Christianity was at the vanguard of spreading imperialism in India, and English education through Indian mission schools was a powerful tool of missionary activity. By the nineteenth century, it was emphasized by some missionaries as equal to if not more critical than evangelization in facilitating conversions to Christianity. Education would best impart western attitudes and guide Indians to Christianity. Cosmopolitan urban settings offered excellent prospects for finding converts to Christianity. English education and western curriculum could potentially attract high caste and well-born urban Indians whose subsequent conversion could pave the way for the other Indians to follow suit.

After the fall of the Marathas, missionaries used interreligious debates between Christianity and Hinduism to convert Indians. Many evangelical Christians made diligent efforts to learn languages and investigate religions of India. Famous evangelists like William Carey, Alexander Duff, and John Wilson studied Indian languages, religions, and traditions to understand India. Their work returned enormous benefits in governing India and effecting conversions to Christianity. Missionary researches into Indian religions, scriptures, and traditions aimed to juxtapose Christian ideas against them to the detriment of the colonized culture. Christian evangelists developed an enormous body of treatises and polemical arguments criticizing Hindu scriptures to interest, entertain, excite, and provoke Indians into arguing and engaging with them.

John Wilson, a Scottish Presbyterian, had arrived in Bombay in 1829 as Alexander Duff's protégé to begin a long career as a powerful missionary-educator in Western India. Reverend Smith, his biographer, would encourage evangelists to gain better knowledge of Hinduism because that enabled a preacher to more forcibly and authoritatively propound the doctrines of Christianity. In his biography of Wilson, Smith characterized Wilson as deliberately denouncing Hinduism to challenge and best Indians in religious debates. In Bombay, Christian missionaries were very active and influential in education and setting the parameters of public discourse. In 1830, Wilson started the Oriental Christian Spectator, a periodical containing commentaries on Indian religions from the missionary perspective, to rouse educated Indians into an argumentative response. It continued in publication until 1862.

Wilson held public debates with Hindu, Parsi, and Muslim communities, starting from 1830. British missionaries would employ new educated converts to Christianity like Rev. Ramchandra Hari Khisti to debate the merits of Hinduism with Hindu scholars such as Laxman Shastri before an assemblage of hundreds of Brahmins and other Indians. Many such debates where Hindu scholars like Mora Bhat Dandekar debated Wilson. The Hindu response essentially was to defend Hinduism either by argument by comparative analogy. But before long, the inconclusiveness of these debates would become apparent to the missionaries. Bombay city gave way to district towns as the scene of polemics and legal battles were added to philosophical disputes.

Between 1831 and 1839, Wilson published works on the religions of Hindus, Parsis, and Muslims, in collaboration with his fellow Scottish missionary Robert Nesbit, who would play the central role in the Shripat case in 1843.

The British colonizers started missionary schools everywhere, and by 1840, they were functioning in several towns of Maharashtra, representing a more concrete threat to Hinduism. In 1832, the Scottish mission opened Bombay's first English-medium high school adjacent to the mission compound.

The western clerics would demand government intervention and protection for the first group of converts to Christianity against the Hindu majority to keep the peace or enforce the converts' right to use the village wells and public streets. Though it wanted to appear neutral, the government was interested in promoting Christianity. Faced with the 'unruly mobs' instigated by 'unscrupulous Brahmins,' the local officials would likely intervene on behalf of the Christians. But though Hindus, Muslims, and Parsis in Bombay vociferously opposed Christian missionary propaganda, their passion was inadequate in providing an effective response to missionary inroads.

After the fall of the Maratha empire in the Third Anglo Maratha war, 1818, and before the War of Independence, 1857, the country was in a state of terrible turmoil. All the socioeconomic systems were in a state of flux. The political authority had shifted to the East India Company after the princes and rulers of the land were dispossessed.

