Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:56 am

William Wedderburn
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 8/27/20

Image
Sir William Wedderburn, Bt
Member of Parliament for Banffshire
In office: 1893–1900
Preceded by: Sir Robert Duff
Succeeded by: Alexander William Black
Personal details
Born: 25 March 1838, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
Died: 25 January 1918 (aged 79), Meredith, England, United Kingdom
Nationality: Scottish
Political party: Liberal Party
Other political affiliations: Co-founder of Indian National Congress
Relations: Wedderburn family
Alma mater: University of Edinburgh
Profession: Civil servant, politician

William Wedderburn

Sir William Wedderburn, 4th Baronet, JP DL (25 March 1838 – 25 January 1918) was a Scottish civil servant and politician who was a Liberal Party member of Parliament (MP). Wedderburn was one of the founding members of the Indian National Congress.[1][2] He was also the president of Congress in 1889 and 1910, Allahabad session.[3]

Sir William Wedderburn
President: 1838-1918 (Bombay, 1889, Allahabad, 1910)
by Indian National Congress
Accessed: 8/27/20

Sir William Wedderburn was born in March 1838 in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Wedderburns of the Scottish Border were a family of great antiquity. In 1859 Weddeburn appeared for the Indian Civil Service examination.

He left for India in 1860 and began official duty at Dharwar as an Assistant Collector. He was appointed Acting Judicial Commissioner in Sind and Judge of the Sadar Court in 1874. In 1882 he became the District and Sessions Judge of Poona. At the time of his retirement in 1887, he was the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay.

During his service in India, Wedderburn's attention was focussed on famine, the poverty of the Indian peasantry, the problem of agricultural indebtedness and the question of reviving the ancient village system. His concern with these problems brought him in touch with the Indian National Congress.

After his retirement, Wedderburn threw his heart and soul into it. He presided over the fourth Congress held in Bombay in 1889. Meanwhile, after the death of his brother David, Sir William succeeded to the baronetcy in 1879.

He entered Parliament in 1893 as a Liberal member and sought to voice India's grievances in the House. He formed the Indian Parliamentary Committee with which he was associated as Chairman from 1893 to 1900.

In 1895, Wedderburn represented India on the Welby Commission (i.e. Royal Commission) on Indian Expenditure. He also began participating in the activities of the Indian Famine Union set up in June 1901, for investigation into famines and proposing preventive measures.

He came to India in 1904 to attend the 20th session of the Indian National Congress in Bombay, which was presided over by Sir Henry Cotton. He was again invited in 1910 to preside over the 25th session.

He remained the Chairman of the British Committee of the Congress from July 1889 until his death. As a liberal, William Wedderburn believed in the principle of self-government. Along with the founders of the Indian National Congress, he believed in the future of India in partnership with the British Commonwealth and welcomed the formal proclamation made by the British Government on 20 August 1917, that the goal of British policy in India was the progressive establishment of self-government.

Some members of the old order condemned him as a disloyal officer, for his continual tirades against the bureaucracy, his incessant pleading for the Indian peasant and for his stand on constitutional reforms for India. Wedderburn's main contribution to the promotion of national consciousness was his life -- long labour on behalf of the Indian Reform Movement. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms were regarded by him as the crowning glory of his life's work.

“What are the practical objects of the Congress movement? They are, to revive the national life, and to increase the material prosperity of country; and what better objects could we have before us? Lastly, as regards our methods, they are open and constitutional, and based solely on India's reliance upon British justice and love of fair play.”

--From the Presidential Address - William Wedderburn I.N.C. Session, 1889, Bombay


Early life

See also: Wedderburn baronets

Born in Edinburgh, the fourth and youngest son of Sir John Wedderburn, 2nd Baronet and Henrietta Louise Milburn, he was educated at Hofwyl Workshop, then Loretto School and finally at Edinburgh University.[4] He joined the Indian Civil Service as his father and an older brother had done. His older brother John had been killed in the 1857 uprising and William joined the service in 1860 after ranking third (of 160 applicants) in the entrance exam of 1859.[5][6] His elder brother David was the 3rd baronet.

Career

Image
Wedderburn (right) with Hume (left) and Dadabhai Naoroji

Image
William Wedderburn

He entered the Indian Civil Service in Bombay in 1860, served as District Judge and Judicial Commissioner in Sind; acted as secretary to Bombay Government, Judicial and Political Departments; and from 1885 acted as Judge of the High Court, Bombay. He retired when acting Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay in 1887. During his work he noted the troubles of peasantry arising from moneylending and he suggested that co-operative agricultural banks be established to provide credits at reasonable rates. The proposal was supported in India but was blocked by the India Office. Wedderburn supported reforms suggested by Lord Ripon to develop local self-government and equality to Indian judges. He was seen as supporting the aspirations of Indians and was denied a judge position in the Bombay high court. This led him to retire early in 1887. Along with Allan Octavian Hume he was a founder of the Indian National Congress and served as its president in 1889 and 1910.[4] He worked along with influential Congress leaders in Bombay and in 1890 he chaired the British committee of the Indian National Congress, helped publish the journal India and attempted to support the movement through parliamentary action in Britain. He developed a close working relationship with G. K. Gokhale of the Congress.[5] He was an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate in North Ayrshire in 1892 and served as Liberal Member of Parliament for Banffshire from 1893 to 1900.[4]

He was a member of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure in 1895 and chairman of Indian Parliamentary Committee. He was considered a great friend of the Indian Progressive Movement and presided at the Indian National Congress, 1889, later Chairman, British Committee of the Indian National Congress.[4] In 1910 he returned to India as Congress president and tried to solve the rift between Hindus and Muslims and attempted to reconcile the differences between those who wished to work constitutionally and those who wanted to use more militant actions. He wrote a biographical memoir of A. O. Hume who died in 1912.[5]

He succeeded his brother, Sir David, to the baronetcy on 18 September 1882. He married Mary Blanche Hoskyns, daughter of Henry William Hoskyns, on 12 September 1878. A daughter, Dorothy, was born in Poona in 1879 and in 1884 they had a second daughter in London, Margaret Griselda.[4] He died at his home in Meredith, Gloucestershire on 25 January 1918.[5]

Publications

• Papers and Schemes on Arbitration Courts, Agricultural Banks, Village Panchayets and subjects relating to the condition of the Indian people
• Allan Octavian Hume, C.B.; father of the Indian National Congress, 1829 to 1912 (1912)

References

1. Nanda, Bal Ram (2015). Gokhale: The Indian Moderates and the British Raj. Princeton University Press. p. 542. ISBN 9781400870493.
2. Mookerjee, Girija; Andrews, C.F (1938). Routledge Revivals: The Rise and Growth of the Congress in India. Routledge. p. 306. ISBN 9781315405483.
3. "William Wedderburn - Read here complete information about William Wedderburn biography, History, education, Family, fact, other information". Indian National Congress. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
4. C. Hayavadana Rao, ed. (1915). The Indian Biographical Dictionary. Pillar & Co. pp. 460–61. Retrieved 14 March 2010.
5. Moulton, Edward C. (2004). "Wedderburn, Sir William, fourth baronet (1838–1918)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/41165.
6. Ratcliffe, S.K. (1923). Sir William Wedderburn and the Indian reform movement. London: George Allen and Unwin.

External links

• Hansard 1803–2005: contributions in Parliament by Sir William Wedderburn
• Speeches and writings (1918)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Fri Aug 28, 2020 6:14 am

Part 1 of 2

Allan Octavian Hume [H. X.] [Aletheia]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 8/27/20

Image
Allan Octavian Hume
Allan Octavian Hume (1829–1912) (scanned from a Woodburytype)
Born: 4 June 1829, St Mary Cray, Kent
Died: 31 July 1912 (aged 83), London, England
Nationality: British
Alma mater: University College Hospital; East India Company College
Occupation: Political reformer ornithologist biologist administrator
Known for: Founder of Indian National Congress; Father of Indian Ornithology
Spouse(s): Mary Anne Grindall (m. 1853)
Children Maria Jane "Minnie" Burnley
Parent(s): Joseph Hume (father); Maria Burnley (mother)

Allan Octavian Hume, CB ICS (4 June 1829[1] – 31 July 1912[2]) was a British member of the Imperial Civil Service (later the Indian Civil Service), a political reformer, ornithologist and botanist who worked in British India. He was one of the founders of the Indian National Congress. A notable ornithologist, Hume has been called "the Father of Indian Ornithology" and, by those who found him dogmatic, "the Pope of Indian ornithology".[3]

As an administrator of Etawah, he saw the Indian Rebellion of 1857 as a result of misgovernance and made great efforts to improve the lives of the common people. The district of Etawah was among the first to be returned to normality and over the next few years Hume's reforms led to the district being considered a model of development. Hume rose in the ranks of the Indian Civil Service but like his father Joseph Hume, the radical MP, he was bold and outspoken in questioning British policies in India. He rose in 1871 to the position of secretary to the Department of Revenue, Agriculture, and Commerce under Lord Mayo. His criticism of Lord Lytton however led to his removal from the Secretariat in 1879.

He founded the journal Stray Feathers in which he and his subscribers recorded notes on birds from across India. He built up a vast collection of bird specimens at his home in Shimla by making collection expeditions and obtaining specimens through his network of correspondents.

Following the loss of manuscripts that he had long been maintaining in the hope of producing a magnum opus on the birds of India, he abandoned ornithology and gifted his collection to the Natural History Museum in London, where it continues to be the single largest collection of Indian bird skins. He was briefly a follower of the theosophical movement founded by Madame Blavatsky. He left India in 1894 to live in London from where he continued to take an interest in the Indian National Congress, apart from taking an interest in botany and founding the South London Botanical Institute towards the end of his life.

Life and career

Early life


Hume was born at St Mary Cray, Kent,[4] a younger son (and the eighth child in a family of nine)[5] of Joseph Hume, the Radical member of parliament, by his marriage to Maria Burnley.[2]

Joseph Hume FRS (22 January 1777 – 20 February 1855) was a Scottish surgeon and Radical MP...

He studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh and moved to India in 1797. There, he was commissioned as a surgeon to an Army regiment, and was able to take up work as an interpreter and commissary-general due to his knowledge of Indian languages.

His knowledge of chemistry helped him provide the administration with a method to recover damp gunpowder in 1802, on the eve of Lord Lake's Maratha war. In 1808, he resigned and returned home with a fortune of about £40,000.

Between 1808 and 1811, he travelled around England and Europe and, in 1812, published a blank verse translation of The Inferno.

In 1818 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society by virtue of being, according to his nomination citation, "well versed in various branches of Useful knowledge and particularly in Chimistry, in various branches of oriental literature and Antiquities".[2]

Political career

In 1812, he purchased a seat in Parliament for Weymouth, Dorset, England, and voted as a Tory. When the parliament was dissolved the patron refused to return his money, and Hume brought an action to recover part of it. Six years later, Hume again entered the House, and made acquaintance with James Mill and the philosophical reformers of the school of Jeremy Bentham. He joined with Francis Place, of Westminster, and other philanthropists, to help improve the condition of the working classes, labouring especially to establish schools for them on the Lancastrian system, and forming savings banks.

In 1818, soon after getting married, he was returned to Parliament as member for the Aberdeen Burghs, Borders, Scotland. He was afterwards successively elected for Middlesex, England (1830), Kilkenny, Ireland (1837) and for the Montrose Burghs, Montrose, Scotland (1842), in the service of which constituency he died.

Political campaigns

From the date of his re-entering Parliament, Hume became the self-appointed guardian of the public purse, by challenging and bringing to a direct vote every single item of public expenditure. In 1820, he secured the appointment of a committee to report on the expense of collecting tax revenue. He was very active and became known as someone who gave Chancellors of the Exchequer no peace. He exercised a check on extravagance, and helped to abolish the sinking fund. It was he who caused the word "retrenchment" to be added to the Radical programme "peace and reform." He carried on a successful warfare against the old anti-trade union combination laws that hampered workmen and favoured masters. He brought about the repeal of the laws prohibiting the export of machinery, and of the act preventing workmen from going abroad. He constantly protested against flogging in the army, the impressment of sailors and imprisonment for debt...

Personal life

Hume married Maria Burnley, the daughter of an East India Company director, and had nine children, the eighth of which was Allan Octavian Hume, the notable ornithologist and founder of the Indian National Congress.

-- Joseph Hume, by Wikipedia


Until the age of eleven he was privately tutored growing up at the town house at 6 Bryanston Square in London and at their country estate, Burnley Hall in Norfolk.[1] He was educated at University College Hospital,[6] where he studied medicine and surgery and was then nominated to the Indian Civil Services which led him to study at the East India Company College, Haileybury. Early influences included his friend John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer.[2] He briefly served as a junior midshipman aboard a navy vessel in the Mediterranean in 1842.[1]

Etawah (1849–1867)

Hume sailed to India in 1849 and the following year, joined the Bengal Civil Service at Etawah in the North-Western Provinces, in what is now Uttar Pradesh. His career in India included service as a district officer from 1849 to 1867, head of a central department from 1867 to 1870, and secretary to the Government from 1870 to 1879.[7] He married Mary Anne Grindall (26 May 1824, Meerut – March 1890, Simla) in 1853.[8]

It was only nine years after his entry to India that Hume faced the Indian Rebellion of 1857 during which time he was involved in several military actions[9][10] for which he was created a Companion of the Bath in 1860. Initially it appeared that he was safe in Etawah, not far from Meerut where the rebellion began but this changed and Hume had to take refuge in Agra fort for six months.[11] Nonetheless, all but one Indian official remained loyal and Hume resumed his position in Etawah in January 1858. He built up an irregular force of 650 loyal Indian troops and took part in engagements with them. Hume blamed British ineptitude for the uprising and pursued a policy of "mercy and forbearance".[2] Only seven persons were executed at the gallows on his orders.[12] The district of Etawah was restored to peace and order in a year, something that was not possible in most other parts.[13]

Shortly after 1857, he set about in a range of reforms. As a District Officer in the Indian Civil Service, he began introducing free primary education and held public meetings for their support. He made changes in the functioning of the police department and the separation of the judicial role. Noting that there was very little reading material with educational content, he started, along with Koour Lutchman Singh, a Hindi language periodical, Lokmitra (The People's Friend) in 1859. Originally meant only for Etawah, its fame spread.[14] Hume also organized and managed an Urdu journal Muhib-i-riaya.[15]

The system of departmental examinations introduced soon after (Hume joined the civil services) enabled Hume so to outdistance his seniors that when the rebellion broke out he was officiating Collector of Etawah, which lies between Agra and Cawnpur. Rebel troops were constantly passing through the district, and for a time it was necessary to abandon headquarters ; but both before and after the removal of the women and children to Agra, Hume acted with vigour and judgment. The steadfast loyalty of many native officials and landowners, and the people generally, was largely due to his influence, and enabled him to raise a local brigade of horse. In a daring attack on a body of rebels at Jaswantnagar he carried away the wounded joint magistrate, Mr. Clearmont Daniel,[16] under a heavy fire, and many months later he engaged in a desperate action against Firoz Shah and his Oudh freebooters at Hurchandpur. Company rule had come to an end before the ravines of the Jumna and the Chambul in the district had been cleared of fugitive rebels. Hume richly merited the C.B. (Civil division) awarded him in 1860. He remained in charge of the district for ten years or so and did good work.

— Obituary The Times of August 1st, 1912


He took up the cause of education and founded scholarships for higher education. He wrote, in 1859, that education played a key role in avoiding revolts like the one in 1857:

... assert its supremacy as it may at the bayonet's point, a free and civilized government must look for its stability and permanence to the enlightenment of the people and their moral and intellectual capacity to appreciate its blessings.[8]

In 1863 he moved for separate schools for juvenile delinquents rather than flogging and imprisonment which he saw as producing hardened criminals. His efforts led to a juvenile reformatory not far from Etawah. He also started free schools in Etawah and by 1857 he established 181 schools with 5186 students including two girls.[17] The high school that he helped build with his own money is still in operation, now as a junior college, and it was said to have a floor plan resembling the letter "H". This, according to some was an indication of Hume's imperial ego.[18] Hume found the idea of earning revenue earned through liquor traffic repulsive and described it as "The wages of sin". With his progressive ideas on social reform, he advocated women's education, was against infanticide and enforced widowhood. Hume laid out in Etawah, a neatly gridded commercial district that is now known as Humeganj but often pronounced Homeganj.[8]

Commissioner of Customs (1867–1870)

In 1867 Hume became Commissioner of Customs for the North West Province, and in 1870 he became attached to the central government as Director-General of Agriculture. In 1879 he returned to provincial government at Allahabad.[8][13]

Hume's appointment, in 1867, to be Commissioner of Customs in Upper India gave him charge of the huge physical barrier[19] which stretched across the country for 2,500 miles from Attock, on the Indus, to the confines of the Madras Presidency. He carried out the first negotiations with Rajputana Chiefs, leading to the abolition of this barrier, and Lord Mayo rewarded him with the Secretaryship to Government in the Home, and afterwards, from 1871, in the Revenue and Agricultural Departments.[20]


Secretary to the Department of Revenue, Agriculture and Commerce (1871–1879)

Hume was very interested in the development of agriculture. He believed that there was too much focus on obtaining revenue and no effort had been spent on improving the efficiency of agriculture. He found an ally in Lord Mayo who supported the idea of developing a complete department of agriculture. Hume noted in his Agricultural reform in India that Lord Mayo had been the only Viceroy who had any experience of working in the fields.

Hume made a number of suggestions for the improvement of agriculture placing carefully gathered evidence for his ideas. He noted the poor yields of wheat, comparing them with estimates from the records of Emperor Akbar and yields of farms in Norfolk. Lord Mayo supported his ideas but was unable to establish a dedicated agricultural bureau as the scheme did not find support from the Secretary of State for India, but they negotiated the setting up of a Department of Revenue, Agriculture and Commerce despite Hume's insistence that Agriculture be the first and foremost aim. Hume was made a secretary of this department in July 1871 leading to his move to Shimla.[8]

With the murder of Lord Mayo in the Andamans in 1872, Hume lost patronage and support for his work. He however went about reforming the department of agriculture, streamlining the collection of meteorological data (the meteorological department was set up by order number 56 on 27 September 1875 signed by Hume[21]) and statistics on cultivation and yield.[22]

Hume proposed the idea of having experimental farms to demonstrate best practices to be set up in every district. He proposed to develop fuelwood plantations "in every village in the drier portions of the country" and thereby provide a substitute heating and cooking fuel so that manure (dried cattle dung was used as fuel by the poor) could be returned to the land. Such plantations, he wrote, were "a thing that is entirely in accord with the traditions of the country – a thing that the people would understand, appreciate, and, with a little judicious pressure, cooperate in." He wanted model farms to be established in every district. He noted that rural indebtedness was caused mainly by the use of land as security, a practice that had been introduced by the British. Hume denounced it as another of "the cruel blunders into which our narrow-minded, though wholly benevolent, desire to reproduce England in India has led us." Hume also wanted government-run banks, at least until cooperative banks could be established.[8][23]

The department also supported the publication of several manuals on aspects of cultivation, a list of which Hume included as an appendix to his Agricultural Reform in India. Hume supported the introduction of cinchona and the project managed by George King to produce quinine locally at low cost.[24]

Hume was very outspoken and never feared to criticise when he thought the Government was in the wrong. Even in 1861, he objected to the concentration of police and judicial functions in the hands of police superintendents. In March 1861, he took a medical leave due to a breakdown from overwork and departed for Britain. Before leaving, he condemned the flogging and punitive measures initiated by the provincial government as 'barbarous ... torture'. He was allowed to return to Etawah only after apologising for the tone of his criticism.[2] He criticised the administration of Lord Lytton before 1879 which according to him, had cared little for the welfare and aspiration of the people of India.

Lord Lytton's foreign policy according to Hume had led to the waste of "millions and millions of Indian money".[8] Hume was critical of the land revenue policy and suggested that it was the cause of poverty in India. His superiors were irritated and attempted to restrict his powers and this led him to publish a book on Agricultural Reform in India in 1879.[2][25]

Hume noted that the free and honest expression was not only permitted but encouraged under Lord Mayo and that this freedom was curtailed under Lord Northbrook who succeeded Lord Mayo. When Lord Lytton succeeded Lord Northbrook, the situation worsened for Hume.[26] In 1879 Hume went against the authorities.[7] The Government of Lord Lytton dismissed him from his position in the Secretariat. No clear reason was given except that it "was based entirely on the consideration of what was most desirable in the interests of the public service". The press declared that his main wrongdoing was that he was too honest and too independent. The Pioneer wrote that it was "the grossest jobbery ever perpetrated" ; the Indian Daily News wrote that it was a "great wrong" while The Statesman said that "undoubtedly he has been treated shamefully and cruelly." The Englishman in an article dated 27 June 1879, commenting on the event stated, "There is no security or safety now for officers in Government employment."[27] Demoted, he left Simla and returned to the North-West Provinces in October 1879, as a member of the Board of Revenue.[28] It has pointed out that he was victimised as he was out of step with the policies of the Government, often intruding into aspects of administration with critical opinions.[28]

Demotion and resignation (1879–1882)

In spite of the humiliation of demotion, he did not resign immediately from service and it has been suggested that this was because he needed his salary to support the publication of The Game Birds of India that he was working on.[28] Hume retired from the civil service only in 1882. In 1883 he wrote an open letter to the graduates of Calcutta University, calling upon them to form their own national political movement. This led in 1885 to the first session of the Indian National Congress held in Bombay.[29] In 1887 writing to the Public Commission of India he made what was then a statement unexpected from a civil servant — I look upon myself as a Native of India.[28]

Return to England 1894

Image
Hume's grave in Brookwood Cemetery

Hume's wife Mary died on 30 March 1890 and news of her death reached him just as he reached London on 1 April 1890.[30] Their only daughter Maria Jane Burnley ("Minnie") (1854–1927) had married Ross Scott at Shimla on 28 December 1881.[31] Maria became a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, another occult movement, after moving to England.[32] Ross Scott was the founding secretary of the Simla Eclectic Theosophical Society, who was sometime Judicial Commissioner of Oudh and died in 1908.[33] Hume's grandson Allan Hume Scott served with the Royal Engineers in India.

Hume left India in 1894 and settled at The Chalet, 4 Kingswood Road, Upper Norwood in south London. He died at the age of eighty-three on 31 July 1912. His ashes were buried in Brookwood Cemetery.[5] The bazaar in Etawah was closed on hearing of his death and the Collector, H. R. Neville, presided over a memorial meeting.[34]

The Indian postal department issued a commemorative stamp with his portrait in 1973 and a special cover depicting Rothney Castle, his home in Shimla, was released in 2013.

Contribution to ornithology and natural history

From early days, Hume had a special interest in science. Science, he wrote:

...teaches men to take an interest in things outside and beyond… The gratification of the animal instinct and the sordid and selfish cares of worldly advancement; it teaches a love of truth for its own sake and leads to a purely disinterested exercise of intellectual faculties


and of natural history he wrote in 1867:[8]

... alike to young and old, the study of Natural History in all its branches offers, next to religion, the most powerful safeguard against those worldly temptations to which all ages are exposed. There is no department of natural science the faithful study of which does not leave us with juster and loftier views of the greatness, goodness, and wisdom of the Creator, that does not leave us less selfish and less worldly, less spiritually choked up with those devil's thorns, the love of dissipation, wealth, power, and place, that does not, in a word, leave us wiser, better and more useful to our fellow-men.


Image
Map of the Crags and Rothney Castle, Shimla (1872)

During his career in Etawah, he built up a personal collection of bird specimens, however the first collection that he made was destroyed during the 1857 rebellion. After 1857 Hume made several expeditions to collect birds both on health leave and where work took him but his most systematic work began after he moved to Shimla. He was Collector and Magistrate of Etawah from 1856 to 1867 during which time he studied the birds of that area. He later became Commissioner of Inland Customs which made him responsible for the control of 2,500 miles (4,000 km) of coast from near Peshawar in the northwest to Cuttack on the Bay of Bengal. He travelled on horseback and camel in areas of Rajasthan to negotiate treaties with various local maharajas to control the export of salt and during these travels he took note of the birdlife:

The nests are placed indifferently on all kinds of trees (I have notes of finding them on mango, plum, orange, tamarind, toon, etc.), never at any great elevation from the ground, and usually in small trees, be the kind chosen what it may. Sometimes a high hedgerow, such as our great Customs hedge, is chosen, and occasionally a solitary caper or stunted acacia-bush.

— On the nesting of the Bay-backed Shrike (Lanius vittatus) in The Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds.


Hume appears to have planned a comprehensive work on the birds of India around 1870 and a "forthcoming comprehensive work" finds mention in the second edition of The Cyclopaedia of India (1871) by his cousin Edward Balfour.[35] His systematic plan to survey and document the birds of the Indian Subcontinent began in earnest after he started accumulating the largest collection of Asiatic birds in his personal museum and library at home in Rothney Castle on Jakko Hill, Simla. Rothney Castle, originally Rothney House was built by Colonel Octavius Edward Rothney and later belonged to P. Mitchell, C.I.E from whom Hume bought it and converted it into a palatial house with some hope that it might be bought by the Government as a Viceregal residence since the Governor-General then occupied Peterhoff, a building too small for large parties. Hume spent over two hundred thousand pounds on the grounds and buildings. He added enormous reception rooms suitable for large dinner parties and balls, as well as a magnificent conservatory and spacious hall with walls displaying his superb collection of Indian horns. He used a large room for his bird museum. He hired a European gardener, and made the grounds and conservatory a perpetual horticultural exhibition, to which he courteously admitted all visitors. Rothney Castle could only be reached by a steep road, and was never purchased by the British Government.[8][36]

Hume made several expeditions almost solely to study ornithology the largest being an expedition to the Indus area in late November 1871 and continued until the end of February 1872. In March 1873, he visited the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Bay of Bengal along with geologists Dr. Ferdinand Stoliczka and Dr. Dougall of the Geological Survey of India and James Wood-Mason of the Indian Museum in Calcutta. In 1875, he made an expedition to the Laccadive Islands aboard the marine survey vessel IGS Clyde under the command of Staff-Commander Ellis. The official purpose of the visit being to examine proposed sites for lighthouses. During this expedition Hume collected many bird specimens, apart from conducting a bathymetric survey to determine whether the island chain was separated from India by a deep canyon.[37][38] And in 1881 he made his last ornithological expedition to Manipur, a visit in which he collected and described the Manipur bush quail (Perdicula manipurensis), a bird that has remained obscure with few reliable reports since. Hume spent an extra day with his assistants cutting down a large tract of grass so that he could obtain specimens of this species.[39] This expedition was made on special leave following his demotion from the Central Government to a junior position on the Board of Revenue of the North Western Provinces.[8] Apart from personal travel, he also sent out a trained bird-skinner to accompany officers travelling in areas of ornithological interest such as Afghanistan.[40] Around 1878 he was spending about ₤ 1500 a year on his ornithological surveys.[28]

Hume was a member of the Asiatic Society of Bengal from January 1870 to 1891[41][42] and admitted Fellow of the Linnean Society on 3 November 1904.[43] After returning to England in 1890 he also became president of the Dulwich Liberal and Radical Association.[44]

Collection

Image
Rothney Castle, conservatory and facade (2016).

Hume used his vast bird collection to good use as editor of his journal Stray Feathers. He also intended to produce a comprehensive publication on the birds of India. Hume employed William Ruxton Davison, who was brought to notice by Dr. George King, as a curator for his personal bird collection. Hume trained Davison and sent him out annually on collection trips to various parts of India as he himself was held up with official responsibilities.[8] In 1883 Hume returned from a trip to find that many pages of the manuscripts that he had maintained over the years had been stolen and sold off as waste paper by a servant. Hume was completely devastated and he began to lose interest in ornithology due to this theft and a landslip, caused by heavy rains in Simla, which had damaged his museum and many of the specimens. He wrote to the British Museum wishing to donate his collection on certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the collection was to be examined by Dr. R. Bowdler Sharpe and personally packed by him, apart from raising Dr. Sharpe's rank and salary due to the additional burden on his work caused by his collection. The British Museum was unable to heed his many conditions. It was only in 1885 after the destruction of nearly 20000 specimens, that alarm bells were raised by Dr. Sharpe and the museum authorities let him visit India to supervise the transfer of the specimens to the British Museum.[8]

Sharpe wrote of Hume's impressive private ornithological museum:[8][45]

I arrived at Rothney Castle about 10 am on the 19th of May, and was warmly welcomed by Mr Hume, who lives in a most picturesque situation high up on Jakko…From my bedroom window, I had a fine view of the snowy range. Although somewhat tired by my jolt in the Tonga from Solun, I gladly accompanied Mr. Hume at once into the museum…I had heard so much from my friends, who knew the collection intimately,…that I was not so much surprised when at last I stood in the celebrated museum and gazed at the dozens upon dozens of tin cases which filled the room. Before the landslip occurred, which carried away one end of the museum, It must have been an admirably arranged building, quite three times as large as our meeting-room at the Zoological Society, and…much more lofty. Throughout this large room went three rows of table cases with glass tops, in which were arranged a series of the birds of India sufficient for the identification of each species, while underneath these table- cases where enormous cabinets made of tin, with trays inside, containing species of birds in the table cases above. All of the rooms were racks reaching up to the ceiling, and containing immense cases full of birds… On the western side of the museum was the library, reached by a descent of three steps, a cheerful room, furnished with large tables, and containing besides the egg-cabinets, a well-chosen set of working-volumes. One ceases to wonder at the amount of work its owner got through when the excellent plan of his museum is considered. In a few minutes an immense series of specimens could be spread out on the tables, while all the books were at hand for immediate reference…After explaining to me the contents of the museum, we went below into the basement, which consisted of eight great rooms, six of them full, from floor to ceiling, of cases of birds, while at the back of the house two large verandahs were piled high with cases full of large birds, such as Pelicans, Cranes, Vultures, &c. An inspection of a great cabinet containing a further series of about 5000 eggs completed our survey. Mr. Hume gave me the keys of the museum, and I was free to commence my task at once.


