Talk:Raja Ram Mohan Roy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
defunct
.BengalWikipedia:WikiProject BengalTemplate:WikiProject BengalBengal articles
WikiProject iconBritish Empire Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Note

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)[reply]

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

Comment moved from main page

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 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Ram Mohan and Women

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ram Mohan and Social Reform

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ram Mohan Dates (1774-1833 or 1772-1833)?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Early political and religious career (1792–1820)

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 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hindu [sic] Why?

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

Rammohun Roy

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)[reply]

A bit of nonsense

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Raja raam mohan Roy earlier works

He started atmiya sabha in 1814 ,I was consider as precursor of brahmo samaj Khaled hussain (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

Ram Mohan Roy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the content

The name is wrong it should be "Raja Rammohun Roy" 2409:4064:99F:DABB:0:0:1A26:68A1 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources for this, and get consensus for the change. Many of the sources we use have the name as in the article title. Meters (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

child marriage and polygamy are not only "Hindu custom"

they are more prevelant, even today, in other religions Mundhra.navneet (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the caste stem was created by invaders of British origin. and now to get political benifit, even Christians are becoming part of so-called lower caste Mundhra.navneet (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

In the, "Christianity and the early rule of the East India Company (1795–1828)" section, please add this: Ram Mohan Roy, an Indian reformer of the 18th century, was a Unitarian who published a book called Precepts of Jesus.[1] 2405:204:5207:5634:A403:B0D:D6EE:A76E (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rammohun Roy, Raja; Marshman, Joshua (1824). The precepts of Jesus : the guide to peace and happiness, extracted from the books of the New Testament ascribed to the four evangelists. To which are added, the first, second, and final appeal to the Christian public in reply to the observations of Dr. Marshman, of Serampore. University of California Libraries. London : The Unitarian Society.
LakshmanReddy72, Billjones94, Kingarthur581, Soap Boy 1, CharlesWain, RDKKR, please do the needful.-115.99.148.174 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed info fails
WP:EXCEPTIONAL. CharlesWain (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2022

DOne by Calcutta Public School Kalikapur Promitdhar2007 (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Reminder to anyone viewing and contributing to this talk page

Before posting anything on this talk page, please read Wikipedia's

not forums
.

I am posting this due to multiple unproductive edits to this talk page for the past two years. (This edit was placed here, as of this post, exactly two years ago tomorrow.) The edit history here shows that I and other editors have come here to perform multiple reversions of unconstructive contributions; speaking for myself, this article arguably has the most talk page activity on my watchlist, and much of it is either trivial and unconstructive, or reversions of such.

And simply posting here something along the lines of "Ram Mohan Roy was an Indian reformer" (paraphrased quote), or that "he was a good guy" or a "very bad man" (either one), does not help improve coverage relevant to him or his coinciding fields of study. Please only post here with the intention of improving, expanding, opining on, questioning, or commenting upon the coverage and information displayed that is relevant to Roy and/or this article; and to do so in a

civil
fashion.

There is not frequent enough activity for me to want to seek this option right now, but if this behavior keeps up, I reserve the right to inquire about protecting this page. I would hate to bring protection measures to a talk page, since these pages are meant to accept opinions of any interested member of the public; but this talk page and its history is simply being improperly used by too many IPs or new users, and it is a long-term issue. Please respect this talk page, and only post here if you have respect for both the information/content regarding Roy's life and world contributions (which is different and distinct from respecting him personally, or thinking positively of him; neither of which I am demanding out of anyone), and of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why is it, but there are many Indian IPs doing these on an incredible number of pages. At this point probably more than half of my Twinkle usage is dedicated to reverting them. I remember reporting them to ANI at some point, but got tired because the reports were generally ignored, and the few (range) blocks didn't really help either. There will always be an unrelated IP that does the same thing even when the other one is blocked. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation on the Mahanirvanatantra

We have a source quoted attributing authorship to the mahanirvanatantra by Ram Mohan Roy. The source in question is Derrett's Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law. The link is to volume one of the series. What source this seems to be wanting to reference is volume 2 of his Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law which holds the article, "A juridical fabrication of early British India: the Mahanirvana-Tantra" from the Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Rechtwissenschaft in 1968. However, in that text on page 142 Derrett says that the authorship of the text by Ramohan Roy is "highly improbable" (see also ff 13 where he surmises Roy would not have had the patience to write the sanskrit follies that he "frequently ridiculed"). There is nothing in this text said about Carey or Vidyavagish. The only sources I see connecting all these only refer back to the Wikipedia or the Derrett article, which says the authorship of the tantra cannot be determined. We should strike this sentence from the page until we can get better sourcing for these claims--which are possibly erroneous. 74.59.26.131 (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article is here: https://books.google.ca/books?id=yH8eAAAAIAAJ&q=maha+nirvana+tantra#v=snippet&q=maha%20nirvana%20tantra&f=false 74.59.26.131 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've looked into this a bit more and found a text by Hugh Urban of all people (he has his hand in every pie!), who explores in-depth whether or not this text was or could be penned by Rammohan Roy. Urban notes two sources that suggest a connection between Roy and the text: Bhattacarya's History of the Sakta Religion (155) and Chakravarti's The Tantras (353). Reading Urban's text gets the feel that Roy did not construct the text himself, though he did use it extensively a an ambivalent source for his reformist agenda. Urban concludes: "It is probable that we will never know the true author and date of the Mahanirvana Tantra "(77). I still think we need to pull this down until it is confirmed. 96.22.174.61 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British India

I removed British india from the infobox and only added the Bengal Presidency. The presidencies were separate at time as most of India was snot colonized yet. The position Governor-General of India did not exist until 1834 SKAG123 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raja_Ram_Mohan_Roy&oldid=1211509424"