User:Gazal world/sandbox1

Should we consider Manilal a 'social reformer' ?
Hello Mike. First we will have to decide whether Manilal was social reformer. As I am closely associated with the subject, I will say he was a social reformer. and all writers who wrote about social-religious reform movements in Gujarat place Manilal in the category of Social (or Religious, or Social-religious) reformers. I can't cite them all into article. But we can consider Thaker as an authentic scholar on Manilal. I have sent you some 3-4 pages, in which Thaker defines Manilal as a social reformer. What you say? (Suhrud calls Manilal a social reformer as well as social thinker) --Gazal world (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the pages you sent me; that's a great help. I'll start working on some text for that section.  Do you happen to have access to any of the articles mentioned on p. 59?  Sudharo, Sudharano Kram, Navin ane Prachin, etc.?  Since Thaker cites those essays particularly we could see if there is material we could quote or mention from them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Mike. I have these article (also uploaded on Commons). They are in Gujarati. Suhrud and Chavda has also written about these articles into English. If you say, I will write down the key arguments from these articles. --Gazal world (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft paragraph to introduce social reform section
Manilal was one of several Gujarati writers and educators, among them Narmad, Dalpatram, Karsandas Mulji, Govardhanram Tripathi, Mansukhram Tripathi and Navalram Pandya, who campaigned for reforms and awareness of the problems their community was facing. [Do we need all those names?] Many of the reformers of the day wanted to abandon traditional customs and adopt Western practices: Thaker describes their support for such things as equal rights for women and the elimination of caste restrictions as being directed at "outer reforms". Manilal was often critical of old customs, but he argued that true reform should not begin with simply abandoning Indian culture. Instead, he believed that reforming religious ideas would lead to appropriate social reform—for example, he agreed with those arguing against caste-restrictions on social behaviour, but did not approve of achieving this goal by concealing or lying about someone's caste. He agreed with the progressives that offering alms or providing feasts for Brahmins did not provide forgiveness for sins, but he accepted other religious beliefs, such as the theory of karma and the practice of image-worship. Manilal was critical of both the progressive approach and of cultural orthodoxy in isolation; he argued that "there is no antagonism between the Old and the New. Both are essential qualities—inherent in every one.  The world cannot go on if the two were not blended together".

The difference between Manilal's approach and that of the progressives was apparent in the controversy over marriage customs in the 1880s. The reformer Behramji Malabari made efforts to legally establish an age of consent for women, and to settle the issue of whether widows could remarry. An orthodox meeting in Madhav Baug concluded that the help of the Government was not welcome with regard to marriage customs; an attempt to amend this statement to acknowledge that some changes to marriage customs were necessary, though the government should not be involved, was unable to gain support. Despite Manilal's belief that the traditional view of widow-remarriage was wrong, he defended the Madhav Baug meeting, arguing that it would be wrong for the government to enforce changes when there was no support for government involvement from any of the groups debating social reform. [This is what Thaker says, but how does this square with Malabari's attempts to get laws passed re the age of consent?] Instead, Manilal found support for changes in the rules of widow-marriage in his reading of scriptures: by a controversial interpretation of a sentence from the Parasharasmriti, he asserted that a betrothed woman who has not yet married can marry another man if her intended husband dies. It was during the controversy this caused that the case of Rukmabai became public. Rukmabai had been married at thirteen years of age, but had refused to live with her husband for nine years. Her husband filed suit to force her to live with him, and the Bombay High Court found in his favour; Manilal wrote articles attacking the reformist position, which further estranged him from the progressives.