Sharpe also noted:[8][45]

Mr. Hume was a naturalist of no ordinary calibre, and this great collection will remain a monument of his genius and energy of its founder long after he who formed it has passed away...Such a private collection as Mr. Hume's is not likely to be formed again; for it is doubtful if such a combination of genius for organisation with energy for the completion of so great a scheme, and the scientific knowledge requisite for its proper development will again be combined in a single individual.


The Hume collection of birds was packed into 47 cases made of deodar wood constructed on site without nails that could potentially damage specimens and each case weighing about half a ton was transported down the hill to a bullock cart to Kalka and finally the port in Bombay. The material that went to the British Museum in 1885 consisted of 82,000 specimens of which 75,577 were finally placed in the museum. A breakup of that collection is as follows (old names retained).[8] Hume had destroyed 20,000 specimens prior to this as they had been damaged by dermestid beetles.[45]

Image
Portrait of A.O. Hume, C.B.

• 2830 birds of prey (Accipitriformes)... 8 types
• 1155 owls (Strigiformes)...9 types
• 2819 crows, jays, orioles etc....5 types
• 4493 cuckoo-shrikes and flycatchers... 21 types
• 4670 thrushes and warblers...28 types
• 3100 bulbuls and wrens, dippers, etc....16 types
• 7304 timaliine birds...30 types
• 2119 tits and shrikes...9 types
• 1789 sun-birds (Nectarinidae) and white-eyes (Zosteropidae)...8 types
• 3724 swallows (Hirundiniidae), wagtails and pipits (Motacillidae)...8 types
• 2375 finches (Fringillidae)...8 types
• 3766 starlings (Sturnidae), weaver-birds (Ploceidae), and larks (Alaudidae)...22 types
• 807 ant-thrushes (Pittidae), broadbills (Eurylaimidae)...4 types
• 1110 hoopoes (Upupae), swifts (Cypseli), nightjars (Caprimulgidae) and frogmouths (Podargidae)...8 types
• 2277 Picidae, hornbills (Bucerotes), bee-eaters (Meropes), kingfishers (Halcyones), rollers(Coracidae), trogons (trogones)...11 types
• 2339 woodpeckers (Pici)...3 types
• 2417 honey-guides (Indicatores), barbets (Capiformes), and cuckoos (Coccyges)...8 types
• 813 parrots (Psittaciformes)...3 types
• 1615 pigeons (Columbiformes)...5 types
• 2120 sand-grouse (Pterocletes), game-birds and megapodes(Galliformes)...8 types
• 882 rails (Ralliformes), cranes (Gruiformes), bustards (Otides)...6 types
• 1089 ibises (Ibididae), herons (Ardeidae), pelicans and cormorants (Steganopodes), grebes (Podicipediformes)...7 types
• 761 geese and ducks (Anseriformes)...2 types
• 15965 eggs

Image
Hadromys humei

The Hume Collection contained 258 type specimens. In addition there were nearly 400 mammal specimens including new species such as Hadromys humei.[46]

The egg collection was made up of carefully authenticated contributions from knowledgeable contacts and on the authenticity and importance of the collection, E. W. Oates wrote in the 1901 Catalogue of the Collection of Birds' Eggs in the British Museum (Volume 1):

The Hume Collection consists almost entirely of the eggs of Indian birds. Mr. Hume seldom or never purchased a specimen, and the large collection brought together by him in the course of many years was the result of the willing co-operation of numerous friends resident in India and Burma. Every specimen in the collection may be said to have been properly authenticated by a competent naturalist; and the history of most of the clutches has been carefully recorded in Mr. Hume's 'Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds', of which two editions have been published.


Hume and his collector Davison took an interest in plants as well. Specimens were collected even on the first expedition to the Lakshadweep in 1875 were studied by George King and later by David Prain. Hume's herbarium specimens were donated to the collection of the Botanical Survey of India at Calcutta.[47]

Taxa described

Hume described many species, some of which are now considered as subspecies. A single genus name that he erected survives in use while others such as Heteroglaux Hume, 1873 have sunk into synonymy since.[8][48][1] In his concept of species, Hume was an essentialist and held the idea that small but constant differences defined species. He appreciated the ideas of speciation and how it contradicted divine creation but preferred to maintain a position that did not reject a Creator.[49][50]

Genera

• Ocyceros Hume, 1873

Species

• Anas albogularis (Hume, 1873)
• Perdicula manipurensis Hume, 1881
• Arborophila mandellii Hume, 1874
• Syrmaticus humiae (Hume, 1881)
• Puffinus persicus Hume, 1872
• Ardea insignis Hume, 1878
• Pseudibis davisoni (Hume, 1875)
• Gyps himalayensis Hume, 1869
• Spilornis minimus Hume, 1873
• Buteo burmanicus Hume, 1875
• Sternula saundersi (Hume, 1877)
• Columba palumboides (Hume, 1873)
• Phodilus assimilis Hume, 1877
• Otus balli (Hume, 1873)
• Otus brucei (Hume, 1872)
• Strix butleri (Hume, 1878)
• Heteroglaux blewitti Hume, 1873
• Ninox obscura Hume, 1872
• Tyto deroepstorffi (Hume, 1875)
• Caprimulgus andamanicus Hume, 1873
• Aerodramus maximus (Hume, 1878)
• Psittacula finschii (Hume, 1874)
• Hydrornis oatesi Hume, 1873
• Hydrornis gurneyi (Hume, 1875)
• Rhyticeros narcondami Hume, 1873
• Megalaima incognita Hume, 1874
• Podoces hendersoni Hume, 1871
• Podoces biddulphi Hume, 1874
• Pseudopodoces humilis (Hume, 1871)
• Mirafra microptera Hume, 1873
• Alcippe dubia (Hume, 1874)
• Stachyridopsis rufifrons (Hume, 1873)
• Cyornis olivaceus Hume, 1877
• Oenanthe albonigra (Hume, 1872)
• Dicaeum virescens Hume, 1873
• Pyrgilauda blanfordi (Hume, 1876)
• Ploceus megarhynchus Hume, 1869
• Spinus thibetanus (Hume, 1872)
• Carpodacus stoliczkae (Hume, 1874)
• Gampsorhynchus torquatus Hume, 1874
• Sylvia minula Hume, 1873
• Sylvia althaea Hume, 1878
• Phylloscopus neglectus Hume, 1870
• Horornis brunnescens (Hume, 1872)
• Yuhina humilis (Hume, 1877)
• Pteruthius intermedius (Hume, 1877)
• Certhia manipurensis Hume, 1881
• Calandrella acutirostris Hume, 1873
• Pycnonotus fuscoflavescens (Hume, 1873)
• Pycnonotus erythropthalmos (Hume, 1878)

Subspecies

The use of trinomials had not yet gone into regular usage during Hume's time. He used the term "local race".[50] The following subspecies are current placements of taxa that were named as new species by Hume.

• Alectoris chukar pallida (Hume, 1873)
• Alectoris chukar pallescens (Hume, 1873)
• Francolinus francolinus melanonotus Hume, 1888
• Perdicula erythrorhyncha blewitti (Hume, 1874)
• Arborophila rufogularis tickelli (Hume, 1880)
• Phaethon aethereus indicus Hume, 1876
• Gyps fulvus fulvescens Hume, 1869
• Spilornis cheela davisoni Hume, 1873
• Accipiter badius poliopsis (Hume, 1874)
• Accipiter nisus melaschistos Hume, 1869
• Rallina eurizonoides telmatophila Hume, 1878
• Gallirallus striatus obscurior (Hume, 1874)
• Sterna dougallii korustes (Hume, 1874)
• Columba livia neglecta Hume, 1873
• Macropygia ruficeps assimilis Hume, 1874
• Centropus sinensis intermedius (Hume, 1873)
• Otus spilocephalus huttoni (Hume, 1870)
• Otus lettia plumipes (Hume, 1870)
• Otus sunia nicobaricus (Hume, 1876)
• Bubo bubo hemachalanus Hume, 1873
• Strix leptogrammica ochrogenys (Hume, 1873)
• Strix leptogrammica maingayi (Hume, 1878)
• Athene brama pulchra Hume, 1873
• Ninox scutulata burmanica Hume, 1876
• Lyncornis macrotis bourdilloni Hume, 1875
• Caprimulgus europaeus unwini Hume, 1871
• Aerodramus brevirostris innominatus (Hume, 1873)
• Aerodramus fuciphagus inexpectatus (Hume, 1873)
• Hirundapus giganteus indicus (Hume, 1873)
• Lacedo pulchella amabilis (Hume, 1873)
• Pelargopsis capensis intermedia Hume, 1874
• Halcyon smyrnensis saturatior Hume, 1874
• Megalaima asiatica davisoni Hume, 1877
• Dendrocopos cathpharius pyrrhothorax (Hume, 1881)
• Picus erythropygius nigrigenis (Hume, 1874)
• Falco cherrug hendersoni Hume, 1871
• Pericrocotus brevirostris neglectus Hume, 1877
• Pericrocotus speciosus flammifer Hume, 1875
• Dicrurus andamanensis dicruriformis (Hume, 1873)
• Rhipidura aureola burmanica (Hume, 1880)
• Garrulus glandarius leucotis Hume, 1874
• Dendrocitta formosae assimilis Hume, 1877
• Corvus splendens insolens Hume, 1874
• Corvus corax laurencei Hume, 1873
• Coracina melaschistos intermedia (Hume, 1877)
• Coracina fimbriata neglecta (Hume, 1877)
• Remiz coronatus stoliczkae (Hume, 1874)
• Alauda arvensis dulcivox Hume, 1872
• Alaudala raytal adamsi (Hume, 1871)
• Galerida cristata magna Hume, 1871
• Pycnonotus squamatus webberi (Hume, 1879)
• Pycnonotus finlaysoni davisoni (Hume, 1875)
• Alophoixus pallidus griseiceps (Hume, 1873)
• Hemixos flavala hildebrandi Hume, 1874
• Hemixos flavala davisoni Hume, 1877
• Ptyonoprogne obsoleta pallida Hume, 1872
• Aegithalos concinnus manipurensis (Hume, 1888)
• Leptopoecile sophiae stoliczkae (Hume, 1874)
• Prinia crinigera striatula (Hume, 1873)
• Prinia inornata terricolor (Hume, 1874)
• Prinia sylvatica insignis (Hume, 1872)
• Orthotomus atrogularis nitidus Hume, 1874
• Rhopocichla atriceps bourdilloni (Hume, 1876)
• Pomatorhinus hypoleucos tickelli Hume, 1877
• Pomatorhinus horsfieldii obscurus Hume, 1872
• Pomatorhinus ochraceiceps austeni Hume, 1881
• Stachyridopsis rufifrons poliogaster (Hume, 1880)
• Alcippe poioicephala brucei Hume, 1870
• Pellorneum albiventre ignotum Hume, 1877
• Pellorneum ruficeps minus Hume, 1873
• Turdoides caudata eclipes (Hume, 1877)
• Garrulax caerulatus subcaerulatus Hume, 1878
• Trochalopteron chrysopterum erythrolaemumHume, 1881
• Trochalopteron variegatum simile Hume, 1871
• Minla cyanouroptera sordida (Hume, 1877)
• Minla strigula castanicauda (Hume, 1877)
• Heterophasia annectans davisoni (Hume, 1877)
• Chrysomma altirostre griseigulare (Hume, 1877)
• Rhopophilus pekinensis albosuperciliaris (Hume, 1873)
• Zosterops palpebrosus auriventer Hume, 1878
• Yuhina castaniceps rufigenis (Hume, 1877)
• Aplonis panayensis tytleri (Hume, 1873)
• Sturnus vulgaris nobilior Hume, 1879
• Sturnus vulgaris minor Hume, 1873
• Copsychus saularis andamanensis Hume, 1874
• Anthipes solitaris submoniliger Hume, 1877
• Cyornis concretus cyaneus (Hume, 1877)
• Ficedula tricolor minuta (Hume, 1872)
• Myophonus caeruleus eugenei Hume, 1873
• Geokichla sibirica davisoni (Hume, 1877)
• Dicaeum agile modestum (Hume, 1875)
• Cinnyris asiaticus intermedius (Hume, 1870)
• Cinnyris jugularis andamanicus (Hume, 1873)
• Aethopyga siparaja cara Hume, 1874
• Aethopyga siparaja nicobarica Hume, 1873
• Passer ammodendri stoliczkae Hume, 1874
• Lonchura striata semistriata (Hume, 1874)
• Lonchura kelaarti jerdoni (Hume, 1874)
• Linaria flavirostris montanella (Hume, 1873)

Image
William Ruxton Davison, Curator of Hume's personal bird collection

An additional species, the large-billed reed-warbler Acrocephalus orinus was known from just one specimen collected by him in 1869 but the name that he used, magnirostris, was found to be preoccupied and replaced by the name orinus provided by Harry Oberholser in 1905.[51] The status of the species was contested until DNA comparisons with similar species in 2002 suggested that it was a valid species.[52] It was only in 2006 that the species was seen in the wild in Thailand, with a match to the specimens confirmed using DNA sequencing. Later searches in museums led to several other specimens that had been overlooked and based on the specimen localities, a breeding region was located in Tajikistan and documented in 2011.[53][54]

My Scrap Book: Or Rough Notes on Indian Oology and Ornithology (1869)

Image
Dedication of "My Scrap Book" to Blyth and Jerdon.[55]

This was Hume's first major work on birds. It had 422 pages and accounts of 81 species. It was dedicated to Edward Blyth and Dr. Thomas C. Jerdon who, he wrote [had] done more for Indian Ornithology than all other modern observers put together and he described himself as their friend and pupil. He hoped that his book would form a nucleus round which future observation may crystallize and that others around the country could help him fill in many of the woeful blanks remaining in record. In the preface he notes:

...if these notes chance to be of the slightest use to you, use them; if not burn them, if it so please you, but do not waste your time in abusing me or them, since no one can think more poorly of them than I do myself.


Stray Feathers

Hume started the quarterly journal Stray Feathers in 1872. At that time the only journal for the Indian region that published on ornithology was the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal and Hume published only two letters in 1870, mainly being a list of errors in the list of Godwin-Austen which had been reduced to an abstract.[56] He had wondered if there was merit to start a new journal and in that idea was supported by Stoliczka, who was an editor for the Journal of the Asiatic Society:

To return; the notion that Stray Feathers might possibly interfere in any way with our scientific palladium, the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, is much like that entertained in England, when I was a boy, as to the probable effects of Railways on road and canal traffic.

— Hume, 1874[57]


Image
Cover of Stray Feathers

The President of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Thomas Oldham, in the annual address for 1873 wrote - "We could have wished that the author had completed the several works which he had already commenced, rather than started a new publication. But we heartily welcome at the same time the issue of 'Stray Feathers.' It promises to be a useful catalogue of the Editor's very noble collection of Indian Birds, and a means of rapid publication of novelties or corrections, always of much value with ornithologists."[58] Hume used the journal to publish descriptions of his new discoveries. He wrote extensively on his own observation as well as critical reviews of all the ornithological works of the time and earned himself the nickname of Pope of Indian ornithology. He critiqued a monograph on parrots, Die Papageien by Friedrich Hermann Otto Finsch suggesting that name changes (by "cabinet naturalists") were aimed at claiming authority to species without the trouble of actually discovering them. He wrote:

Let us treat our author as he treats other people's species. “Finsch!” contrary to all rules of orthography! What is that “s” doing there? “Finch!” Dr. Fringilla, MIHI! Classich gebildetes wort!!

— Hume, 1874[59]


Hume in turn was attacked, for instance by Viscount Walden, but Finsch became a friend and Hume named a species, Psittacula finschii, after him.[60][61]

Image
Hume was among the first to recognize an association between the avifaunal composition and rainfall distribution. This rainfall map was published in volume 8 of Stray Feathers (1878).

In his younger days Hume had studied some geology from the likes of Gideon Mantell[62] and appreciated the synthesis of ideas from other fields into ornithology. Hume included in 1872, a detailed article on the osteology of birds in relation to their classification written by Richard Lydekker who was then in the Geological Survey of India.[63] The early meteorological work in India was done within the department headed by Hume and he saw the value of meteorology in the study of bird distributions. In a work comparing the rainfall zones, he notes how the high rainfall zones indicated affinities to the Malayan fauna.[64][65]

Hume sometimes mixed personal beliefs in notes that he published in Stray Feathers. For instance he believed that vultures soared by altering the physics ("altered polarity") of their body and repelling the force of gravity. He further noted that this ability was normal in birds and could be acquired by humans by maintaining spiritual purity claiming that he knew of at least three Indian Yogis and numerous saints in the past with this ability of aethrobacy.[66][67]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Fri Aug 28, 2020 6:16 am

Part 2 of 2

Network of correspondents

Image
Distribution and density of Hume's correspondents across India.[68]

Hume corresponded with a large number of ornithologists and sportsmen who helped him by reporting from various parts of India. More than 200 correspondents are listed in his Game Birds alone and they probably represent only a fraction of the subscribers of Stray Feathers. This large network made it possible for Hume to cover a much larger geographic region in his ornithological work.

During the lifetime of Hume, Blyth was considered the father of Indian ornithology. Hume's achievement which made use of a large network of correspondents was recognised even during his time:

Mr. Blyth, who is rightly called the Father of Indian Ornithology, "was by far the most important contributor to our knowledge of the Birds of India." Seated, as the head of the Asiatic Society's Museum, he, by intercourse and through correspondents, not only formed a large collection for the Society, but also enriched the pages of the Society's Journal with the results of his study, and thus did more for the extension of the study of the Avifauna of India than all previous writers. There can be no work on Indian Ornithology without reference to his voluminous contributions. The most recent authority, however, is Mr. Allen O. Hume, C.B., who, like Blyth and Jerdon, got around him numerous workers, and did so much for Ornithology, that without his Journal Stray Feathers, no accurate knowledge could be gained of the distribution of Indian birds. His large museum, so liberally made over to the nation, is ample evidence of his zeal and the purpose to which he worked. Ever saddled with his official work, he yet found time for carrying out a most noble object. His Nests and Eggs, Scrap Book and numerous articles on birds of various parts of India, the Andamans and the Malay Peninsula, are standing monuments of his fame throughout the length and breadth of the civilised world. His writings and the field notes of his curator, contributors and collectors are the pith of every book on Indian Birds, and his vast collection is the ground upon which all Indian Naturalists must work. Though differing from him on some points, yet the palm is his as an authority above the rest in regard to the Ornis of India. Amongst the hundred and one contributors to the Science in the pages of Stray Feathers, there are some who may be ranked as specialists in this department, and their labors need a record. These are Mr. W. T. Blanford, late of the Geological Survey, an ever watchful and zealous Naturalist of some eminence. Mr. Theobald, also of the Geological Survey, Mr. Ball of the same Department, and Mr. W. E. Brooks. All these worked in Northern India, while for work in the Western portion must stand the names of Major Butler, of the 66th Regiment, Mr. W. F. Sinclair, Collector of Colaba, Mr. G. Vidal, the Collector of Bombay, Mr. J. Davidson, Collector of Khandeish, and Mr. Fairbank, each one having respectively worked the Avifauna of Sind, the Concan, the Deccan and Khandeish.

— James Murray[69]


Many of Hume's correspondents were eminent naturalists and sportsmen who were posted in India.

• Leith Adams, Kashmir
• Lieut. H. E. Barnes, Afghanistan, Chaman, Rajpootana
• Captain R. C. Beavan, Maunbhoom District, Shimla, Mount Tongloo (1862)
• Colonel John Biddulph, Gilgit
• Dr. George Bidie, Madras
• Major C. T. Bingham, Thoungyeen Valley, Burma, Tenasserim, Moulmein, Allahabad
• Mr. W. Blanford
• Mr. Edward Blyth
• Dr. Emmanuel Bonavia, Lucknow
• Mr. W. Edwin Brooks (father of Allan Brooks, the Canadian bird artist)
• Sir Edward Charles Buck, Gowra, Hatu, near Narkanda (in Himachal Pradesh), Narkanda, (about 30 miles (48 km) north of Shimla)
• Captain Boughey Burgess, Ahmednagar (?-1855)[70]
• Captain and then Colonel E. A. Butler, Belgaum (1880), Karachi, Deesa, Abu
• Miss Cockburn (1829–1928), Kotagiri
• Mr. James Davidson, Satara and Sholapur districts, Khandeish, Kondabhari Ghat
• Colonel Godwin-Austen, Shillong, Umian valley, Assam
• Mr. Brian Hodgson, Nepal
• Duncan Charles Home, 'Hero of the Kashmir Gate' (Bulandshahr, Aligarh)
• Dr. T. C. Jerdon, Tellicherry
• Colonel C. H. T. Marshall, Bhawulpoor, Murree
• Colonel G. F. L. Marshall, Nainital, Bhim tal
• Mr. James A. Murray, Karachi Museum
• Mr. Eugene Oates, Thayetmo, Tounghoo, Pegu
• Captain Robert George Wardlaw Ramsay, Afghanistan, Karenee hills
• Frederik Adolph de Roepstorff, Andaman and Nicobar Islands
• Mr. G. P. Sanderson (Chittagong)
• Major and later Sir O. B. St. John, Shiraz, Persia
• Dr. Ferdinand Stoliczka
• Mr. Robert Swinhoe, Hong Kong
• Mr. Charles Swinhoe, S. Afghanistan
• Colonel Samuel Tickell
• Colonel Robert Christopher Tytler, Dacca, 1852
• Mr. Valentine Ball, Rajmahal hills, Subanrika (Subansiri)
• Richard Lydekker, geologist
• G. W. Vidal, civil servant in South Konkan, Bombay

Hume exchanged skins with other collectors. A collection made principally by Hume that belonged to the Earl of Northbrook was gifted to Oxford University in 1877.[71] One of his correspondents, Louis Mandelli from Darjeeling, stands out by claiming that he was swindled in these skin exchanges. He claimed that Hume took skins of rarer species in exchange for the skins of common birds but the credibility of the complaint has been doubted. Hume named Arborophila mandelli after Mandelli in 1874.[1] The only other naturalist to question Hume's veracity was A.L. Butler who met a Nicobar islander whom Hume had described as diving nearly stark naked and capturing fish with his bare hands. Butler found the man in denial of such fishing techniques.[72]

Hume corresponded and stayed up to date with the works of ornithologists outside India including R. Bowdler Sharpe, the Marquis of Tweeddale, Père David, Henry Eeles Dresser, Benedykt Dybowski, John Henry Gurney, J. H. Gurney, Jr., Johann Friedrich Naumann, Nikolai Severtzov and Dr. Aleksandr Middendorff. He helped George Ernest Shelley with specimens from India aiding the publication of a monograph on the sunbirds of the world (1876–1880).[73]

Collector's Vade Mecum (1874)

Image
The Indian Ornithological Collector's Vade Mecum: containing brief practical instructions for collecting, preserving, packing and keeping specimens of birds, eggs, nests, feathers, and skeleton (1874)

Hume's vast collection from across India was possible because he began to correspond with coadjutors across India. He ensured that these contributors made accurate notes, and obtained and processed specimens carefully. The Vade Mecum was published to save him the trouble of sending notes to potential collaborators who sought advice. Materials for preservation are carefully tailored for India with the provision of the local names for ingredients and methods to prepare glues and preservatives with easy to find equipment. Apart from skinning and preservation, the book also covers matters of observation, keeping records, the use of natives to capture birds, obtain eggs and the care needed in obtaining other information apart from care in labelling.[74]

Game Birds of India, Burmah and Ceylon (1879–1881)

This work was co-authored by C. H. T. Marshall. The three volume work on the game birds was made using contributions and notes from a network of 200 or more correspondents. Hume delegated the task of getting the plates made to Marshall. The chromolithographs of the birds were drawn by W. Foster, E. Neale, (Miss) M. Herbert, Stanley Wilson and others and the plates were produced by F. Waller in London. Hume had sent specific notes on colours of soft parts and instructions to the artists. He was dissatisfied with many of the plates and included additional notes on the plates in the book. This book was started at the point when the government demoted Hume and only the need to finance the publication of this book prevented him from retiring from service. He had estimated that it would cost ₤ 4000 to publish it and he retired from service on 1 January 1882 after the publication.[2][28]

In the preface Hume wrote:

In the second place, we have had great disappointment in artists. Some have proved careless, some have subordinated accuracy of delineation to pictorial effect, and though we have, at some loss, rejected many, we have yet been compelled to retain some plates which are far from satisfactory to us.


while his co-author Marshall, wrote:

I have performed my portion of the work to the very best of my abilities, and yet personally felt almost as if I were sailing under false colors in appearing before the world as one of the authors of this book; but I allow my name to appear as such, partly because Mr. Hume strongly wishes it, partly because I do believe that as Mr. Hume says this work, which has been for years called for, would never have appeared had I not proceeded to England, and arranged for the preparation of the plates, and partly because with the explanation thus afforded no one can justly misconstrue my action.


Image
Hume's comment on the illustration The plate is a cruel caricature of the species, just sufficiently like to permit of identification, but miscolored to a degree only explicable on the hypothesis of somebody's colour-blindness… Fortunately for our supporters, this is the very worst plate in the three volumes.

Image
White-fronted goose One of the illustrations that Hume considered as exceptionally good.

Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds (1883)

This was another major work by Hume and in it he covered descriptions of the nests, eggs and the breeding seasons of most Indian bird species. It makes use of notes from contributors to his journals as well as other correspondents and works of the time. Hume also makes insightful notes such as observations on caged females separated from males that would continue to lay fertile eggs through the possibility of sperm storage[75] and the reduction in parental care by birds that laid eggs in warm locations (mynas in the Andamans, river terns on sand banks).[76]

A second edition of this book was made in 1889 which was edited by Eugene William Oates. This was published when he had himself given up all interest in ornithology. An event precipitated by the loss of his manuscripts through the actions of a servant. He wrote in the preface:

I have long regretted my inability to issue a revised edition of 'Nests and Eggs'. For many years after the first Rough Draft appeared, I went on laboriously accumulating materials for a re-issue, but subsequently circumstances prevented my undertaking the work. Now, fortunately, my friend Mr. Eugene Oates has taken the matter up, and much as I may personally regret having to hand over to another a task, the performance of which I should so much have enjoyed, it is some consolation to feel that the readers, at any rate, of this work will have no cause for regret, but rather of rejoicing that the work has passed into younger and stronger hands. One thing seems necessary to explain. The present Edition does not include quite all the materials I had accumulated for this work. Many years ago, during my absence from Simla, a servant broke into my museum and stole thence several cwts. of manuscript, which he sold as waste paper. This manuscript included more or less complete life-histories of some 700 species of birds, and also a certain number of detailed accounts of nidification. All small notes on slips of paper were left, but almost every article written on full-sized foolscap sheets was abstracted. It was not for many months that the theft was discovered, and then very little of the MSS. could be recovered.

— Rothney Castle, Simla, October 19th, 1889


Eugene Oates wrote his own editorial note:

Mr. Hume has sufficiently explained the circumstances under which this edition of his popular work has been brought about. I have merely to add that, as I was engaged on a work on the Birds of India, I thought it would be easier for me than for anyone else to assist Mr. Hume. I was also in England, and knew that my labour would be very much lightened by passing the work through the press in this country. Another reason, perhaps the most important, was the fear that, as Mr. Hume had given up entirely and absolutely the study of birds, the valuable material he had taken such pains to accumulate for this edition might be irretrievably lost or further injured by lapse of time unless early steps were taken to utilize it.


This nearly marked the end of Hume's interest in ornithology. Hume's last piece of ornithological writing was part of an Introduction to the Scientific Results of the Second Yarkand Mission in 1891, an official publication on the contributions of Dr. Ferdinand Stoliczka, who died during the return journey on this mission. Stoliczka in a dying request had asked that Hume edit the volume on ornithology.[8]

Taxa named after Hume

A number of birds are named after Hume, including:

• Hume's ground tit, Pseudopodoces humilis
• Hume's wheatear, Oenanthe albonigra
• Hume's hawk-owl, Ninox obscura
• Hume's short-toed lark, Calandrella acutirostris
• Hume's leaf warbler, Phylloscopus humei[77]
• Hume's whitethroat, Sylvia althaea
• Hume's treecreeper, Certhia manipurensis

Specimens of other animal groups collected by Hume on his expeditions and named after him include the Manipur bush rat, Hadromys humei (Thomas, 1886)[46] while some others like Hylaeocarcinus humei, a land crab from the Narcondam Island collected by Hume was described by James Wood-Mason,[78] and Hume's argali, Ovis ammon humei Lydekker 1913[79] (now treated as Ovis ammon karelini, Severtzov, 1873)[80] are no longer considered valid.

Theosophy

Image
A vice-president of the Vegetarian Society

Hume's interest in theosophy took root around 1879. An 1880 newspaper reports the initiation of his daughter and wife into the movement.[81] Hume did not have great regard for institutional Christianity, but believed in the immortality of the soul and in the idea of a supreme ultimate.[2] Hume wanted to become a chela (student) of the Tibetan spiritual gurus. During the few years of his connection with the Theosophical Society Hume wrote three articles on Fragments of Occult Truth under the pseudonym "H. X." published in The Theosophist. These were written in response to questions from Mr. Terry, an Australian Theosophist.

He also privately printed several Theosophical pamphlets titled Hints on Esoteric Theosophy. The later numbers of the Fragments, in answer to the same enquirer, were written by A.P. Sinnett and signed by him, as authorized by Mahatma K. H., A Lay-Chela.[82] Hume also wrote under the pseudonym of "Aletheia".[83]

Madame Blavatsky was a regular visitor at Hume's Rothney castle at Simla and an account of her visit may be found in Simla, Past and Present by Edward John Buck (whose father Sir Edward Charles Buck succeeded Mr. Hume's role in the Revenue and Agricultural Department).[84]


Rothney Castle
by Theosophy Wiki
Accessed: 8/27/20

Image
Rothney Castle interior, May 2006. Photo by Michael Gomes.

Rothney Castle was the home of A. O. Hume, located on Jakko Hill in Simla, India. H. P. Blavatsky, H. S. Olcott, and A. P. Sinnett visited there frequently.

