Hindoo Stuart – A 18-19th century British army officer who is a known name for the students of Indian sculptures but his life and writings are quite interesting.
General Charles Stuart was born in Ireland who came to India at the age of 19 in 1777 and stayed until 1828.
General Charles Stuart was born in Ireland who came to India at the age of 19 in 1777 and stayed until 1828.
Stuart remained in military service until 1828 including a long sabbatical during 1804-09 which he spent in Europe. He spent most of his times in India in Kolkata. Stuart had shown certain eccentric character from 1790s which became more apparent later.
Though being in army, Stuart's interests primarily lied in culture, religion, natural history and surprisingly the contemporary dressing habits. His first significant publication was in 1790s on the dress code of soldiers of Company's army which was primarily European.
Stuart reasoned that the consideration for dress should be aesthetics and convenience. It shouldn't be primarily based on superiority of European customs while the alleged inferiority of everything Indian. Though it created bit of stir but people didn't pay much attention.
His next attack came on the clothing style of European women living in India. He found their dressing style to be out of tune for Indian climate and suggested them to dress like the Indian women did. It created quite a storm because he was allegedly advocating indecent clothing.
He also attacked the contemporary European custom of wearing wigs and other such articles since such items reduced the natural appearance of humans. He criticised those Europeans who dismissed everything Indian. If one considered enlightened, one can't be prejudiced in this.
So, the wholesale rejection of Indian manners and customs solely on the virtue of being Indian was simply unacceptable. This primarily happened between 1801-05. Till now, he had defended only Indian dressing customs. In 1806, there was a mutiny in Vellore.
The alleged cause was fear of conversion to Christianity amongst the Indian soldiers of army. EIC was quick to reject this hypothesis but missionaries used this as pretext to advocate for their increased activities in India. Stuart jumped into the debate.
For him, the cause of Vellore mutiny was fear of conversion. Since missionaries were attacking Hinduism with renewed vigor, he undertook the task to defend Hinduism and Hindus in writing. In 1808, he wrote "Vindication of Hindoos". His arguments are interesting to discuss.
Unlike Orientalists, who believed that though Hinduism may have been glorious in the past, its present state was wretched and unworthy; and Hindus could retain their customs only because they traditionally followed it, not because these were correct.
In his book, Stuart tried to showcase that Hinduism was theologically an advanced religion. It was quite sophisticated and spiritually advanced. He argued that Hindus essentially worshipped one-single god. He found parallels between Hindu trinity of gods with Christian Trinity.
He did this comparison primarily to respond to missionaries who considered Hinduism was cruel, inhuman and indecent. His next defence was of Hindu social order and prevalent social customs. He argued that early marriage resulted in conjugal fidelity and happy marriage.
He found no evidence to establish that European couples were happier than Indian ones. He praised the institution of Jati-s for establishing a stable social order which also secured the well-being of the poorest. He supported it by showing that India had less beggars than Europe.
He also noted that Brahmins in India enjoyed far less privileges and wealth compared to European clergies. He said though Indian women had lesser choices, they were also better protected from the European ones. Based on his Enlightenment ideals, he did worry about superstitions.
For him, some superstitions of Hindus were hardly integral to their religion. And if someone were to get rid of those superstitions, that had to be done through logic and reason, not via conversion to Christianity. He also published second volume of it in the same year.
Missionaries launched coordinated attack against him in pamphlets and books accusing that he was a concert to Hinduism, hence he was "Hindoo Stuart". He was never converted into Hinduism formally though. There are contemporary accounts related to it.
As per those accounts, he had started worshipping Hindu deities and used to bathe in Hughli everyday. Though, not everything was rosy about him. There were darker shades of Stuart related to his quest of collecting Hindu sculptures.
He collected large number of sculptures of Hindu and Buddhist deities from Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Many of these sculptures were removed by him from those temples which were in dilapidated state. Sometimes, forcible acquisitions were also made.
He also shared a contentious relationship with James Princep who accused him of forcibly extracting two inscriptions from temples of Odisha and donating it to Asiatic Society. He displayed his large collection to public at his home in Kolkata.
Once he retired, he moved back to Europe along with his collection of sculptures which were later auctioned and ultimately ended in the British Museum in the later half of the 19th century.
Reference: Fisch, J. (1985). A Solitary Vindicator of the Hindus: The Life and Writings of General Charles Stuart (1757/58-1828). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1, 35–57. jstor.org
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...