 * Gazal world, that's a quick draft. What do you think?  I've put a couple of italic comments in the middle with questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike. This is really a good write-up. Feel free to ask me if any additional info is missing. I will comment on this tomorrow morning with fresh eye, and 'll also work on Manilal's idea about 'Advaita' tomorrow. Its 2 O'clock here and I am going to sleep. --Gazal world (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. See what you think of the italic questions above. Re those articles that you have access to, can we get examples of explicit arguments that Manilal makes for specific reforms?  Thaker makes it clear that he supported reform of marriage customs, and Thaker's coverage makes it clear how Manilal's approach differed from the other reformers of his time.  I don't think we have to have more examples, but if you see something that would be illuminating for the reader it might well be worth including. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again I think I'll try to include some of the material in the draft lower down this page; I might have time Sunday evening to have another go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, names can be moved to Notes for better flow of reading and they are not much important here. I think current proposal is too long and confusing to reader. It includes a lot of unnecessary details. I have trimmed down and simplified. Manilal's approach is presented by only one example regarding "widow remarriage" issue. Too many examples and no knowledge of background might confuse a reader more. Please checkout my reworded/trimmed proposal.-Nizil (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think one paragraph on Manilal's approach and one paragraph on example of that approach (regarding widow remarriage) is good way to explain his social reform activity. What you say, Mike ? (I would also suggest you to read Nari Pratishtha, an essay by Manilal, for background info.). --Gazal world (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But still, as you suggested, we can include some useful info from the material lower down this page. --Gazal world (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Reworded/Trimmed proposal
Manilal was one of several Gujarati writers and educators who campaigned for reforms and awareness of the problems their community was facing. Many of these progressive reformers wanted to abandon traditional Indian customs and adopt Western practices. Thaker describes their activities as "outer reforms". Manilal was often critical of traditional Indian customs, but he argued that true reform should not begin with simply abandoning those customs. Instead, he believed that reforming religious ideas would lead to appropriate social reform. Thaker describes Manilal's approach as "inner reforms". Manilal was critical of both the progressive approach and of cultural orthodoxy in isolation; he argued that "there is no antagonism between the Old and the New. Both are essential qualities—inherent in every one. The world cannot go on if the two were not blended together".

The difference between Manilal's approach and that of the progressives was apparent in the controversy over marriage customs reform such as widow remarriage in the 1880s. The progressives advocated the marriage customs reform by legal provisions established by the government. In a orthodox meeting held in Madhav baug in Bombay, it was concluded that the government should not be involved in the marriage customs reform but the necessity for some marriage customs reform was not acknowledged either. Despite Manilal's belief that the traditional view of widow-remarriage was wrong, he defended the meeting, arguing that the government should not be involved in marriage customs reform when there is no support for it. Instead, Manilal found support for changes in the rules of widow-remarriage in his reading of scriptures: by a controversial interpretation of a sentence from the Parasharasmriti, he asserted that a betrothed woman who has not yet married can marry another man if her intended husband dies.

Key arguments in Manilal's articles
These are the direct quotes from the sources. It need to be paraphrased.

Article: Purva ane Pashchim (The East and the West) : In the series of his articles on "The East and the West", Manilal lamented the impact of the English education on the Indian people. The Indian tradition gave more importance to the collective social life as represented by a joint family system; while the Western tradition encouraged individualism at the cost of the family life. The new education had encouraged ego-centric individualism, which in turn, created competition and social chaos. Manilal was of the view that the Indian cultural tradition emphasized the inner unity; and not equality and the so-called individual freedom as the basic frame of the individual life. According to him, the approach of the Indian culture was to discover this underlying unity in all human beings. This was what he claimed to have discovered from the Vedant philosophy. He was of the opinion that the value-system implicit in the new education encouraged the tendency towards materialism, egotism and licentiousness etc. As against this, the genuine education was based on religion, and he asserted that the essence of religion was the absence of duality and the presence of oneness. (Raval p. 200) (Suman Shah's remarks: One of his article titled Purva ane Pashchim is noteworthy on the point of acceptance and resistance. He [Manilal] suggested that: if both the cultures learn from each other, find out what is worth learning in both and then the cultures exchange their best, a flourishing relationship can be established. )

Two Articles: (1) Navin ane Prachin (Modernity and Tradition) (2) Prachin ane Navin (Tradition and Modernity) : Manilal also expressed his views on Navin ane Prachin — modernity and tradition as well as on Prachin ane Navin — tradition and modernity. He criticized the reformers, who advocated modernity at the cost of tradition. According to him, there was no dichotomy between tradition and modernity as viewed by the reformers. He viewed tradition and modernity as the two facets of "Yogakshema"—the social welfare and well-being. Tradition was an inexhaustible source of the strength of every nation; while modernity, in its extreme form, was the market where this strength was dissipated. Manilal compared modernity with an engine with its maximum speed; while tradition was a brake which controlled this speed. (Raval p. 200)

[ Further remarks by author : It should be noted that despite his love for the tradition, Manilal was not its blind protagonist. He even criticized those traditionalists who worshiped tradition without trying to understand the raison detre of the present and the vision of the future. According to him, Modernity brought forth, achieved and produced new things and ideas, which were nurtured, preserved and conserved by the tradition. Therefore, there was no contradiction between the tradition and modernity. Thus, Manilal felt that the world could not move without the combination of the both, as both of them were essential for the progress of an individual as well as the society. If modernity was the result of the tradition, then only it could be fruitful. (Raval, pp. 200–201)]