Image
Rothney Castle

According to Readers Guide to The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett:

Rothney Castle, AOH's large home on Jakko Hill in Simla. Reputed to have cost nearly a quarter of a million dollars to build in 1880. His large bird museum as connected with it. It was the frequent practice of Britishers in India to give their homes names, often after some mansion in England. According to a large map of Simla made in the 1870's most of the houses there had personal names.


Mr. Hume was a Secretary to the Government of India when he purchased the property. His lavish expenditures in expanding the castle may have been intended to make it attractive for the government to purchase as a residence for the Viceroy:

He added enormous reception rooms suitable for large dinner parties and balls, as well as a magnificent conservatory and spacious hall on the walls of which he displayed his superb collection of Indian horns. He engaged the services of an European gardener, and with his aid he made the grounds and conservatory a perpetual horticultural exhibition, to which he courteously admitted all visitors.

But, possibly because ‘Rothney Castle’ can only be reached by a troublesome climb, any anticipations which Mr. Hume may have formed of the purchase of the building by Government were not realized, and Mr. Hume himself made little use of the larger rooms otherwise except that he converted one of them into a museum for his wonderful collection of birds, and for occasional dances.


Rothney Castle was the site where Madame Blavatsky performed several phenomena. Upon Hume's request, she located a lost brooch that was buried under a bush, and a teacup that was needed for a picnic. The brooch incident was described in Mahatma Letter Number 5.

Image
Road to Rothney Castle

Image
Jakko Hill, May 2006. Photo by Michael Gomes.[/size][/b]


A long story about Hume and his wife appears in A.P. Sinnett's book The Occult World,[85] and the synopsis was published in a local paper of India. The story relates how at a dinner party, Madame Blavatsky asked Mrs Hume if there was anything she wanted. She replied that there was a brooch her mother had given her, that had gone out of her possession some time ago. Blavatsky said she would try to recover it through occult means. After some interlude, later that evening, the brooch was found in a garden, where the party was directed by Blavatsky. According to John Murdoch (1894), the brooch had been given by Mrs. Hume to her daughter who had given it to a man she admired. Blavatsky had happened to meet the man in Bombay and obtained the brooch in return for money. Blavatsky allegedly planted it in the garden before directing people to the location through what she claimed as occult techniques.[86]

After the incident, Hume too had privately expressed grave doubts on the powers attributed to Madame Blavatsky. He subsequently held a meeting with some of the Indian members of the Theosophical Society and suggested that they join hands with him to force the resignation of Blavatsky and sixteen other members for their role as accomplices in fraud. Those present could however not agree to the idea of seeking the resignation of their founder.[87] Hume also tried to write a book on the philosophical basis of Theosophy. His drafts were strongly disapproved by many of the key Theosophists. One ("K.H"=Koot Humi) wrote:

I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by Mr. H. I read his three essays or chapters on God (?)cosmogony and glimpses of the origin of tings in general, and had to cross out nearly all. He makes of us Agnostics!! We do not believe in God because so far, we have no proof, etc. This is preposterously ridiculous: if he publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Djual Khool deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy to be so disfigured....

— "K.H." (p.304)[87]


Hume soon fell out of favour with the Theosophists and lost all interest in the theosophical movement in 1883.[28]

After visiting Britain, Blavatsky and Olcott travelled on to India, where they landed at Bombay in January 1879. Here too they attracted support from within the British community. The appeal of theosophy to Britons in India was, of course, much the same as to people such as Massey. Blavatsky and Olcott obtained their entry into the British community, for example, largely through the good offices of A. P. Sinnett, whose interest in them extended a prior involvement with spiritualism (Sinnett 1986). Sinnett edited the Allahabad Pioneer, and his coverage of Blavatsky was so extensive and favourable that he lost his job. Hume met Blavatsky and Olcott at Allahabad, and, after spending some time with them, concluded most of the phenomena linked with her, about which Sinnett wrote a book, were genuine (Sinnett 1881). Hume, the son of Joseph Hume, a Radical social reformer who had been active in the movement to repeal the Corn Laws, joined the East India Company in 1849 and rose to a high position in the Indian Civil Service, though he never got the seat on the Viceroy's Council for which he hoped (Wedderburn 1913). It is possible that one of the reasons he failed to attain the highest offices was his clear commitment to social and political reform in India. In 1882 he retired to Simla, where he became a confident of the new Viceroy, Lord Ripon.5 Hume joined the Theosophical Society in 1880, became the President of the Simla Branch in 1881, and seems to have provided the financial backing that enabled Blavatsky to begin publishing The Theosophist.

Before long, Sinnett and Hume began to send letters to, and supposedly receive letters from, two of the Great White Brotherhood - Koot Hoomi and Morya.6 The process of communication depended on the role as an intermediary of Blavatsky, whose authority over the Theosophical Society rested largely on her unique ability supposedly to communicate with the Mahatmas. Hume and Sinnett wrote their letters and gave them to Blavatsky who placed them in a wooden box, from where they dematerialised, supposedly having been called away by the Mahatmas. The replies from the Mahatmas apparently precipitated from nowhere, they were found sitting in the shrine, they fell from the ceiling, or they dropped on to a pillow. Understandably Hume became a bit discouraged by this indirect form of communication, and so he began to try to exercise his own occult powers in the hope of developing an ability to communicate directly with the Mahatmas. Eventually, in 1883, he broke with Blavatsky and resigned his post in the Simla Branch of the Society. He did so just before the now notorious Coulomb Affair. (When Blavatsky and Olcott returned to London early in 1884, they left Monsieur and Madame Coulomb in charge of the Theosophical Society's headquarters at Adyar; the Coulombs then made a number of allegations about the fraudulent ways Blavatsky produced the phenomena associated with her, and an investigation of the shrine in her room lent support to what they had said.) Hume, however, continued to believe in the existence of the Mahatmas and their mission despite both the Coulomb Affair and his personal disagreements with Blavatsky (Ripon Papers). Certainly he thought that the Mahatmas guided not only his spiritual growth, but also, as we will see, his political work...

Hume was probably the single most important individual for the formation of the Indian National Congress. He said that in 1878 he read various documents that convinced him large sections of the Indian population violently opposed British rule, and some even plotted rebellion (Wedderburn 1913: 78-83).11 These documents were communications he had received supposedly from the Mahatmas - Koot Hoomi and Morya. In one of the letters the Mahatmas supposedly sent Sinnett, they explained how the Great White Brotherhood successfully had controlled the Indian masses in the Rebellion of 1857 so as to preserve Imperial rule, which apparently was necessary to bring India to its allotted place in a new world order (Morya 1923: 324). Now the Mahatmas seemed to be directing Hume to maintain the correct balance between east and west (Ripon Papers). Certainly Hume thought the Mahatmas were superhuman beings with a special interest in the welfare of India. He believed their occult powers meant they possessed an unquestionable knowledge of Indian affairs; and, of course, their intense spirituality meant they were undeniably trustworthy. From their exalted position, the Mahatmas saw India was in danger, and, knowing of Hume's interest in the East and his political contacts, they had come to him to avert the danger. They had decided to reveal some of their wisdom to him so he could do what was necessary to forestall chaos. Even after Hume had turned against Blavatsky, he continued to believe in the Great White Brotherhood, their powers and their mission. Now he thought the Mahatmas, with their impeccable credentials, had chosen to pass some of their understanding on to him so he might act accordingly. They had warned him of an impending catastrophe so he might ward-off the disaster of which they wrote. His desire to do so now informed his political work. Hume tried to influence politics in two ways. First, he tried to convince Ripon to reform the administration of India so as to make it more responsive to the Indian people (Ripon Papers). Second, he tried to promote an all-India organisation so as to give voice to the concerns and aspirations of the Indians themselves (Wedderburn 1913).

Early in 1885, Hume helped to bring about the formation of the Bombay Presidency Association. Really, however, he wanted to create an all-India body, and he immediately used the Bombay group as a springboard from which to advance his idea of an Indian National Union. Soon he acquired the backing of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, as well as the Bombay group, for a proposal to schedule an all-India political conference to be held in Poona during December 1885. His quarrel with Blavatsky meant, however, that he had to work hard to win over the theosophists of the Madras Mahajana Sabha and the Indian Association of Calcutta. By May, he had visited Madras not only to discuss his proposals for the Poona conference with the members of the Mahajana Sabha, but also to put forward his views on the way the Theosophical Society should revive itself in the wake of the Coulomb fiasco. He did enough to convince the local leaders to fall in with his plans for an Indian National Union. Next Hume travelled to Calcutta where he seems to have contacted several prominent members of the Indian Association. Although Sen decided to give his backing to Hume, many of the others did not, preferring instead to go ahead under Banerjea's leadership with their alternative conference. An outbreak of cholera in Poona forced Hume to change the venue of his proposed conference, but, finally, in December 1885, the Indian National Union convened in Bombay (Indian National Congress 1885). Those present immediately renamed themselves the Indian National Congress, and when the Congress next met in December 1886, it did so in Calcutta, thus ensuring the adherence of Banerjea's alternative National Conference (Indian National Congress 1886).

The Indian National Congress was formed by nationalists from all over India together with a retired British official. Hume worked alongside some of the people he had met at the annual conventions of the Theosophical Society -- Malabari, Rao, and Sen - in order to arrange the founding conference of Congress. The Theosophical Society made it possible for someone like Hume to work in the way he did alongside Indian nationalists, and if he had not done so, it would have been, at the very least, more difficult to found an all-India political body. "No Indian could have started the Indian National Congress," G. K. Gokhale later wrote: "if the founder of the Congress had not been a great Englishman and a distinguished ex-official, such was the distrust of political agitation in those days that the authorities would have at once found some way or other to suppress the movement" (Wedderburn 1913: 63-4).


-- Theosophy and the Origins of the Indian National Congress, by Mark Bevir


Hume's interest in spirituality brought him into contact with many independent Indian thinkers[88] who also had nationalist ideas and this led to the idea of creating the Indian National Congress.[89]

Hume's immersion into the theosophical movement led him to become a vegetarian[90] and also to give up killing birds for their specimens.[8]


Indian National Congress

Main article: Indian National Congress

Image
Hume at the first session, Bombay, 28–31 December 1885

Image
Hume on a 1973 stamp of India

After retiring from the civil services and towards the end of Lord Lytton's rule, Hume observed that the people of India had a sense of hopelessness and wanted to do something, noting "a sudden violent outbreak of sporadic crime, murders of obnoxious persons, robbery of bankers and looting of bazaars, acts really of lawlessness which by a due coalescence of forces might any day develop into a National Revolt." Concerning the British government, he stated that a studied and invariable disregard, if not actually contempt for the opinions and feelings of our subjects, is at the present day the leading characteristic of our government in every branch of the administration.[91]

There were agrarian riots in the Deccan and Bombay, and Hume suggested that an Indian Union would be a good safety valve and outlet to avoid further unrest. On 1 March 1883 he wrote a letter to the graduates of the University of Calcutta:[29]

If only fifty men, good and true, can be found to join as founders, the thing can be established and the further development will be comparatively easy. ...

And if even the leaders of thought are all either such poor creatures, or so selfishly wedded to personal concerns that they dare not strike a blow for their country's sake, then justly and rightly are they kept down and trampled on, for they deserve nothing better. Every nation secures precisely as good a Government as it merits. If you the picked men, the most highly educated of the nation, cannot, scorning personal ease and selfish objects, make a resolute struggle to secure greater freedom for yourselves and your country, a more impartial administration, a larger share in the management of your own affairs, then we, your friends, are wrong and our adversaries right, then are Lord Ripon's noble aspirations for your good fruitless and visionary, then, at present at any rate all hopes of progress are at an end and India truly neither desires nor deserves any better Government than she enjoys. Only, if this be so, let us hear no more factious, peevish complaints that you are kept in leading strings and treated like children, for you will have proved yourself such. Men know how to act. Let there be no more complaining of Englishmen being preferred to you in all important offices, for if you lack that public spirit, that highest form of altruistic devotion that leads men to subordinate private ease to the public weal – that patriotism that has made Englishmen what they are – then rightly are these preferred to you, rightly and inevitably have they become your rulers. And rulers and task-masters they must continue, let the yoke gall your shoulders never so sorely, until you realise and stand prepared to act upon the eternal truth that self-sacrifice and unselfishness are the only unfailing guides to freedom and happiness.


Image
Hume (left) with Wedderburn (right) and Dadabhai Naoroji

His poem The Old Man's Hope published in Calcutta in 1886 also captures the sentiment:[92]

Sons of Ind, why sit ye idle,
Wait ye for some Deva's aid?
Buckle to, be up and doing!
Nations by themselves are made!

Are ye Serfs or are ye Freemen,
Ye that grovel in the shade?
In your own hands rest the issues!
By themselves are nations made! ...


The idea of the Indian National Union took shape and Hume initially had some support from Lord Dufferin for this, although the latter wished to have no official link to it. Dufferin's support was short-lived[93] and in some of his letters he went so far as to call Hume an "idiot", "arch-impostor", and "mischievous busy-body." Dufferin's successor Lansdowne refused to have any dialogue with Hume.[94] Other supporters in England included James Caird (who had also clashed with Lytton over the management of famine in India[95]) and John Bright.[96] Hume also founded an Indian Telegraph Union to fund the transfer of news of Indian matters to newspapers in England and Scotland without interference from British Indian officials who controlled telegrams sent by Reuters.[97] It has been suggested that the idea of the congress was originally conceived in a private meeting of seventeen men after a Theosophical Convention held at Madras in December 1884 but no evidence exists. Hume took the initiative, and it was in March 1885, when a notice was first issued to convene the first Indian National Union to meet at Poona the following December.[29]

He attempted to increase the Congress base by bringing in more farmers, townspeople and Muslims between 1886 and 1887 and this created a backlash from the British, leading to backtracking by the Congress. Hume was disappointed when Congress opposed moves to raise the age of marriage for Indian girls and failed to focus on issues of poverty. Some Indian princes did not like the idea of democracy and some organizations like the United Indian Patriotic Association went about trying to undermine the Congress by showing it as an organization with a seditious character.[98] In 1892, he tried to get them to act by warning of a violent agrarian revolution but this only outraged the British establishment and frightened the Congress leaders. Disappointed by the continued lack of Indian leaders willing to work for the cause of national emancipation, Hume left India in 1894.[2]

Many Anglo-Indians were against the idea of the Indian National Congress. The press in India tended to look upon it negatively, so much so that Hume is said to have held a very low opinion of journalists even later in life.[99] A satirical work published in 1888 included a character called "A. O. Humebogue".[100]

The organizers of the 27th session of the Indian National Congress at Bankipur (26–28 December 1912) recorded their "profound sorrow at the death of Allan Octavian Hume, C.B., father and founder of the Congress, to whose lifelong services, rendered at rare self-sacrifice, India feels deep and lasting gratitude, and in whose death the cause of Indian progress and reform sustained irreparable loss."[101][102]

South London Botanical Institute

Main article: South London Botanical Institute

Image
Bookplate of Hume with the motto Industria et Perseverantia

After the loss of his manuscript containing his lifetime of ornithological notes. Hume took up a great interest in horticulture while at Shimla.

... He erected large conservatories in the grounds of Rothney Castle, filled them with the choicest flowers, and engaged English gardeners to help him in the work. From this, on returning to England, he went on to scientific botany. But this, as Kipling says, is another story, and must be left to another pen.[103]


Image
Herbarium cabinets at the SLBI

Hume took an interest in wild plants and especially on invasive species although his botanical publishing was sparse with only a few short notes in 1901 on a variety of Scirpus maritimus and another on the flowering of Impatiens roylei. Hume contacted W.H. Griffin in 1901 to help develop a herbarium of botanical specimens. Hume would arrange his plants on herbarium sheets in artistic positions before pressing them. The two made many botanical trips including one to Down in Kent to seek some of the rare orchids that had been collected by Darwin.[104] In 1910, Hume bought the premises of 323 Norwood Road, and modified it to have a herbarium and library. He called this establishment the South London Botanical Institute (SLBI) with the aim of "promoting, encouraging, and facilitating, amongst the residents of South London, the study of the science of botany."

One of the aims of the institute was to help promote botany as a means for mental culture and relaxation, an idea that was not shared by Henry Groves, a trustee for the Institute.[105] Hume objected to advertisement and refused to have any public ceremony to open the institute. The first curator was W.H. Griffin and Hume endowed the Institute with £10,000. Frederick Townsend, F.L.S., an eminent botanist, who died in 1905, had left instructions that his herbarium and collection was to be given to the institute, which was then only being contemplated.[106] Hume left £15,000 in his will for the maintenance of the botanical institute.[44][107]

Image
Herbarium sheets showing Hume's artistic arrangements

In the years leading up to the establishment of the Institute, Hume built up links with many of the leading botanists of his day. He worked with F. H. Davey and in the Flora of Cornwall (1909), Davey thanks Hume as his companion on excursions in Cornwall and Devon, and for help in the compilation of the 'Flora', publication of which was financed by Hume.[108] The SLBI has since grown to hold a herbarium of approximately 100,000 specimens mostly of flowering plants from Europe including many collected by Hume. The collection was later augmented by the addition of other herbaria over the years, and has significant collections of Rubus (bramble) species and of the Shetland flora.

Works

• My Scrap Book: Or Rough Notes on Indian Oology and Ornithology (1869)
• List of the Birds of India (1879)
• The Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds (3-volumes)
• with Marshall, Charles Henry Tilson (1879). The Game Birds of India, Burmah and Ceylon. Calcutta: A.O. Hume & C.H.T. Marshall. OCLC 5111667. Retrieved 15 April 2020. (3-volumes, 1879-1881)
• Hints on Esoteric Theosophy
• Agricultural Reform in India (1879)
• Lahore to Yarkand. Incidents of the Route and Natural History of the Countries Traversed by the Expedition of 1870 under T. D. Forsyth
• Stray Feathers (11-volumes + index by Charles Chubb)

The standard author abbreviation Hume is used to indicate this person as the author when citing a botanical name.[109]

References

1. Collar, N. J.; Prys-Jones, R. P. (2012). "Pioneers of Asian ornithology. Allan Octavian Hume" (PDF). BirdingASIA. 17: 17–43.
2. Moulton, Edward C. (2004). "Hume, Allan Octavian (1829–1912)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press.
3. Ali, S. (1979). Bird study in India: Its history and its importance. Azad Memorial lecture for 1978. Indian Council for Cultural Relations. New Delhi.
4. Moulton (2004); Encyclopædia Britannica and some older sources give his birthplace as Montrose, Forfarshire.
5. "Obituary". Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer. British Newspaper Archive. 1 August 1912. p. 8. Retrieved 4 July 2014.
6. "University of London". Morning Post. British Newspaper Archive. 16 July 1845. Retrieved 4 July2014.
7. Wedderburn (1913):3.
8. Moulton, Edward (2003). "The Contributions of Allan O. Hume to the Scientific Advancement of Indian Ornithology". In J. C. Daniel; G. W. Ugra (eds.). Petronia: Fifty Years of Post-Independence Ornithology in India. New Delhi, India: BNHS, Bombay & Oxford University Press. pp. 295–317.
9. Keene, H.G. (1883). "Indian Districtions during the Revolt". The Army and Navy Magazine. 6: 97–109.
10. Keene, Henry George (1883). Fifty-Seven. Some account of the administration of Indian Districts during the revolt of the Bengal Army. London: W.H.Allen and Co. pp. 58–67.
11. Wedderburn (1913):11–12.
12. Trevelyan, George (1895). The Competition Wallah. London: Macmillan and Co. p. 246.
13. Wedderburn (1913):19.
14. Wedderburn (1913):21.
15. Memorandum by M. Kempson, Director of Public Instruction, NWP, dated 19-April-1870. Home Department Proceedings April, 1877. National Archives of India.
16. Wedderburn (1913) spells Daniell.
17. Wedderburn (1913):16.
18. Wallach, Bret (1996). Losing Asia: Modernization and the Culture of Development (PDF). The Johns Hopkins Press.
19. Footnote in Lydekker, 1913: This was a thorn-hedge supplemented by walls and ditches, and strongly patrolled for preventing the introduction into British territory of untaxed salt from native states (see Sir John Strachey's "India," London, 1888).
20. Lydekker, R. (1913). Catalogue of the Heads and Horns of Indian Big Game bequeathed by A. O. Hume, C. B., to the British Museum. British Museum of Natural History.
21. Markham, Clements R. (1878). A memoir on the Indian Surveys (2 ed.). London: W.H. Allen and Co. p. 307.
22. Randhawa, M.S. (1983). A history of agriculture in India. Volume III. 1757–1947. New Delhi, India: Indian Council of Agricultural Research. pp. 172–186.
23. Hovell-Thurlow, T.J. (1866). The Company and the Crown. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons. p. 89.
24. Markham, Clements R. (1880). "Peruvian Bark. A popular account of the introduction of Chinchona cultivation into British India". Nature. 23 (583): 427–434. Bibcode:1880Natur..23..189.. doi:10.1038/023189a0. hdl:2027/uc1.$b71563. S2CID 43534483.
25. Hume, A. O. (1879). Agricultural Reform in India. London, UK: W H Allen and Co.
26. Wedderburn (1913):37
27. Wedderburn (1913):35–38
28. Moulton, Edward C. (1985). "Allan O. Hume and the Indian National Congress, a reassessment". Journal of South Asian Studies. 8 (1): 5–23. doi:10.1080/00856408508723063.
29. Sitaramayya, B. Pattabhi (1935). The history of the Indian National Congress (1885–1935). Working Committee of the Congress. pp. 12–13.
30. "[Miscellanea]". Pall Mall Gazette. 1 April 1890. p. 6 – via British Newspaper Archive.
31. "Marriages". Dundee Advertiser. 2 February 1882. p. 8 – via British Newspaper Archive.
32. Howe, Ellic. Fringe Masonry in England, 1870–1885. Holmes Publishing Group.
33. Blavatsky, H.P. (1968). Collected Writings. Volume 3. Blavatsky Writings Publication Fund. p. xxvii.
34. Wedderburn (1913):134
35. "Birds of South and East of Asia". The Cyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia, Commercial, Industrial and Scientific. Volume 1 (2 ed.). Scottish and Adelphi Press. 1871. p. 442.
36. Buck, Edward J. (1904). Simla. Past and Present. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink and Co. pp. 116–117.
37. Hume, A.O. (1876). "The Laccadives and the west coast". Stray Feathers. 4: 413–483.
38. Taylor, A. Dundas (1876). "Southern India and Laccadive Islands (I.G.S. Clyde, 300 tons, 60 H.P.)". General Report of the operations of the Marine Survey of India, from the commencement in 1874, to the end of the official year 1875–76. Calcutta: Government of India. pp. 7, 16–17.
39. Hume, A.O. (1881). "Novelties. Perdicula manipurensis, Sp. Nov". Stray Feathers. 9 (5&6): 467–471.
40. St. John, O.B. (1889). "On the birds of southern Afghanistan and Kelat". Ibis. 6. 31 (2): 145–180. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1889.tb06382.x.
41. Grote, A. (1875). "Catalogue of Mammals and Birds of Burma". Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal: ix.
42. "[Minutes of the Monthly General Meeting held on 7 January 1891]". Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal: 1. 1891.
43. Anonymous (1905). "One hundred and seventeenth session, 1904–1905. November 3rd, 1904". Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London: 1.
44. BDJ (1913). "Obituary notices". Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London: 60–61.
45. Anon. (1885). "The Hume Collection of Indian Birds". Ibis. 3 (4): 456–462. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1885.tb06259.x.
46. Thomas, Oldfied (1885). "On the mammals presented by Allan O. Hume, Esq., C.B., to the Natural History Museum". Proceedings of the General Meetings for Scientific Business of the Zoological Society of London. Zoological Society of London: 54–79.
47. Prain, David (1890). "A List of Laccadive plants". Scientific Memoirs by Medical Officers of the Army of India: 47–69.
48. Ripley, S. Dillon (1961). A Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakistan. Bombay, UK: Bombay Natural History Society.
49. Haffer, J. (1992). "The history of species concepts and species limits in ornithology". Bull. B.O.C. Centenary Supplement. 112A: 107–158.
50. Hume, A. O. (1875). "What is a species?". Stray Feathers. 3: 257–262.
51. Hume, A. (1869). "(no title)". Ibis. 2 (5): 355–357. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1869.tb06888.x.
52. Bensch, S.; Pearson, D. (2002). "The Large-billed Reed Warbler Acrocephalus orinus revisited"(PDF). Ibis. 144 (2): 259–267. doi:10.1046/j.1474-919x.2002.00036.x. Archived from the original(PDF) on 27 November 2007.
53. Koblik, E. A.; Red'kin, Y. A.; Meer, M. S.; Derelle, R.; Golenkina, S. A.; Kondrashov, F. A.; Arkhipov, V. Y. (2011). "Acrocephalus orinus: A Case of Mistaken Identity". PLOS ONE. 6 (4): e17716. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...617716K. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017716. PMC 3081296. PMID 21526114.
54. Kvartalnov, P. V.; Samotskaya, V. V.; Abdulnazarov, A. G. (2011). "From museum collections to live birds". Priroda (12): 56–58.
55. Hume, A. O. (1896). My scrap book: or rough notes on Indian zoology and ornithology. Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta.
56. Hume, Allan O. (1870). "Observations on some species of Indian birds, lately published in the Society's Journal". Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal: 85–86, 265–266.
57. Hume, A. O. (1874). "[Editorial]". Stray Feathers. 2: 2.
58. Oldham, T. (1873). "President's Address". Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal: 55–56.
59. Hume, A. O. (1874). "Die Papageien". Stray Feathers. 2: 1–28.
60. Hume, A. O. (1874). "Viscount Walden, president of the Zoological Society, on the editor of "Stray Feathers"". Stray Feathers. 2: 533–535.
61. Bruce, Murray (2003). "Foreword: A brief history of classifying birds". The Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume 8. Lynx Edicions. pp. 1–43.
62. Wedderburn (1913):116.
63. Lydekker, R. (1879). "Elementary sketch of the osteology of birds". Stray Feathers. 8 (1): 1–36.
64. "Influence of rainfall on distribution of species". Stray Feathers. 7: 501–502. 1878.
65. Sharpe, Bowdler (1893). "On the zoo-geographical areas of the world, illustrating the distribution of birds". Natural Science. 3: 100–108.
66. Hume, A. O. (1887). "On the flight of birds". Stray Feathers. 10: 248–254.
67. Hankin, E. H. (1914). Animal Flight: A Record of Observation. Iliffe and Sons, London. pp. 10–11.
68. Shyamal, L. (2007). "Opinion: Taking Indian ornithology into the Information Age". Indian Birds. 3(4): 122–137.
69. Murray, James A. (1888). The avifauna of British India and its dependencies. Volume 1. Truebner, London. p. xiv.
70. Warr, F. E. (1996). Manuscripts and Drawings in the ornithology and Rothschild libraries of The Natural History Museum at Tring. British Ornithologists' Club.
71. "University and City Intelligence". Oxford Journal. 10 February 1877. p. 5 – via British Newspaper Archive.
72. Butler, AL (1899). "The birds of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Part 1". Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society. 12 (2): 386–403.
73. Shelley, G.E. (1880). A monograph of the Nectariniidae, or family of sun-birds. London: Self published. p. x.
74. Hume, A. (1874). The Indian Ornithological Collector's Vade Mecum: containing brief practical instructions for collecting, preserving, packing and keeping specimens of birds, eggs, nests, feathers, and skeleton. Calcutta Central Press, Calcutta and Bernard Quaritch, London.
75. Hume, A.O. (1889). The Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds. Volume 1 (2 ed.). London: R.H.Porter. p. 199.
76. Hume, A.O. (1889). The Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds. Volume 1 (2 ed.). London: R.H.Porter. p. 378.
77. Brooks, W. E. (1878). "On an overlooked species of (Reguloides)". Stray Feathers. 7 (1–2): 128–136.
78. Wood-Mason, James (1874). "On a new Genus and Species (Hylæocarcinus Humei) of land-crabs from the Nicobar Islands". Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 14 (81): 187–191. doi:10.1080/00222937408680954.
79. Lydekker (1913):6–7
80. Fedosenko, AK; DA Blank (2005). "Ovis ammon" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 773: 1–15. doi:10.1644/1545-1410(2005)773[0001:oa]2.0.co;2.
81. "India [From the Bombay Gazette of March 20]". Morning Post. 8 April 1880. p. 3 – via British Newspaper Archive.
82. Barker, A.T., ed. (1923). The Mahatma Letters. London, UK: T. Fisher Unwin.
83. Oddie, Geoffrey (2013). Religious Conversion Movements in South Asia: Continuities and Change, 1800–1990. Routledge. p. 140.
84. Buck, E. J. (1904). Simla, past and present. Calcutta, India: Thacker and Spink. pp. 116–118.
85. Sinnett, A.P. (1883). The occult world. London, UK: Trubner & co. pp. 54–61.
86. Murdoch, John (1894). The theosophic craze: its history; the great Mahatma hoax; how Mrs. Besant was befooled and deposed; its attempted revival of exploded superstitions of the middle ages (1st ed.). Madras, India: The Christian Literature Society. p. 17.
87. Blavatsky, H.P. (1923). "Letter No CXXXVIII". In Barker, A. T. (ed.). The Mahatma Letters. London: T. Fisher Unwin. pp. 304, 469.
88. Bevir, Mark (2003). "Theosophy and the Origins of the Indian National Congress". International Journal of Hindu Studies. 7 (1–3): 99–115. doi:10.1007/s11407-003-0005-4. S2CID 54542458.
89. Hanes, W. Travis III (1993). "On the Origins of the Indian National Congress: A Case Study of Cross-Cultural Synthesis". Journal of World History. 4 (1): 69–98.
90. H.X. (1882). "No 2. Reply to the Foregoing Letter". Hints on Esoteric Theosophy. pp. 16–71. See footnote on page 23.
91. Hume to Northbrook, 1 August 1872, Northbrook Papers, cited in Mehrotra 2005.
92. Cited in Mehrotra 2005:75
93. Martin, Briton Jr. (1967). "Lord Dufferin and the Indian National Congress, 1885–1888". The Journal of British Studies. 7 (1): 68–96. doi:10.1086/385545.
94. Misra, J.P. (1970). "A. O. Hume's leadership of the Indian national congress". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 32: 102–110. JSTOR 44138512.
95. Gray, Peter (2006). "Famine and Land in Ireland and India, 1845-1880: James Caird and the Political Economy of Hunger". The Historical Journal. 49 (1): 193–215. doi:10.1017/S0018246X05005091. JSTOR 4091745.
96. Wedderburn (1913):54.
97. Wedderburn (1913):55.
98. Beck, Theodore, ed. (1888). Pamphlets issued by the United Indian Patriotic Association. No. 2 Showing the seditious character of the Indian national congress. Pioneer Press, Allahabad.
99. "Obituary. Allan Octavian Hume, a notable Anglo-Indian". Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer. 1 August 1912. p. 8 – via British Newspaper Archive.
100. Anonymous (1888). India in 1983 (3 ed.). London: Thacker, Spink and Co. p. 47.
101. Wedderburn (1913):176.
102. Besant, Annie (1915). How India wrought for freedom. The story of the Indian National Congress. London: Theosophical Publishing House. p. 604.
103. Wedderburn (1913):43, quoting CHT Marshall
104. Wedderburn (1913):113–115.
105. [J.G.] (1913). "Henry Groves (1855–1912)". Journal of Botany, British and Foreign. 51: 73–79.
106. Wedderburn (1913):118–121
107. A.B.R. (1912). "Allan Octavian Hume, C.B. (1829–1912)". Journal of Botany, British and Foreign. 50: 347–348.
108. Thurston, E; Vigurs, C. C. (1922), A Supplement to F. Hamilton Davey's "Flora of Cornwall", Truro: Oscar Blackford
109. IPNI. Hume.

