Ramabai’s biographer, Padmini Sengupta, quotes a Calcutta
scholar, who threw up his hands after subjecting young Ramabai
to a long and searching examination, "We do not feel that
you belong to this world since the great Pandits have been
dazzled and amazed by your superhuman ability. The very Goddess
of Learning ‘Saraswati’ has come down amidst us in human
form."
But she cared two
hoots for such balderdash as she was more bothered about the
injustice meted out to women while claiming to accord them the
status of goddesses. She studied the Vedas at a time when such
studies by women were proscribed. It opened her eyes to the
miserable plight of the widows, the so-called untouchables and
the inadequacies of the socio-religious order to redeem them and
the sheer hypocrisy practised, be it in the name of cow
protection or charity.
So long as she
used her mellifluous voice to mesmerise people with stories from
the Puranas, she was the darling of the elite of the times and
the twice-born caste to which she belonged. But the moment she
began speaking out against injustices, having in the meantime
found her own personal saviour, she was dropped like a hot
potato. And when she started mingling with the lower castes
taking care of widows and orphans from among them, she lost her
"purity" and thereby her place in the pantheon of the
Panditas.
Imagine, when
Ramabai articulated views to the effect that God had created man
and woman as equals and a woman’s moksha did not lie in
serving her husband as a vassal, Gandhi’s Kasturba was being
ordered about to wash the toilets. Her ideas have a striking
similarity to the Gandhian views, though they were articulated
much before Gandhi descended on the Indian political scene. What
a pity, her name does not even figure in today’s discourse on
such subjects as empowerment of women and human rights.
It is difficult to
believe that Ramabai, who did not have the benefit of formal
education, was a participant in the polemics of that era when
Lokmanya Tilak on one side and Gopala Krishna Gokhale on the
other debated the finer points of nationalism, Hinduism and
freedom struggle. Of course, her unabashed feminist advocacy and
the fact that she was at that time unarguably the most serious
woman writer of Marathi placed her in a vantage position to lend
the debate a fresh perspective.
A life-long
advocate of liberty, which reached the West centuries before
democracy and had its origin in the rise of the Christian
Church, Ramabai appropriately named her mission at Kedgaon near
Pune Mukti and spent the evening of her life tending to
the needs of its inmates.
The volume under
review is the first English translation of her book published in
1889 on the United States of America where she spent over two
years giving lectures on a variety of subjects and raising funds
for her project back home. She was hardly 28 when she landed in
the US in March 1886 but had lived the equivalent of several
average lifetimes having already become a widow with a daughter
to look after.
She was simply
flabbergasted by the kind of progress the US had achieved and
the way the enterprising men and women of the country were
unitedly sowing the seeds of progress in all walks of life. The
nation had come a long way since the Puritan settlers from
England transformed the hardy territory into a land where
"honey and milk flowed".
Nothing escapes
her critical observation as she looks at the historical
evolution of the US and understands the phenomenon called the
American dream. She is simply amazed to know that "before
President (1882-85) Ulysses S. Grant became the Commander of the
Army of the United States, he used to work as a tanner."
Those who have
read Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic, Democracy in America,
will have difficulty judging which one ranks first in the order
of merit. Ramabai’s work may not have the intellectual flavour
or sophistication of Tocqueville’s magnum opus but it is no
less exhaustive and enchanting. What makes her critique of
American life all the more appealing is the subtle critique of
the culture, which she herself represented and which prevented
her country from attaining its full potential of growth. It is
not that she turned a blind eye to the shortcomings in Western
life. She was unsparing in her criticism, for instance, of the
ways of the established Church which she found moving away from
Christ’s teachings.
But in her own
case, she moved closer and closer to Christ and it was the faith
in Him that sustained her in the face of tragedies like early
widowhood and the death of her only daughter, whom she had
groomed as her worthy successor. Neither during her lifetime nor
after that could she regain her rightful place in the history of
the nation. A small price for forsaking the ancient Shastras for
the Veda of Christ.
|