Talk:Ram Mohan Roy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Note[edit]

I believe his name was Rama Mohana Roy in the original Bengali. There's Bengali writing on this page which I cannot read. Should that be given as the transliteration from the Bengali? Imc 08:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

His name is pronounced as Rammohan (without the 'a's) in Bengali.--ppm 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The entire writing on this Wiki page about "Roy" looks to me written in the point of view of a westerner very biased, nothing depicted about what Indians felt about him. The whole entire passage is like copy paste from a book written by white man only. I don't believe even half of what is written here. It's look like the imagination of what white man how he saw him. First of all the sati practice was not only due for Property disputes (whiteman's imagination), there were other reasons of honour also, rape, wife grabbing,sharing etc.. This sati practice was done because of the mughal dynasty in case of the kings or soldiers were killed, the wives' would be burnt at the funeral pyre, to avoid dead carcass rape. That's the real reason. It's given here he was hindu but then why was he buried in UK after his death, doesn't make sense at all. Why was he not cremated and ashes returned to India? His faith is questionable here. no explanation at all just source from an autobiography that had never been validated by any one. One more thing Rammohan ROY had gone down in History to have married a "Sati", where are the pictures of the marriage ceremony where is the documents that he married her? Nothing given or proven here at all. Fairy tale that's all. I didnt not find the entry about his wives here either why? Now you will say he was bachelor? If he did marry a sati where are his children? Still further I want say that in indian school textbooks he was pointed out as Anti indian anti Hindu but here in this wiki there is nothing written about that? It's like reading he was a saviour for hindus when actually he was disgrace who converted to christianity. Totally unliked person, who ran away to England to hide from the hindus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.69.68 (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment moved from main page[edit]

Please note that parts of the present text, especially the section "Christian and Company period (1795 - 1828)", are tendentious, containing disputed facts and near-abusive language, such as "fabricate(d) a spurious religious work". This can perhaps be attributed to the fact that some of the hatred he encountered on account of his fight against Hindu orthodoxy and criticism of Christian Trinitarianism, survives to this day. I feel that the article should be blocked or flagged appropriately until corrective edits are received. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altquixote (talkcontribs)

The "disputed" fact that Rammohan Roy had a hand in fabricating the MNT (a work widely acknowledged to be fabricated) is not OR. Altquixote can read John Duncan Derrett on the subject, and Hugh Urban's 1995 follow up paper. Annette46 (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


The article reads very POV. Politically anti-Christian and geographically Indo-centric "lands in India to settle here". Carey's is not referenced. Needs to be worked on Cosnahang (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ram Mohan and Women[edit]

A quotation has been added to the article recently.

"It should be noted, however, that the women who benefited from Roy's reforms were largely those of the upper castes. Being a Brahman himself, Ram Mohan Roy naturally sought improvement for the women of his own stature. Moreover, women of the orthodox Brahmans, more so than women of the lower castes, experienced such practices as child marriage and prevention of widow remarriage. Thus, while Roy worked to improve the lives of elite women, the lower castes comprising eighty percent of the population saw little change from his reforms."

It is my view that this is POV pushing citing a less scholarly (and possibly uninformed) source. It is trite that child marriage and sati cuts across all castes and the author's thesis that Roy only fought for Brahmin women's issues is too frivolous to be considered seriously. 116.68.247.11 (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you disputing the scholarly integrity of The History Teacher? It seems like a rather sound publication. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIS33809beki (talkcontribs) 17:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A Google search for the author Diane M. Jones reveals nothing notable. The article is not specifically about Roy and has only 1 google cite in an unrelated context of China. The scholarly source fails to show any basis why Roy "naturally" favoured women of his own stature. The article also fails to show any basis for opining that orthodox Brahmin women experienced child marriage and prevention of widow marriage to a higher degree than lower caste women. 116.68.247.11 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Pages 468 and 469 of "Burning Widows, Burning Brides: The Perils of Daughterhood in India" by Dorothy Stein explain how sati was more prevalent among the higher castes, as well as why widow remarriage would be more difficult. HIS33809beki (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found two other publications by Diane M. Jones:A comparative study of the social visions of M.K. Gandhi and Mao Zedong and Peasant revolts and historical consciousness in Vietnam : two popular uprisings against the Nguyen dynasty, 1833-1835. Both were published by the University of Wisconsin. To me, it seems that Jones' article, "Nationalism and Women's Liberation: The Cases of India and China" does explain why Ram Mohan would have been more interested in helping women of similar social status. As stated on page 147: "The class bias of the male Hindu reformers should come as no surprise because as members of the educated upper crust they looked first for change in their own lives, and those of their own wives and daughters." I believe there is a renown example of Roy seeing his sister-in-law become a sati and opposing the practice thereafter. That seems to be exactly what Jones is referring to. Furthermore, yes I concede that the main subject of "Nationalism and Women's Liberation" is not Ram Mohan. It is an article about women's social issues, and therefore Ram Mohan necessarily forms an important part of the discussion pertaining to India. HIS33809beki (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Diane Jones of Univ.Wisconsin seems to be an athletics coach with many "significant" publications. http://facstaff.uww.edu/jonesd/Presentations.htm Since RMR never set foot in the USofA her observations on RMR are 3rd party opinions, not RS and certainly not sufficently scholarly for Wikipedia. That RMR was also caused to oppose sati because of the burning of Jagmohoan's widow is not at issue, the faulty / dubious logic of Ms Jones' sweeping (and incidentally ignorant) statements that sati, child remarriage, widow remarriage etc are/were primarily upper caste societals is. Ms Jone's (especially when out of context) is not a sufficiently scholarly source for inclusion in an encyclopedia, do you have any contemporary sources to RMR to cite for such kind of negative observations? Speculative weasel terms such as "would have been" cannot be used as justification - RMR either DID favour or DID NOT favour women of his own strata - please cite your sources accordingly. 116.68.247.11 (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You may also be interested in "scholarly" articles like this http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconferenceorg/message/6 116.68.247.11 (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ram Mohan and Social Reform[edit]