Further reading

• Bruce, Duncan A. (2000) The Scottish 100: Portraits of History's Most Influential Scots, Carroll & Graf Publishers.
• Buck, E. J. (1904). Simla, Past and Present. Calcutta: Thacker & Spink.
• Mearns and Mearns (1988) Biographies for Birdwatchers. Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-487422-3
• Mehrotra, S. R. (2005) Towards India's Freedom and Partition, Rupa & Co., New Delhi.
• Mehrotra, S. R.; Edward C. Moulton (Eds) (2004) Selected Writings of Allan Octavian Hume: District Administration in North India, Rebellion and Reform, Volume One: 1829–1867. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-565896-5
• Moxham, Roy (2002) The Great Hedge of India. ISBN 0-7567-8755-6
• Wedderburn, W. (1913). Allan Octavian Hume. C.B. Father of the Indian National Congress. T.F. Unwin. London.

External links

• Media from Wikimedia Commons
• Texts from Wikisource

Works

• My scrap book: or rough notes on Indian oology and ornithology (1869)
• List of the birds of India (1879)
• The Indian Ornithological Collector's Vade Mecum (1874)
• The Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds: Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3
• Game birds of India, Burmah and Ceylon: Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3
• Hints on Esoteric Theosophy
• Agricultural Reform in India (1879)
• Lahore to Yarkand. Incidents of the Route and Natural History of the countries traversed by the expedition of 1870 under T. D. Forsyth
• Stray Feathers – volumes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Index 1–11

Biographical sources

• Biographies of ornithologists
• Hume-Blavatsky correspondence
• South London Botanical Institute
• The Victorian Web

Botany

• Botanical Society of the British Isles
• Herbarium specimens collected by Hume

Search archives

• Works by Allan Octavian Hume at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about Allan Octavian Hume at Internet Archive
• Works by Allan Octavian Hume at Hathi Trust
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Fri Aug 28, 2020 6:43 am

Mahatma Letter No. 5
by Theosophy Wiki
Accessed: 8/27/20

Quick Facts
People involved
Written by: Koot Hoomi
Received by: A. P. Sinnett
Sent via: H. P. Blavatsky
Dates
Written on: October 27-29, 1880 See below.
Received on: November 1-5, 1880 See below.
Other dates: unknown
Places
Sent from: Amritsar, India
Received at: Allahabad, India
Via: unknown


This is Letter No. 5 in The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, 4th chronological edition. It corresponds to Letter No. 4 in Barker numbering. Letter No. 6 seems to be a postscript to this letter. See below for Context and background.

Cover sheet

Apparently received 5th November {1880}. Madam and Colonel O. arrived at our house, Allahabad, on December the 1st, 1880. Col. O. went to Benares on the 3rd — Madam joined him on the 11th. Both returned to Allahabad on 20th and stayed until 28th.

Amrita Saras, Oct. 29.

My dear Brother,

I could assuredly make no objection to the style which you have kindly adopted, in addressing me by name, since it is, as you say, the outcome of a personal regard even greater than I have as yet deserved at your hands. The conventionalities of the weary world, outside our secluded "ashrums," trouble us but little at any time; least of all now, when it is men not ceremony-masters, we seek, devotion, not mere observances. More and more a dead formalism is gaining ground, and I am truly happy to find so unexpected an ally in a quarter where, hitherto there have not been too many — among the highly educated classes of English Society. A crisis, in a certain sense, is upon us now, and must be met. I might say two crises — one, the Society's, the other for Tibet. For, I may tell you in confidence, that Russia is gradually massing her forces for a future invasion of that country under the pretext of a Chinese War. If she does not succeed it will be due to us; and herein, at least we will deserve your gratitude. You see then, that we have weightier matters than small societies to think about; yet, the T.S. must not be neglected. The affair has taken an impulse, which, if not well guided, might beget very evil issues. Recall to mind the avalanches of your admired Alps, that you have often thought about, and remember that at first their mass is small and their momentum little. A trite comparison you may say, but I cannot think of a better illustration, when viewing the gradual aggregation of trifling events, growing into a menacing destiny for the Theos. Soc. It came quite forcibly upon me the other day as I was coming down the defiles of Kouenlun — Karakorum you call them — and saw an avalanche tumble. I had gone personally to our chief to submit Mr. Hume's important offer, and was crossing over to Lhadak on my way home. What other speculations might have followed I cannot say. But just as I was taking advantage of the awful stillness which usually follows such cataclysm, to get a clearer view of the present situation and the disposition of the "mystics" at Simla, I was rudely recalled to my senses. A familiar voice, as shrill as the one attributed to Saraswati's peacock — which, if we may credit tradition, frightened off the King of the Nagas — shouted along the currents "Olcott has raised the very devil again! . . . The Englishmen are going crazy. . . . Koot Hoomi, come quicker and help me!" — and in her excitement forgot she was speaking English. I must say, that the "Old Lady's" telegrams do strike one like stones from a catapult!

What could I do but come? Argument through space with one who was in cold despair, and in a state of moral chaos was useless. So I determined to emerge from the seclusion of many years and spend some time with her to comfort her as well as I could. But our friend is not one to cause her mind to reflect the philosophical resignation of Marcus Aurelius. The fates never wrote that she could say: "It is a royal thing, when one is doing good to hear evil spoken of himself." . . . I had come for a few days, but now find that I myself cannot endure for any length of time the stifling magnetism even of my own countrymen. I have seen some of our proud old Sikhs drunk and staggering over the marble pavement of their sacred Temple. I have heard an English-speaking Vakil declaim against Yog Vidya and Theosophy, as a delusion and a lie, declaring that English Science had emancipated them from such "degrading superstitions," and saying that it was an insult to India to maintain that the dirty Yogees and Sunnyasis knew anything about the mysteries of nature; or that any living man can or ever could perform any phenomena!

I turn my face homeward to-morrow.

The delivery of this letter may very possibly be delayed for a few days, owing to causes which it will not interest you for me to specify. Meanwhile, however, I have telegraphed you my thanks for your obliging compliance with my wishes in the matters you allude to in your letter of the 24th inst. I see with pleasure, that you have not failed to usher me before the world as a possible "confederate." That makes our number ten I believe? But I must say, that your promise was well and loyally fulfilled. Received at Umritsur on the 27th inst., at 2 p.m., I got your letter about thirty miles beyond Rawul Pindee, five minutes later, and had an acknowledgment wired to you from Jhelum at 4 p.m. on the same afternoon. Our modes of accelerated delivery and quick communications are not then, as you will see, to be despised by the Western world, or even the Aryan, English-speaking and skeptical Vakils.

I could not ask a more judicial frame of mind in an ally than that in which you are beginning to find yourself. My Brother, you have already changed your attitude toward us in a distinct degree: what is to prevent a perfect mutual understanding one day!

Mr. Hume's proposition has been duly and carefully considered. He will, no doubt, advise you of the results as expressed in my letter, to him. Whether he will give our "modes of action" as fair a trial as yourself — is another question. Our Maha (the "Chief") has allowed me to correspond with both of you, and even — in case an Anglo-Indian Branch is formed — to come some day in personal contact with it. It now depends entirely on you. I cannot tell you more. You are quite right as to the standing of our friends in the Anglo-Indian world having been materially improved by the Simla visit; and, it is also true, though you modestly refrain from saying so, that we are mainly indebted to you for this. But quite apart from the unlucky incidents of the Bombay publications, it is not possible that there should be much more at best than a benevolent neutrality shown by your people toward ours. There is so very minute a point of contact between the two civilisations they respectively represent, that one might almost say they could not touch at all. Nor would they but for the few — shall I say eccentrics? — who, like you, dream better and bolder dreams than the rest; and provoking thought, bring the two together by their own admirable audacity. Has it occurred to you that the two Bombay publications, if not influenced, may at least have not been prevented, by those who might have done so, because they saw the necessity for that much agitation to effect the double result of making a needed diversion after the Brooch Grenade, and, perhaps, of trying the strength of your personal interest in occultism and theosophy? I do not say it was so; I but enquire whether the contingency ever presented itself to your mind. I have already caused it to be intimated to you that if the details given in the stolen letter had been anticipated in the Pioneer — a much more appropriate place, and where they would have been handled to better advantage — that document would not have been worth anyone's while to purloin for the Times of India, and therefore no names would have appeared.

Colonel Olcott is doubtless "out of time with the feelings of English people" of both classes; but nevertheless more in time with us than either. Him we can trust under all circumstances, and his faithful service is pledged to us come well, come ill. My dear Brother, my voice is the echo of impartial justice. Where can we find an equal devotion? He is one who never questions, but obeys; who may make innumerable mistakes out of excessive zeal but never is unwilling to repair his fault even at the cost of the greatest self-humiliation; who esteems the sacrifice of comfort and even life something to be cheerfully risked whenever necessary; who will eat any food, or even go without; sleep on any bed, work in any place, fraternise with any outcast, endure any privation for the cause. . . . I admit that his connection with an A. I. Branch would be "an evil" — hence, he will have no more to do with it than he has with the British, (London Branch). His connection will be purely nominal, and may be made more so, by framing your Rules more carefully than theirs; and giving your organization such a self-acting system of Government as would seldom if ever require any outside interference. But to make an independent A.I.B. with the self-same objects, either in whole or apart, as the Parent Society and with the same directors behind the scenes would be not only to deal a mortal blow at the Theos. Soc. but also put upon us a double labour and anxiety without the slightest compensating advantage that any of us can perceive. The Parent S. has never interfered in the slightest degree with the British T.S., nor indeed with any other Branch, whether religious or philosophical. Having formed, or caused to be formed a new branch, the Parent S. charters it (which it cannot now do without our Sanction and signatures), and then usually retires behind the scenes, as you would say. Its further connection with the subject branches is limited to receiving quarterly accounts of their doings and lists of the new Fellows, ratifying expulsions — only when specially called upon as an arbitrator to interfere on account of the Founders' direct connection with us — etc., etc.; it never meddles otherwise in their affairs except when appealed to as a sort of appelate court. And the latter depending on you, what is there to prevent your Society from remaining virtually independent? We are, even more generous than you British are to us. We will not force upon, nor even ask you to sanction a Hindu "Resident" in your Society, to watch the interests of the Parent Paramount Power when we have once declared you independent; but will implicitly trust to your loyalty and word of honour. But if you now so dislike the idea of a purely nominal executive supervision by Col. Olcott — an American of your own race — you would surely rebel against dictation from a Hindu, whose habits and methods are those of his own people, and whose race, despite your natural benevolence, you have not yet learnt to tolerate, let alone to love or respect. Think well before you ask for our guidance. Our best, most learned and highest adepts are of the races of the "greasy Tibetans"; and the Penjabi Singhs — you know the lion is proverbially a dirty and offensive beast, despite his strength and courage. Is it certain that your good compatriots would more easily forgive our Hindu solecisms in manners than those of their own kinsmen of America? If my observations have not misled I should say this was doubtful. National prejudices are not apt to leave one's spectacles undimmed. You say "how glad we should be, if that one (to guide you) were yourself," meaning your unworthy correspondent. My good Brother, are you certain, that the pleasant impression you now may have from our correspondence, would not instantly be destroyed upon seeing me? And which of our holy Shaberons has had the benefit of even the little university education and inkling of European manners that has fallen to my share? An instance: I desired Mad. B. to select among the two or three Aryan Punjabees who study Yog Vidya, and our natural mystics, one, whom — without disclosing myself to him too much I could designate as an agent between yourself and us, and whom I was anxious to dispatch to you, with a letter of introduction, and have him speak to you of Yoga and its practical effects. This young gentleman who is as pure as purity itself, whose aspirations and thoughts are of the most spiritual ennobling kind, and who merely through self-exertion is able to penetrate into the regions of the formless worlds — this young man is not fit for — a drawing-room. Having explained to him that the greatest good might result for his country if he helped you to organize a Branch of English mystics by proving to them practically to what wonderful results led the study of Yog, Mad. B. asked him in guarded and very delicate terms to change his dress and turban before starting for Allahabad — for, though she did not give him this reason, they were very dirty and slovenly. You are to tell Mr. Sinnett — she said — that you bring him a letter from our Brother K., with whom he corresponds. But, if he asks you anything either of him or the other Brothers answer him simply and truthfully that you are not allowed to expatiate upon the subject. Speak of Yog and prove to him what powers you have attained. This young man who had consented wrote later on the following curious letter: "Madam," he said, "you who preach the highest standards of morality, of truthfulness, etc., you would have me play the part of an imposter. You ask me to change my clothes at the risk of giving a false idea of my personality and mystifying the gentleman you send me to. And what if he asks me if I personally know Koot'hoomi, am I to keep silent and allow him to think I do? This would be a tacit falsehood, and guilty of that, I would be thrown back into the awful whirl of transmigration!" Here is an illustration of the difficulties under which we have to labour. Powerless to send to you a neophyte before you have pledged yourself to us — we have to either keep back or despatch to you one who at best would shock if not inspire you at once with disgust! The letter would have been given him by my own hand; he had but to promise to hold his tongue upon matters he knows nothing about and could give but a false idea of, and to make himself look cleaner. Prejudice and dead letter again. For over a thousand years, — says Michelet, — the Christian Saints never washed themselves! For how long will our Saints dread to change their clothes for fear of being taken for Marmaliks and the neophytes of rival and cleaner sects!

But these, our difficulties, ought not to prevent you from beginning your work. Colonel O. and Mad. B. seeming willing to become personally responsible for both yourself and Mr. Hume, if you yourself are ready to answer for the fidelity of any man your party may choose as the leader of the A.I.T.S., we are content that the trial shall be made. The field is yours and no one will be allowed to interfere with you except myself on behalf of our Chiefs when you once do me the honour to prefer me to the others. But before one builds the house he makes the plan. Suppose you draft a memorandum as to the constitution and policy of management of the A.I. Society you have in mind and submit it for consideration? If our Chiefs agree to it — and it is not surely they who would show themselves obstructive in the universal onward march, or retard this movement to a higher goal — then you will at once be chartered. But they must first see the plan; and I must ask you to remember that the new Society shall not be allowed to disconnect itself with the Parent Body, though you are at liberty to manage your affairs in your own way without fearing the slightest interference from its President so long as you do not violate the general Rules. And upon this point I refer you to Rule IX. This is the first practical suggestion coming from a Cis and Trans-Himalayan "cave-dweller" whom you have honoured with your confidence.

And now about yourself personally. Far be it from me to discourage one so willing as yourself by setting up impossible barriers to your progress. We never whine over the inevitable but try to make the best of the worst. And though we neither push nor draw into the mysterious domain of occult nature those who are unwilling; never shrink from expressing our opinions freely and fearlessly, yet we are ever as ready to assist those who come to us; even to — agnostics who assume the negative position of "knowing nothing but phenomena and refuse to believe in anything else." It is true that the married man cannot be an adept, yet without striving to become "a Raja Yogi" he can acquire certain powers and do as much good to mankind and often more, by remaining within the precincts of this world of his. Therefore, shall we not ask you to precipitately change fixed habits of life, before the full conviction of its necessity and advantage has possessed you. You are a man to be left to lead himself, and may be so left with safety. Your resolution is taken to deserve much: time will effect the rest. There are more ways than one for acquiring occult knowledge. "Many are the grains of incense destined for one and the same altar: one falls sooner into the fire, the other later — the difference of time is nothing," remarked a great man when he was refused admission and supreme initiation into the mysteries. There is a tone of complaint in your question whether there ever will be a renewal of the vision you had, the night before the picnic day. Methinks, were you to have a vision nightly, you would soon cease to "treasure" them at all. But there is a far weightier reason why you should not have a surfeit — it would be a waste of our strength. As often as I, or any of us can communicate with you, whether by dreams, waking impressions, letters (in or out of pillows) or personal visits in astral form — it will be done. But remember that Simla is 7,000 feet higher than Allahabad, and the difficulties to be surmounted at the latter are tremendous. I abstain from encouraging you to expect too much, for, like yourself, I am loathe to promise what, for various reasons, I may not be able to perform.

The term "Universal Brotherhood" is no idle phrase. Humanity in the mass has a paramount claim upon us, as I try to explain in my letter to Mr. Hume, which you had better ask the loan of. It is the only secure foundation for universal morality. If it be a dream, it is at least a noble one for mankind: and it is the aspiration of the true adept.

Yours faithfully,

Koot' Hoomi Lal Singh.

Context and background

Olcott thought Sinnett should immediately publish reports of all the Simla phenomena in The Pioneer. When this didn’t happen, he wrote an article entitled “A Day with Madame Blavatsky” in which he described some of these phenomena. In this article he mentioned the names of several prominent Englishmen who had been present on these occasions. He sent the story to Bombay, to Damodar Mavalankar, who was in charge of headquarters during the absence of the founders, to be reproduced and circulated among local members of the Theosophical Society.

Unfortunately, the Times of India somehow got hold of a copy and published it, along with some abusive comments. Damodar wrote a protest which the Times refused to publish. However, the Bombay Gazette did publish a sharp rejoinder by H.P.B.

The persons whose names Col. Olcott had mentioned in his article were extremely embarrassed and unhappy about the publicity, and of course the whole thing boomeranged on H.P.B. She became frantic and sent a call for help to the Mahatma K.H. She and the Colonel were in Amritsar at the time.

At this time, the Mahatma K.H. was en route — in his physical body — through Ladakh on his return from a visit to the Mahachohan to consult with him concerning some developments mentioned in the first paragraph of this letter as well as about the letter which he (K.H.) had received from Hume. When he heard H.P.B.’s frantic cry for help, he decided to change his route and go to see her.

Phenomena

Before Sinnett left Simla, he sent a registered letter to H.P.B. at Amritsar, to be forwarded to the Mahatma K.H. (This was in addition to the short note about the “Pillow Incident” mentioned in Mahatma Letter No. 4.)

H.P.B. received the registered letter on October 27 and sent it on to K.H. by occult means as soon as she received it; the time was fixed by the postal register as 2:00 p.m. The Mahatma K.H. was on board a train (in what is now Pakistan) en route to see her.

He received the letter at 2:05 p.m. near Rawalpindi. At the next station (Jhelum) he got off the train, went into the telegraph office, and wrote out a telegram of acknowledgment to Sinnett, which was, of course, dated and filed by the telegraph agent.

The Master also instructed H.P.B. to return to Sinnett the envelope in which the letter had been received, which showed the date and time of the registration. At first, Sinnett could not understand why he was to save this old envelope but save it he did, and later he saw the connection: the date and time of the letter’s registration and the date and time of the sending of the telegram showed that the letter could not have reached him by other than occult means. Later, the Mahatma asked Sinnett to get the handwritten copy of the telegram, which Sinnett finally did, and it is among the Mahatma Letters in the British Museum. Thus Sinnett was made aware that H.P.B. had managed a very quick transmission of his letter across some hundreds of miles.

Thus, it seems, the Mahatma K.H. was willing to give Sinnett another bit of proof of his existence, and something of his powers. The whole incident is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence anywhere in the literature.

Physical description of letter

The original letter in in Folio 1 at the British Library. According to George Linton and Virginia Hanson:

In dull black ink on both sides of 8 sheets of full-sized white paper. The script varies somewhat in weight and appearance. The signature is in four separate parts. The "K" has a backward turned curl at the top of the upper arm. Beneath the signature, in Devanagari characters, is a transliteration of "Koot Hoomi Lal Singh."[1]


Notes

1. George E. Linton and Virginia Hanson, eds., Readers Guide to The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett (Adyar, Chennai, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1972), 41.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Fri Aug 28, 2020 7:50 am

Theosophy and the Origins of the Indian National Congress
by Mark Bevir
Department of Political Science
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[E-mail: mbevir@socrates.berkeley.edu]

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


ABSTRACT

A study of the role of theosophy in the formation of the Indian National Congress enhances our understanding of the relationship between neo-Hinduism and political nationalism. Theosophy, and neo-Hinduism more generally, provided western-educated Hindus with a discourse within which to develop their political aspirations in a way that met western notions of legitimacy. It gave them confidence in themselves, experience of organisation, and clear intellectual commitments, and it brought them together with liberal Britons within an all-India framework. It provided the background against which A. O. Hume worked with younger nationalists to found the Congress.

KEYWORDS: Blavatsky, Hinduism, A. O. Hume, India, nationalism, theosophy.

THEOSOPHY AND THE ORIGINS OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS1

The Indian National Congress was founded in 1885. Throughout much of the preceding century, a variety of organisations had striven to initiate reform among the religions of the sub-continent. The Brahmo Sabha, the Arya Samaj, the Theosophical Society, and other groups, had developed broadly similar doctrines and practices which can be described as neo-Hinduism (Bharati 1970; Jones 1989). What was the relationship of this neo-Hinduism to political nationalism? I want to explore this question by focusing on the role played by one expression of neo-Hinduism, namely theosophy, in the formation of the Indian National Congress. In doing so, I hope to highlight a neglected aspect of the role of western concepts of eastern societies within eastern societies themselves. Recent studies of indology emphasise the way western conceptualisations of India undermined the ability of Indians to govern themselves by ascribing reason and authority to their colonial rulers (Inden 1990). However, in so far as indology legitimised British rule by ascribing certain characteristics to the west, it also made it possible for Indians to legitimise their political aspirations by ascribing these characteristics to themselves. Western-educated Indians were not slow to represent classical Hinduism and traditional Indian society as rational, scientific, and moral, even as having a desirable spiritual dimension the west lacked (Bharati 1970; Killingley 1995). Moreover, a number of western occultists and radicals adopted a similar view of the superiority of ancient India as a critique of their religious and social traditions.2 Crucially, both western-educated Indians and western occultists sometimes used their vision of ancient India, and the organisations through which they promoted it, to advance the political cause of Indian nationalism.3

In what follows, therefore, I will explore the appeal of theosophy both to British people who were discontented with their civilisation, and to western-educated Indians looking for a way of legitimising their culture in the face of the challenge of the west. Moreover, when exploring its appeal to western-educated Indians, I also will argue its doctrines and the nature of its appeal give us good reason to regard it as part of the broader neo-Hindu movement. Having thus established that theosophy was a part of the neo-Hindu movement, I will go on to use a study of theosophy to illustrate the contribution of neo-Hinduism to Indian nationalism. I will explore the way in which British and Indian theosophists were able to use theosophy both indirectly and directly to promote the formation of the Indian National Congress.

The Appeal of Theosophy

To begin, therefore, we need to understand what theosophy was, and why it appealed to some Britons in India, including A. O. Hume. We need to do so because later we will find theosophy's contribution to Indian nationalism arose out of the way it brought Indians together with such Britons to promote confidence, experience of organisation, and shared intellectual commitments. Madame Blavatsky (nee. Hahn) provided the inspiration for the Theosophical Society, formed in 1875 (Campbell 1980). She was born into an aristocratic Russian family, but at the age of seventeen, after three months of an unhappy marriage, she ran away and entered the world of the occult (Fuller 1988; Williams 1946). By 1875 she occupied a prominent place in the American spiritualist movement: she wrote articles defending the authenticity of spiritualist happenings, and was herself credited with causing spiritualist phenomena. When she went to investigate spirits that allegedly had materialised in Vermont, she met Henry Olcott, a veteran of the Civil War, who was reporting on the phenomena for The Sunday Chronicle (Olcott 1875). Soon afterwards, Olcott became the first President of the Theosophical Society, although Blavatsky remained its prophet and also the power behind the throne. The theosophists adopted three basic aims: to promote the brotherhood of man, to investigate the hidden powers of life and matter, and to encourage the study of comparative religion.

The doctrine Blavatsky gave to the Society derived from the western occult tradition (Ellwood 1979). She argued that occultism related to spiritualism "as the infinite to the finite, as the cause to the effect, or as the unity to multifariousness," and so she wanted to shift attention from the spiritualist movement towards the occult tradition with its cosmologies, magicians, and mystics (1977: I,101-2). The whole universe, she argued, emanates from an infinite being infusing all things (Blavatsky 1888).

The whole question of phenomena rests on the correct comprehension of old philosophies. Whither, then, should we turn, in our perplexity, but to the ancient sages, since, on the pretext of superstition, we are refused an explanation by the modern? Let us ask them what they know of genuine science and religion; not in the matter of mere details, but in all the broad conception of these twin truths — so strong in their unity, so weak when divided. Besides, we may find our profit in comparing this boasted modern science with ancient ignorance; this improved modern theology with the "Secret doctrines" of the ancient universal religion. Perhaps we may thus discover a neutral ground whence we can reach and profit by both.

It is the Platonic philosophy, the most elaborate compend of the abstruse systems of old India, that can alone afford us this middle ground. Although twenty-two and a quarter centuries have elapsed since the death of Plato, the great minds of the world are still occupied with his writings. He was, in the fullest sense of the word, the world's interpreter. And the greatest philosopher of the pre-Christian era mirrored faithfully in his works the spiritualism of the Vedic philosophers who lived thousands of years before himself, and its metaphysical expression. Vyasa, Djeminy, Kapila, Vrihaspati, Sumati, and so many others, will be found to have transmitted their indelible imprint through the intervening centuries upon Plato and his school. Thus is warranted the inference that to Plato and the ancient Hindu sages was alike revealed the same wisdom. So surviving the shock of time, what can this wisdom be but divine and eternal?

Plato taught justice as subsisting in the soul of its possessor and his greatest good. "Men, in proportion to their intellect, have admitted his transcendent claims." Yet his commentators, almost with one consent, shrink from every passage which implies that his metaphysics are based on a solid foundation, and not on ideal conceptions.

But Plato could not accept a philosophy destitute of spiritual aspirations; the two were at one with him. For the old Grecian sage there was a single object of attainment: REAL KNOWLEDGE. He considered those only to be genuine philosophers, or students of truth, who possess the knowledge of the really-existing, in opposition to the mere seeing; of the always-existing, in opposition to the transitory; and of that which exists permanently, in opposition to that which waxes, wanes, and is developed and destroyed alternately. "Beyond all finite existences and secondary causes, all laws, ideas, and principles, there is an INTELLIGENCE or MIND [nou'" , nous , the spirit], the first principle of all principles, the Supreme Idea on which all other ideas are grounded; the Monarch and Lawgiver of the universe; the ultimate substance from which all things derive their being and essence, the first and efficient Cause of all the order, and harmony, and beauty, and excellency, and goodness, which pervades the universe — who is called, by way of preëminence and excellence, the Supreme Good, the God ( ὁ qeò" ) 'the God over all' ( ὁ epi pasi qeò" )." [4] He is not the truth nor the intelligence, but "the father of it." Though this eternal essence of things may not be perceptible by our physical senses, it may be apprehended by the mind of those who are not wilfully obtuse. "To you," said Jesus to his elect disciples, "it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but to them [ the polloi^ ] it is not given; . . . therefore speak I to them in parables [or allegories]; because they seeing, see not, and hearing, they hear not, neither do they understand." [5]

The philosophy of Plato, we are assured by Porphyry, of the Neoplatonic School was taught and illustrated in the MYSTERIES. Many have questioned and even denied this; and Lobeck, in his Aglaophomus, has gone to the extreme of representing the sacred orgies as little more than an empty show to captivate the imagination. As though Athens and Greece would for twenty centuries and more have repaired every fifth year to Eleusis to witness a solemn religious farce! Augustine, the papa-bishop of Hippo, has resolved such assertions. He declares that the doctrines of the Alexandrian Platonists were the original esoteric doctrines of the first followers of Plato, and describes Plotinus as a Plato resuscitated. He also explains the motives of the great philosopher for veiling the interior sense of what he taught. [6]

As to the myths, Plato declares in the Gorgias and the Phædon that they were the vehicles of great truths well worth the seeking. But commentators are so little en rapport with the great philosopher as to be compelled to acknowledge that they are ignorant where "the doctrinal ends, and the mythical begins." Plato put to flight the popular superstition concerning magic and dæmons, and developed the exaggerated notions of the time into rational theories and metaphysical conceptions. Perhaps these would not quite stand the inductive method of reasoning established by Aristotle; nevertheless they are satisfactory in the highest degree to those who apprehend the existence of that higher faculty of insight or intuition, as affording a criterion for ascertaining truth.

Basing all his doctrines upon the presence of the Supreme Mind, Plato taught that the nous, spirit, or rational soul of man, being "generated by the Divine Father," possessed a nature kindred, or even homogeneous, with the Divinity, and was capable of beholding the eternal realities. This faculty of contemplating reality in a direct and immediate manner belongs to God alone; the aspiration for this knowledge constitutes what is really meant by philosophy — the love of wisdom. The love of truth is inherently the love of good; and so predominating over every desire of the soul, purifying it and assimilating it to the divine, thus governing every act of the individual, it raises man to a participation and communion with Divinity, and restores him to the likeness of God. "This flight," says Plato in the Theætetus, "consists in becoming like God, and this assimilation is the becoming just and holy with wisdom."

