The Indian Sociologist - Revision history

DellaPugh3766180: typo fix

2025-08-01T15:20:24Z

typo fix

imported>Citation bot: Add: pages. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Activated by User:AManWithNoPlan | All pages linked from User:AManWithNoPlan/sandbox2 | via #UCB_webform_linked

2020-03-17T23:15:41Z

Add: pages. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Activated by User:AManWithNoPlan | All pages linked from User:AManWithNoPlan/sandbox2 | via #UCB_webform_linked

New page

{{italic title}}
{{use Indian English|date=July 2016}}
{{use dmy dates|date=July 2016}}
[[File:Indian sociologist.jpg|thumb|200px|''The Indian Sociologist'', September 1908, London]]
'''''The Indian Sociologist''''' was an [[Indian nationalist]] [[Political journalism|journal]] in the early 20th century. Its subtitle was ''An Organ of Freedom, and Political, Social, and Religious Reform''.

The journal was edited by [[Shyamji Krishnavarma]] from 1905 to 1914, then between 1920 and 1922. It was originally produced in [[London]] until May 1907, when Krishnavarma moved to [[Paris]]. The journal was edited in Paris from June 1907, but the change of address was only announced in the September 1907 issue. Publication continued in Paris until 1914,<ref name="EPW06">{{cite journal|last=Shah|first=A.M.|date=5 August 2006|title=The Indian Sociologist, 1905-14, 1920-22|journal=Economic and Political Weekly|volume=41|issue=31|pages=3435–3439|jstor=4418537}}</ref>{{rp|3435}} when Krishnavarma moved to Geneva on account of the [[World War I|First World War]]. While in Geneva, he abandoned the publication under pressure from the Swiss authorities. He recommenced publication in December 1920 and continued until September 1922.

== Political origin ==
The first issue contained the following statement:
<blockquote>The appearance of a journal conducted by an Indian sociologist in England is an event likely to cause surprise in some quarters; but there are many weighty grounds to justify such a publication. The political relations between England and India urgently require a genuine Indian interpreter in the United Kingdom to show, on behalf of India, how Indians really fare and feel under British rule. No systematic attempt has, so far as our knowledge goes, ever been made in this country by Indians themselves to enlighten the British public with regard to the grievances, demands, and aspirations of the people of India and its unrepresented millions before the bar of public opinion in Great Britain and Ireland. This journal will endeavour to inculcate the great sociological truth that "it is impossible to join injustice and brutality abroad with justice and humanity at home." It will from time to time remind the British people that they can never succeed in being a nation of freedom and lovers of freedom so long as they continue to send out members of the dominant classes to exercise despotisms in Britain’s name upon the various conquered races that constitute Britain’s military empire.

''The Indian Sociologist'' will not be identified with any political party. It will be guided in its policy by the fundamental truths of social science, the first principle of which is that "every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the freedom of any other man". In discussing political, social, and religious questions, we shall frequently appeal to sociology, which, as expounded by the founder of that new and profound science, proves conclusively that "all despotisms, whether political or religious, whether of sex, of caste, or of custom, may be generalised as limitations to individuality, which it is the nature of civilisation to remove."</blockquote>

The journal also featured two quotes from [[Herbert Spencer]], an important influence on it:<ref name="EPW06"/>{{rp|3436}}
:"Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." (''Principles of Ethics'', Section 272).
:"Resistance to aggression is not simply justifiable but imperative. Non-resistance hurts both altruism and egoism" (''The Study of Sociology'', Chapter 8)

The journal was very strongly influenced by Spencer and Krishnavarma used it to advertise the Herbert Spencer Indian Fellowships, five travelling scholarships he set up to enable Indian graduates to study in England. They had the prevision that the fellowship holder "shall not accept any post, office, emoluments, or service under the British government after his return to India", a condition which caused some debate.

The journal became a significant conduit for the ideas of Herbet Spencer across India.

== 1907: radicalisation and repression ==
[[File:TIS.jpg|thumb|400px|Banner of the Vol. V, No. 8 of ''The Indian Sociologist'' published in August 1909, for which [[Guy Aldred]] was prosecuted]]
Starting with quite a mild stance in that "India and England should sever their connection peaceably and part as friends",<ref>''TIS'' vol. II no.8 (August 1906)</ref> it became more radical in 1907, actively advocating [[Swaraj]]<ref>'Home Rule is "SVARAJYA"', ''TIS'' vol. III no.3 (March 1907)</ref> (Home Rule) and organisation of the Society of Political Missionaries of India.<ref name="EPW06"/>{{rp|3437}} This incurred police surveillance, a debate in the [[British House of Commons]] (30 July 1907) and a ban on import and sale of the journal in India from 19 September 1907. Krishnavarma had already departed in June 1907, remarking in the September issue: "On the earnest advice of some of our friends, we left England, practically for good, during the early part of June last, seeing that mischief was brewing". It was not banned in England and continued to be printed there.