Article: Sudharanu Dhoran (The Model of Reform) In this article Manilal asks a question: What should reform achieve? His reply was, "Reform is, when different people feel 'oneness' [note: oneness is a key-concept of advaita philosophy] and when this feeling generates more and more energy to work for the whole group as reflected in their ideas, literature and other means. As such its fundamentals are oneness, unity and understanding. It was more what one fell in his heart than what one did or how he acted. He gave examples: To break caste structures, to disregard limits of marriage, to indulge in "mishrea vyavahar" (composite conduct) would never bring about the desired reform.) (Chavda, p. 737)

Article: Ek Avashyak Spashtikaran ('An Important Clarification') In this article Manilal answer a question: "Between Prachin (Old - tradition) and Navin (New - modernity), where does the truth lie ?" Manilai was prone to follow the old Sanskrit adage "Satyam Param Dhimahi" (follow the truth where best understood). But then what is the principle for investigating truth ? His reply was, "one has to keep one's eyes, ears and intellect open to arrive at truth". (Chavda, p. 738)

Revised draft
Manilal was one of several Gujarati writers and educators, among them Narmad, Dalpatram, Karsandas Mulji, Govardhanram Tripathi, Mansukhram Tripathi and Navalram Pandya, who campaigned for reforms and awareness of the problems their community was facing. Many of the reformers of the day wanted to abandon traditional customs and adopt Western practices: Thaker describes their support for such things as equal rights for women and the elimination of caste restrictions as being directed at "outer reforms". Manilal was often critical of old customs, but he argued that true reform should not begin with simply abandoning Indian culture. Instead, he believed that reforming religious ideas would lead to appropriate social reform—for example, he agreed with those arguing against caste-restrictions on social behaviour, but did not approve of achieving this goal by concealing or lying about someone's caste. He argued that although the caste system was harmful, abolishing it without changing the underlying social attitudes would fail, as social discrimination would continue in a different form.

The difference between Manilal's approach and that of the progressives was apparent in the controversy over marriage customs in the 1880s. The reformer Behramji Malabari made efforts to legally establish an age of consent for women, and to settle the issue of whether widows could remarry. In Manilal's view, child-marriage was harmful but it was rare for the woman in such a marriage to actually go to her husband's household before puberty, and he felt that the reformers were exaggerating the problem in order to gain support. Manilal believed that marriage between Hindus was a religious, rather than worldly act, and hence the government had no standing to determine what was right, and this affected his opinion of widow-remarriage, which was traditionally forbidden even if the prospective husband died after betrothal but before the wedding. An meeting of orthodox Hindus in Madhav Baug which discussed some of these issues concluded that the help of the Government was not welcome with regard to marriage customs; an attempt to amend this statement to acknowledge that some changes to marriage customs were necessary, though the government should not be involved, was unable to gain support. Manilal defended the Madhav Baug meeting, arguing that it would be wrong for the government to enforce changes when there was no support for government involvement from any of the groups debating social reform. Instead, Manilal found support for changes in the rules of widow-marriage in his reading of scriptures: by a controversial interpretation of a sentence from the Parasharasmriti, he asserted that a betrothed woman who has not yet married can marry another man if her intended husband dies. It was during the controversy this caused that the case of Rukmabai became public. Rukmabai had been married at thirteen years of age, but had refused to live with her husband for nine years. Her husband filed suit to force her to live with him, and the Bombay High Court found in his favour; Manilal wrote articles attacking the reformist position, which further estranged him from the progressives.

Overall, Manilal was critical of both the progressive approach and of cultural orthodoxy in isolation; he argued that "there is no antagonism between the Old and the New. Both are essential qualities—inherent in every one.  The world cannot go on if the two were not blended together". His unwillingness to support legislative reforms that did not address the underlying cultural and religious beliefs led him to be labelled as a conservative, despite his belief that the caste system, traditional marriage customs, and the inequality of men and women in Indian society were problems that needed to be resolved.


