Mahadev Gobind Ranade (1842-1901)

Introductory note: Some five years ago, I became interested in learning more about the complex and fascinating life of the founder of Pakistan, Mr. Mahomed Ali Jinnah. Trying to fathom the reasons behind his

apparently sudden and profound conversion from Indian nationalism, to Muslim separatism, and finally his ideas on Pakistan, the country that has been the source of my primary identity, has put me on a voyage into the past, both distant and recent, of the Indian subcontinent, and has also helped shape my concepts of governance, politics, social reform and liberalism.While my American education had exposed me to John Locke and, Thomas Hobbes this journey has forced me to delve deeper into studying Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Islam for without any understanding of these major religions, an understanding of South Asia is impossible. By no means has been my study exhaustive, nor are my conclusions final, for that would be an indication of a stagnant mind. I am only beginning to investigate such ancient scriptures as the Vedas and Upanishads. In many ways, I have gone beyond the initial stated objective, which was a spark that lit up my curiosity. It also brought me into contact with Raza Kazim, the lawyer, philosopher, and classical musician, whose words of wisdom have started a chain reaction in me.

As I have already mentioned, my ideas are not in any final stage, but along the way I have come across some remarkable figures in the history of South Asia, which I feel, as a self styled historian, I need to write about, because not enough has been written on them. Previously I have written only on those who were directly involved in the closing stages of what history likes to refer to as the Pakistan Movement. I also wrote about Tilak and Gokhale, the two leaders who Jinnah was close to and who played an important role in early moorings on nationalism in India. I also wrote about Bhagat Singh, who is a charismatic hero to all Lahoris and about Sir Ganga Ram, a great philanthropist. Now I will write about some historical figures, intellectual giants in their own right, who Pakistanis know nothing about, and certainly many Indians as well. It is going to be a series of articles, the first one of which is dedicated to the life and times of Ranade.



Mahadev Govind Ranade was a Chitpavan Brahmin like Gokhale and Tilak. He was born in 1842, and pursued a number of different fields as professions in British India. Having studied at Bombay University, where his was the first batch to graduate, he taught Economics, History and Literature. He later moved into Law, where he earned his name. Soon afterwards Ranade was appointed subordinate judge in the Pune courts. It was here that he became an activist, seeking to undo age old traditions and ideas that in his estimate had kept Indians, especially Hindus backward. Unable to partake in national politics, being a judge, he chose instead to work for social reform through his high office. He became the indefatigable crusader for women’s rights, and doing away with unnecessary customs that have choked progress.

Ranade was an enemy of obscurantism. In his articles and essays he contested the notion of revival putting forth the idea of reform. It must be said here, that in this respect the Hindu society seems to be 100 years ahead of the Muslim society, for Ranade didn’t merely give the idea, but implemented it as well. What we see today in South Asia, is that the issue of modernity is a settled one amongst the Hindus. Sure there are some on the fringes that still speak of the ancient wisdom, but for the most part, the Hindus see them as part of a continuous evolving society. The Hindus have realized that the reason why they have managed to live under foreign rule, which more often than not aimed at changing their very way of life, is because they have always adapted themselves to new challenges and a great majority of them have been pragmatic enough to leave their ancient practices and walk with the dictates of time. The Hindu society might be religious, traditional and cultural, but it has never been dogmatic, since no scripture, idea or thought has ever achieved such primacy as not be questioned. Within the Vedas, the most sacred of Hindu traditions, we see a continuous movement, so much so that towards the end it becomes a precursor to the Upanishads. While trying to convince Jinnah of the idea of a separate Muslim state in the north west India, Iqbal had mentioned of how the Hindu society could never be democratic, because such a situation will mean an end to Hindu society. Had he qualified it with “as we know it” it would have made sense. The only certain characteristic of the Hindu society is its willingness to change and adapt. 68 years later, we see that the Hindu society continues to grow by leaps and bounds, while the Muslim society has fallen behind as a whole.

Ranade realized this essential quality of the Hindu society better than the revivalist leaders including those like Gandhi who came later. He blasted any notions of revival, saying that reform was key for the society’s evolution. Rhetorically he asked if society should return to a time when a man had many wives, or when a woman had many husbands. He asked the revivalists if the way forward was to institute “Sati”. He blasted any and all notions of “ancient ways”. Why should the Hindus return to the customs that our fore fathers had rejected, asked Ranade and he was right. He stood for equal rights for men and women, which he forcefully strove for in his capacity as a government official.

One could compare Ranade to Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the great educationist and reformer. I feel however that Sir Syed’s role was limited in scope for he only aimed at improving the lot of the dispossessed Muslim gentry. Renade, though loyal to the British, sought to awaken social and political consciousness of the people, while Sir Syed Ahmed Khan seemed satisfied by simply making Muslims clerks and officials in the British Empire. There is no doubt that Aligarh Muslim University was to later fuel the political consciousness of the Muslim community, but Sir Syed Ahmed Khan’s decision of keeping the Muslims out of the Congress was a crucial blow. Ranade, in fact, had written a number of letters against Sir Syed’s decision to keep the Muslims out of the Congress Party. Those letters make interesting reading and go a long way in explaining the varying points of view of the Muslim gentry and the nascent Hindu bourgeoisie. Ranade no doubt embodied the best of the hopes, aspirations and wishes of the Hindu bourgeoisie, which had through its enterprising and adapting nature, seen a time of its greatest prosperity under the British rule, which perhaps it can achieve again, now in the age of “I T”. A better comparison can be made with Syed Ameer Ali, who like Ranade was a judge, historian and a reformer. However Syed Ameer Ali’s impact, though profound on the Turks, has been marginal on the Muslims of South Asia.

How relevant a lesson is Ranade’s life and work for the Hindu society, for the Muslims of today? The debate has been going on between revival and reform for a very long time in the Muslim community, but lately it seems that the revivalists have become stronger. Perhaps it is time for a Muslim Ranade, or many Muslim Ranades, as lawyers, judges, historians, journalists and teachers who will help reform the Muslim society like that great man did, over a 100 years ago.