However, two of the printers were arrested for sedition for printing it in 1909. Arthur Fletcher Horsley was arrested and tried for printing the May, June and July issues.<ref>http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=def1-54-19090719&div=t19090719-54#highlight</ref> He was tried and sentenced on the same day as [[Madan Lal Dhingra]] for the assassination of [[Sir William Hutt Curzon Wyllie]]. The trial was very prominent, with the remarks by the [[Richard Webster, 1st Viscount Alverstone|Lord Chief Justice]] to indicate anyone printing this sort of material would be liable for prosecution. Nevertheless, [[Guy Aldred]], a 22-year-old [[anarchist]] advocate of the [[Freedom of the press|free press]], published it bearing his own name. The police obtained a warrant and seized 396 copies of the issue. At the trial,<ref>http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t19090907-44-offence-1&div=t19090907-44#highlight</ref> the prosecution was led by [[William Robson, Baron Robson]], the [[Attorney General for England and Wales|Attorney General]] at the [[Old Bailey|Central Criminal Court]]. Robson highlighted parts of the journal which Aldred had himself written, particularly focusing on a passage which touched on the execution of Dhingra:
:In the execution of Dhingra that cloak will be publicly worn, that secret language spoken, that solemn veil employed to conceal the sword of Imperialism by which we are sacrificed to the insatiable idol of modern despotism, whose ministers are [[Evelyn Baring, 1st Earl of Cromer|Cromer]], [[George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston|Curzon]] and [[John Morley, 1st Viscount Morley of Blackburn|Morley]] & Co. Murder-which they would represent to us as a horrible crime, when the murdered is a government flunkey- we see practised by them without repugnance or remorse when the murdered is a working man, a Nationalist patriot, an [[Egypt]]ian fellaheen or half-starved victim of despotic society's bloodlust. It was so at [[Featherstone]] and [[Denshawai]]; it has often been so at [[Newgate]]: and it was so with [[Robert Emmett]], the [[Paris Commune|Paris communards]], and the [[Haymarket Riot|Chicago martyrs]]. Who is more reprehensible than the murderers of these martyrs? The police spies who threw the bomb at [[Chicago]]; the ''ad hoc'' tribunal which murdered innocent Egyptians at Denshawai; the [[H. H. Asquith|Asquith]] who assumed full responsibility for the murder of the workers at Feathersone; the assassins of Robert Emmett? Yet these murderers have not been executed! Why then should Dhingra be executed? Because he is not a time serving executioner, but a Nationalist patriot, who, though his ideals are not their ideals, is worthy of the admiration of those workers at home, who have as little to gain from the lick-spittle crew of Imperialistic blood-sucking, capitalist parasites at as what the Nationalists have in India.

Aldred also remarked that the Sepoy Mutiny, or Indian Mutiny, would be described as the [[Indian War of Independence]]. Aldred received a sentence of twelve months hard labour.<ref>''Rex v. Aldred'' by Guy Aldred, Strickland Press, [[Glasgow]], 1948</ref>

== References ==
* ''Azadi Jangnu Patrakaratva: Landanman Indian Sociologist'' (Journalism of the Freedom Struggle: Indian Sociologist in London), by Pandya and Pandya (2003) reproduces issues from 1905 to 1908 - 48 issues of 4 pages each all in English, along with 22 of the Sedition Committee Report of 1918.
{{reflist|2}}

== External links ==
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FMIH%2FMIH4_01%2FS1479244306001077a.pdf&code=0459816c1e16da7ba52396b9fb4b0cce 'Self, ''Swaraj'' and Spencer: Nationalist Though and Critiques of Liberalism', ''Modern Intellectual History'', 4, 1, 2007, pp. 109-127]