 * Gazal world, how about this version? I've added some material from Raval, and cut a couple of points from Thaker that I thought were better handled by the new material.  Can we cut two or three of the names in the initial list?  I don't know which are most important, but can we get it down to three, or at most four?  It's too long for someone who is learning about this material. Re Advaita; I'll look at that next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike. Thanks for preparing this new version. To avoid disorder, Can you add citation where needed. I have struck the less important names. Nizil will review this version tomorrow morning. It looks fine to me. Only one thing need to be mentioned that Manilal's idea of reform was largely influenced by his reading of Vedanta philosophy. --Gazal world (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add refs shortly. I agree re his philosophy and will try to do another draft integrating that material once I've read through it. I'll see if I can get that done in time for Nizil to review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is good proposal but bit confusing to read and long. Can you shorten it? Please comment on my previous trimmed version as well. I have shortened a lot of info in it. If you find it helpful, I can expand it to match your proposal.-Nizil (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Advaita Philosophy
Manilal's place amongst the abovementioned propounders of Vedanta is the highest. Through his writings he has given an able and original exposition of his Abhedamīmāṁsā (theory concerning non-difference) or Kevalādvaita. According to Manilal, a comparative and critical study of the western philosophers from Zeno to Hegel as well as that of the religions of the world reveals that the highest pinnacle of religious and philosophical thoughts has been reached only by 'Ārya Advatadarśana' (the Advaita philosophy of India). Following the ancient tradition of establishing doctrinal unity among the seemingly varied teachings of the Upanishads, Manilal has tried to establish the doctrinal unity of the preachings of the Bhagavad Gita and has attempted to indicate that they teach nothing but pure non-difference, the ultimate identity of all-that-there is.

According to Manila, Gita is not a preliminary to Advaitism but it has presented Advaitism itself. Manilal's Advaitic interpretations of some verses of the Gita provide a good example of his originality, logical ability and devotion to Advaitism. The chief peculiarity of Manilal's Advaitism lies in the fact that it advocates a total ban on the path of knowledge and the sādhanā ( spiritual practices ) requiring withdrawal from the worldly activities and regards loving dutifulness to be the best means for the realization of Abheda (non-difference). Manilal has emphatically and in various ways tried to show that Advaitism is not a sterile exercise in logical arguments but that it is an edifice constructed on stately pillars of love and duty. Thus the core of Manilal's ethics is self-sacrifice and duty.
 * This section is going to be the hardest for me to understand, since I don't have a background in Indian philosophy. Would it be possible to email the pages from Bedekar that you used for this?  Reading that might help me copyedit this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These are the direct quotes from Bedekar's book. Anyway, I am sending you two pages from Bedekar. Feel free to ask me if you don't understand anything in it. My friend User:Nizil Shah will also help. --Gazal world (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Reform
During the 19th century, a reform group influenced by their Western education existed in India which agitated for either abolishing or making fundamental changes to germinal Indian traditions such as the caste-system, restrictions on or prohibition of widow remarriage and the maintenance of gender inequality.(Raval, p.198)
 * Paraphrased Text

The broad school Manilai adhered to had absorbed the reformists' agenda sufficiently to be in agreement that changes were necessary, but disagreed over what these should consist in.(Raval, p.198) they objected to what they perceived to be excesses in the reformists' westernizing programmes, excesses they feared would undermine India's cultural heritage and, thereby, rend the very fabric of Indian society itself.(Raval, p.197)  The Westernizers' assumption was that worldly happiness was the aim of existence. In Manilal's philosophical perspective, authentic reform should be grounded in the Vedanta.(Raval, p.198) (Chavda, p. 737)

The Westernizing elite's single-minded pursuit of the goal of secular felicity ran counter to key religious issues. Their advocacy of unrestrained freedoms risked encouraging licentiousness and an outlook premised on short term utilitarian calculations of advantage. Conservatives like Manilal saw Indian social cohesion as intimately meshed within, and dependant upon, India's age-old religious and cultural heritage.(Raval, p.198) They eschewed what they considered superficial social reform for what they believed to be the more fundamental aim of addressing reforms of religious practices and rituals, in such a way that the underlying concepts and essential purity of the latter, once restored to their pristine form among the sects, religions, castes, races of India,  would assume greater clarity and coherence.(Chavda, p. 737)

The essence of Manilal's concept of reform consisted in the affirmation of an aim to achieve oneness, unity and understanding as the basic cement of social solidarity. Though he strove to embody such goals in his personal life, he often failed to live up to these ideals. His belief in and arguments for the underlying unity of the world's religions caused the historian Vijaysingh Chavda to call Manilal "one of the harbingers" of a "synthetic creed" in 19th-century Gujarat.(Chavda, p. 739)