The basis of this assimilation is always asserted to be the preëxistence of the spirit or nous. In the allegory of the chariot and winged steeds, given in the Phædrus, he represents the psychical nature as composite and two-fold; the thumos, or epithumetic part, formed from the substances of the world of phenomena; and the qumoeidev" thumoeides, the essence of which is linked to the eternal world. The present earth-life is a fall and punishment. The soul dwells in "the grave which we call the body," and in its incorporate state, and previous to the discipline of education, the noetic or spiritual element is "asleep." Life is thus a dream, rather than a reality. Like the captives in the subterranean cave, described in The Republic, the back is turned to the light, we perceive only the shadows of objects, and think them the actual realities. Is not this the idea of Maya, or the illusion of the senses in physical life, which is so marked a feature in Buddhistical philosophy? But these shadows, if we have not given ourselves up absolutely to the sensuous nature, arouse in us the reminiscence of that higher world that we once inhabited. "The interior spirit has some dim and shadowy recollection of its antenatal state of bliss, and some instinctive and proleptic yearnings for its return." It is the province of the discipline of philosophy to disinthrall it from the bondage of sense, and raise it into the empyrean of pure thought, to the vision of eternal truth, goodness, and beauty. "The soul," says Plato, in the Theætetus, "cannot come into the form of a man if it has never seen the truth. This is a recollection of those things which our soul formerly saw when journeying with Deity, despising the things which we now say are, and looking up to that which REALLY IS. Wherefore the nous, or spirit, of the philosopher (or student of the higher truth) alone is furnished with wings; because he, to the best of his ability, keeps these things in mind, of which the contemplation renders even Deity itself divine. By making the right use of these things remembered from the former life, by constantly perfecting himself in the perfect mysteries, a man becomes truly perfect — an initiate into the diviner wisdom."

Hence we may understand why the sublimer scenes in the Mysteries were always in the night. The life of the interior spirit is the death of the external nature; and the night of the physical world denotes the day of the spiritual. Dionysus, the night-sun, is, therefore, worshipped rather than Helios, orb of day. In the Mysteries were symbolized the preëxistent condition of the spirit and soul, and the lapse of the latter into earth-life and Hades, the miseries of that life, the purification of the soul, and its restoration to divine bliss, or reunion with spirit. Theon, of Smyrna, aptly compares the philosophical discipline to the mystic rites: "Philosophy," says he, "may be called the initiation into the true arcana, and the instruction in the genuine Mysteries.

-- Isis Unveiled, by Helena P. Blavatsky


It evolves through a plethora of cycles, moving out from the infinite and becoming increasingly physical, until, at last, it reaches a turning point, after which it retraces its route, finally being reabsorbed into the infinite being from which it first arose. Here Blavatsky defended mystical experience by reference to the infinite in us all. She argued that we can come into contact with the divine spark inside us by adopting an appropriate set of ascetic practices: mystics purify themselves in order to have unmediated experience of their true unity with God. Behind the visible physical realm there lies a spiritual one that corresponds exactly to it and gives it life, and beyond both of these realms there lies the eternal infinite being, the source of all things. Here Blavatsky defended the possibility of natural magic by reference to the spiritual realm. She argued that spirit links all the objects of our physical world in a single set of mutual sympathies; and because magicians know the nature of these sympathies, they can act on one physical object so as to influence the spiritual realm and thus bring about a desired effect on another physical object that stands in a sympathetic relationship to the first one. The most advanced portion of humanity already have become highly spiritual beings. They are on the return road to the divine. Nonetheless, some of them have chosen to watch over our progress, and, when necessary, to aid us by their interventions in the physical and spiritual realms. These Masters constitute the Great White Brotherhood of Mahatmas who live in the Himalayas. Blavatsky claimed this Brotherhood gave her her orders: it was they who instructed her to form the Theosophical Society, and to write the works in which she expounded her doctrines (Johnson 1994).

In 1879, Blavatsky and Olcott travelled to London, where they met the members of the British Theosophical Society, formed on 27 June 1878 under the leadership of Charles Massey, a barrister. The most immediate appeal of theosophy to people such as Massey lay in its development of spiritualism.4 Spiritualism attracted great interest in British Society: the patrons of the Society for Psychical Research included powerful figures such as the Balfours and the Gladstones as well as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Oppenheim 1985; Podmore 1902). The Theosophical Society capitalised on this interest by winning converts from organisations such as the British National Association of Spiritualists. Blavatsky argued that spiritualism would fall before its detractors unless it expanded to embrace occult philosophy. In a way she was right, for the interest in spiritualism owed at least as much to broader shifts in the intellectual life of the country as to a specific interest in raps and other phenomena. The fundamental appeal of theosophy lay, therefore, in the response it offered to the various dilemmas that constituted the Victorian crisis of faith. In the minds of many Victorians, geological discoveries and evolutionary theory had combined to pitch science against Christianity. Theosophy offered them a religious faith that appeared to embrace these discoveries whilst also sustaining a spiritual interpretation of life. Blavatsky assured her readers the occultists had anticipated modern science, and her cosmology certainly occupies a geological timescale and portrays the history of the universe as an evolutionary process. Thus she could claim her doctrines provided "the only possible key to the Absolute in science and theology" (1972: I,VII). In addition, the expansion of the British Empire, the discovery of alternative cultures with a long and impressive past, and the development of cheap and popular forms of communication; all these things combined to give many Victorians a taste for the exotic as illustrated by the fashionable interest in the artefacts and beliefs of other peoples. Theosophy offered Victorians an exotic faith allegedly derived from Masters from Tibet. It did so at a time when people experienced cultural and geographic distances as long enough for the Great White Brotherhood to sound plausible, but short enough for this plausibility to be alluring.

After visiting Britain, Blavatsky and Olcott travelled on to India, where they landed at Bombay in January 1879. Here too they attracted support from within the British community. The appeal of theosophy to Britons in India was, of course, much the same as to people such as Massey. Blavatsky and Olcott obtained their entry into the British community, for example, largely through the good offices of A. P. Sinnett, whose interest in them extended a prior involvement with spiritualism (Sinnett 1986). Sinnett edited the Allahabad Pioneer, and his coverage of Blavatsky was so extensive and favourable that he lost his job. Hume met Blavatsky and Olcott at Allahabad, and, after spending some time with them, concluded most of the phenomena linked with her, about which Sinnett wrote a book, were genuine (Sinnett 1881). Hume, the son of Joseph Hume, a Radical social reformer who had been active in the movement to repeal the Corn Laws, joined the East India Company in 1849 and rose to a high position in the Indian Civil Service, though he never got the seat on the Viceroy's Council for which he hoped (Wedderburn 1913). It is possible that one of the reasons he failed to attain the highest offices was his clear commitment to social and political reform in India. In 1882 he retired to Simla, where he became a confident of the new Viceroy, Lord Ripon.5 Hume joined the Theosophical Society in 1880, became the President of the Simla Branch in 1881, and seems to have provided the financial backing that enabled Blavatsky to begin publishing The Theosophist.

Before long, Sinnett and Hume began to send letters to, and supposedly receive letters from, two of the Great White Brotherhood - Koot Hoomi and Morya.6 The process of communication depended on the role as an intermediary of Blavatsky, whose authority over the Theosophical Society rested largely on her unique ability supposedly to communicate with the Mahatmas. Hume and Sinnett wrote their letters and gave them to Blavatsky who placed them in a wooden box, from where they dematerialised, supposedly having been called away by the Mahatmas. The replies from the Mahatmas apparently precipitated from nowhere, they were found sitting in the shrine, they fell from the ceiling, or they dropped on to a pillow. Understandably Hume became a bit discouraged by this indirect form of communication, and so he began to try to exercise his own occult powers in the hope of developing an ability to communicate directly with the Mahatmas. Eventually, in 1883, he broke with Blavatsky and resigned his post in the Simla Branch of the Society. He did so just before the now notorious Coulomb Affair. (When Blavatsky and Olcott returned to London early in 1884, they left Monsieur and Madame Coulomb in charge of the Theosophical Society's headquarters at Adyar; the Coulombs then made a number of allegations about the fraudulent ways Blavatsky produced the phenomena associated with her, and an investigation of the shrine in her room lent support to what they had said.) Hume, however, continued to believe in the existence of the Mahatmas and their mission despite both the Coulomb Affair and his personal disagreements with Blavatsky (Ripon Papers). Certainly he thought that the Mahatmas guided not only his spiritual growth, but also, as we will see, his political work.


Theosophy obviously would not have had much impact on Indian nationalism had its appeal been restricted to Britons such as Hume and Sinnett. Next, therefore, we need to understand why it appealed to western-educated Indians, and how it came to be part of a broader neo-Hindu culture. Blavatsky and Olcott had set sail for India in 1879 largely on the strength of their relationship with Dayananda Sarasvati and his Arya Samaj. A chance meeting in 1878 between Olcott and Moolji Thackeray, a member of the Arya Samaj of Bombay, led to a cordial correspondence with both organisations somewhat over-estimating the similarity of their aims. The Council of the Theosophical Society voted in favour of a merger with the Arya Samaj, and, in May 1878, even changed its name to the Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj. When Blavatsky and Olcott landed in Bombay, they were helped by the head of the local Arya Samaj. Although a miss-understanding led him to assume they had more wealth than they did and so overdo the lavishness of his arrangements, and although this caused them to have some doubts about his honesty, the underlying warmth of their feeling for the Arya Samaj remained unaffected at this time. Moreover, after their arrival in India, they attracted supporters from within the Indian community, including prominent men such as Subramanian Aiyar, B. M. Malabari, Raganath Rao, Nurendranath Sen, and Kashinath Telang.7 To understand both the attraction of the Arya Samaj to theosophists and the attraction of theosophy to some Indians, we need to recognise that although Blavatsky's doctrines derived from the occult tradition, she made a crucial change to that tradition. She located the source of the ancient wisdom in India, not Egypt. She said, "it has been discovered that the very same ideas [as those the occultists had traced back to ancient Egypt] . . . may be read in Buddhistic and Brahmanical literature" (1972: I,626). The immediate source of the appeal of theosophy to its Indian followers was, of course, just this emphasis on the historical importance and epistemic validity of their Hindu tradition. If we are to understand why this emphasis had the appeal it did, however, we must consider why a number of Indians were ready to welcome a reformulation of their religious heritage. We need to understand how Indians adapted theosophical beliefs for their own purposes. Almost all the Indians who joined the Theosophical Society came from the western-educated elite. The British adopted a policy - most famously expounded by Macaulay - of educating an Indian elite in a western manner with the intention that this elite then would stand between the colonial rulers and the rest of the Indian people. The tension between the indigenous background of this elite and the worldview they encountered during their education left many of them with a sense of cultural crisis. This crisis consisted primarily of a perceived conflict between the Hinduism in which they had been raised and the scientific rationalism of the west; although there was, in addition, a perceived conflict between the social practices of Hinduism and the moral and political values associated with western rationalism and also with Christianity. It was this cultural crisis that provided the background to the neo-Hinduism of the Brahmo Sabha, the Arya Samaj, and also the Indian Section of the Theosophical Society.

The Brahmo Sabha, the Arya Samaj, and the Theosophical Society all reinterpreted Hinduism to bring it more into line with western science and ethics, thereby helping to resolve the cultural crisis described above; and, moreover, they did so in very similar ways. Although there were differences between the three groups, the differences should not obscure the basic similarity of their doctrines. The Brahmo Sabha was formed in 1828 by Rammohun Roy (Kopf 1979). Roy, heavily indebted to Unitarianism, adopted a universalist perspective, according to which all the religions of the world had a shared core dictated by a pure reason; but he also drew on themes found in western indology to argue Vedic Hinduism came nearer to the true universal religion than did Christianity. Thus, Roy called on Hindus to reform their religion so as to return to the pure Vedanta. It was from this perspective that he condemned the contemporary practices of a corrupt Hinduism, speaking out in favour of widows remarrying, and against both child marriage and sati. Although Dayananda came from Gujurat, and although he formed the first Arya Samaj in Bombay, the Arya Samaj soon came to represent a sort of Punjabi response to Brahmoism, which itself was very much a product of Bengal (Jones 1976; Jordens 1978). Dayananda too called for a return to the pure Vedic faith. He too sought to reform not only strictly religious practices such as idol worship, but also social ones such as child marriage. However, Dayananda rejected Roy's universalism in favour of a militant assertion of Hindu superiority - he even maintained a doctrine of Vedic infallibility, according to which the ancient rishis had grasped all the truths of modern science, including the theory of evolution. The important thing for us to note, however, is the extent to which theosophy embraced core doctrines shared by the Brahmo Sabha and the Arya Samaj. Like Roy and Dayananda, Blavatsky reasserted the validity of Indian culture, especially Hinduism, in the face of the attacks on it by some Christian missionaries. Again like Roy and Dayananda, she did so by appealing to a pure Vedic faith that had become corrupted, where this pure Vedic faith more than met the stringent requirements of a properly defined rationalism. And finally like Roy and Dayananda, she went on to champion various religious and social reforms as necessary to purge Hinduism of its corrupt elements and thereby return it to pure Vedanta. It was with these general doctrines that western-educated Indians, from within the Brahmo Sabha, the Arya Samaj, and also the Theosophical Society, responded to the cultural crisis that then confronted them.8 We can conclude, therefore, first, that theosophy was part of a broader neo-Hinduism characterised by specific intellectual commitments, and, second, that the attraction of theosophy to a section of Indian society can be explained in much the same way as can that of other neo-Hindu organisations. Although there were differences between neo-Hindu organisations, differences which appear, for example, in the later disagreement between the theosophists and Dayananda, they still shared various core doctrines in common. Because theosophy incorporated these core doctrines, it came to occupy a place within the neo-Hindu movement.

The Background to Indian Nationalism

So far we have seen why theosophy appealed to both Britons such as Hume and Indians such as Subramanian Aiyar. Moreover, when examining theosophy's appeal to the latter, we saw that theosophy constituted an integral part of a broader neo-Hindu culture; despite its origins in the western occult tradition, its identification of Brahmanism as the ideal source of all religion, and its creative interpretation of Brahmanism as including the scientific and moral doctrines of western rationalism, meant that it shared the characteristic ideas of neo-Hinduism. Having thus grasped the appeal of theosophy, we can turn now to consider its role in relation to the nationalist movement. When we do so, we will treat theosophy as representative of the way neo-Hinduism as a whole fed into the nationalist movement, as well as going on to look at the specific contribution of theosophy itself.

Blavatsky and Olcott were kept under police surveillance for much of the time they were in India. The colonial authorities feared that they might destabilise British rule as a result of their praise of local religions; besides, Blavatsky was a Russian national and the British were concerned about the stability of the Northwestern Frontier in the face of the Russian threat. When Olcott complained about the police surveillance, he elicited a reply in which the authorities said the police would stop bothering the theosophists provided the theosophists agreed to restrict themselves to philosophy and science, avoiding politics (Olcott 1972-75: I,254-57). Although Blavatsky and Olcott agreed to avoid politics, and duly did so, theosophy still had both a diffuse and a specific impact on Indian nationalism. Hume and some western-educated Indians used theosophy to advance political nationalism. Indeed, theosophy provided part of the framework of action of several of those who founded the Indian National Congress.

The western-educated elite in India faced a political crisis as well as a cultural one. Many of them had trained as lawyers, and quite a few had gone to London to do so. Their legal education, especially their encounter with the history and law of the British constitution, often left them with an admiration for British liberty and justice. On the one hand, their respect for the British constitution often reinforced a sense of the virtues of Imperial rule: British rule appeared to be a blessing, a period of tutelage during which the Indian people could learn how to govern themselves in a liberal manner. On the other hand, however, the principles of liberty and justice acted as standards by which they could judge the government of India, and, more often than not, find it wanting: they demanded respect and opportunities from the British; they wanted a place in the structure of government, and they wanted to see progress towards genuine liberty for India. The neo-Hinduism of the nineteenth-century fed this nascent political movement by giving the western-educated elite confidence in themselves, experience of organisation, and clear intellectual commitments. The Theosophical Society provided a vital contribution to each of these areas, adding things not readily available from groups such as the Brahmo Sabha and the Arya Samaj.

The first general contribution of neo-Hinduism to Indian nationalism was the confidence it gave the western-educated elite in their heritage and themselves. The cultural revival in nineteenth-century India brought a new appreciation of Indian civilisation, its values, practices, and institutions. Certainly the theosophists' belief in Indian religion spilled over to a concern with Indian medicine, Indian diet, and other such things. Blavatsky argued that Ayurvedic medicine worked by means of occult laws based on the principle of action at a distance through a knowledge of the sympathies existing between things. She argued that the Indian diet, and especially its emphasis on vegetarianism, aided the development of a mystical spirituality - meat is a heavy food that ties one to the physical realm. The theosophists worked alongside other neo-Hindus to preserve ancient manuscripts, to defend vernacular languages, and to promote Indian dress. The interest and respect thus accorded to Indian civilisation provided the western-educated elite with resources on which they could draw as they forged a new identity for themselves. The special contribution of theosophy to this growth of confidence lay in the fact that its leaders came from the west. When Olcott disembarked at Bombay in 1879, the first thing he did was to "stoop down and kiss the granite step" in an "instinctive act of 'pooja'" (Olcott 1972- 75: 2,213-14). Having arrived at Bombay, Blavatsky and Olcott then went to live in the Indian quarters of the city, not with other members of the European community. More generally, they compared Christianity unfavourably with the religions of India, arguing that the true source of all religions is the Vedic faith, of which Christianity is a notably corrupt form. The theosophists thought of India as a sacred land, so they showed it and its people a respect and admiration that verged on worship.

The second general contribution of neo-Hinduism to Indian nationalism was the experience of organisation it gave to some of the western-educated elite. The Indian people had no real experience of modern politics with its emphasis on popular participation and radical forms of agitation. Indeed, India remained, in many ways, a divided society with few co-operative lines of communication running between the different castes and classes.9 The organisations of the cultural revival did much to change this. Dayananda initially set out to reform Hinduism by converting his fellow Brahmins: he conveyed his message in Sanskrit and retained many traditions of the sannyasi (Jordens 1978). Later, however, and largely under the influence of the Brahmo Samaj, he turned to the Hindu faithful as a whole: he adopted Hindi instead of Sanskrit and dropped most of the practices of the sannyasi. Many neo-Hindu organisations provided Indians with some experience of agitation among an extended community. The special contribution of theosophy to this experience of organisation lay in the very diversity of those whom it brought together. Where the Brahmo Sabha had little impact beyond Bengali Hindus, and the Arya Samaj beyond Punjabi Hindus, the Theosophical Society was more of an all-India organisation. Its members came from all over the sub-continent. It attracted Parsees, Christians, Sikhs, and even some Muslims, as well as Hindus. And it brought some of the western-educated elite in Indian society into close contact with liberal members of the British community. The Society began to hold annual conventions as early as December 1881, and these gatherings provided a diverse group of sympathetic people with opportunities to come together to discuss the past, present, and future of India. Links were formed, an understanding of how to deal with others was gained, and a growing sense of a common identity and a common purpose was promoted.

The third general contribution of neo-Hinduism to Indian nationalism was the clear set of intellectual commitments it gave to the western-educated elite in Indian society. As we have seen, the Brahmo Sabha, Arya Samaj, and Theosophical Society espoused a number of common doctrines. They began to describe India as a unity with a common heritage, facing a common set of problems, requiring an all-India solution. Their view of the past centred on a golden age when India had been a paradise free from all the spiritual and social problems of modernity (Bharati 1970). India, they said, was the cradle of all the religions and civilisations of the world. Even today, they argued, the basic strength of India remained its religiosity. India still had a valuable understanding of matters of the spirit that was absent from the west, and without which the west could not for long avert disaster. Unfortunately, however, a number of corruptions had crept into Indian spirituality and thereby undermined the golden age. Blavatsky equated these corruptions with passages she thought the Brahmins had added to the sacred texts to justify a distasteful version of the caste system. It was these corruptions that had left India vulnerable to the British, and arguably even in need of British rule to provide an impetus to real reform. Thus, the Brahmo Sabha, Arya Samaj, and Theosophical Society all called for religious and social reforms to overturn corruptions within Hinduism. The process of reform, they implied, would enable India to recover her lost greatness. The nationalist significance of these neo-Hindu doctrines is indicated by their later appearance as the core ideas of Gandhi's classic work, Hind Swaraj (1938).

The special contribution of theosophy to the intellectual commitments promoted by neo-Hinduism lay in the way it combined praise of India's heritage with a syncretic openness. Where the Brahmo Sabha and its offshoots often drifted too far from Hinduism towards Unitarianism, and where the Arya Samaj's militant Hinduism put off people from other faiths, the Theosophical Society generally managed to steer a course between these two extremes. On the one hand, Olcott spoke in his inaugural address of "the Vedas" being "the primeval source of all religions": he appealed to Hindus by defending their faith against that of the colonial power (The Theosophist, August 1932). On the other hand, the theosophists insisted that the ancient wisdom was taught by all the religions of the world provided one concentrated on their true esoteric message: they extended their message to appeal to Parsees, Christians, and, in principle, Muslims. The theosophists rejected the militancy of the Arya Samaj with its reconversions and societies for the protection of cows; indeed, they did their best to avoid issues of dogma that divided different faiths. Thus, the Theosophical Society provided a set of beliefs that encouraged Hindus to commit themselves to certain political values, whilst also leaving them room to co-operate with Parsees, Muslims, and also liberal Britons with Christian backgrounds.

The British often argued that India could not be united and independent because the Indian people did not constitute a nation. The Indian people, they said, belonged to diverse regions, faiths, castes, and the like, each of which had its own special identity. Neo-Hinduism, as exemplified by the Theosophical Society, gave nationalists a suitable response to this argument. Nationalists could say not only that India had been a nation in a past golden age, but also that it rapidly was becoming one once again. They could point to objective factors that promoted a sense of national identity: there was British rule over the whole of the sub-continent, and a growth of economic links between the regions. And they could point to the emergence of a subjective awareness of a national identity: there was the sense of a common past and a common predicament, as well as the growth of various all-India organisations for reform. The Indian nation, they could say, was waking up from its long slumber.

The Origins of the Indian National Congress

Neo-Hinduism provided Indian nationalists with confidence, experience of organisation, and the beginnings of an ideology. The importance of neo-Hinduism appears in the way the Theosophical Society provided the framework for action within which some of its Indian and British members worked to form the Indian National Congress.10 From 1875 through to 1885 a number of young Indian nationalists became increasingly unhappy with their older leaders. Their opposition first became apparent in 1876 when Surendranath Banerjea led a group of young Bengalis in the formation of the Indian Association of Calcutta (Banerjea 1925). These young nationalists broke with the established British Indian Association of Bengal because they thought that it had become tied to the zamindars who showed little - if any - desire to end British rule. Sen, the editor of the Indian Daily Mirror, was a prominent member not just of the Theosophical Society, but also of the Indian Association of Calcutta. Early in 1885, he drew up a proposal for an all-India nationalist association, and then, together with Banerjea and the rest of the Indian Association of Calcutta, he began to organise a conference for the following December to form just such an all- India body. The inspiration for Sen's proposal might well have come from Madras, the venue for the 1884 annual convention of the Theosophical Society. At this convention, Rao argued that the Society should start formally to discuss the political situation in India as well as more strictly religious matters. Although Rao did not get his way, he did arrange a meeting of sympathetic theosophists to be held at his home. Those who attended this meeting included Aiyar, Ananda Charlu, and M. Viraraghavachariar, as well, of course, as Rao himself. They formed the Madras Mahajana Sabha, arguing that the established Madras Native Association had ceased to be of any value to the nationalist cause. Sen had attended some of the meetings leading up to the formation of the Madras Mahajana Sabha, and he must have had some knowledge of its plan to establish an all-India organisation. The Madras Mahajana Sabha planned to arrange a meeting to coincide with the next annual convention of the Theosophical Society. This meeting would promote their idea of an all-India body. Later in 1885, Malabari, Telang and other nationalists, such as Pherozeshah Mehta and Dadabhai Naoroji, organised the Bombay Presidency Association as a radical alternative to the older Bombay Association. Throughout India, therefore, theosophists were joining with other young nationalists to advance a more radical agenda, at the very heart of which lay the idea of an all-India organisation.

Hume was probably the single most important individual for the formation of the Indian National Congress. He said that in 1878 he read various documents that convinced him large sections of the Indian population violently opposed British rule, and some even plotted rebellion (Wedderburn 1913: 78-83).11 These documents were communications he had received supposedly from the Mahatmas - Koot Hoomi and Morya. In one of the letters the Mahatmas supposedly sent Sinnett, they explained how the Great White Brotherhood successfully had controlled the Indian masses in the Rebellion of 1857 so as to preserve Imperial rule, which apparently was necessary to bring India to its allotted place in a new world order (Morya 1923: 324). Now the Mahatmas seemed to be directing Hume to maintain the correct balance between east and west (Ripon Papers). Certainly Hume thought the Mahatmas were superhuman beings with a special interest in the welfare of India. He believed their occult powers meant they possessed an unquestionable knowledge of Indian affairs; and, of course, their intense spirituality meant they were undeniably trustworthy. From their exalted position, the Mahatmas saw India was in danger, and, knowing of Hume's interest in the East and his political contacts, they had come to him to avert the danger. They had decided to reveal some of their wisdom to him so he could do what was necessary to forestall chaos. Even after Hume had turned against Blavatsky, he continued to believe in the Great White Brotherhood, their powers and their mission. Now he thought the Mahatmas, with their impeccable credentials, had chosen to pass some of their understanding on to him so he might act accordingly. They had warned him of an impending catastrophe so he might ward-off the disaster of which they wrote. His desire to do so now informed his political work. Hume tried to influence politics in two ways. First, he tried to convince Ripon to reform the administration of India so as to make it more responsive to the Indian people (Ripon Papers). Second, he tried to promote an all-India organisation so as to give voice to the concerns and aspirations of the Indians themselves (Wedderburn 1913).

Early in 1885, Hume helped to bring about the formation of the Bombay Presidency Association. Really, however, he wanted to create an all-India body, and he immediately used the Bombay group as a springboard from which to advance his idea of an Indian National Union. Soon he acquired the backing of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, as well as the Bombay group, for a proposal to schedule an all- India political conference to be held in Poona during December 1885. His quarrel with Blavatsky meant, however, that he had to work hard to win over the theosophists of the Madras Mahajana Sabha and the Indian Association of Calcutta. By May, he had visited Madras not only to discuss his proposals for the Poona conference with the members of the Mahajana Sabha, but also to put forward his views on the way the Theosophical Society should revive itself in the wake of the Coulomb fiasco. He did enough to convince the local leaders to fall in with his plans for an Indian National Union. Next Hume travelled to Calcutta where he seems to have contacted several prominent members of the Indian Association. Although Sen decided to give his backing to Hume, many of the others did not, preferring instead to go ahead under Banerjea's leadership with their alternative conference. An outbreak of cholera in Poona forced Hume to change the venue of his proposed conference, but, finally, in December 1885, the Indian National Union convened in Bombay (Indian National Congress 1885). Those present immediately renamed themselves the Indian National Congress, and when the Congress next met in December 1886, it did so in Calcutta, thus ensuring the adherence of Banerjea's alternative National Conference (Indian National Congress 1886).

The Indian National Congress was formed by nationalists from all over India together with a retired British official. Hume worked alongside some of the people he had met at the annual conventions of the Theosophical Society - Malabari, Rao, and Sen - in order to arrange the founding conference of Congress. The Theosophical Society made it possible for someone like Hume to work in the way he did alongside Indian nationalists, and if he had not done so, it would have been, at the very least, more difficult to found an all-India political body. "No Indian could have started the Indian National Congress," G. K. Gokhale later wrote: "if the founder of the Congress had not been a great Englishman and a distinguished ex-official, such was the distrust of political agitation in those days that the authorities would have at once found some way or other to suppress the movement" (Wedderburn 1913: 63-4).


Conclusion

No doubt the western conceptualisation of the east generally served to subjugate the Indians to their colonial rulers, but it also provided a set of beliefs to which disgruntled western occultists and radicals, and also western-educated Indians, could appeal in order to defend the dignity and worth of Indian religion and Indian society. No doubt the founding theosophists had no intention of promoting political radicalism on the sub-continent, but the discourse they helped to establish provided others with an instrument they could use for political ends. Indeed, the formation of the Indian National Congress shows how western-educated Indians were able to join with Hume to promote their political ends using the particular advantages that involvement in the Theosophical Society had given them. The founders of the Indian National Congress relied on the contacts and commitments generated within the Society; they relied on a capacity for, and a belief in, co-operation, both at an all-India level and also between Indian nationalists and liberal Britons; and they relied on a background discourse that emphasised the strength and claims of India, its heritage, and its religion.

Although we have focused on the origins of the Indian National Congress, the process we have uncovered continued to operate for much of the nationalist era. Annie Besant, like Hume and Sinnett, used theosophy to resolve the Victorian crisis of faith after she had spent some time investigating spiritualist phenomena, and her theosophy combined with her radicalism to take her into the nationalist movement, where she became the only western woman ever to be elected as President of the Indian National Congress (Taylor 1992). Gandhi, like Malabari, Rao, and Sen, used theosophy to help restore his pride in his native culture to support his vision of ancient India as a vital, rational, and moral society (Gandhi 1948). British occultists, such as Besant, and western-educated Indians, such as Gandhi, turned to theosophy for different reasons, but once they had done so, they shared practices and intellectual commitments that helped sustain the nationalist movement.

_______________

Notes:

1 I thank the Leverhulme Trust for awarding me a Travel Abroad Studentship with which to pursue my research.

2 Although we will focus on the way theosophists used a vision of India as a basis for a critique of western civilisation, the same is true of various other groups, including the American transcendentalists (Christy 1932).