{{India House}}
{{Indian independence movement}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Indian Sociologist}}
[[Category:Revolutionary movement for Indian independence]]
[[Category:Literature of Indian independence movement]]
[[Category:India House]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:50, 1 August 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Indian nationalist journal edited by Shyamji Krishnavarma}}
	{{italic title}}		{{italic title}}
	{{use Indian English\|date=July 2016}}		{{use Indian English\|date=July 2016}}
	{{use dmy dates\|date=July 2016}}		{{use dmy dates\|date=July 2016}}
	[[File:Indian sociologist.jpg\|thumb\|200px\|''The Indian Sociologist'', September 1908, London]]		[[File:Indian sociologist.jpg\|thumb\|200px\|''The Indian Sociologist'' of September 1908, published from [[London]].]]
	'''''The Indian Sociologist''''' was an [[Indian nationalist]] [[Political journalism\|journal]] in the early 20th century. Its subtitle was ''An Organ of Freedom, and Political, Social, and Religious Reform''.		'''''The Indian Sociologist''''' was an [[Indian nationalist]] [[Political journalism\|journal]] in the early 20th century. Its subtitle was ''An Organ of Freedom, and Political, Social, and Religious Reform, mouthpiece of the nationalist revolutionaries.''

	The journal was edited by [[Shyamji Krishnavarma]] from 1905 to 1914, then between 1920 and 1922. It was originally produced in [[London]] until May 1907, when Krishnavarma moved to [[Paris]]. The journal was edited in Paris from June 1907, but the change of address was only announced in the September 1907 issue. Publication continued in Paris until 1914,<ref name="EPW06">{{cite journal\|last=Shah\|first=A.M.\|date=5 August 2006\|title=The Indian Sociologist, 1905-14, 1920-22\|journal=Economic and Political Weekly\|volume=41\|issue=31\|pages=3435–3439\|jstor=4418537}}</ref>{{rp\|3435}} when Krishnavarma moved to Geneva on account of the [[World War I\|First World War]]. While in Geneva, he abandoned the publication under pressure from the Swiss authorities. He recommenced publication in December 1920 and continued until September 1922.		The journal was edited by [[Shyamji Krishnavarma]] from 1905 to 1914, then between 1920 and 1922. It was originally produced in [[London]] until May 1907, when Krishnavarma moved to [[Paris]]. The journal was edited in Paris from June 1907, but the change of address was only announced in the September 1907 issue. Publication continued in Paris until 1914,<ref name="EPW06">{{cite journal\|last=Shah\|first=A.M.\|date=5 August 2006\|title=The Indian Sociologist, 1905-14, 1920-22\|journal=Economic and Political Weekly\|volume=41\|issue=31\|pages=3435–3439\|jstor=4418537}}</ref>{{rp\|3435}} when Krishnavarma moved to Geneva on account of the [[World War I\|First World War]]. While in Geneva, he abandoned the publication under pressure from the Swiss authorities. He recommenced publication in December 1920 and continued until September 1922.
Line 9:		Line 10:
	== Political origin ==		== Political origin ==
	The first issue contained the following statement:		The first issue contained the following statement:
	<blockquote>The appearance of a journal conducted by an Indian sociologist in England is an event likely to cause surprise in some quarters; but there are many weighty grounds to justify such a publication. The political relations between England and India urgently require a genuine Indian interpreter in the United Kingdom to show, on behalf of India, how Indians really fare and feel under British rule. No systematic attempt has, so far as our knowledge goes, ever been made in this country by Indians themselves to enlighten the British public with regard to the grievances, demands, and aspirations of the people of India and its unrepresented millions before the bar of public opinion in Great Britain and Ireland. This journal will endeavour to inculcate the great sociological truth that "it is impossible to join injustice and brutality abroad with justice and humanity at home." It will from time to time remind the British people that they can never succeed in being a nation of freedom and lovers of freedom so long as they continue to send out members of the dominant classes to exercise despotisms in ~~Britain’s~~ name upon the various conquered races that constitute ~~Britain’s~~ military empire.		<blockquote>The appearance of a journal conducted by an Indian sociologist in England is an event likely to cause surprise in some quarters; but there are many weighty grounds to justify such a publication. The political relations between England and India urgently require a genuine Indian interpreter in the United Kingdom to show, on behalf of India, how Indians really fare and feel under British rule. No systematic attempt has, so far as our knowledge goes, ever been made in this country by Indians themselves to enlighten the British public with regard to the grievances, demands, and aspirations of the people of India and its unrepresented millions before the bar of public opinion in Great Britain and Ireland. This journal will endeavour to inculcate the great sociological truth that "it is impossible to join injustice and brutality abroad with justice and humanity at home." It will from time to time remind the British people that they can never succeed in being a nation of freedom and lovers of freedom so long as they continue to send out members of the dominant classes to exercise despotisms in Britain's name upon the various conquered races that constitute Britain's military empire.

