Talk:Bengali renaissance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / History (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Bangladesh (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
The article falls into the work area of the History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh
WikiProject Brahmoism
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brahmoism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brahmoism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Comment[edit]

If someone wants to write an article named "Hindu Renaissance", please do it seperately. Young Bengal or Michael Madhusudan Dutt can hardly be part of a "Hindu" renaissance, though they have seminal contribution to the awkening of Bengal.--ppm 05:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge request[edit]

Since it is difficult to talk about the Bengal Renaissance without discussing the Brahmo Samaj, it might make a stronger article for both if the pages were merged. -Classicfilms 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Brahmo Samaj page is about the relgious movement of the Brahmo movement within Hinduism, while the Renaissance is about Bengali culture and society, which isn't totally a subset of the religious movement. --Ragib 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Another solution would be to divide the Brahmo Samaj article into two - one devoted to the history and development of the Brahmo movement (which is associated with the Bengal Renaissance) and one which talks about Brahmoism as a religious movement. -Classicfilms 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This article (from the website for the Rabindra Bharati University Museum, Kolkata) called The Tagores and Society reflects the direction I am suggesting above. -Classicfilms 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
There are aspects of Bengal Renaissance (Young Bengal, Bankim, Mir Mosharraf Hossain, Ramakrishna) that simply don't fit in a Brahmo Samaj framework, though indeed they were of immense importance--ppm 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This is very true, I agree with you. I'm now beginning to think a better solution than merging would be the creation of a new page (which would be linked from both the Bengal Renaissance page and the Brahmo Samaj page) - something like Bengal Renaissance and Brahmoism? I am open to suggestions on this idea. -Classicfilms 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I am entering into the discussion rather late. I would be happy to see a new article on Bengal Renaissance and the Brahmo Samaj (or the other way round, if you like) by Classicfilms. Coverage of this topic is long over due. -- Seejee 04:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Response[edit]

Not necessarily, Brahmo Samaj and Bengal Renaissance are different social movements, although they occasionally overlap. Religious revival in Hinduism through Ramakrishna Mission, or through Christian learning in Bengal as well as ushering a spirit of intellectual enquiry and flowering of architecture and literature may not be necessarily linked to the Brahmo Samaj, but they constitute part of the Bengal Renaissance. It is best that they remain separate articles. LordGulliverofGalben

I think you are right about keeping them as separate articles (which I mention in the post above). The overlap during the 19th century between Brahmoism and the Bengal Renaissance was quite strong, however. While not all notable figures of the Renaissance were Brahmos, some of the most important were - such as Roy and the Tagores. 19th century Brahmoism and the Bengal Renaissance shared a dedication to social reform and in this respect, scholarly texts on the Bengal Renaissance always mention the Brahmo movement. Thus, in the post above, I suggested the creation of separate article which talks about this overlap between 19th century Brahmoism and the Bengal Renaissance. -Classicfilms 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

New article[edit]

I removed the merge request and now am interested in feedback on creating a separate article (see posts above). -Classicfilms 01:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually[edit]

We have a larger issue in our hand...what is a reasonable duration of the Renaissance in Bengal? 19th century? Till the death of Tagore? --ppm 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Three quotes[edit]

These three quotes offer different perspectives on the time periods of the Renaissance and the literature that was produced:

1. Chaudhuri, Amit.(ed.) “The Vintage Book of Modern Indian Literature.” New York: Random, 2004.

The Bengal Renaissance, that great flowering of writers, poets and thinkers from the mid-nineteenth century to the early decades of the twentieth, represents, largely, a record of the intellectual, and, above all, the creative response of Indians coming to terms with, and shaping, changes in their history and identity. It involved, on the one hand, unprecedented leaps in technique and of the imagination of literature, and, on the other, issues of social and religious reform, of nationalism, education and the mother tongue (p. xix).

2. Dutta, Krishna and Andrew Robinson. “Rabindranath Tagore: An Anthology. London: Picador, 1997.

The three or four decades following Tagore’s birth in 1861 were the zenith of what is generally termed the Bengal Renaissance (p.11).

3. Guha, Sreejata. “Introduction” to “Devdas” by Saratchandra Chattopadhyay. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2002.

The Bengali novel, which had been kick-started into existence by Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay with his historical romances in the mid-nineteenth century, was taken a step forward by Rabindranath Tagore, who brought in lyrical, evocative descriptions and a realistic base for both characters and situations, in the early twentieth century. Saratchandra was evidently influenced by Rabindranath in his earlier writings, but the novels of his peak period represented nothing less than a revolution in the way literature was being approached (p.vi).

--Classicfilms 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Azad, Chittaranjan,Bose, Ray, Sen[edit]

While early Tagore might be considered to feature at the tail end of the BR, I think its patently absurd that the five people mentioned above be considered part of it. Unless someone can cite major published work within 48 hours that specifically locates these individuals as part of the same flourishing that gave us Madhusudhan and Derozio, I will remove them. Hornplease 23:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Bose, Azad, and Das were not intellectuals, they were fighters. RAy and sen are too late for this article.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Correction - Ray is called the last Bengali renaissance man [1], [2].Bakaman Bakatalk 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Renaissance man is a term with uses beyond the specificities of this article. Please google it for more. Hornplease 01:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that the Buruma article specifically states that he inherited the mantle of his forebears, who had been part of the BR. Baka, I have suggested before that you read the articles that you link to. Hornplease 01:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Scope[edit]

(Raja Ram Mohan Roy - Rabindranath Tagore)[3]. Earlier falls under Bhakti most probably and later falls under Bangladesh and West Bengal respectively.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

I'm a little busy to update. Here's some reading material. [4], [5], [6], [7].Bakaman Bakatalk 00:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Scope[edit]

If their works were published between (1790's- 1947) then they are renaissance (with exception KAzi NAsrul Islam and a few others). Nirad Chaudhuri really only got started in the 50's making him too late.Bakaman Bakatalk 07:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Response[edit]

I think Nirad Chaudhuri is culturally, very much a part of the Bengal Renaissance. His works capture the spirit of that age very succinctly.

Pradosh Mitter (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


1800 - 1865 is probably BR proper, some later stuff can be mentioned for completeness, but one usually indetifies post 1860 as the age of nationalism, and with the decline of renaissance mentality--ppm (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The pro-colonial stand that the leaders of Bengal renaissance took had been questioned by number of ,mostly marxist,intelectuals,prominent among them is Binoy Ghosh.The criticism that the Bengal renaissance brought only a fractured modernity in Indian context must also have in included in the article. Dwaipayan jn (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased[edit]

The article is so pathetically limited to 19th century upper Hindu class folk. What about Kazi Nazrul Islam, Begum Rokeya, Muhammad Shahidullah, Zainul Abedin and other Bengali Muslim pioneers ? And many scholars argue the renaissance continued well into the 20th century, with the emergence of the Bengali Muslim middle class and rise of Bengali cultural nationalism between in the 50s and 60s.--ArmanJ (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)