 * I think the paraphrased text is a good start, but I don't think it's well supported by the quotes you give. This is partly because Raval qualifies everything he says as descriptive of Manilal's opinion, not a statement about the reformers of the day.  I also think we've gone past the sources in a couple of places.  I can see that Manilal would have been critical of utilitarianism but I don't see that Chavda supports that in the quote you give. The use of "licentiousness" seems wrong, by the way; it generally refers specifically to sexual behaviour so is probably not what you meant.
 * I feel I know more about the distinction between Manilal and the Westernized reformers after reading the above, but not yet enough. For example, it sounds like he had no interest in social reform at all, only in religious or philosophical reform, but that seems wrong based on comments elsewhere in the article.  For another example, I'm curious to know how his writing in Priyamvada fit within this description.  He was directly addressing women's issues in that magazine -- if he opposed widow remarriage, in what sense was he a social reformer?
 * Looking in Google Books I found several books that might be useful; Socio-Religious Reform Movements in British India, volume I of the Cambridge History of India, seems to have a lot available in preview mode that we might be able to use. It mentions Manilal on p. 177, as part of the circle of Theosophists, and again makes him sound like a religious reformer and not a social reformer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thanks for your reply and rationale. Regarding your questions about Priyamvada, I am quoting direct quote from Thaker's book: . I have also added two new paragraphs which might be useful to understand that what type of reform Manilal wanted. See below: "Some new addition".



Explanation
The reformers were agreed upon the need for the reform but their approaches varied. A group of reformers viewed reform as the rights of the people while the other group viewed it as a duties of the people to restore the society to its "pristine purity" with view of social welfare. The former group looked towards the West while the later group looked towards the East/Indian culture to reform the society. The former group advocated radical change in the society with total break from the traditions while the later group advocated the incremental changes rooted and supported by the traditions. The former group aimed at the utilitarian benefit of the social reform while the later group aimed at the moral and religious reform to cause the social reform. The former advocated individualism while the later supported communitarianism. Manilal belonged to the later group.-Nizil (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for lede
Manilal advocated the incremental social reform through moral and religious reforms rooted in the Indian cultural traditions and as a duty of a community; opposed to the other reformers who advocated the radical social reform as a right of the individual as it is in the West.(Chavda, p. 737)(Rawal, p.197-198)(Thacker, p. 56, 59) -Nizil (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Pandit Yuga definition
English authors provided the pioneers of modern Gujarati letters the catalysts necessary for the expression of their reforms ideas. The following generation discovered — to a large extent through the work of western Sanskrit scholarship — the glory of India's ancient past. In consequence they tried to integrate into the demand for social regeneration inspired by the West a national adhesion to the prestigious values handed down by Sanskrit literature. These efforts gave to the period from the end of the nineteenth century to the return of Gandhi to India 1915 the characterization of. Its literature was marked by an excessive tendency to Sanskritize the language and at the same time by a demand for nationalist revival.

...the — in Gujarati literature.

One of these outstanding figures of what is popularly known as was Narasinghrao Bholanath...

As a writer, N.D. belonged to the, memorable for its extensive and intensive erudition, indefatigable industry and dedication to work.

'''The writers of the Pundit Yuga had comparatively a broader spectrum. They sincerely attempted to go into roots of the rich tradition of literature, culture and religion witch a view to arrive at a definition of our Indian identity which is more meaningful and relevant in the present context. This was their first and last recourse against the cultural invasion of the west, their ultimate answer to the problems raised and the challenges posed by the west.'''

The pundits were convinced that a meaningful search for Indian identity must really begin with a serious study of Sanskrit literature.