	''The Indian Sociologist'' will not be identified with any political party. It will be guided in its policy by the fundamental truths of social science, the first principle of which is that "every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the freedom of any other man". In discussing political, social, and religious questions, we shall frequently appeal to sociology, which, as expounded by the founder of that new and profound science, proves conclusively that "all despotisms, whether political or religious, whether of sex, of caste, or of custom, may be generalised as limitations to individuality, which it is the nature of civilisation to remove."</blockquote>		''The Indian Sociologist'' will not be identified with any political party. It will be guided in its policy by the fundamental truths of social science, the first principle of which is that "every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the freedom of any other man". In discussing political, social, and religious questions, we shall frequently appeal to sociology, which, as expounded by the founder of that new and profound science, proves conclusively that "all despotisms, whether political or religious, whether of sex, of caste, or of custom, may be generalised as limitations to individuality, which it is the nature of civilisation to remove."</blockquote>
Line 25:		Line 26:
	Starting with quite a mild stance in that "India and England should sever their connection peaceably and part as friends",<ref>''TIS'' vol. II no.8 (August 1906)</ref> it became more radical in 1907, actively advocating [[Swaraj]]<ref>'Home Rule is "SVARAJYA"', ''TIS'' vol. III no.3 (March 1907)</ref> (Home Rule) and organisation of the Society of Political Missionaries of India.<ref name="EPW06"/>{{rp\|3437}} This incurred police surveillance, a debate in the [[British House of Commons]] (30 July 1907) and a ban on import and sale of the journal in India from 19 September 1907. Krishnavarma had already departed in June 1907, remarking in the September issue: "On the earnest advice of some of our friends, we left England, practically for good, during the early part of June last, seeing that mischief was brewing". It was not banned in England and continued to be printed there.		Starting with quite a mild stance in that "India and England should sever their connection peaceably and part as friends",<ref>''TIS'' vol. II no.8 (August 1906)</ref> it became more radical in 1907, actively advocating [[Swaraj]]<ref>'Home Rule is "SVARAJYA"', ''TIS'' vol. III no.3 (March 1907)</ref> (Home Rule) and organisation of the Society of Political Missionaries of India.<ref name="EPW06"/>{{rp\|3437}} This incurred police surveillance, a debate in the [[British House of Commons]] (30 July 1907) and a ban on import and sale of the journal in India from 19 September 1907. Krishnavarma had already departed in June 1907, remarking in the September issue: "On the earnest advice of some of our friends, we left England, practically for good, during the early part of June last, seeing that mischief was brewing". It was not banned in England and continued to be printed there.