In 1938, Narayan Sheshadri Parlikar, a Desastha Brahmin, became first a student and later a teacher at a Christian mission school in Bombay. In 1841 Narayan's ten-year-old brother Shripat was admitted to the Institution. He lived with Narayan and the Scottish missionary Robert Nesbit. On 13 September 1843, sixteen-year-old Narayan was baptized as Christian by Nesbit. Narayan's baptism caused anxiety among the Hindus of Bombay. When he came to know about Narayan's conversion to Christianity, his father, Govind Sheshadri, came to Bombay from Parli in October to see if he could intervene. When he realized he could not, he decided to take Shripat with him. But Nesbit refused to allow the father to take Sripat. Govind Sheshadri filed a case in the Supreme Court of Bombay to return Shripat to his custody. A writ of habeas corpus was served on Rev. Nesbit to appear with Shripat before the Supreme Court on 3 November 1843.

The counsel for the defendant in arguing against the writ of habeas corpus insisted that parental rights should be superseded where the child's welfare was at issue. Defense counsel further argued for recognizing Sripat's right as an intelligent and discerning boy to choose his own guardian. The defense contended that Shripat had decided to stay with his brother and Nesbit, and the Court should respect his decision. Finally, the counsel repeated an oft-argued contention in conversion cases in India that the Court need only inquire whether illegal detention was applied and quash the writ of habeas corpus if no unlawful restraint was present.

Chief Justice Sir Henry Roper, however, rejected all of the defense's arguments in his ruling. On the main points, the Chief Justice noted that a court should not interfere with parental rights until children reach the age of discretion. He categorically rejected as an absurd proposition any inquiry by the Court into the wishes or beliefs of a child, which, he believed, would lead to a fruitless theological debate between the Court and the child. The Supreme Court, consequently, ordered Shripat Sheshadri delivered to the custody of his father.

Following his return to his father, the religious and caste status of Shripat became contentious. Shripat had not been baptized, but he lived nearly two months with the missionaries and had broken caste rules by eating prohibited foods with outsiders, thus compromising his caste status. There was an uproar among the Hindus about taking Shripat back into the Brahmin community. Shirpat's example was significant as it raised the issue of how to treat Hindus who compromised their caste status due to contact with the missionaries and external environment and the consequences for the caste community in such a situation. A general meeting of the Hindu castes of Bombay was convened at a temple, where the boycott of mission schools was tabled. Hindus were forbidden to send their children to the mission schools or interact with missionaries on penalty of ex-communication. A lengthy internal debate began over religious tradition and procedure. As Shripat was a Brahmin, the Brahmin community of Bombay and western India was closely involved in the case. The Shripat debate further concerned all the Hindu castes because it impacted the fate of a Hindu within the colonial milieu.

In the pre-colonial time, Hindus might have appealed to the state to resolve important intra- and inter-caste matters. After the fall of the Peshwai in colonial Bombay, the Hindu community sought to arrive at a consensus in deciding the fate of the 12-year-old Sripat Sheshadri. Those who opposed Shripat's reinstatement in the community were led by Dhakji Dadaji, a Pathare Prabhu millionaire. Those who sought Shripat's readmission to the caste were led by Bal Shastri Jambhekar. The threat posed by the missionaries had sharpened religious debate and the divide between conservatives and modernizers. The two factions represented the traditionalist and progressive divisions of general Hindu opinion in the cosmopolitan urban setting over community issues. In Bombay, debate cut across caste and socioeconomic status, and a quest for reinterpreting custom arose amidst the pressures of the colonial milieu. Both parties included Brahmins, Brahmin subcastes, Prabhus, and Shenvis.