The works of writers and educationists in the second phase (1888–1915) of Navjagran — "Sakshar Yuga" [Pundit Yuga] (Age of Literacy) — are equally remarkable. To the already illustrious list of authors and intellectuals is now added the names of Govardhanram Tripathi, Manilal Nanubhai Dwivedi, Ramanbhai Nilkanth, Narsinhrao Divetia, Mansukhram Tripathi, Keshavlal Dhruv, Manishankar Ratnaji Bhatt (Kant), Sursinhji Gohil (Kalapi), Balvantrai Thakor, Nanhalal, Anandshankar Dhruv and many others. Among these Ramanbhai, Narsinhrao, Balvantrai, Nanhalal and Anandshankar continued to write till a little after the Age of Gandhi in the 20th century, but their sensibilities match more evenly with that of the Sakshar Yuga. The important fact here is that most of the luminaries in this period are products of the Bombay University. They represented the first generation of scholars coming out of this University with, on one hand, an essential study of the Western knowledge systems, and on the other an ability to understand the various discourses in Sanskrit. Thus, they naturally were in a position to comparatively analyse both Eastern and Western culture. With the internalisation of these two knowledge systems, they became more matured and discerning in their comparative abilities and developed a broad-minded, liberal point-of-view. The literary activities took wings in different directions in this second Navjagran phase. Those that need special mention are the impressive and voluminous novelistic work Saraswatichandra (Vol. 1, 2, 3, 4) by Govardhanram Tripathi, Narsinhrao's lyrics in the Western mode, Manilal's highly urbane play Kanta, the uniquely crafted tragic narrative poetry of Kant, Ramanbhai's comic tale Bhadrambhadra, Kalapi's lyrics, Balvantrai Thakore's sonnets and Nanhalal's lyrics imbued in the Raas tradition. Quite a few experiments were made on constructing the poetics that would address the new genre of writing synthesizing Sanskrit rhetorics with Western critical discourse. Compared to the Narmad Yuga [Sudharak Yuga], Gujarati literature in this period was more fertile and in its profound philosophical outlook of life, deep compassion and grand stylistic design truly attained sublime heights.

With the publication og the grand novel Saraswatichandra by Govardhanram Tripathi in 1887 and Kusumamala by Narsinhrao Divetia in the same year, a new era,. As against the period of renaissance, this was the period of conciliation and rethinking about ancient culture and knowledge of India. Manilal Nabhubhai Dwivedi started this process and its culmination is found in the grand novel of the scholar writer Govardhanram.....

Proposal based on bold paragraph
Pandit Yuga – an era in which Gujarati writers explored the traditional literature, culture and religion to redefine contemporary Indian identity when it was challenged by the Western culture brought by the colonial rule – ... Nizil (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We should mention the "western influence on the writers of Pandit Yuga" in our definition. --Gazal world (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pandit Yuga" – an era in which Gujarati writers, who had studied Western knowledge systems, explored the traditional literature, culture and religion to redefine contemporary Indian identity when it was challenged by the Western culture brought by the colonial rule –
 * Is it better? I have added about their Western education.-Nizil (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Much better. I moved it to the article but haven't converted it to sfn. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Biography
Manilal engaged in several public activities while he stayed at Nadiad. He attended the convention of the Indian National Congress held at Bombay in 1889 as a delegate from Nadiad. He was elected as secretary of the Congress committee of Kheda district in 1890 and continued in that position for two years, and worked as its honorary magistrate for 1891 and 1892. He was nominated a member of Nadiad Municipality by the government and served as chairman of the school committee from 1891 to 1893. He was appointed examiner for Sanskrit at the BA and MA examinations of the University of Bombay and University of Punjab in 1890, 1891 and 1892. (Thaker, p. 33)

After his retirement from the Shamaldas College, he started Adhyatma Mandal, a spiritual group.(Raval, p.199)

Manilal's personal life was frustrated. His father demanded money constantly and his mother created a hell for him by her quarrelsome nature. (Thaker, p. 34)
 * Personal life


 * Reception
 * Thaker wrote a biographical play, Uncho Parvat Undi Khin (1993), based on the life of Manilal.


 * Among numerous persons of distinguished career who happened to be his students were Mahatma Gandhi and Balwantray Thakore (Thaker, 24-25)
 * Hello Mike, I have added about the biographical play (written by Thaker) in 'Reception' section. Can we add another fact that Balwantray Thakore and Mahatma Gandhi were Manilal's student at Shamaldas College ? --Gazal world (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Article organization
Gazal world & Nizil, I am now thinking that it might be a good idea to remove the controversies section and integrate that material into a "Philosophy" section after the biography and before the works. The philosophy section would include material on Advaita, on his reforms, and the controversies material. It is drafted below, based on the second draft of the reform material above.

Philosophy
Manilal was an adherent of Advaitism,(Bedekar 91-92) a Hindu philosophical school that considers only Brahman to be ultimately real. He believed that the self and God are not different in any way, and he argued that the Bhagavad Gita teaches this point of view rather than being a philosophical precursor of Advaitism.(Add a note here cited to Thaker 43 that Thaker considers this a strained and unconvincing argument.) He believed that withdrawal from the world, as a religious practice, was wrong, and that instead one should fulfil one's duties, and sacrifice oneself for love of the world. Without a dualism between the self and the world, self-sacrifice becomes its own reward, and there is no expectation of a worldly reward: instead the soul receives "the joy of self-realization" in discovering that it and the world are not different.(All from Bedekar 91-92, except the definition of Advaitism which needs a separate citation.)

