James Mill's The History of British India (1817)

deliberately conjure up a picture of the misrule and anarchy of the pre-British period, in

contrast to which colonial intrusion and enforcement of British governance would seem

beneficial. The historical novels of the late nineteenth century India were thus motivated to

supply a counter-narrative to such degrading versions of Indian history. In words of

Meenakshi Mukherjee, the "act of excavating the past was thus seen almost as a moral act for

the retrieval of self-respect of a subjugated people" (Mukherjee 2008: 156), so necessary for

the overthrow of Europe's cultural hegemony.

Works Cited

Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. Revised edition. 1st edition 1983. London: Verso.

Chandra, Bipin Communalism in Modern India, Har Anand Publications (2015), New Delhi

1984

_____.India's Struggle for Independence, Penguin Publishing Group, New Delhi, 1989

Chatterjee, Bankim. 'RajSingha' Bankim Rachanabali: Upanyas Samagra, with an

Introduction by Bishnu Basu. 1986. Kolkata : Sahitya Tirtha,1998. pp.561-668

Chatterjee Partha Nationalist Thought And the Colonial World, New Delhi: Oxford

University press, 1986

_______. Itihaser Uttaradhikar. Calcutta: Ananda Publishers, 2000.

Gandhi, Leela. Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. New Delhi: OUP, 1998

Gellner, E. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983

Kaviraj, Sudipta The Unhappy Consciousnes :Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and the

Formation of Nationalist Discourse in India, New Delhi: Oxford university Press,

1995

Loomba, Ania. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. New York: Routledge, 2005

Mukherjee, Meenakshi. Elusive Terrain: Culture and Literary Memory. New Delhi:

OUP,2008

Naik, M.K. A History of Indian English Literature 1982. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2004

Prakash, G. (ed.) After Colonialism: Imperial Histories and Postcolonial Displacements.

New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995

Prakash, G. Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India.Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1999

Renan, Ernest. 'What is a Nation?' A South Asian Nationalism Reader, Ed. Sayantan
 Chatterjee 21

Dasgupta, Kolkata: Worldview, 2007. pp 8-23

Roychoudhuy, Tapan Europe Reconsidered: Perceptions of the West in Nineteenth

Century Bengal, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1988

Said, Edward W. 'Orientalism'. The Post-colonial Studies Reader. Ed. Bill Ashcroft et al.

London:Routledge, 1995. pp.87-91

Seal, A. The Emergence of Indian Nationalism: Competition and Collaborationin the

Later Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968

Tiffin, Helen. 'Post-colonial Literatures and Counter-discourse'. The Post-colonial Studies

Reader. Ed. Bill Ashcroft et al. London:Routledge, 1995. pp.95-98

Viswanathan, G Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India, Columbia

University Press, 1989