	However, two of the printers were arrested for sedition for printing it in 1909. Arthur Fletcher Horsley was arrested and tried for printing the May, June and July issues.<ref>http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=def1-54-19090719&div=t19090719-54#highlight</ref> He was tried and sentenced on the same day as [[Madan Lal Dhingra]] for the assassination of [[~~Sir~~ William Hutt Curzon Wyllie]]. The trial was very prominent, with the remarks by the [[Richard Webster, 1st Viscount Alverstone\|Lord Chief Justice]] to indicate anyone printing this sort of material would be liable for prosecution. Nevertheless, [[Guy Aldred]], a 22-year-old [[anarchist]] advocate of the [[Freedom of the ~~press\|free~~ press]], published it ~~bearing~~ his own name. The police obtained a warrant and seized 396 copies of the issue. At the trial,<ref>http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t19090907-44-offence-1&div=t19090907-44#highlight</ref> the prosecution was led by [[William Robson, Baron Robson]], the [[Attorney General for England and Wales\|Attorney General]] at the [[Old Bailey\|Central Criminal Court]]. Robson highlighted parts of the journal which Aldred had himself written, particularly focusing on a passage which touched on the execution of Dhingra:		However, two of the printers were arrested for sedition for printing it in 1909. Arthur Fletcher Horsley was arrested for printing seditious material and tried for printing the May, June and July issues.<ref>{{cite web \| url=http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=def1-54-19090719&div=t19090719-54#highlight \| title=Arthur Fletcher Horsley \|work=Proceedings of the Old Bailey }}</ref> He was tried and sentenced on the same day as [[Madan Lal Dhingra]] for the assassination of [[William Hutt Curzon Wyllie]].<ref name="OBL18">{{cite journal \|last1=Laursen \|first1=Ole Birk \|title=Anarchist Anti-Imperialism: Guy Aldred and the Indian Revolutionary Movement, 1909-14 \|journal=Journal of Imperial & Commonwealth History \|date=April 2018 \|volume=46 \|issue=2 \|doi=10.1080/03086534.2018.1431435}}</ref>{{rp\|287-8}} The trial was very prominent, with the remarks by the [[Richard Webster, 1st Viscount Alverstone\|Lord Chief Justice]] to indicate anyone printing this sort of material would be liable for prosecution. Nevertheless, [[Guy Aldred]], a 22-year-old [[anarchist]] advocate of the [[Freedom of the press]], published it through his Bakunin Press, supplemented with his own comments.<ref name="OBL18"/>{{rp\|292-4}} The police obtained a warrant and seized 396 copies of the issue. At the trial,<ref>{{cite web \| url=http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t19090907-44-offence-1&div=t19090907-44#highlight \| title=Guy Alfred Aldred }}</ref> the prosecution was led by [[William Robson, Baron Robson]], the [[Attorney General for England and Wales\|Attorney General]] at the [[Old Bailey\|Central Criminal Court]]. Robson highlighted parts of the journal which Aldred had himself written, particularly focusing on a passage which touched on the execution of Dhingra:
	:In the execution of Dhingra that cloak will be publicly worn, that secret language spoken, that solemn veil employed to conceal the sword of Imperialism by which we are sacrificed to the insatiable idol of modern despotism, whose ministers are [[Evelyn Baring, 1st Earl of Cromer\|Cromer]], [[George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston\|Curzon]] and [[John Morley, 1st Viscount Morley of Blackburn\|Morley]] & Co. Murder-which they would represent to us as a horrible crime, when the murdered is a government flunkey- we see practised by them without repugnance or remorse when the murdered is a working man, a Nationalist patriot, an [[Egypt]]ian fellaheen or half-starved victim of despotic society's bloodlust. It was so at [[Featherstone]] and [[Denshawai]]; it has often been so at [[Newgate]]: and it was so with [[Robert Emmett]], the [[Paris Commune\|Paris communards]], and the [[Haymarket Riot\|Chicago martyrs]]. Who is more reprehensible than the murderers of these martyrs? The police spies who threw the bomb at [[Chicago]]; the ''ad hoc'' tribunal which murdered innocent Egyptians at Denshawai; the [[H. H. Asquith\|Asquith]] who assumed full responsibility for the murder of the workers at Feathersone; the assassins of Robert Emmett? Yet these murderers have not been executed! Why then should Dhingra be executed? Because he is not a time serving executioner, but a Nationalist patriot, who, though his ideals are not their ideals, is worthy of the admiration of those workers at home, who have as little to gain from the lick-spittle crew of Imperialistic blood-sucking, capitalist parasites at as what the Nationalists have in India.		:In the execution of Dhingra that cloak will be publicly worn, that secret language spoken, that solemn veil employed to conceal the sword of Imperialism by which we are sacrificed to the insatiable idol of modern despotism, whose ministers are [[Evelyn Baring, 1st Earl of Cromer\|Cromer]], [[George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston\|Curzon]] and [[John Morley, 1st Viscount Morley of Blackburn\|Morley]] & Co. Murder-which they would represent to us as a horrible crime, when the murdered is a government flunkey- we see practised by them without repugnance or remorse when the murdered is a working man, a Nationalist patriot, an [[Egypt]]ian fellaheen or half-starved victim of despotic society's bloodlust. It was so at [[Featherstone]] and [[Denshawai]]; it has often been so at [[Newgate]]: and it was so with [[Robert Emmett]], the [[Paris Commune\|Paris communards]], and the [[Haymarket Riot\|Chicago martyrs]]. Who is more reprehensible than the murderers of these martyrs? The police spies who threw the bomb at [[Chicago]]; the ''ad hoc'' tribunal which murdered innocent Egyptians at Denshawai; the [[H. H. Asquith\|Asquith]] who assumed full responsibility for the murder of the workers at Feathersone; the assassins of Robert Emmett? Yet these murderers have not been executed! Why then should Dhingra be executed? Because he is not a time serving executioner, but a Nationalist patriot, who, though his ideals are not their ideals, is worthy of the admiration of those workers at home, who have as little to gain from the lick-spittle crew of Imperialistic blood-sucking, capitalist parasites at as what the Nationalists have in India.

Line 39:		Line 40:
	{{India House}}		{{India House}}
	{{Indian independence movement}}		{{Indian independence movement}}

	{{DEFAULTSORT:Indian Sociologist}}		{{DEFAULTSORT:Indian Sociologist}}
	[[Category:Revolutionary movement for Indian independence]]		[[Category:Revolutionary movement for Indian independence]]
	[[Category:Literature of Indian independence movement]]		[[Category:Literature of Indian independence movement]]
	[[Category:India House]]		[[Category:India House]]