How are the actions of Ram Mohan in relation to the British indigo planters irrelevant to his role as a social reformer? To me they seem to be related.HIS33809beki (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read JC Ghosh's collected letters of RMR first to get the complete picture on Roy's views on (and 'benami' ownership of) indigo plantations. It would also be useful if you read up about his son Dwarkanath Tagore who also owned many indigo plantations (including some of Roy's). 116.68.247.11 (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ram Mohan Dates (1774-1833 or 1772-1833)?[edit]

Could somebody please tell me the correct dates of Ram Mohan. Wikipedia states 1774-1833. All other sources give 1772-1833? Incognitus scriptor (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an actual issue, as the page itself is inconsistent. We should seek to solve this as soon as possible. The majority of the time the date is given as 1772; I suggest that every instance of 1774 be replaced, with a footnote that it is possible he was born in 1774, according to differing reports. 71.58.72.223 (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Early political and religious career (1792–1820)[edit]

This section is very poorly written- and most of it refers to other people such as Carey and Woodroffe, which by the way is misspelt. Section needs substantial editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajibAditya (talkcontribs) 17:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


Hindu [sic] Why?[edit]

Why is there a [sic] whenever Hindu is mentioned in direct quotations? Epeeist smudge (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Rammohun Roy[edit]

The title of the article shoud be Rammohun Roy. In every letters he have written, he signed as Rammohun Roy (not Ram Mohan Roy). Please vide The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy edited by Dr. Kalidas Nag and Debajyoti Burman, published from Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, 211, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata-6. Thanks. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A bit of nonsense[edit]

QUOTE In 1830 Ram Mohan Roy travelled to the United Kingdom as an ambassador of the Mughal Empire END OF QUOTE There was no Mugal 'Empire' in 1830.

QUOTE The East India Company was draining money from India at a rate of three million pounds a year in 1838. END OF QUOTE

This is only a Indian school text book propaganda, which only the utter idiots will believe. How come Wikipedia is used as a jingoistic propaganda tool? This item has no relevence in an article on Raja Ram Mohan Roy, for there is no record of him being an anti-English rule propagandist. In fact the opposite is the truth.

QUOTE: The Brahma Samaj played a major role in reforming and modernising the Indian society END OF QUOTE: This statement is nonsense. Bengal society is not 'Indian society' by any way of imagining. There was no 'Indian society' and Brahma Samaj is not known to have in any way influenced the nations in the south, even if there is any chance that it had influenced the social content in the northern parts of the peninsula. In the south, the only major modernising influence was the English rule.

QUOTE: These practices were often the reasons British officials claimed moral superiority over the Indian nation.END OF QUOTE. What a joke! What 'Indian Nation' in 1830s?

Where is Raja Rammohan Way then?[edit]

Just curious. The article claims that a street has been named in memory of Ram Mohan Roy. The claim was made on 31 July 2015, but google maps still can't find the place, and there's no mention of it on any British government site. Might culturalindia.net have been a bit premature, or just perhaps wrong? Batternut (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The CulturalIndia.net made the street naming claim in or before 2008, when it was first archived (here). If the street has been around for 8 years, it would be locatable. The AA route planner finds 3 similar road names in India, but none in the UK. So I shall remove this claim from the article. Batternut (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)