3 The occult tradition also supported various expressions of nationalism in the west (Webb 1974 & 1976). However, the links between the two were different from those found in the Indian case. Within the west, the occult tradition provided a basis from which to criticise Enlightenment liberalism in a way that could lend support to what were often anti-rationalist forms of nationalism.

4 Webb (1938) offers an excellent contemporary account of the context of religious concerns and beliefs within which theosophy became so popular.

5 Throughout this essay the information given about Hume's views derives primarily from his letters to Lord Ripon (Ripon Papers). These letters show Hume to have been genuinely committed to the cause of reform in India rather than a stooge planted among the nationalists by the colonial authorities.

6 The letters to Sinnett are collected in Morya (1923). On the nature and context of the bizarre claims Blavatsky made about the Mahatmas see Johnson (1994). Our purpose, however, is not to condemn her claims, but rather to explore the role Indian nationalists were able to make of the theosophical discourse in which these claims were embedded.

7 There is no reliable study of the membership of the Society. The information given here relies on research in the Archives of the Theosophical Society. Most of the information on the activities of the early Theosophists in India comes either from these Archives or The Theosophist.

8 This, of course, is why these general doctrines have proved so central to modern Hinduism (Bharati 1970; Jones 1989)

9 That the divisions in Indian society persisted through the nationalist era has been emphasised by the Cambridge school (Seal 1968) and the Subaltern Studies movement (Guha 1982).

10 On the general background to the Indian National Congress see Mehrotra (1971) and Seal (1968). For developments in the main regions see Banerjea (1925), Johnson (1973) and Suntharalingam (1974).

11 Wedderburn (1913) somewhat glossed over the place of Theosophy - especially the Mahatmas - in his account of Hume's political work. No doubt he did so because he was a friend of Hume's, and he regarded Hume's attachment to them as superstitious and so disreputable.

REFERENCES CITED

Archives of the Theosophical Society, Theosophical Society, Adyar, Madras.

Banerjea, Surendranath. 1925. A Nation in the Making: Being the Reminiscences of Fifty Years of Public Life. London: H. Milford.

Bharati, A. 1970. "The Hindu Renaissance and Its Apologetic Patterns". In Journal of Asian Studies 29: 267-88.

Blavatsky, H.P. 1888. The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy. 2 Vols. London: Theosophical Publishing House.

------ 1972. Isis Unveiled: A Master-Key to the Mysteries of Ancient and Modern Science and Theology. 2 Vols. Wheaton, Ill.: Theosophical Publishing House.

------ 1977. Collected Writings. 11 Vols. Ed. by Boris de Zirkoff. Wheaton, Ill.: Theosophical Publishing House.

Campbell, B. 1980. Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical Movement. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Christy, A.E. 1932. The Orient in American Transcendentalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ellwood, Robert. 1979. Alternative Altars. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fuller, J. 1988. Blavatsky and Her Teachers. London: East-West Publications.

Gandhi, M. 1938. Hind Swaraj. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Karyalaya.

------ 1948. An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.

Guha, Ranajit. 1982. "On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India". In R. Guha, ed. Subaltern Studies: Writings on South Asian History and Society. Vol. 1. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Inden, Ronald. 1990. Imagining India. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Johnson, Gordon. 1973. Provincial Politics and Indian Nationalism: Bombay and the Indian National Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, K. Paul. 1994. The Masters Revealed: Madam Blavatsky and the Myth of The Great White Lodge. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York.

Jones, K.W. 1976. Arya Dharm: Hindu Consciousness in Nineteenth Century Punjab. Berkeley: University of California Press.

---- 1989. Socio-Religious Reform Movements in British India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jordens, J. 1978. Dayananda Sarasvati: His Life and Ideas. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Killingley, Dermot. 1995. "Hinduism, Darwinism and Evolution in Late Nineteenth Century India". In J. Wallace & D. Amigoni, eds. Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species". Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Kopf, David. 1979. The Brahmo Samaj and the Shaping of the Modern Indian Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mehrotra, S.R. 1971. The Emergence of The Indian National Congress. Delhi: Vikas Publications.

Morya. 1923. The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett. Compiled by A.T. Barker. London: T. Fisher & Unwin.

Olcott, Henry. 1875. People From the Other World. Hartford, Conn.: American Publishing Company.

------ 1972-75. Old Diary Leaves: The History of the Theosophical Society. 6 Vols. Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing House.

Oppenheim, Janet. 1985. The Other World : Spiritualism and Psychical Research in England, 1850-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Podmore, Frank. 1902. Modern Spiritualism. 2 Vols. London: Methuen.

Reports of the Indian National Congress. 1885 & 1886.

Ripon Papers, British Library, London.

Seal, A. 1968. The Emergence of Indian Nationalism: Competition and Collaboration in the Late Nineteenth Century. London: Cambridge University Press.

Sinnett, A.P. 1881. The Occult World. London: Trubner & Co.

------ 1986. The Autobiography of Alfred Percy Sinnett. London: Theosophical History Centre.

Suntharalingam, R. 1974. Politics and Nationalist Awakening in South India 1852-91. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.

Taylor, Anne. 1992. Annie Besant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Theosophist.

Webb, Beatrice. 1938. My Apprenticeship. Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin.

Webb, James. 1974. The Occult Underground. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.

------ 1976. The Occult Establishment. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.

Wedderburn, William. 1913. Allan Octavian Hume: Father of the Indian National Congress, 1829-1912. London: Fisher Unwin.

Williams, Gertrude. 1946. Madame Blavatsky: Priestess of the Occult. New York: Lancer Books.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:03 am

Alfred Percy Sinnett
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 8/28/20



Image
Alfred Percy Sinnett
Born: Alfred Percy Sinnett, 18 January 1840, London, England
Died: 26 June 1921 (aged 81)
Occupation: Writer
Period: 19th century
Literary movement: Theosophy

Alfred Percy Sinnett (18 January 1840, in London – 26 June 1921) was an English author and theosophist.

Biography

Sinnett's father died while he was young, as in 1851 Sinnett was listed as a "Scholar – London University", living with his mother Jane, who is listed as a widow and whose occupation is listed as "Periodical Literature"; his older sister Sophia, age 22, was a teacher. Jane's sister Sarah, age 48, was also a teacher.[1]

In 1870 Sinnett married his wife Patience, probably in the London area. He is listed in the 1871 England Census at age 31, as a Journalist, born in Middlesex. His wife Patience is 27, and her mother Clarissa Edenson a "Landowner", is living with them.

By 1879, Sinnett had moved to India where he was "... the Editor of The Pioneer, the leading English Daily of India..."[2]

The Pioneer is an English language daily newspaper in India. It is published from multiple locations in India, including Delhi. It is the second oldest English language newspaper in India still in circulation after The Times of India...

The Pioneer was founded in Allahabad in 1865 by George Allen, an Englishman who had had great success in the tea business in north-east India in the previous decade. It was brought out three times a week from 1865 to 1869 and daily thereafter. In 1866, a supplement, the Pioneer Mail, consisting of "48 quarto-size pages," mostly of advertisements, was added to the publication. In 1872, Alfred Sinnett became the editor of the newspaper. Although he was later to be known for his interest in theosophy, he oversaw the transformation of the newspaper to one of exercising great influence in British India. In 1874, the weekly Pioneer Mail became the Pioneer Mail and India Weekly News and began to also feature short stories and travel writings. Author Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936), in his early 20s, worked at the newspaper office in Allahabad as an assistant editor from November 1887 to March 1889.

-- The Pioneer (India), by Wikipedia


He relates in his book, The Occult World that: "...on the first occasion of my making Madame Blavatsky's acquaintance she became a guest at my home at Allahabad and remained there for six weeks..."[3]

In 1880 Helena Blavatsky and Henry Steel Olcott visited the Sinnetts at their summer home in Simla. The Mahatma Letters, which generated the controversy that later helped lead to the split of the Theosophical Society were mostly written to Sinnett or his wife Patience. The letters started at this time when Sinnett asked Blavatsky whether if he wrote a letter to her Mahatmas, she could arrange to have it delivered.

By 1884 Sinnett was back in England, where that year Constance Wachtmeister states that she met Blavatsky at the home of the Sinnetts in London.[4]

Sinnett asked Charles Webster Leadbeater to come back to England to tutor his son Percy and George Arundale. Leadbeater agreed and brought with him one of his pupil Curuppumullage Jinarajadasa.

Curuppumullage Jinarajadasa (16 December 1875, Sri Lanka–18 June 1953, United States) was a Sri Lankan author, occultist, freemason and theosophist. The fourth president of the Theosophical Society, Jinarajadasa was one of the world's foremost Theosophical authors, having published more than 50 books and more than 1600 articles in periodicals during his life. His interests and writings included religion, philosophy, literature, art, science and occult chemistry. He was also a rare linguist, who had the ability to work in many European languages.

Jinarajadasa was born on 16 December 1875 in Sri Lanka to a family of Sinhalese parents. He was one of the first students of Ananda College, Colombo.

Ananda College (Sinhala: ආනන්ද විද්‍යාලය) is a Buddhist school for Sri Lankan boys, with classes from primary to secondary, on a campus of 10 acres (40,000 m2) in Maradana, Colombo.

Following a meeting of Buddhists at Pettah, under the patronage of Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala Thera, an English-Buddhist school was inaugurated at 19 Prince Street on 1 November 1886 by the Buddhist Theosophical Society. The first session was attended by 37 students. In 1888, when about 130 boys were attending, it moved to 61 Maliban Street. C. W. Leadbeater was appointed the first principal of Ananda today.

By the time the school was officially registered in March 1889, there were 120 students. That same year, J. P. R. Weerasuriya became the first Anandian to pass the Cambridge junior examination. The Cambridge graduate and confessed Buddhist A. E. Bultjens became principal...

Olcott oration is an annual event organized by the old boys association of Ananada College, which commemorate the founder Colonel Henry Steel Olcott of Ananda College and other leading Buddhist schools in Sri Lanka. Every year famous personalities who educated at Ananda College, share their own experience for the "Olcott oration" and renowned dignitaries who have delivered the oration in the past, include Prof. Nimal Rajapakshe, Prof. Sumedha Chandana Wirasinghe and Prof. Ravindra Fernando.

-- Ananda College, by Wikipedia


In 1889, when Charles Webster Leadbeater, the first principal of Ananda College was asked by A.P. Sinnett to come back to England to tutor his son, Leadbeater agreed and also brought one of his pupils, Jinarajadasa, to England with him. Thanks to Leadbeater, Jinarajadasa went to St John's College, Cambridge where he studied oriental languages and four years later took his Degree in the Oriental Languages Tripos.

St John's College is a constituent college of the University of Cambridge (the full, formal name of the college is the College of St John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge) founded by the Tudor matriarch Lady Margaret Beaufort. In constitutional terms, the college is a charitable corporation established by a charter dated 9 April 1511. The aims of the college, as specified by its statutes, are the promotion of education, religion, learning and research. It is one of the larger Oxbridge colleges in terms of student numbers. For 2018, St. John's was ranked 9th of 29 colleges in the Tompkins Table (the annual league table of Cambridge colleges) with over 30 per cent of its students earning first-class honours.[5]

The college's alumni comprise the winners of 11 Nobel Prizes (including physicists Paul Dirac and Max Born, the latter having been affiliated with the college in the 1930s), seven prime ministers and 12 archbishops of various countries, at least two princes and three saints. The Romantic poet William Wordsworth studied at St John's, as did William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson, the two abolitionists who led the movement that brought slavery to an end in the British Empire. Prince William was affiliated with the college while undertaking a university-run course in estate management in 2014.

St John's is well known for its choir, its members' success in a wide variety of inter-collegiate sporting competitions and its annual May Ball. The Cambridge Apostles and the Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club were both founded by members of the college. The Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race tradition furthermore began with a St John's student and the college boat club, Lady Margaret Boat Club, is the oldest in the university. In 2011, the college celebrated its quincentenary, an event marked by a visit of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

-- St John's College, Cambridge, by Wikipedia


He then came back to Ceylon and became the vice principal of Ananda College in Colombo. Jinarajadasa returned to Europe, to study at the University of Pavia, Italy. He soon became proficient in Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese. Around 1904 he visited Chicago, where he met and influenced Weller van Hook, the well-known surgeon and author, who then became a theosophist. During his lifetime, Jinarajadasa traveled to many countries despite all the war difficulties of that era for his devoted service to Theosophy.

He was one among four Convention Lecturers, including G.S. Arundale, B.P. Wadia, and T. Sadasivier, who spoke in Calcutta at the Forty-Second Anniversary of the Theosophical Society in December, 1917. In his lecture, The Problem of Religion And Philosophy, he stressed the need to serve others, saying “We have a perennial need of God, of understanding the mystery of the I . . . When the heart and brain are ready, the hand will be guided by a Divine Architect to build according to His Plan. Each of you must help in this day to come. Not the smallest child but can help in some tiny action, not the poorest now who cannot heap up wealth of hope for that future. For within us is the Light of the World and the Power of the World –– if only we knew how to find. But the doors of all the treasure-houses will open if we know the right mantra to repeat, the open sesame of this newer day. It is the new word of power: ‘Brother, thou art I.

”He also traveled to South America, where he lectured in Spanish and Portuguese and founded branches of the Theosophical Society (TS). He was the Vice-President of the Theosophical Society from 1921 to 1928. After the death of Dr. Arundale in 1945, Jinarajadasa became president of the Theosophical Society Adyar. In 1949 he founded the School of Wisdom in Adyar, which attracted students from many countries. He was also a Freemason, joining Le Droit Humain also known as Co-Masonry. Curuppumullage Jinarajadasa was the president of Theosophical Society until his death on 18 June 1953 in the United States.


In 1916, Jinarajadasa married the English feminist Miss Dorothy M. Graham, who founded the Women's Indian Association (WIA) in Adyar with Annie Besant in 1917.[7] She accompanied him in his travels around the world for some years. At one stage of his life, he resided in Brazil. By 1953 he declined renomination as president of the Theosophical Society due to poor health and installed Nilakanta Sri Ram as his successor.

Jinarajadasa wrote many works on Theosophy, Theology, philosophy, literature, art and science. He also participated in Annie Besant's and Charles Leadbeater's researches on Occult Chemistry. In 1913 Jinarajadasa was awarded the Subba Row Medal for his contribution to Theosophical literature.

-- Curuppumullage Jinarajadasa, by Wikipedia


Using "astral clairvoyance" Leadbeater assisted William Scott-Elliot to write his book The Story of Atlantis, for which Sinnett wrote the preface.

William Scott-Elliot (sometimes incorrectly spelled Scott-Elliott) (1849-1919) was a theosophist who elaborated Helena Blavatsky's concept of root races in several publications, most notably The Story of Atlantis (1896) and The Lost Lemuria (1904), later combined in 1925 into a single volume called The Story of Atlantis and the Lost Lemuria. In 1893 he married Matilda (Maude) Louise Travers (1859-1929), daughter of Dr Robert Boyle Travers F.R.C.S., of Farsid Lodge, Rostellan, County Cork, Ireland.

Scott-Elliot was an East India Merchant and amateur anthropologist. An early member of the London Lodge of the Theosophical society, in 1893 he wrote The Evolution of Humanity, issued as part of the Transactions of the London Lodge (issue 17).

Scott-Elliot came into contact with theosophist Charles Webster Leadbeater who said he received knowledge about ancient Atlantis and Lemuria from the Theosophical Masters by "astral clairvoyance." Leadbeater transmitted his clairvoyant findings to Scott-Elliot, who undertook scholarly research to back them up. Despite Leadbeater's contributions, Scott-Elliot was listed as the sole author of the resulting book The Story of Atlantis, which was published with a preface by Alfred Percy Sinnett.

In 1899 he was awarded the T. Subba Row Medal for his contributions to "esoteric science and philosophy". In 1904 he added detail on Lemuria in The Lost Lemuria, attempting to use contemporary scientific evidence to back up Leadbeater's claims.

-- William Scott-Elliot, by Wikipedia


Sinnett was later president of the London Lodge of the Society.

By 1901 Sinnett is listed as an author. His son Percy is also listed as an author and born in India.[5]

See also

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Agele ... _Teachings
• Ascended masters
• Ascended Master Teachings
• Alice A. Bailey
• Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
• Benjamin Creme
• Esoteric Buddhism
• Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky* Hodgson Report
• Initiation (Theosophy)
• Master K.H.
• Master Morya
• K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater
• Mahātmā
• Helena Roerich
• Theosophy
• Sinnett as fiction writer

Notes

1. 1851 England Census
2. "Combined Chronology of The Mahatma Letters – Preface".
3. The Occult World,p42
4. Wachtmeister, Constance (1 January 1976). "Reminiscences of H. P. Blavatsky and The secret doctrine". Wheaton, Ill. : Theosophical Pub. House – via Internet Archive.
5. 1901 England Census

Works

• The Occult World (London: Trubner and Company, 1881)
• Esoteric Buddhism (London: Trubner and Company, 1883). Describes the concept of Root race, later adopted by Madame Blavatsky.
• Karma: A Novel (London: Chapman & Hall, 1885)
• Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky: Compiled from Information Supplied by Her Relatives and Friends (1886)
• The Rationale of Mesmerism (Boston, Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1892)
• The Growth of the Soul (Theosophical Publishing Society, London and Benares, 1896, 1905)]
• Occult Essays (Theosophical Publishing Society, London and Benares, 1905)
• Married by Degrees; A Play in 3 Acts (London, 1911)
• In the Next World: Actual Narratives of Personal Experiences by Some Who Have Passed On (Theosophical Publishing Society, London, 1914)
• The Spiritual Powers and the War (Theosophical Publishing Society, London, 1915)
• Unseen Aspects of the War: Two Articles by A.P. Sinnett (Theosophical Publishing Society, London, 1916)
• Super-Physical Science (Theosophical Publishing Society, London, 1919)
• Tennyson an Occultist, As His Writings Prove (Theosophical Publishing Society, London, 1920)
• The Early Days of Theosophy in Europe (Theosophical Publishing Society, London, 1922) (posthumous)

Literature

• Autobiography of Alfred Percy Sinnett, Theosophical History Centre Publications, London 1986 ISBN 0-948753-02-1

Letters

• Helena P. Blavatsky: The letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett and other miscellaneous letters, London 1925
• A. Trevor Barker. The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett London 1926 (ISBN 1-55700-086-7)

See also

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Agele ... _Teachings
• Agni Yoga
• Alice Bailey
• Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
• Benjamin Creme
• Initiation (Theosophy)
• K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater
• Master K.H.
• Master Morya
• Helena Roerich
• Theosophy

External links

• Works by Alfred Percy Sinnett at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about Alfred Percy Sinnett at Internet Archive
• The Mahatma Letters to Sinnett
• The Letters of HP Blavatsky to Sinnett
• Esoteric Buddhism by A.P. Sinnett
• The Occult World by A.P. Sinnett
• The Mahatmas and Their Letters
• Photography of Sinnett
• Book Review of Karma
• Occult Investigations
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:50 am

Poona Sarvajanik Sabha
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 8/29/20

Image
Monthly journal of Pune Sarvajanik Sabha published in 1881

Pune Sarvajanik Sabha, (Marathi: पुणे सार्वजनिक सभा), was a sociopolitical organisation in British India which started with the aim of working as a mediating body between the government and people of India and to popularise the peasants' legal rights.[1][2] It started as an elected body of 95 members elected by 6000 persons on April 2, 1870.[3][4] The organisation was a precursor to the Indian National Congress which started with its first session from Maharashtra itself. The Pune Sarvajanik Sabha provided many of the prominent leaders of national stature to the Indian freedom struggle including Bal Gangadhar Tilak. It was formed in 1870 by S. H. Chiplunkar, Ganesh Vasudeo Joshi, Mahadev Govind Ranade, et al.[5][6]

Image

Bal Gangadhar Tilak (or Lokmanya Tilak, 23 July 1856 – 1 August 1920), born as Keshav Gangadhar Tilak, was an Indian nationalist, teacher, and an independence activist. He was one third of the Lal Bal Pal triumvirate. Tilak was the first leader of the Indian Independence Movement. The British colonial authorities called him "The father of the Indian unrest." He was also conferred with the title of "Lokmanya", which means "accepted by the people (as their leader)". Mahatma Gandhi called him "The Maker of Modern India".

Tilak was one of the first and strongest advocates of Swaraj ("self-rule") and a strong radical in Indian consciousness. He is known for his quote in Marathi: "Swarajya is my birthright and I shall have it!" He formed a close alliance with many Indian National Congress leaders including Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai, Aurobindo Ghose, V. O. Chidambaram Pillai and Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

-- Bal Gangadhar Tilak, by Wikipedia


Image

Ganesh Vasudeo Joshi (9 April 1828 – 25 July 1880), popularly known as Sarwajanik Kaka, was a lawyer, social reformer, and political activist. He was a founding member of Poona Sarvajanik Sabha.He was a social activist in Pune when Maharashtrian revival began, and he was the elderly guiding philosopher when Tilak and Agarkar's generation gave impetus to Indian independence struggle. Joshi also represented Vasudev Balwant Phadke as his lawyer in Phadke's trial.

Joshi had a daughter who was married to Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

At the Delhi Durbar of 1877, wearing "homespun spotless white khadi" Joshi rose to ask of the viceroy of India (then the 1st Earl of Lytton), that Her Majesty the Queen might:

Grant to India the same political and social status as is enjoyed by her British subjects.


With this demand, it can be said that the campaign for a free India was formally launched, which was the beginning of a great transformation for India.

-- Ganesh Vasudeo Joshi, by Wikipedia


The ruler of the Aundh State, Bhawanrao Shriniwasrao Pant Pratinidhi was the first President of the organisation.[7]

Image

Bhawanrao Shriniwasrao Pant Pratinidhi C.B.E (October 24, 1868 – April 13, 1951), popularly known as Balasaheb Pant Pratinidhi or Bhawanrao Balasaheb Pant Pratinidhi, was the [b]ruler of the princely state of Aundh of British Raj during the reign (1909–1947).

He is known for inventing the exercise sequence of Surya Namaskar, Salute to the Sun, now incorporated into modern yoga as exercise...

His second son Appa Sahib Pant served as Indian ambassador (1912-1992) in many countries. The Government of India honoured him in 1954, with the award of Padma Shri, the fourth highest Indian civilian award for his contributions to the society, placing him among the first recipients of the award.

-- Bhawanrao Shriniwasrao Pant Pratinidhi, by Wikipedia


Many eminent personalities such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Gopal Hari Deshmukh,...

Gopal Hari Deshmukh (18 February 1823 – 9 October 1892) was an Indian activist, thinker, social reformer and writer from Maharashtra. His original surname was Shidhaye. Because of 'Vatan' (right of Tax collection) that the family had received,the family was later called Deshmukh. Deshmukh is regarded as an important figure of the Social Reform Movement in Maharashtra.

Gopal Hari Deshmukh was born into a Chitpawan family, a subcaste of Maharashtrian Brahmins, in 1823. His father was the treasurer of Bapu Gokhale, the general of Bajirao [Baji Rao] II during the Third Anglo-Maratha War.

Image

Baji Rao II (10 January 1775 – 28 January 1851) was the 12th and the last Peshwa of the Maratha Empire. He governed from 1795 to 1818. He was installed as a puppet ruler by the Maratha nobles, whose growing power prompted him to flee his capital Poona and sign the Treaty of Bassein (1802) with the British. This resulted in the Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803–1805), in which the British emerged victorious and re-installed him as the titular Peshwa. In 1817, Baji Rao II joined the Third Anglo-Maratha War against the British, after they favoured the Gaekwad nobles in a revenue-sharing dispute. After suffering several battle defeats, the Peshwa surrendered to the British, and agreed to retire in return for an estate at Bithoor and an annual pension.

-- Baji Rao II, by Wikipedia


Deshmukh studied at the Poona English Medium School.

Deshmukh started his career as a translator for the government then under British Raj. In 1867, the government appointed him a small cause judge in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. He worked as a Diwan also in Ratlam state. The government had commended him with the honorifics 'Justice of Peace' and 'Raobahadur' while he was still working. He retired as a sessions judge. He held many other important positions, including those of the Assistant Inam Commissioner, Joint Judge of Nasik High Court, and Member of the Law Council.

At age 25, Deshmukh started writing articles aimed at social reform in Maharashtra in the weekly Prabhakar (प्रभाकर) under the pen name Lokhitawadi (लोकहितवादी). In the first two years, he penned 108 articles on social reform. That group of articles has come to be known in Marathi literature as Lokhitawadinchi Shatapatre (लोकहितवादींची शतपत्रे).

He promoted emancipation (liberation) and education of women, and wrote against arranged child marriages, dowry system, and polygamy, all of which were prevalent in India in his times.

He wrote against the evils of the caste system which was strongly prevalent in India in his times, condemned harmful Hindu religious orthodoxy, and attacked the monopoly in religious matters and rituals which Brahmin priests had through a long tradition (Deshmukh, himself, belonged to the Brahmin caste). He enunciated certain 15 principles for bringing about religious reform in Hindu society.

Deshmukh founded a public library in Pune under the leadership of the then governor of the state of Bombay, Henry Brown. He also donated some books to Univ. of Bombay (1875) Library, when it was established by British people.

-- Gopal Hari Deshmukh, by Wikipedia


Maharshi Annasaheb Patwardhan, etc. served as the Presidents of the organisation.[7]

In 2016, Meera Pavagi was elected as the first woman President of the organisation.[7]

See also

• Madras Mahajana Sabha

Notes and references

1. The preamble of the constitution of the Sabha lays down: "Whereas it has been deemed expedient that there should exist between the Government and people some institution in the shape of a mediating body which may offer to the latter facilities for knowing the real intentions and objectives of the Government, as also adequate means of securing their rights by making timely representations to Government of the real circumstances in which they were placed, an association has been formed and organised under the appellation of Pune Sarvajanik Sabha." as quoted in Johari 1993, p. 17
2. Spectrum History
3. Johari 1993, p. 17
4. Chandra, Bipan (2010). The Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India: Economic Policies of Indian National Leadership, 1880-1905. Har-Anand Publications. ISBN 9788124114179.
5. Mehrotra, S. R. (1969). The Poona Sarvajanik Sabha: The Early Phase, 1870-1880. School of Economics.
6. Bakshi, Shiri Ram (1 January 1993). Mahadev Govind Ranade: Socio-Economic Ideology. Anmol Publications Pvt. Limited. ISBN 9788170416050.
7. "'पुणे सार्वजनिक सभे'चे अध्यक्षपद प्रथमच महिलेकडे". Loksatta (in Marathi). 29 March 2016. Retrieved 18 February 2018.
• The Pune Sarvajanik Sabha: the early phase, 1870-1880 - S. R. Mehrotra
• Johari, JC (1993). Voices of India Freedom Movement. Anmol Publications PVT. LTD. ISBN 978-81-7158-225-9.
• Bakshi, SR (1993). Mahadev Govind Ranade. Anmol Publications PVT. LTD. ISBN 978-81-7041-605-0.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Sat Aug 29, 2020 8:47 am

Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 8/29/20

The Theosophical Society of Aryavarta, also sometimes called Theosophical Society of India, and abbreviated as Theosophical Society was a Theosophical Society from May 22, 1878 until March 1882. [1]

History

Main article: Arya_Samaj § The Arya Samaj and the Theosophical Society

In 1875 Swami Dayanda Saraswati founded in Mumbai the Hindu reform movement Arya Samaj. In the same year, the Theosophical Society was founded by Madame Blavatsky and Henry Olcott in New York.

Olcott met Moolji Thakurshi (Moolji Thackersey) [Seth Damodar Thackersey Mulji, a Bombay textile magnate] already in 1870
, but they lost contact with each other.

The rising star of the Samaj in the 1860s was Keshub Chunder Sen (Keshava Chandra Sen, 1838-1884), a middle-class recipient of a British education, ignorant of Sanskrit and enthralled by Christianity. Keshub was not of the Brahmin caste, so it is not surprising that he called for the discarding of the sacred thread worn by all Brahmins, and broke other taboos, e.g., by bringing his wife into the services. Devendranath was fond of him and for some time tried to keep up with Keshub’s idea of progress. But by 1865 their styles had diverged so far that the Samaj split in two, the greater part following the “Brahmo Samaj of India,” founded by Keshub in 1868.

Keshub was a bhakta -– a follower of the path of love -– who had no sympathy with traditional Hinduism, but was enthralled by the personality of the great bhakta of Galilee. Throughout his life he teetered on the brink of Christianity, but like his predecessors could not stomach its claim of supremacy over every other religion. He soon determined to follow in the steps of Rammohun Roy, and make his synthesis known to the West. His visit to England in 1870 was a triumph: the President of the Brahmo Samaj was received by numerous dignitaries from Queen Victoria downwards, and welcomed by the Unitarians as if he were a reincarnation of Rammohun himself. But for his part, he was appalled to discover what a nation of “Christians” was really like: the British seemed more alienated from Jesus’ teachings than even the Brahmins.

Keshub’s admiration for Jesus had brought him round to a belief that God had actually been revealed in certain men. The next step, perhaps an inevitable one for a charismatic leader lacking in any philosophical subtlety, was to class himself as one such man. This was his first major mistake. Struggling to define the prophetic status of which he had become convinced, Keshub said that he had no creed or doctrine to reveal, but was under a “perennial and perpetual inspiration from heaven.”17

Some of the Brahmo Samaj members were dismayed by this kind of claim. But not far away from the headquarters in Calcutta, in the temple precincts of Dakshineswar, there was a man who left most visitors in no doubt that he was a recipient of such inspiration. It is to Keshub’s credit that, towards 1875, he did not hesitate to go and see Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1836-1886). The two bhaktas fell in love with one another, in a spiritual sense, but it was Ramakrishna who was evidently the senior partner. With great delicacy and humility he tried to lead his more famous friend on to the realization that God and the devotee are one and the same, but this was going too far for the church leader. Nor was Keshub happy with Ramakrishna’s easy acceptance of “idols,” or with his seeming indifference to social reform. Enough that Ramakrishna succeeded in bringing Keshub round to worshipping God as Mother as well as Father, and that they spent many hours in ecstatic singing and dancing.18 More significant historically is the fact that some Brahmo Samajists gravitated permanently to Ramakrishna’s circle, finding there a level of spiritual awareness and presence that their own services lacked. It was they who brought Narendranath Datta into the sage’s influence, initiating his transformation into Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), founder of the Ramakrishna Mission and Order and envoy to the Chicago Parliament of Religions in 1893. Mysticism apart, one can say that whereas the Brahmo Samaj was founded on rejection (albeit of social abuses and religious nonsense), Ramakrishna was an accepter. He adored Jesus with the Christians, not worrying that some of them were Trinitarians; worshiped Allah with the Muslims, agreeing that there was One God and that Mohammed was his prophet; and joyfully accepted the whole pantheon of Hindu gods and goddesses in all their idolatrous imagery. Every one of them spoke to him with the voice of his elected deity, the Mother Kali, and he knew that she was ready to speak to everyone who would listen to her.

