This dissertation examines the attacks on "idolatry" by two prominent nineteenth-century Hindu reformers, Rammohun Roy and Dayananda Sarasvati. Their iconoclastic fervour in the context of Hindu India appears (at face-value) as an anomaly because image-worship is widely perceived as such a prominent feature of that religion. Is their image-rejection to be explained as a borrowing of an Islamic or Protestant attitude? Both men have been referred to as the "Luther of India," but is the label "Protestant" as also applied to their reformed Hinduism appropriate and what is suggested by this expression? The dissertation examines indigenous and foreign elements in the anti-idolatry polemics of both men and argues that explanation by diffusion from non-Indian sources is inadequate whereas explanation by independent invention is in need of nuancing. I explore the hypothesis that metaphysical arguments against images may be considered indigenous to India whereas moral arguments imply borrowing. I argue that although catalyzed by Western influence, nineteenth-century Hindu iconoclasm draws on Indian sources. The British presence in nineteenth-century India acts as the "stress" that triggers the particular diathesis (latent cultural predisposition) that manifests in the Hindu iconoclasm of these two reformers. The fact that the two men had very different backgrounds and degrees of integration with Islamic or British culture and yet both regarded image-worship as the central issue of reform suggests other grounds to explain their iconoclasm than borrowing or diffusion. I explore the formative events in their biographies that describe their individual disenchantment with images. Further, evidence is presented from their writings that indicates that a major concern for both men in the attack on "idolatry" was the disenchantment of religion and culture in the service of the development, unification, and modernization of Hindu India.

No description available.