Manilal's beliefs were the basis of his ethics and of his approach to the social reform questions of the day.(Bedekar 92, Thaker 43-44) He was one of several Gujarati writers and educators, among them Narmad, Dalpatram, Karsandas Mulji, and Navalram Pandya, who campaigned for reforms and awareness of the problems their community was facing.(Pandya 16, taken from article)  Many reformers—the "modernists"—wanted to abandon traditional customs and adopt Western practices, these were "outer reforms", in Thaker's words, directed at such things as equal rights for women and the elimination of caste restrictions.(Thaker 56)  Manilal was often critical of old customs, but he argued that true reform should not begin with simply abandoning Indian culture.(Thaker 56)  Instead, he believed that reforming religious ideas would lead to appropriate social reform—for example, he agreed with those arguing against caste-restrictions on social behaviour, but did not approve of achieving this goal by concealing or lying about someone's caste.(Thaker 56)  He argued that although the caste system was harmful, abolishing it without changing the underlying social attitudes would fail, as social discrimination would continue in a different form.(Raval 201-202)

The difference between Manilal's approach and that of the modernists was apparent in the controversy over marriage customs in the 1880s.(Raval 214-215) In 1885, Manilal published his essay Nari Pratishtha. In this essay, he opposed widow-marriage,(Raval 202) which was traditionally forbidden even if the prospective husband died after betrothal but before the wedding,(Thaker 58) and argued that a woman who understood her moral duties would not wish to remarry should she become a widow.(Raval 202)

The reformer Behramji Malabari was attempting to move the government to legally establish an age of consent for women, and to legislate in favour of widow-remarriage.(Thaker 57)(Raval 214-215) Manilal believed that marriage between Hindus was a religious, rather than worldly act,(Raval 214 Can't find the citation for this ) and hence the government had no standing to determine what was right.(Raval 215) He entered into a public disagreement with Malabari on the issue of widow-remarriage, which continued for six months in the pages of Advocate of India and The Indian Spectator. Malabari tried to persuade Manilal to give up his opposition to this; Manilal refused. An meeting of orthodox Hindus in Madhav Baug which discussed some of these issues concluded that the help of the Government was not welcome with regard to marriage customs; an attempt to amend this statement to acknowledge that some changes to marriage customs were necessary, though the government should not be involved, was unable to gain support. Manilal defended the Madhav Baug meeting, arguing that it would be wrong for the government to enforce changes.(Thaker 57-58) Instead, Manilal found support for changes in the rules of widow-marriage in his reading of scriptures: by a controversial interpretation of a sentence from the Parasharasmriti, he asserted that a betrothed woman who has not yet married can marry another man if her intended husband dies.(Thaker 58)

In Manilal's view, child-marriage was harmful but it was rare for the woman in such a marriage to actually go to her husband's household before puberty, and he felt that the reformers were exaggerating the problem in order to gain support.(Raval 214-215) It was during the controversy over the Madhav Baug meeting that the case of Rukmabai became public. Rukmabai had been married at thirteen years of age, but had refused to live with her husband for nine years. Her husband filed suit to force her to live with him, and the Bombay High Court found in his favour; Manilal wrote articles attacking the reformist position, which further estranged him from the modernists.(Thaker 58-59)

Reformers such as Ramanbhai Neelkanth spoke out against Manilal's conservatism. Manilal criticised the Prarthana Samaj for importing the concept of God as a transcendental creator from Christianity, which, according to him, was "the fifth edition of Aryadharma (Indian religion)". On behalf of the Prarthana Samaj, Neelkanth entered into a seven-year dispute with Manilal on numerous topics related to religion, philosophy, social reform, education and literature. Their public debates, carried on in the pages of Manilal's Sudarashan and Neelkanth's Jnanasudha, are considered unparalleled in Gujarat's history of reflective literature.