It is one of the ironies of history that Blavatsky and Olcott failed to make contact with Ramakrishna, their one contemporary in India to whom no one can deny the title of spiritual master. That they did not was probably the fault of Keshub Chunder Sen, whose reputation reached them as one of “personal leadership and reckless egotism” diametrically opposed to the ideals of Rammohun Roy.19 In 1881 it seemed to Blavatsky that the Brahmo Samaj, fifty years after its foundation, was developing in exactly the same way as Christianity and Buddhism, with “the approach of a pompous ritualism, which in the progress of time will stifle what there is of spirit in the new church and leave only a gorgeous formalism in its place.”20 She warned her readers that whereas Rammohun had always been humility itself, the Samaj’s new leader, Keshub Chunder Sen, was claiming the church as a new dispensation and himself as an avatar.

In 1870, the same year that Keshub visited England, two other Indians took ship from England to America. They were a Bombay textile magnate called Moolji Thackersey (Seth Damodar Thackersey Mulji, died 1880 21) and Mr. Tulsidas. Josephine Ransom, an early historian of the Theosophical Society, writes that they were “on a mission to the West to see what could be done to introduce Eastern spiritual and philosophic ideas.”22 Traveling on the same boat was Henry Olcott, fresh from his experiences in London’s spiritualist circles. Olcott was sufficiently impressed by this shipboard meeting to keep a framed photograph of the two Indians on the wall of the apartment he was sharing with Blavatsky in 1877. It was one evening in that year that a visitor who had traveled in India (sometimes identified as James Peebles23) remarked on the photograph. Olcott writes in his memoirs of the consequences of this extraordinary series of coincidences:

I took it down, showed it to him, and asked if he knew either of the two. He did know Moolji Thackersey and had quite recently met him in Bombay. I got the address, and by the next mail wrote to Moolji about our Society, our love for India and what caused it. In due course he replied in quite enthusiastic terms, accepted the offered diploma of membership, and told me about a great Hindu pandit and reformer, who had begun a powerful movement for the resuscitation of pure Vedic religion.24


This reformer was Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824-1882). In 1870 he was still an eccentric traveling preacher with no aspirations to international influence: something that grew on him precisely after meeting the Brahmo Samajists. He met Devandranath [Debendranath] Tagore in 1870; in 1873 Keshub Chunder Sen gave him the advice (which he took) to stop wearing only a loincloth and speaking only Sanskrit. Indefatigably stumping round the subcontinent, Dayananda founded his “powerful movement,” the Arya Samaj, in 1875. This chronology suggests that in 1870 Thackersey was probably coming to America as a representative of the Brahmo Samaj, but that by the time Olcott got in touch with him again, he had transferred his allegiance to the Arya Samaj.

The Arya Samaj was more radical than any wing of the Brahmo Samaj, on which it was partially modeled. Dayananda was a monotheist who believed in the Vedas as the sole revealed scripture and the basis for a universal religion. The various gods addressed in the Vedic hymns (Agni, Indra, etc.), he explained as aspects of the One, and he was prepared to demonstrate how these ancient texts contained all possible knowledge of man, nature, and the means of salvation and happiness. Of the quarrels between the various religions, he wrote: “My purpose and aim is to help in putting an end to this mutual wrangling, to preach universal truth, to bring all men under one religion so that they may, by ceasing to hate each other and firmly loving each other, life in peace and work for their common welfare.”25 He had no respect whatever for Brahmanism: for their scriptures, rituals, polytheism, caste system, and discrimination against women. Unfortunately for his opponents, he was immensely learned and articulate, could out-argue most pundits, and had, in the last resort (which often seems to have occurred) the advantage of being 6’9” tall and broad to match.26

From Dayananda’s point of view, the Brahmo Samajists had erred both in their failure to recognize the supremacy of the Vedas, and in their too-ready embrace of the errors of other religions. They were moreover too addicted to Brahmanic customs and privileges. Here is a contemporary summary of his social principles:

He says that no inhabitant of India should be called a Hindu, that an ignorant Brahmin should be made a Shudra, and a Shudra, who is learned, well-behaved and religious should be made a Brahmin. Both men and women should be taught Language, Grammar, Dharmashastras, Vedas, Science and Philosophy. Women should receive special education in Chemistry, Music and Medical Science; they should know what foods promote health, strength and vigour. He condemns child marriage as the root of the most of the evils. A girl should be educated and married at the age of twenty. If a widow wants to remarry, she should be allowed to do so. According to his opinion, there is no particular difference between the householder and the sannyasi. 27


It is not surprising that the Theosophists in New York took kindly to the Arya Samaj, at first through correspondence with Thackersey, then through the Bombay branch head, Hurrychund Chintamon, and lastly through Dayananda himself. The two societies were united for a time, though the Theosophists were disillusioned as soon as they discovered the strength of Dayananda's Vedic fundamentalism and his hostility to all other religions. On Dayananda's unexpected death, Blavatsky wrote a generous obituary in The Theosophist for December 1883.28 She appreciated him for defending what he saw as the best of his native heritage against the priestcraft of Brahmins and Christians alike, and for his leadership in an enlightened social policy of which she could only have approved.

As the Arya Samaj continued to flourish after Dayananda's death, it became a rallying point for that movement of Hindu nationalism that wanted neither to turn back the clock to Brahmanic theocracy, nor to embrace Western materialism along with the benefits of science and technology. What Rammohun Roy had set in motion, the Arya Samaj carried forward into the era of the Indian National Congress and the independence movement of the twentieth century. Dayananda himself died -- some said poisoned -- at the time when his mission was beginning to have real success among the North Indian rulers, but he had done enough to be celebrated as a father-figure by leaders of Indian independence such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, and Aurobindo Ghose.29

This in itself defines the limits of Dayananda's mission, which was, as it turned out, for India alone.30 Likewise, the mission of the Brahmo Samajists was a one-way street, bringing liberal Christian principles to India but making only the slightest inroads on the West through Emerson and his friends. The purpose of the foregoing survey has been to show how these Indian movements form another link between Enlightenment ideals and the Theosophical Society, which after its move to India took on the role of a mouthpiece for Eastern wisdom to address the West.

Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott were not converts to Hinduism. One cannot convert to a religion which is entered only by birth into one of its castes. Western followers of the liberal, bhaktic Hinduism of the Ramakrishna Mission may well regard themselves as converts (Christopher Isherwood being perhaps the most eminent of these), but they are Vedantists, not Hindus. What Blavatsky and Olcott were was Buddhist.

-- The Theosophical Enlightenment, by Joscelyn Godwin


In 1877 Olcott wrote to Thakurshi, and described the Theosophical Society and its goals to him. Thakurshi replied to Olcott, and told him about the Arya Samaj. He described its goals and gave Olcott the address of its president in Mumbai Hari Chand Chintamani (Hurrychund Chintamon). In the following exchange of letters, they illustrated the positions of their own societies, and noted the agreements between them. Chintamani then became a member of the Theosophical Society, and Olcott began a correspondence with Dayananda Saraswati.

It was suggested to unite the two societies, and the proposal was accepted at a meeting of the Theosophical Society on May 22, 1878 in New York. A branch of the Theosophical Society was founded in June 27, 1878 by Charles Carleton Massey in London. Its name was the British Theosophical Society of the Aryavart.

In December 1878, Blavatsky and Olcott travelled to Mumbai, where they arrived in February 1879. They met Hari Chand Chintamani, and founded the first theosophical lodge in India. They moved the headquarters of the society to Mumbai.

Thomas H. Burgoyne

Unlike the case of Peter Davidson, there are no descendants or local historians anxious to bear witness to the virtues and achievements of Thomas Henry Dalton (1855?-1895?63 [Date of birth deduced from prison records; death record searched for, without success, by Mr. Deveney.]), better known as T.H. Burgoyne, whose misdemeanors are amply chronicled in the Theosophical literature [B.6]. The “Church of Light,” a still active Californian group which descended from Burgoyne’s teachings, disposes of his life up to 1886 as follows:

T.H. Burgoyne was the son of a physician in Scotland. He roamed the moors during his boyhood and became conversant with the birds and flowers. He was an amateur naturalist. He also was a natural seer. Through his seership he contacted The Brotherhood of Light on the inner plane, and later contacted M. Theon in person. Still later he came to America, where he taught and wrote on occult subjects.64 [“The Founders of the Church of Light.” ]


While this romanticized view cannot entirely be trusted, there is no doubt that Burgoyne was a medium and that he was developed as such by Max Theon. Burgoyne told Gorham Blake that he “visited [Theon’s] house as a student every day for a long time” [B.8.k], and gave this clue to their relationship in The Light of Egypt:

… those who are psychic, may not know WHEN the birth of an event will occur, but they Feel that it will, hence prophecy.

The primal foundation of all thought is right here, for instance, M. Theon may wish a certain result; if I am receptive, the idea may become incarnated in me, and under an extra spiritual stimulus it may grow and mature and become a material fact.65


Burgoyne was making enquiries in occult circles by 1881, when he wrote to [The Rev. W.A.] Ayton asking to visit him for a discussion of occultism. The clergyman was shocked when he met this “Dalton,” who (Ayton says) boasted of doing Black Magic [B.6.f], and forthwith sent him packing [B.6.k]. Later Ayton would be appalled to learn that it was this same young man with whom, as “Burgoyne,” he had been corresponding on H.B. of L. business. Having decided that the mysterious Grand Master “Theon” was really Hurrychund Chintamon, Ayton deduced that the young Scotsman must have learned his black magic from this Indian adventurer.

Hurrychund Chintamon had played an important part in the early Theosophical Society and in the move of Blavatsky and Olcott from New York to India. He had been their chief Indian correspondent during 1877-1878, when he was President of the Bombay Arya Samaj (a Vedic revival movement with which the early Theosophical Society was allied). After Blavatsky and Olcott arrived in Bombay in 1879 and met Chintamon in person, they discovered that he was a scoundrel and an embezzler, and expelled him from the Society. Chintamon came to England in 1879 or 1880, and stayed until 1883, when he returned to make further trouble for the Theosophists in India. Perhaps the fact that Chintamon was in England when Burgoyne first met Theon led some to conclude that they were the same person.66 But this cannot be the whole story. Ayton claimed very clearly and repeatedly that he had proof of Burgoyne’s being in company with Chintamon. In a letter in the private collection, Ayton writes:

I have since discovered that Hurrychund Chintaman the notorious Black Magician was in company with Dalton at Bradford. By means of a Photograph I have traced him to Glasgow & even to Banchory, under the alias of Darushah Chichgur. Friends in London saw him there just before his return to India. This time coincides with that when I noticed a great change in the management. Chintaman had supplied the Oriental knowledge as he was a Sanskrit scholar & knew much. Theon was Chintaman! Friends have lately seen him in India where he is still at his tricks.


Before her disillusion with Chintamon, Blavatsky had touted him to the London Theosophists as a “great adept.” After the break that followed on her meeting with him in person, Chintamon allied himself to the rising Western opposition to esoteric Buddhism exemplified by Stainton Moses, C.C. Massey, William Oxley, Emma Hardinge Britten, Thomas Lake Harris, and others. From this formidable group, Burgoyne first contracted the hostility towards Blavatsky’s enterprise that would mark all his writings.

Chintamon also appears in connection with “H.B. Corinni,” the otherwise unidentifiable (and variously spelled) “Private Secretary” of Theon, who was thought by the police to be just another of Burgoyne’s aliases. Ayton, however, believed Corinni to be Chintamon’s son, who he said offered Blavatsky’s old letters for sale to the President of the London Branch of the Theosophical Society, Charles Carleton Massey.67 [Ayton to unnamed American neophyte, 11 June 1886, based on what he had been told by Massey.] The flaw in Ayton’s thesis is of course the existence of a real and independent Max Theon, of whom we, unlike Ayton, have documentary evidence. Nonetheless, after more than a hundred years, the whole tangle of misidentifications involving Chintamon, “Christamon,” and “Metamon” [see B.9.c-3] with the Order cannot be entirely resolved.

By October 1882, Burgoyne was in Leeds, working in the menial trade of a grocer.68 [This is the trade ascribed to him in the court records. The records of the Leeds Constabulary call him “medium and astrologer.”] Here he tried to bring off an advertising fraud [B.6.d] so timid as to cast serious doubt on his abilities as a black magician! As a consequence, he spent the first seven months of 1883 in jail. He had probably met Theon before his incarceration, and, as we have seen, worked for a time in daily sessions as Theon’s medium. On his release he struck up or resumed relations with Peter Davidson, and became the Private Secretary to the Council of the H.B. of L. when it went public the following year.

Burgoyne contributed many letters and articles to The Occult Magazine, usually writing under the pseudonym “Zanoni.” He also contributed to Thomas Johnson’s Platonist [see B.7.c], showing considerably more literacy than in the letter that so amused the Theosophists [B.7.b]. But he never claimed to be an original writer. In the introduction to the “Mysteries of Eros” [A.3.b] he states his role as that of amanuensis and compiler. The former term reveals what the H.B. of L. regarded as the true source of its teachings – the initiates of the Interior Circle of the Order. The goal of the magical practice taught by the H.B. of L. was the development of the potentialities of the individual so that he or she could communicate directly with the Interior Circle and with the other entities, disembodied and never embodied, that the H.B. of L. believed to populate the universes. If Gorham Blake is to be credited [B.6.k], Davidson and Burgoyne “confessed” to him that Burgoyne was an “inspirational medium” and that the teachings of the Order came through his mediumship. Stripped of the bias inherent in the terms “medium,” and “confess,” there is no reason to doubt the statement of Burgoyne’s role. In the Order’s own terminology, however, his connection with the spiritual hierarchies of the universe was through “Blending” – the taking over of the conscious subject’s mind by the Initiates of the Interior Circle and the Potencies, Powers, and Intelligences of the celestial hierarchies – and through the “Sacred Sleep of Sialam” (see Section 15, below).

Shortly after arriving in Georgia, for all the Theosophists’ efforts to intercept him [B.6.1], Burgoyne parted with Davidson. From then on, the two communicated mainly through their mutual disciples, squabbling over fees for reading the neophytes’ horoscopes and over Burgoyne’s distribution of the Order’s manuscripts, with each man essentially running a separate organization. This split may be reflected in the French version of “Laws of Magic Mirrors” [A.3.a], which was prepared in 1888 and which bears the reference “Peter Davidson, Provincial Grand Mater of the Eastern Section.”

Burgoyne made his way from Georgia first to Kansas, then to Denver, and finally to Monterey, California, staying with H.B. of L. members as he went.69 According to the Church of Light, Burgoyne now met Normal Astley, a professional surveyor and retired Captain in the British Army. After 1887 Astley and a small group of students engaged Burgoyne to write the basic H.B. of L. teachings as a series of lessons, giving him hospitality and a small stipend. Astley is actually said to have visited England to meet Theon – something which is hardly credible in the light of what is known of Theon’s methods.70 We do know, however, that Burgoyne advertised widely and took subscriptions for the lessons, and that they wer published in book form in 1889 as The Light of Egypt; or The Science of the Soul and the Stars, attributed to Burgoyne’s H.B. of L. sobriquet “Zanoni.”

With The Light of Egypt, the secrecy of the H.B. of L.’s documents was largely broken, and they were revealed – to those who could tell – to be fairly unoriginal compilations from earlier occultists, presented with a strongly anti-Theosophical tone. Onlyo the practical teachings were omitted. The book was translated into French by Rene Philipon, a friend of Rene Guenon’s, and into Russian and Spanish, and a paraphrase of it was published in German.71 We present [B.8] the most important reactions to this work, which has been reprinted frequently up to the present day.

Burgoyne’s last years were spent in unwonted comfort if, as the Church of Light says, Dr. Henry and Belle M. Wagner – who had been members of the H.B. of L. since 1885 – gave $100,000 to found an organization for the propagation of the Light of Egypt teachings. Out of this grew the Astro-Philosophical Publishing Company of Denver, and the Church of Light itself, reformed in 1932 by Elbert Benjamine (=C.C. Zain, 1882-1951).72 Beside Burgoyne’s other books The Language of the Stars and Celestial Dynamics, the new company issued in 1900 a second volume of The Light of Egypt. This differs markedly from the first volume, for it is ascribed to Burgoyne’s spirit, speaking through a medium who was his “spiritual successor,” Mrs. Wagner. As the spirit said, with characteristically poor grammar: “Dictated by the author from the subjective plane of life (to which he ascended several years ago) through the law of mental transfer, well known to all Occultists, he is enabled again to speak with those who are still upon the objective plane of life.”73

Max Theon wrote to the Wagners in 1909 (the year after his wife’s death), telling them to close their branch of the H.B. of L.74 [Information given to Mr. Deveney by Henry O. Wagner.] By that time, the Order had virtually ceased to exist as such, while the Wagners continued on their own, channeling doctrinal and fictional works. Their son, Henry O. Wagner, told Mr. Deveney that he, in turn, received books from his parents by the “blending” process, to be described below. In 1963 he issued an enlarged edition of The Light of Egypt, which included several further items from his parents’ records. Some of these areknown to have circulated separately to neophytes during the heyday of the H.B. of L. (see Section 10, below), while others were circulated by Burgoyne individually on a subscription basis to his own private students (all of whom were in theory members of the H.B. of L.) from 1887 until his death. These include a large body of astrological materials and also treatises on “Pentralia,” “Soul Knowledge (Atma Bodha)” and other topics. They are perfectly consistent with the H.B. of L. teachings, but appear to have been Burgoyne’s individual production, done after his separation from Peter Davidson, and they are not reproduced here.75

-- The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor: Initiatic and Historical Documents of an Order of Practical Occultism, by Joscelyn Godwin


There were however tensions between the two societies, and on March 26, 1882 Dayananda spoke about the Humbuggery of the Theosophists, Olcott replied to Dayanandas charges in The Theosophist in July 1882 in an article titled Swami Dayanand's Charges.

See also

• Arya Samaj

Literature

• John Murdoch: Theosophy unveiled. Madras 1885
• Henry Steel Olcott: Old diary leaves, Inside the occult, the true story of Madame H. P. Blavatsky. Running Press, Philadelphia 1975, ISBN 0-914294-31-8
• Chhajju Singh: Life and teachings of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. New Delhi 1971

References

1. Johnson, K. Paul (1994). The masters revealed: Madam Blavatsky and the myth of the Great White Lodge. SUNY Press. p. 107. ISBN 0-7914-2063-9.

External links

• History
• History (pp. 59ff., 80)
• "Humbuggery of the Theosophists"
• Olcott: "Swami Dayanand's Charges"
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:55 pm

Ananda College
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 8/29/20

Chapter Nine: Education

9.1 British Educational Policy, 1796-1867


The history of education in nineteenth century Ceylon is closely linked with several other aspects of British policy in the island. In the first place, the state of the government revenue – that itself depended heavily on the fortunes of the plantation industry -- set up the financial framework, within which colonial educational policy could be realised. As the propagation of education has never been a preference of the British administration throughout the nineteenth century, expenditure on educational facilities has often been the first to suffer during times of financial difficulties. Second, the British approach to the education of the Crown's 'native subjects' was only partly based on humanitarian thoughts. Practical considerations constantly influenced education policies. The want of English-speaking clerks for the lower ranks of the administration, for instance, led to an emphasis on English education in the wake of the Colebrooke-Cameron report. Later, the policy was reversed. The administrative machinery could not absorb the newly created English-educated class anymore. Third, the competition of the various religious bodies and groups in Ceylon played a significant role in the development of education in Ceylon. At first, the struggle for predominance in the field of education was mainly a struggle between different Christian missionary societies. Later -- in the course of the so-called 'religious revivals’ that will be discussed in detail in a later chapter -- the representatives of the indigenous religious faiths joined the competition as well.

Until the implementation of the Colebrooke-Cameron reforms in the early 1830s, the propagation of education was largely neglected by the colonial government. When the British took over the Dutch possessions on the island, two separate school system existed. The Dutch had established a network of Christian parish schools that had been under central government control. Outside this system there existed a fairly large number of traditional Buddhist schools. These pansala schools were attached to Buddhist monasteries and managed by the clergy.1 Most of the pansalas were located in the Kandyan highlands (and, therefore, came under British authority only in 1815). The pansala network was less tight in the Maritime Provinces. During the administration of the East India Company from 1796 to 1798, education was not considered particularly important and the Dutch parish schools fell into complete neglect. Only with the arrival of Governor Frederick North in 1798 these schools were revived again and soon stood at the centre of the government's education policy. North -- who is said to have been influenced by religious motives more than by educational ones -- appointed the Colonial Chaplain Rev. James A. Cordiner as Principal of Schools. North and Cordiner showed a keen interest in the establishment of a network or vernacular schools, but in 1803 their ambitions were put to a stop by the Colonial Office's retrenchment policy. The parish schools were abolished on financial grounds and only the English Academy -- established by North as the first English school in Ceylon in 1800 -- survived the cutting back of funds.2

North's successors, Thomas Maitland and Robert Brownrigg, did not revive the parish schools. While Maitiand showed no interest in the propagation of education at all, Brownrigg's Governorship saw the arrival of four important missionary societies on the island. In 18 12, the Baptist Missionary Society came to Ceylon and started to set up missionary schools. The Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society followed in 1814, the American Mission in 1816 and the Church Missionary Society (CMS) in 1818.3 The Wesleyans, the CMS and – on a smaller scale -- the Baptists immediately started to establish schools in the centres of the maritime regions -- preferably in and around Colombo.4 Due to political reasons, the American Mission was not allowed into Colombo and, thus, concentrated solely on missionary activity in the Jaffna peninsula.

The missionary societies regarded education as the principal vehicle of conversion and mainly established vernacular schools to reach the mass of the 'heathens.’ In these schools the local languages -- i.e. Sinhala or Tamil -- were used for the instruction of the pupils.5 Under Brownrigg, the colonial government's education policy confined itself to supporting the activities of the missionary bodies. In 1817, an Archdeaconry (subordinate to Calcutta) was established in Ceylon and the Church of England became the official church of the state. The remaining government schools came under the supervision of the Church of England and its Ecclesiastical Establishment.6

The missionaries were admitted to the Kandyan regions in 1820. After the conquest of Kandy in 1815, the Kandyan Convention had assured British protection to Buddhism, but with the suppression of the Kandyan Rebellion in 1818 a new proclamation was issued that limited government support to Buddhism. Moreover, Brownrigg officially extended government protection to all religions and, therefore, found it possible to open the Kandyan regions to the missionary bodies.7

Thanks to Brownrigg's support, the missionary societies soon occupied a more important position than the government in the spread of education. Under Brownrigg's successor Edward Barnes, the role of the missionaries became even more pronounced as Barnes showed interest only in the economic progress of the island. He did not actively support the missionary societies, but, due to government neglect, he left educational matters almost completely to the churches. Jayaweera states that Barnes "discouraged educational enterprise, state or private, and all but killed state schools; the latter were reduced to four English and ninety parish schools by 1830.”8 When Colebrooke arrived in Ceylon in 1829, the missionary bodies practically controlled the educational system of the island -- partly due to the active support of Brownrigg, partly due to Barnes' indifference.

As he did on most matters of colonial administration, Colebrooke also commented on the prevalent system of education. Sumathipala points out that, when Colebrooke investigated educational matters on the island, only about 800 pupils (out of a total of 26,970) received an English education. About half of those attended the five existing government English schools.9 As Colebrooke occupied a more practical viewpoint concerning the future of education in Ceylon,10 he recommended to discontinue any government activity in the spheres of vernacular education and laid additional emphasis on the importance of English education on the island. In his opinion, the intended opening of the lower ranks of the CCS to the Ceylonese required English-educated personnel. The spread of Western -- i.e. British – ideas and values would unify the island and foster local participation in the administration and judicature.11 Consequently, Governor Horton -- whose task it was to implement most of Colebrooke's recommendations -- closed all government vernacular schools. Furthermore, government English schools were closed in many locations where missionary schools already taught English. Thus, the missionaries were given an additional inducement to engage in English education12 as Colebrooke objected to the missionaries' preference for vernacular education.13 The Archdeacon of the Church of England became the head of the first School Commission in 1834. This commission implemented Colebrooke's recommendations almost to the letter and concentrated entirely on the establishment of English schools.14 The missionary societies soon followed the government policy and laid their emphasis on the foundation of English schools as well.15 The School Commission managed to expand educational facilities (primarily for the teaching of English) in the next years. However, the government schools constantly lost more ground to the rapidly spreading missionary schools.

The School Commission and its policy exclusively represented the Church of England -- the Anglicans. No members of other religious instruction was made a compulsory subject in government schools. Only in 1841 Governor Stewart Mackenzie reorganized the mission and created the Central School Commission. In the new commission Presbyterians, Roman Cathoiics, Wesleyans and Anglicans were all given a voice -- but none of the indigenous religious faiths was represented.16 The creation of the Central School Commission triggered several changes in the educational policy of Ceylon. From 1841 on, government schools were open to children of all Christian denominations. Furthermore, the first grant-in-aid system for nongovernment English schools was introduced and enabled missionary English schools to receive a government grant (provided that they allowed inspection and examination by the commission). As they had a long tradition of English teaching, schools in Jaffna made particular use of the grant-in-aid system and, consequently, several government schools in the peninsula were closed down.17

The Wesleyan Rev. William Gogerly presided the commission from 1843 onwards and implemented a comparatively progressive policy. Together with Governor Colin Campbell he introduced several new schemes. In 1843, the Central School Commission made provisions for vernacular education in elementary schools. In 1845, a Native Normal School for the training of teachers in vernacular education was established. Two years later, 30 vernacular schools were opened.18 As a consequence, government expenditure on education rose from £2,999 in the year 1841 to £11,4-15 in 1847 19 (i.e. from 0.8% to 2.2% of the total expenditure).20

In the course of the first serious coffee crisis in 1848 and the following financial depression, government expenditure on education was drastically reduced. Vernacular education suffered hardest. Although most government vernacular schools continued to exist, the introduction of fees and the closing down of the Native Normal School prevented further progress in vernacular education.21 The neglect of education policy continued when the depression had been overcome and the coffee mania of the 1850s had set in. Economic advance and the improvement of the infrastructure were the sole interest of the administration during that time. Without government guidance the policy of the Central School Commission changed almost every year during the 1850s -- laying emphasis on English education in one year and promoting vernacular instruction in the next.22 Education, therefore, remained largely the domain of the missionary bodies. The Christian supremacy in the field was underlined by the Central School Commission's policy to give grants exclusively to schools run by Christian institutions.23 No pansala or other non-Christian school had ever received a grant so far.

In the 1860s, the Roman Catholic community -- led by the Archbishop of Colombo Christopher Bonjean -- put up first resistance to the prevailing system. When the Tamil MLC Muttu Coomaraswamy (backed by the Burgher MLC Martenz) requested the creation of a special committee to investigate the matter, a Subcommittee of the Legislative Council was eventually appointed to conduct inquires about the state of education in Ceylon.24 In 1865, the Morgan Committee -- named after its president, Queen's Advocate Richard F. Morgan -- took up its work.


9.2 The Morgan Committee and the Department of Public Instruction

The Morgan Committee presented its final report in 1867. The implementation of its proposals not only placed the administration of education on a sound institutional footing but also led to a reversal of government educational policy on the island. Of the various changes advocated by the Committee only three major points shall be discussed here: the establishment of the Department of Public Instruction, the emphasis on vernacular education and the introduction of the so-called Denominational System based on a revised grant-in-aid system. Governor Hercules Robinson said in an address to the Legislative Council in 1870:

I have to announce to you the adoptions of a distinct policy the tendency of which will be to extend the operations of government in the direction of establishing village schools as yet unprovided with the means of instruction, but gradually to contract its operations in respect of English schools in the lawn districts where an effective system of grant-in-aid will enable the government to employ its funds to much greater advantage than in maintaining schools of its own.25


From 1869/70 onwards, the Committee's proposals were gradually realised. The Morgan Report expressed the opinion that the government had an obligation to spread (vernacular) education in the entire island. It has been said that the Committee's views had not so much been shaped by the needs of the population but "by the current trends in England and India which favoured some form of state responsibility for education."26 Accordingly, vernacular education gained new momentum with the implementation of the Report's proposals. The number of government vernacular schools increased from 64 in 1869 to 347 in 1881.27 The report also proposed the abolition of government English elementary schools on the assumption that superior (i.e. English) education was only required by a small minority of the population. Superior Central schools -- already existent in some of the population centres -- and Anglo-vernacular schools28 [28. In Anglo-vernacular schools English was not the medium of instruction, but merely a subject. The pupils learned English with explanations and instructions given in the vernacular.] should provide the necessary facilities for those who could afford an English education. All school fees for vernacular education were abolished, whereas superior English education was only available against the payment of substantial fees.29 Wickremeratne even holds that it was one of the main goals of the colonial government's educational policy after 1867 to retain the growing educational gap.30

The inefficiency of the Central School Commission was demonstrated by its last report of the year 1867. The report showed that since 1840 only 86 new schools had been established.31 The Morgan Committee decided to do away with the Commission and create the Department of Public Instruction. The Governor, the Executive Council and the School Commission suggested the additional creation of an advisory board -– consisting of representatives of all races and denominations -– to control and assist the Director of Public Instructions. But Morgan opposed this view, and, on his advice, the Legislative Council voted against the establishment of such a board.32 Consequently, the Director of Public Instruction was directly and solely responsible for the implementation of the government's educational policy.