Bal Shastri Jambhekar, whose party drew support across caste and social lines, and had progressive, wealthy backers like the millionaire Nana Shankar Setha, was a Brahmin and an assistant professor of mathematics at Elphinstone College. He also was the editor of the Anglo-Marathi weekly Darpan. He emerged as the most prominent proponent of Shripat's readmission to the community. The progressive Marathi newspaper Prabhakar of 18 February 1844 summarized the community cleavage involved. 'The protagonists of the first party favoring Shripat's readmission to the caste comprise many erudite and learned scholars. The members of the party opposing readmission consist of foolish adherents to rituals. Sensible members of the other jatis prefer the first party, whereas the ignorant and old-timers prefer the second.'

The Shripat case reflected that the Hindus of Bombay maintained as vibrant a tradition of religious and community debate as elsewhere in India. But that tradition was increasingly under attack and getting reshaped by the norms of the colonial cultural milieu. The discussion over Shripat's fate stretched out for two years, beginning shortly after the Supreme Court decision in November 1843. The debate was consistent with the nature of Hinduism.

In practice, Hinduism had never entirely foreclosed accepting an individual back to the caste after an indiscretion upon penance. A missionary had declared that Sripat would be reconverted by the adherents of a totalitarian and oppressive religion and opposed returning Shripat to his father. But another had supposedly said that Sripat would be obliged to convert to Christianity after being excommunicated by his caste because Hindus would find it difficult to reach a consensus due to their divisions. Readmission to the caste would demonstrate the intrinsic flexibility of Hindu society, as was evident in the many ways it historically resolved disputes and situations.

The case in 1843 had reignited debate among the Hindus on accommodating the social and religious change resulting from the colonial impetus. The Hindu community wrestled over two interrelated issues: whether to readmit Hindus to the caste after associating with the missionaries and reaching consensus on the rituals to be performed on those that breached caste norms. On both points, the Hindu community felt a sense of urgency to reach an agreement over this contentious religious issue while maintaining community solidarity.

The learned Hindu scholars and pandits of Pune and Nasik supported the readmission of Shripat to the caste and gave their religious consent on 23 November and 31 December 1843, respectively. Shripat was deemed to have committed three "secondary sins" or upapatakas, but as they were repeatedly done, they had become "great sins" or mahapatakas. The transgressions were directly related to Shripat's contact with the missionaries, namely eating meat, partaking food with Yavanas (non-Hindus), and drinking alcohol. A penalty of twelve years (duadashabda prayaschitta) for each great sin was deemed appropriate, amounting to a thirty-six-year penance, which was reduced to an eighteen-year penance (ashtadasabda prayaschitta) given Shirpat's age. The penance would demonstrate the Hindus devising a precedent for traditional society's contact with the colonial environment. The expiation for a great sin was, theoretically, the death penalty. However, a justification for reducing the punishment for the wrongdoing was found in Hindu religious texts.

Religious rituals were prescribed to counteract contact with the evangelists. The final judgment was that Sripat would undergo a comprehensive cleansing and penance for interacting with the missionaries before readmission to the caste. He was required to observe a one-day fast followed by consuming five consecrated cow products (panchagavya): milk, yogurt, ghee, cow urine, and cow dung the next day. Shripat was decreed to perform the prajapatya consisting of eating sacrificial food for three days and fasting during the next three nights, another three days spent eating food given as alms, and observing a complete fast for the next three days. He would then undergo the Brahmin confirmation (thread) ceremony or upanayana followed by a pilgrimage to Kashi and other Hindu holy places by foot. Finally, the concluding rite or uttarang would be performed on Shripat, relieving his sins and readmitting him to the community.

Shripat had remained with his family in Bombay during the debates. Shripat's family was amenable to the procedure for readmission to the caste and joined with Jambhekar, who initiated the rituals for Shripat's penance on 14 February 1844. The readmission, however, deepened the schism within the Hindu community of Bombay, with orthodox Hindus or the Prabhu party as the main opposition to the readmission. The opponents declared that no scriptural authority existed for such a practice of atonement.