Overall, Manilal was critical of both the modernists' approach and of cultural orthodoxy in isolation; he argued that "there is no antagonism between the Old and the New. Both are essential qualities—inherent in everyone.  The world cannot go on if the two were not blended together".(Thaker 57)  His unwillingness to support legislative reforms that did not address the underlying cultural and religious beliefs led him to be labelled as a conservative, despite his belief that the caste system, traditional marriage customs, and the inequality of men and women in Indian society were problems that needed to be resolved.(Raval 200-201)

Comments
How does this look? I added a couple of links, but more could be added -- is Madhav Baug worthy of a redlink? As far as I can tell it's a temple and/or religious centre with sufficient history to eventually warrant an article.

I added citations inline; please have a look and see if you agree that everything is supported. There's one statement I can't find a direct statement for -- if you can't spot it let me know; I know I saw something to that effect in what you sent me. And the definition of Advaitism will need a citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Madhav Baug literally mean a Madhav garden. So no need of red link IMO. This version looks great and I have merged controversy section with it which has some repeating material. I have moved a sentence regarding child marriage below so it is read before the Rukmabai case. I have added few links as well. Please do needful changes and fine tuning. There are three different terms used for the same group people = modernists, reformers and progressives. It should be uniformed because it may confuse a reader. I think there were two types of reformers: "modernist reformers" and "traditionalist reformers"; Manilal was a later and opposed to the former. I don't have reference for it. But it should be made clear for the readers in some way. I would try to do it with references in some way.-Nizil (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For Manilal's group Raval uses 'conservatives' and for opposing group he uses 'modernist reformists' or only 'reformists'. I am waiting for Mike's comments, and if he pass the above version, I will add it into article. --Gazal world (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a couple of changes; see the edit summaries for explanations. I eliminated the use of "progressive"; I think the remaining terms are explained well enough for the reader -- the second paragraph explains that the modernists are a subset of the reformers. Before we add it to the article can we fix the citations here?  I'm not familiar with sfn, and there are a couple of fixes needed first anyway -- we don't have a citation for the definition of Advaitism or Manilal's belief that marriage was a religious ceremony, not a worldly one, and there's a footnote about Thaker's view that needs to be inserted -- I think that would be efn?  Then one more read-through to check the sources support everything as written would be good before updating the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * One more thing: "Madhav Baug" is used without "a" or "the" which makes it sound like a specific place. I found Google Books references to "the Madhav Baug", and also found e.g. "Sri Pandurang V . Athavale Shastri, popularly known as Dada ( dādā , elder brother / paternal grandfather ) is a Maharashtrian Brahman who is the head of the Shrimad Bhagavad Gita Pathshala at Madhav Baug" (Babb & Wadley, Media and the Transformation of Religion in South Asia, 1998), "The tombs are located on a private compound belonging to a Parsi liquor shop owner and adjoining the extensive grounds of the Hindu temple of Madhav Baug at C. P. Tank." (Menon, Riots and After in Mumbai, 2012), "When Mani's roommate, Ambalal, learned that the yogin Paramahamsa Madhavadasaji (literally, Supreme Swan, Servant of Krishna) of Malsar was about to give a discourse at the Madhav Baug, a community and religious center in Bombay," (Goldberg, The Path of Modern Yoga, 2016), and "With his speech over, Gandhi and his followers made their way, in a vast procession, to the Madhav Baug Temple to offer prayers." (Lloyd, The Amritsar Massacre, 2011).  Are these referring to the same Madhav Baug?  Or is it not possible to tell? Either way I think the reader should be clear on what we know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, I have added citation at both the place. I have also cross-verified all the references and contents. They are OK now. They are referring the same Madhav Baug. Can we add 'the' before Madhav Baug ? The contents are ready to move into article, I think. What you say? I will transfer all citation to sfn and will also add note efn while moving the content. Note that Bedekar will become Yajnik (the chapter in Bedekar's book is written by Gujarati writer Yajnik). Waiting for your reply. --Gazal world (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and move it and I'll take another look after work today (I'm on East Coast US time). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Gazal world (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks perfect. Thanks for your help in copyediting it as well. Good to go. -Nizil (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it a little. The quote about Christianity being the fifth edition of Aryadharma needs a citation directly after the end of the sentence, since it's a direct quote.  I will look through the remaining comments above but I suggest we continue on the article talk page for any further discussions if that's OK with you -- that way anyone else interested, now or later, can see the conversation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Mike. We will continue to discuss on talk page. I will add citation for that direct quote. Last thing: Can you copy-edit the Pandit Yuga definition in the lead ? --Gazal world (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to copyedit the lead last -- I think it's often good to leave it till last since it needs to reflect any changes in the body of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)