Cited in MLA format
This is the source material to be used:
Press, 1994). J. Barton Scott, Spiritual Despots: Modern Hinduism and the
Genealogies of Self-rule (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016).
All these questions must be addressed:
How is this idea part of the reform movements in England and India?
Why should these reforms be seen as connective and not comparative?
How do European figures like (historian) James Mill, (missionary apologist) Charles Grant, and (philosopher) Jeremy Bentham connect in the efforts to define a modern self-disciplining subject?
What problems were the liberal reformers themselves (Thomas Carlyle) worried about in the application of this modern power?
How do modern Indian thinkers like Keshub and Mulji define the ascetic subject?
How and why do they try to avoid the label “Indian Luther” while even appropriating a “Christian” language?
What was at stake in the attempts to translate the “guru” into the “priest”?
How is the idea of liberty (John Stuart Mill) implicated in the colonial attempts to reform Hinduism, justifying colonial rule?
What are the features of the new self-disciplinary “programs,” and how were they to be implemented and practiced by individuals (think about the “economy” of life)?
How is the figure of the woman employed to articulate the notion of reform and its connection to the nation? What are the contradictions in the self-disciplining subject?
Why does Barton Scott argue that the new ascetic subject is a “split” self, between autonomy (law of the self) and heteronomy (law of the other)?
What sense of temporality underwrites the reform programs, especially with regard to Gandhi?