To placate the orthodox Hindus, Jambhekar and the other progressive Hindu leaders appealed to Shri Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Karvir Matha, the leading Hindu pandit in western India, for an edict in support of the readmission. The pontiff duly issued a ruling after taking cognizance of Shripat's age, on 23 February supporting the readmission, if all the necessary rituals were complied with. The orthodox Hindus remained unsatisfied and reiterated their opposition to Jambhekar's plans in a letter dated 24 March to the pandits of Murud. They also called for Jambhekar's ostracism by the Hindu community in the letter.

Notwithstanding the opposition of the orthodox Hindus, the plans for Shripat's readmission met the approval of a majority of the Hindu leadership in western India. The Hindu community of Bombay had divided along religious and cultural lines over Shirpat's readmission. The progressive-orthodox schism was evident in the comments of the press. The Marathi-language newspaper Dnyanasindhu of 29 April 1844 described the Prabhu party as tied together by bonds of obligation and corruption. Though this group had a strong base both in urban and provincial settings, it hardly had contact with the colonial environment and opposed the latter's encroachment on traditional society. Furthermore, it resented the authority progressives had over Hindus. It opposed what it saw as convenient rituals for readmitting Hindus who compromised their caste status, undermined religion, and encouraged the very problem it was trying to solve.

The more progressive Shastri party sought to modernize traditional attitudes regarding religion. While they vehemently opposed the program of the missionaries, they believed that readmitting Shripat and other converts into the fold would undercut support for the missionaries among Hindus.

On 29 July 1844, 81 pandits in Pune gave their written consent to the actions of Jambhekar and the rites to readmit Shripat. They listened to the solicitations of the progressive and orthodox parties and interpreted the scriptures to support readmission. However, the pandits sought to align the proponents of readmission with the dictates of tradition. The Shripat case reached its denouement following a meeting of the pandits on 16 and 23 December 1844 in Pune.

The traditional society sought to impose penances on all those who had readmitted Shripat without the consensus of the larger Hindu community. Shripat was required to visit Benares for atonement. The chief Brahmin priest who performed Shripat's initial penance was called on to undergo purification. Other Hindus were to perform the Gayatri a thousand times. Jambhekar was called on to atone for his role in the case by initiating the rites by completing the prajapatya or the strict observance of a prescribed diet and fasting. A consensus appeared to have been reached, which maintained a traditionalist approach to impose penance on those that breached caste norms while resolving the dispute in favor of Shripat's readmission to the Brahmin fold.

Shripat endured several years of enforced isolation from the Brahmins though he reconciled with his family and later married a Brahmin. There is no evidence that Jambhekar complied with the dictates. 

In the immediate aftermath, the denouement was popularly considered a victory of the traditionalists over the progressives. On 1 February 1845, the Marathi-language newspaper Dnyanodaya wrote that the Shastri party had failed to accomplish their purpose and become the butt of ridicule. However, the actions of Jambhekar and his party throughout the Shripat episode were variously interpreted, with Jambhekar enjoying support among the progressive Hindus and newspaper press. Jambhekar had attempted to move public opinion to accept social change in the interests of community solidarity. He had sought to utilize the normative and adaptive rules of Hindu caste society to address social and religious issues that arose within the colonial environment, which had at the same time, allowed orthodox elements to galvanize public opinion in their favor.

The case of Sripat Sheshadri created a furor in the Brahmin society of northern and western India. Its impact would be felt for decades afterward. It would evoke strong reactions among neo converts to Christianity, Hindu social reformers, and leaders of other Hindu castes to introspect and find solutions to religious and societal issues. It encapsulated Hindu society's response to the challenge it faced from the colonial environment and its ability to meet the challenge through adaptive mechanisms.

Sources:

Richard Tucker, Hindu Traditionalism and Nationalist Ideologies in Nineteenth Century Maharashtra, Modern Asian Studies, 1976

Jesse S. Palsetia, Parsi and Hindu Traditional and Nontraditional Responses to Christian Conversion in Bombay, 1839-45, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Sep. 2006

Image provided by the author.