After 1867 the management of many government English schools was handed over to the missionary societies. Other schools were simply closed when missionary English schools existed in the vicinity. The government followed this policy without consideration of the religious feelings of the population.33 The measures of the Morgan Report provided no conscience clause that could exempt Buddhist or Tamil pupils from the compulsory attendance of religious instruction. Due to the government's gradual retreat from English education and the promotion of missionary English schools, everybody with a desire to learn English was exposed to the proselytising ambitions of the missionaries.
Sumathipala quotes Ponnambalam Ramanathan who in 1884 presented a memorial of several Jaffna Hindus to the Legislative Council, in which the petitioners complained about the religious intolerance in the missionary schools:

[C]hildren who are obliged to go to these missionary schools are forced by the missionaries, under pain of fines and expulsion, to read the Bible whether they liked it or not [ ... ] Hindu boys who, for want of their own English schools, resort to the missionary schools, have learnt to make mental reservations and are getting skilled in the art of dodging. The holy ashes put on at home during worship are carefully rubbed off as they approach the Christian school and they affect the methods of Christian boys while at school. [ ... ] There is a great deal too much of hypocrisy in Jaffna in the matter of religion, owing the fact that the love of the missionaries for proselytes is as boundless as the love of the Jaffnese to obtain some knowledge of English at any cost. […] If there is no conscience clause in the grant-in-aid code, I think the sooner a clause of that kind is introduced the better it will be for religious freedom in Ceylon.34


While religious instruction was not a subject in government schools anymore, the private grant-receiving schools were free to teach the subject. Almost all of the grant-aided schools were under Christian management and, thus, held compulsory religious instruction lessons (mostly held in the first school hour). Throughout the nineteenth century, the pupils were compelled to attend these lessons. No conscience clause existed.

The government's gradual retreat from English education gained momentum, when the plantation economy experienced first signs of the coffee crisis in the late 1870s. Government coffers suffered from a lack of funds. Thus, the Legislative Council's Retrenchment Committee proposed in 1883 to hand over local Anglo-vernacular and English schools to the Municipal and Local Boards. Ordinance 33 of 1883 was passed and made provisions for the transfer of English and mixed schools located within the limits of municipalities to the local authorities. But only in Puttalam such a transfer was successful. Most other Municipal and Local Boards lacked the financial means to assume control over the government schools. The missionaries stepped in and took over the management of the schools. Therefore, 21 government English schools were either handed over to the missionary bodies or closed until the end of 1884.37 The Colombo Academy (renamed the Royal College in 1881) remained the only government English school within the boundaries of a municipality.38 The government's vernacular education policy was more successful. Between 1873 and 1900, the number of government vernacular schools increased from 241 to 484. Still the government was outperformed by the missionaries who increased the number of their schools from 237 to 1,186.39 Jayasuriya states that on several recorded occasions government vernacular schools were also handed over to the missionaries or closed, if a missionary school of the same type was near.40

The government relied heavily on the grant-in-aid system introduced by the Morgan Report and considered it a practicable way to outsource educational responsibility to the missionaries. The allocation of such grants was based on the principal of payment by results. Officials of the Department of Public Instruction conducted examinations in the schools. The results of these examinations decided whether a school was eligible for a grant and, if so, for what grant category. The grant in-aid system did not place any restriction on religious instruction in the grant-aided schools -- although examinations were conducted in secular subjects only. Grants were given in the categories A, B and (since 1872) C -- in descending order of the allocated sum. Grants for C schools were small and awarded only for three years. During that time the C school had to qualify for an A or B grant. The distinction in A, B and C schools was applied to every type of school. Among those types English schools received the highest grants, followed by Anglo-vernacular and, finally, vernacular schools.41

The working of the grant-in-aid system was tightly connected with the financial state of the colony. Initially comparatively generous grants were made. The coffee plantations' prosperity had reached new heights and the government coffers were filled up to the rim. The missionary societies seized the opportunity and most missionary schools applied for a grant. In 1870, the first year of the new scheme, 223 schools received a grant. Six year later the number of eligible schools had increased to 697.42

The government and the Department for Public Instruction were both pleased with the working of the grant-in-aid system from its very inception.
More and more educational responsibility was passed to the private missionary bodies that competed fiercely for grants and constantly established more schools. The missionaries were the main beneficiaries of the system -- even though, in theory, all private schools (i. e. not just missionary schools) could apply for a government grant since the revisions of the Morgan Committee. Although the indigenous religious groups quickly realised the potential of the grant-in-aid system, they could not make full use of the scheme due to several hindrances. Unlike their Christian counterparts, the Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims had not participated in the field of education prior to the 1870s on any significant scale. The considerable number of Buddhist pansala schools had existed outside the official educational system of the island since the arrival of the British. The pansalas contributed to the spread of literacy in the vernacular and were very valuable for the villagers, but they worked on different principles than government or missionary schools. Therefore, they could not serve as a training ground in (Western) educational management. Apart from the Buddhist pansalas, the indigenous communities had little experience in the management of schools, although every now and then a local school was set up and run on private funds.

The indigenous religion groups' ambitions to secure government grants did not only suffer from their lack of experience in schools management. The often also lacked the money to set up schools in the first place. And when they managed to do so, they faced the fierce opposition of the missionary bodies, the partiality of the British officials and -- the most formidably -- provisions of the so-called Distance Rule as introduced in 1874. Thus, only four Buddhist and one Hindu school were registered for a grant in the year 1880 (ten years after the introduction of the revised scheme) -- as against a total of 833 grant-aided schools in that year.43


The missionary societies with their headquarters in Europe or America had much larger financial resources at their disposal than the local Buddhist or Hindu communities. This gave the missionaries a distinct advantage over their native competitors, as the initial investment to set up and run a school was considerable and grants were only given to schools already up and running. Furthermore, the opposition of the missionaries and their influence on the European officials often delayed or prevented the registration of Buddhist and Hindu schools for a grant.
Jayasuriya gives several examples for this practice and both Jayasuriya and Sumathipala quote the Director of Public Instruction on one particular case in the Northern Province:

During the last two years some applications were considered for the registration of schools under Sivite [Hindu] managers. They were large schools, had existed for many years, and fulfilled every condition required by the existing regulations. The case of one of the schools was submitted to my particular attention by the Tamil members of the Legislative Council. The protests of one of the Managers against the registration of such schools has been of a very determined kind, and he directly claims for the Society he represents the 'exclusive possession' of the district in which his schools are situated. Indeed with reference to a school which had been in existence for nearly twenty years, he says,

'If it can be made plain that the school is really needed, the teacher should be required to accept Mission management as the sole condition to receiving government aid.'44


Only rarely did such cases reach the Director of Public Instruction -- and even then it seems that little has been done to keep the Christian missionaries from interfering. The school in the referred case did not receive the grant.45 Christian lobbying slowed down the development of native schools and, above all, increased the lead of the missionary societies in the educational field. And with the introduction of the Distance Rule in 1874 an additional and crucial advantage in the competition for grants was given to those bodies with a large number of already registered schools -- i.e. the Christian missionary societies. The new rule made provisions for the refusal of grants for schools established within three miles of an existing government or grant-in-aid school of the same type -- except in special circumstances.46 Taking into account that the missionary schools had right from the introduction of the grant-in-aid scheme seized the opportunity and established numerous schools, it becomes clear that such a rule prevented the registration of new schools in many localities. The existence of a government or missionary grant-aided school in a village (or in the vicinity thereof) made the allocation of a grant for another school in that area impossible. This served a severe blow to the Buddhist and Hindu schools that explicitly aimed at providing indigenous educational facilities as alternative to the already established missionary institutions. With 595 grant-in-aid schools in 1874 47 (and the number rapidly increasing) it was hard enough to find a suitable place for a school with no other grant-in-aid school already existent. In the important population centres, where numerous missionary schools competed for pupils, the registration of a grant-aided school was almost impossible. The working of the Distance Rule satisfied both the secular authorities (for financial considerations) and the Protestant missionaries (whose educational supremacy it safeguarded). The Distance Rule was, therefore, included in Bruce's Revised Code of 1880. And in 1891, the even more restrictive quarter-mile rule was introduced.

-- Ceylon's Department of Public Instruction, 1868 [Excerpt], From Coffee to Tea Cultivation in Ceylon, 1880-1900: An Economic and Social History, by Roland Wenzlhuemer


Though many writers have written that Olcott's visit to Sri Lanka was inspired by learning about the religious debate at Panadura it is the correspondence he had with the Ven Piyaratana Nayake Thera that brought Olcott to our shores.

In the archives, Olcott's diary still exists. He has written that he came to this country from the port of Galle and visited the temple of Piyaratana Thera after addressing a gathering of about 2000 that came to Galle to greet him. He said the temple was one of the most well organised and orderly temples. He spent ten days at the temple discussing the future of Buddhist education in this country and formulating the concept of the Buddhist Theosophical Society (BTS) schools that changed the colonial education map of this country.


-- Dodanduwa Sri Piyaratana Tissa Mahanayake Thero, by Memories of Weerasooriya Clan


WHEREAS the said theosophists, perceiving the need for the upliftment of the people’s self-esteem in collaboration with Most Ven. Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala, Ven. Migettuwatte Gunananda, Anagarika Dharmapala and other Buddhists Leaders founded the Colombo Buddhist Theosophical Society for the purpose of fostering education, traditional culture and national heritage and protecting Buddha Sasana and consequently the Society has managed as many as 420 public schools...

The establishment of schools and the bringing together of Buddhist workers in a cooperative body without distinction of caste or position for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the Buddhists of Ceylon, were the primary objects aimed at by the new Society...

At the very inception of the Society Colonel Olcott started a Buddhist National Fund which was placed under trustees especially appointed for the purpose. The Buddhist National Fund came to over Rs. 6,000 and with it was purchased the site and old buildings of the present Buddhist Headquarters in Maliban Street and Norris Road...

The promotion of education became the most important work of the Society. The necessity for placing Buddhist children under Buddhist influence from their early years was recognized and from year to year the results of this policy demonstrated the wisdom of the step. In 1880 when the Society started there were only two Buddhist schools in the Island -- one at Dodanduwa conducted under the supervision of Piyarathna Nayaka Thero, and the other at Panadura under the supervision of Gunaratana Nayaka Thero. These had an attendance of 246 children and received as Government Grants a sum of Rs.532-70. Whereas there was at the time 805 schools conducted by Christian Missionaries with an attendance of 78.086 children receiving Government Grants to the extent of 174,420 rupees.

The new organization which aspired to enter into the field of education was opposed, and difficulties placed in its way by the Government. The Director of Education visualizes a conflict of interests and the introduction of a dissension which the new organization was likely to create. Its ability to take its part in the education programme was doubted. Difficulties were placed on the path by the enactment of regulations likely to hamper their progress. The energy and determination of those who formed the new movement and the intelligent help and guidance they received enabled them to overcome these obstacles which acted as an impetus and activity throughout the country. The report of 1892, that is twelve years after the establishment of the Society, shows 25 boys’ schools, 11 girls’ schools and 10 mixed schools, a total, i.e., in 1903 there were under the management of the Society 174 schools with an attendance of about 30,000 children. The importance of the establishment of Buddhists schools had been realized and within the period of 24 years in addition to the number of schools under the management of the Society, a very large number of Buddhist schools under the management of other Societies and private individuals came into existence. These schools assisted in the promotion of the objects of the Society.

In 1915 the Society went through a very difficult time. Martial Law was proclaimed in Ceylon. Most of the leaders of the Buddhist community were subjected to detention and imprisonment. Government ceased paying grants to schools and decided to have all its schools closed. The disaster looked as if all national progress was to cease. The way in which people of this island rose to the occasion to meet a difficult situation without distinction or religion or caste and met the crisis is the beginning of a great epoch. Within a short time they united to destroy a system of Government which was capable of being so disastrously misused and the present system of Government was evolved. So far as the Buddhist Theosophical Society is concerned it partook of the new awakening. Buddhists rallied round it as they never did before. The Society was strengthened with new members and a constitution was registered. It planned its future work and strengthened with new members and a constitution was registered. It planned its future work and strengthened what had already been built up. Funds came in to meet all these new requirements.

In 1925 there were 260 schools under the management of the Society with a staff of 1,906 teachers, Today (1940) the Society has under its management 420 schools.


-- Colombo Buddhist Theosophical Society, by Colombo Buddhist Theosophical Society


A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (June 2019)
This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (June 2019)


Image
Ananda College ආනන්ද විද්‍යාලය ஆனந்த கல்லூரி
Ananda College is located in Central Colombo
P De S Kularatne Mawatha, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Coordinates 6°55′30″N 79°52′09″E
Information
Type: National
Motto: Pali: අප්පමාදො අමතපදං Appamādo Amathapadan (Buddhist quote from the Apramada Vagga in the Dhammapada) (Heedfulness, Punctuality leads to Nirvana)
Established: 1 November 1886; 133 years ago
Founder: Colonel Henry Steel Olcott
Principal: S.M. Keerthirathna
Grades: 1–13
Gender: Boys
Age range: 6 to 19
Medium of language: Sinhala, English and Tamil
Color(s): Maroon and Gold
Affiliation: Buddhist
Alumni: Old Anandians
Website: Ananda College

Image
School grounds in 1920.

Image
Colonel H.S. Olcott, founder of Ananda College

Ananda College (Sinhala: ආනන්ද විද්‍යාලය) is a Buddhist school for Sri Lankan boys, with classes from primary to secondary, on a campus of 10 acres (40,000 m2) in Maradana, Colombo.[1]

Early history

Following a meeting of Buddhists at Pettah, under the patronage of Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala Thera, an English-Buddhist school was inaugurated at 19 Prince Street on 1 November 1886 by the Buddhist Theosophical Society. The first session was attended by 37 students. In 1888, when about 130 boys were attending, it moved to 61 Maliban Street. C. W. Leadbeater was appointed the first principal of Ananda today.[2]

By the time the school was officially registered in March 1889, there were 120 students. That same year, J. P. R. Weerasuriya became the first Anandian to pass the Cambridge junior examination. The Cambridge graduate and confessed Buddhist A. E. Bultjens became principal.[2]

In March 1890, the school's proximity to a Catholic school led to controversy—and a move to 54 Maliban Street where further growth ensued, and student enrollments rose to 200 in September 1892 and 270 in 1894.[citation needed] As principals followed Don Baron Jayatilaka. That year, Mr. Tudor Rajapaksha donated 3.2 acres (13,000 m2) of land[3] and the school was relocated in the suburb of Maradana. On 17 August 1895, the former English Buddhist School was renamed to Ananda College Colombo.

When Patrick de Silva Kularatne took over in 1918 attendance was 450 which rapidly increased to 1000 two years later. At this time the annual budget was 80000 Rs.[2]

By 1961, the college had officially become a government school.[3]

Ananda Viharaya

The Ananda Viharaya, is the most easily distinguishable building of the college.[4]

Completed under Col. E.A. Perusinghe, Late Governor, Honourable William Gopallawa handed over the Viharaya to the School on 6 March 1969.[4] The Buddha statue has been designed by Venerable Kalasoori Mapalagama Vipulasara Thero.[5]

"Battle of the Maroons"

Main article: Ananda–Nalanda

In a tradition dating back to 1924, an annual cricket contest is held between Ananda College and Nalanda College Colombo. The two schools have contributed many players to the Sri Lanka national cricket team, including the old Anandians Sidath Wettimuny recipient of Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 1985, Arjuna Ranatunga (who captained the Sri Lanka Cricket team to victory in the 1996 Cricket World Cup and who was also named as a Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 1999), former Test captain Marvan Atapattu and T20 captain Dinesh Chandimal.[6]

Old Boys' Association

Sir D. B. Jayatilleke, the then principal, conceived the idea of the Ananda College Old Boys' Association in 1908. Initially its main function was to organise a sports-meet and the annual dinner. In subsequent years the OBA and the school's administration have co-operated in furthering the development of the College. Prior to 1961 (when the school was nationalised) the incumbent principal of the school presided over the OBA. Since that date, a president is elected by members at each annual general meeting.[7] The present president of OBA is Mr.Dushmantha Karannagoda.[8]

Ananda Gallery

Ananda Gallery is the official Ananda College Merchandise portal.[9] Ananda Gallery was established in December 2017 by Principal S.M. Keerthirathna.

Ananda Daham Pasala

Image
Ananda Dhamma School Logo

Ananda Daham Pasala (ආනන්ද දහම් පාසල/Ananda Dhamma School) is the sunday school of Ananda College. It was started in 2004 as a project of 81 group.[10][11][12][13]

Notable alumni

Main article: List of Ananda College alumni

See also: Category:Alumni of Ananda College

Olcott oration

Olcott oration is an annual event organized by the old boys association of Ananada College, which commemorate the founder Colonel Henry Steel Olcott of Ananda College and other leading Buddhist schools in Sri Lanka. Every year famous personalities who educated at Ananda College, share their own experience for the "Olcott oration" and renowned dignitaries who have delivered the oration in the past, include Prof. Nimal Rajapakshe, Prof. Sumedha Chandana Wirasinghe and Prof. Ravindra Fernando.[14][15][16]

College war memorial

The Ananda College war memorial is situated in front of the Henry Steel Olcott Hall, and is dedicated to alumni of Ananda college who died while members of the Sri Lankan armed forces. Lieutenant A.P.N. P de Vas Gunawardana on 23 July 1983 became the first Anandian officer to sacrifice his life while in the Military. The plaque bears the names of old Anandians who were killed in the line of duty which includes the names of 45 war heroes from the Sri Lanka Army,[17] and many more names of war heroes from the sri Lanka Navy and the Sri Lanka Air Force. Ananda College OBA organises an annual "Ananda Viruharasara" event to honour military dead.[18][19][20]

Notable past principals

See also: Category:Principals of Ananda College

• C. W. Leadbeater (1886–1890)
• Sir D. B. Jayatilaka (1898–1908)
• P. De S. Kularatne (1918–1932;1936–1943)
• Dr. G. P. Malalasekera (?–?)
• L.H. Mettananda (1945 - 1955)

Notable teachers

See also: Category:Faculty of Ananda College

• Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thero
• Sikkim Mahinda Thero
• Polwatte Buddhadatta Mahanayake Thera
• Gunapala Piyasena Malalasekera
• Chellappah Suntharalingam
• Lionel Ranwala
• Agampodi Paulus de Zoysa
• Tuan Burhanudeen Jayah
• R. A. Chandrasena

References

1. Foundation of Ananda College Archived May 6, 2013, at the Wayback Machine on official website
2. Ananda College, Colombo; Buddhist Annual of Ceylon, Vol. I (1920), 1, p. 41.
3. Milestones Archived May 5, 2013, at the Wayback Machine on official website
4. Historical Sketches of Ananda Archived December 30, 2014, at the Wayback Machine on official website
5. "Montage - Cultural paradigm | Sundayobserver.lk - Sri Lanka". archives.sundayobserver.lk. Retrieved 2020-03-05.
6. Battle of the Maroons website
7. About OBA Archived 2013-02-17 at the Wayback Machine at official website
8. https://anandacollegeoba.org
9. [1]
10. http://epaper.dinamina.lk/?tday=2019/07 ... 02&ver=col
11. http://archives.dinamina.lk/epaper/?id= ... 2013/03/09
12. "Daily Mirror E-Paper". epaper.dailymirror.lk. July 24, 2019. p. A14. Retrieved 25 July 2019.
13. http://epaper.sundayobserver.lk/?tday=2 ... 99&ver=pro
14. "Olcott Oration 2011". Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved August 22, 2013.
15. "Olcott Oration - 2010 | Letters". Print2.dailymirror.lk. 2010-10-29. Archived from the original on 2014-02-24. Retrieved 2014-02-19.
16. "OLCOTT ORATION 2012". Ananda College. 2012-11-10. Archived from the original on 2014-02-25. Retrieved 2014-02-19.
17. Ananda College. "Anandians and Sri lanka Army". Archived from the original on 2015-02-13. Retrieved 2014-04-28.
18. Ananda Kannangara (2009-07-05). "Premier Buddhist school pays tribute to its war heroes: Anada Viru HARASARA". Security News | Sundayobserver.lk - Sri Lanka. Archived from the original on 2014-02-24. Retrieved 2014-02-19.
19. "Ananda College pays tribute for Old Anandian war heroes". Defence.lk. 2010-12-30. Archived from the original on 2014-02-28. Retrieved 2014-02-19.
20. "Quick Look – Ananda Viru Harasara". Daily News. 18 October 2012. Retrieved 2014-02-19.

External links

• Official website
• Ananda College Cricket
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Sat Aug 29, 2020 11:34 pm

Liberal Catholic Church
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 8/29/20

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (July 2009)

Part of a series on the Liberal Catholic Movement
Background: Christianity; Western Christianity; English Reformation; Anglicanism; Old Catholicism
People: Arnold Harris Mathew; James I. Wedgwood; Charles Webster Leadbeater
Rites: Liberal Rite
Churches: Societas Jesu Christi
Liberal Catholic Church: Liberal Catholic Church International; Liberal Catholic Church Theosophia Synod; Old Catholic Apostolic Church; The Young Rite


The name Liberal Catholic Church (LCC) is used by a number of separate Christian churches throughout the world which are open to esoteric beliefs and hold many ideas in common. Although the term Liberal Catholic might suggest otherwise, it does not refer to liberal groups within the Roman Catholic Church but to groups within the Independent Catholic movement, unrecognised by and not in communion with the Pope nor the rest of the Catholic Church.

There are essentially two groups of Liberal Catholic churches: those which espouse theosophical ideas and those which do not.

History

Foundation


The founding bishops of the Liberal Catholic churches were J. I. Wedgwood of the Wedgwood China family and the Theosophist Charles Webster Leadbeater. Wedgwood was a former Anglican priest who left the Anglican church on becoming a theosophist in 1904. After serving in several high offices in the Theosophical Society, including being general secretary of the society in England and Wales from 1911 to 1913, he was ordained as a priest in the Old Catholic movement on July 22, 1913, by Arnold Harris Mathew. Mathew in turn was a former Roman Catholic priest who had left to be ordained as a bishop in the Old Catholic Church, which had separated from papal authority in 1873 over the issue of papal infallibility. The Old Catholics maintained that their ordinations were valid within the Catholic tradition, and the Liberal Catholic Church thus claims to trace its apostolic succession back to Rome through Old Catholicism.

In 1915 Wedgwood visited Australia in his capacity as Grand Secretary of the Order of Universal CoMasonry (Co-Freemasonry a branch of liberal or adogmatic Freemasonry consisting of mixed-sex lodges), another of the organisations in which he was prominent. On his return to England, he learned that Frederick Samuel Willoughby, a bishop of the Old Catholic Church of Britain, had become enmeshed in a homosexuality scandal and as a result had been suspended by Archbishop Mathew. He also learned that Mathew wanted all the clergy of the church to renounce Theosophy on the grounds that the beliefs of the Church and the Society were incompatible. Shortly afterwards Archbishop Mathew dissolved the Old Catholic Church in Great Britain and published a letter in The Times announcing his intention to return to the Roman Catholic Church.

Few bothered to reply to Archbishop Mathew. Willoughby offered to consecrate Wedgwood to the episcopate, but Wedgwood approached a number of other bishops seeking consecration, including the Old Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht Gerardus Gul (by whom Mathew had originally been consecrated), and Bishop Frederick James, a fellow Theosophist. Eventually, Wedgwood was consecrated as a bishop by Bishop Willoughby on 13 February 1916 with Bishop King and Bishop Gauntlett assisting.

With the Old Catholics continuing to disapprove of Mathew's creation in Britain, Wedgwood started the organisation that would later become the Liberal Catholic Church, of which he became the first Presiding Bishop. At the same time he maintained his close connections with the Theosophical movement, and many of Wedgwood's priests and bishops were simultaneously Theosophists.

Schisms and other departures

See also: Liberal Catholic Movement

1941 schism

In 1941 a schism occurred in the church due to breaches of canon law and the laws of the state of California on the part of the Presiding Bishop, which led to the church known abroad as the Liberal Catholic Church International earning the legal right to be known as the Liberal Catholic Church in the United States. In America, the entity originally known as the Liberal Catholic Church is known as "The Liberal Catholic Church, Province of the United States of America."[1] The Liberal Catholic Church, Province of the United States of America is more Theosophical in belief while the Liberal Catholic Church International maintains freedom of belief and does not promote any singular philosophy or tradition.

2003 schism

In 2003 within the Liberal Catholic Church, the issue of the limitation of a bishop's right to ordain candidates of that bishop's choosing gave rise to a difference of opinion which resulted in two groups: a "traditional" and a more "liberal" one. The ordination of women was the primary point of conflict. Since both groups use the name "Liberal Catholic Church," distinguishing between the two may be confusing.

The Young Rite

In 2006, former LCC Presiding Bishop Johannes van Alphen consecrated Markus van Alphen who, in turn, established the Young Rite. Bishop Johannes eventually joined the Young Rite, serving until his death. Among the tenets of the Young Rite was the belief that all possessed a path to the priesthood and anyone requesting ordination should receive it.[2] This practice was abandoned in the United States after Markus van Alphen's retirement and with the establishment of the Community of St. George, a Young Rite jurisdiction and the only recognized Young Rite jurisdiction in the United States. Young Rite USA now requires a multi-year formation program for its clergy.[3]. The Young Rite is incorporated in the United States as the Liberal Catholic Church - The Young Rite.

Structure

The Liberal Catholic Church is governed by three "General Episcopal Synods" of all bishops. The General Episcopal Synods are the assemblies of all bishops recognized as such by its members. The synods meet formally from time to time and they elect a presiding bishop from among themselves. The current Presiding Bishops of the Liberal Catholic Church are the Right Reverend Graham Wale, for the conservative branch and the Right Reverend James Zinzow for the progressive one. The Liberal Catholic Church International's Presiding Bishop is Most Reverend James P. Roberts. The General Episcopal Synods also elect priests to the episcopacy, with the approval of the parishes of their respective provinces. The bishops of the Liberal Catholic Church may hold office until the mandatory retirement age of 75. (There is no such rule for the Liberal Catholic Church International.)

Each province is governed by a regionary bishop who, in turn, may have one or more bishops functioning as assistants. A province may also have its own clerical synod of deacons, priests and bishops. These clergy are seldom financially compensated and hold secular jobs. They also may marry and hold property.

Training for the clergy varies from province to province. The Liberal Catholic Institute of Studies was created to standardise the program of studies for the development of future deacons and priests, but laypersons may follow the courses as well. The Liberal Catholic Church International's (LCCI) clergy training program is called the St. Alban Theological Seminary. The Universal Catholic Church's (an offshoot of the LCCI) is called the St. Clement (of Alexandria) Seminary.

The Liberal Catholic Church also has monasteries although they are not official.

Teaching

According to church teaching, the Liberal Catholic Church draws its central inspiration from an earnest faith in a Christ who is eternal, being alive before, during, and after the events of the New Testament, to the present day.[citation needed]

Liberal Catholicism finds any form of Christian worship valid as long as it is earnest and true, and that individuals can experience the presence of Christ. But it also holds that Christ also appointed certain rites or sacraments (called "mysteries" in the Eastern Orthodox Church) to be handed down in the church as special channels of power and blessing. Through these "means of grace" the Liberal Catholic Church believes that Christ is ever present within his church, in fellowship and communion, guiding and protecting them from birth to death. Many in the Liberal Catholic Church believe that there are many churches because there are many ways in which people want to worship God.[citation needed]

Many in the church accept the concept of purgatory, and in the Liturgy of the Mass the priest prays for the dead. The church is open to reincarnation.[4][5]

Sacraments and apostolic succession

According to the Liberal Catholic Church's Statement of Principles, "The Liberal Catholic Church recognises seven fundamental sacraments, which it enumerates as follows: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Absolution, Holy Unction, Holy Matrimony, and Holy Orders. It claims an unbroken apostolic succession through the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht and claims that its orders are 'acknowledged as valid throughout the whole of those churches of Christendom which maintain the apostolic succession of orders as a tenet of their faith." The LCC International has modified their Statement of Principles to read "it (the LCC) has preserved an episcopal succession that is valid, as understood throughout the whole of those churches in Christendom that maintain the apostolic succession as a tenet of their faith." The LCC International permits the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians.[6][7]

Unity of all religions

Further information: Perennial philosophy

The Liberal Catholic Church believes there is a body of doctrine and mystical experience common to all the great religions of the world which cannot be claimed as an exclusive possession by any one of them. Moving within the orbit of Christianity and regarding itself as a distinctive Christian church it nevertheless holds that the other great religions of the world are also divinely inspired and that all proceed from a common source, though religions may stress different aspects of the various teachings and some aspects may even temporarily be ignored. These teachings, as facts in nature, rest on their own intrinsic merit. They form that true catholic faith which is catholic because it is the statement of universal principles. The LCC bases these beliefs on what St. Augustine said: "The identical thing that we now call the Christian religion existed among the ancients and has not been lacking from the beginnings of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, from which moment on the true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christian." (Retract I. XIII,3).

See also

• Christianity portal
• Free Church of Antioch
• Maitreya (Benjamin Creme)
• Maitreya (Theosophy)
• Warren Prall Watters

References

1. Deceptio, Falsum, et Dissimulatio. Matthews, Edward M. St. Alban Press, San Diego. 1998.
2. Bate, Alistair (2009). A Strange Vocation: Independent Bishops Tell Their Stories. Berkeley, CA: The Apocryphile Press. ISBN 978-1933993751.
3. https://www.youngriteusa.org/education-celebrants.html
4. "Christianity and reincarnation, Kristendomen och reinkarnation". YouTube. 2010-09-29. Retrieved 2013-08-16.
5. [1] Archived October 26, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
6. "Services of The Liberal Catholic Church". Liberalcatholic.tripod.com. Retrieved 2013-08-16.
7. [2] Archived July 16, 2011, at the Wayback Machine

External links

• Liberal Catholic Church of America
• Liberal Catholic Church of Great Britain
• Liberal Catholic Church of Australia
• Liberal Catholic Church of New Zealand
• Liberal Catholic Community
• The Priestly Society of the Inner Circle and Light
• The Young Rite
• Liberal Catholic Church-Theosophia Synod
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 52 guests