No Religion But Ritual Robert Caldwell A PDF

Ritual, Caste, and Religion
in Colonial South India
Edited by Michael Bergunder,

Heiko Frese, and Ulrike Schröder
Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle

2010
Ulrike Schröder
No religion, but ritual?

Robert Caldwell and The Tinnevelly Shanars
Introduction
When the Bishop of Madras, George Trevor Spencer (1799–1866),

visited the south of his diocese in 1841, he also came to Mudalur, a
Christian village in the South Indian district of Tirunelveli. On this occa-
sion, he wrote in his diary:
I want words to express my astonishment at all I see in this land of promise. The
word of the Lord is covering it ... I unhesitatingly declare to all who are interested
in the progress of the Gospel in India, that this is a land of promise. ... Here we
have Christian villages – villages entirely Christian. It is a glorious sight ...1
In the decade before, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (SPG)
had revived its mission in the south-eastern portion of Tirunelveli, as the
Church Missionary Society (CMS) had done in other parts of the district.2
The steadily growing numbers of converts to Christianity, especially from
the Shanar / Nadar (Tam. cāṇār / nāṭār) caste, excited not only mission-
aries and bishops, but also mission propagandists in Britain. Like no other
mission field throughout India, the claim of there being ‘fields white to
harvest’ in Tirunelveli seemed true. Missionary magazines, as well as
other Christian periodicals and even ordinary newspapers, were con-
stantly filled with articles describing the success of Christianity in
Tirunelveli and which depicted the ‘customs’ and ‘religion’ of the
Shanars / Nadars. Therefore, in the public missionary discourse of the
19th century, the ‘Tinnevelly Shanars’ were probably the best known
single caste in India besides the Brahmans.
The Anglican missionary, Robert Caldwell (1814–1891), was the man
who made the most important single contribution to this by writing an
entire book entitled The Tinnevelly Shanars. His frequently quoted essay
claimed to be much more than a mere ethnographic description. Its subti-
tle reads: A Sketch of Their Religion and Their Moral Condition, and
Characteristics as a Caste. With Special Reference to the Facilities and
––––––––––––––
1 Spencer 1842: 120.
2 For the history of the CMS and SPG missions in Tirunelveli, see Pascoe 1901; Stock
1899; Appasamy 1923; Grafe 1990. The CMS had already started its work in Tirunelveli in
1816, through the efforts of James Hough, and in 1820 it sent its own missionaries to the
district.
132 Ulrike Schröder
Hindrances to the Progress of Christianity Amongst Them.3 Although

primarily a theological work, Caldwell’s book was quickly understood as
one of the first ethnographic accounts of a South Indian caste and their
religion. However, basically, it was only the product of Caldwell’s first
ten year’s experience as a missionary in Tirunelveli. It is astonishing that
Caldwell’s book, The Tinnevelly Shanars, is to this day less known for its
contents than for its impact on the emerging identity of Shanars / Nadars
in the second half of the 19th century.4 Aiming at the description of the
Shanars as objects of Christian mission work, Caldwell ascribed to them a
distinct religion that was separated from Brahmanical Hinduism and
afforded points of contact to the Christian mission. His representation of
the Shanars’ religious and social identity, as well as his predominantly
negative account of their ‘moral condition’, caused a wave of protest
from Shanars / Nadars – a striking example of what happened to colonial
and missionary representations of South Indian culture and religion once
they left the hands of their inventors.
The context: The reorganisation of mission in Tirunelveli
When, in 1826/27, the SPG took over the mission field in Tirunelveli
from the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), there were
almost no missionaries of British origin working in South India. For more
than a century, the missionaries were Germans, provided by the Danish-
Halle connection to the SPCK.5 The introduction of British missionaries
into mission work in South India brought a completely new kind of mis-
sionary to India. They no longer came from the tradition of German
(Lutheran) Pietism, but were heavily influenced by the Evangelical
Awakening and missionary movement in Great Britain, which developed
from the 1790s onwards. Calvinism, the Evangelical revival, and British
missionary debates constituted the background of men like Robert
Caldwell, who came to Tirunelveli in 1841.6
––––––––––––––
3 Cf. Caldwell 1849.
4 For the impact of Caldwell’s theories about South Indian culture and religion on
discourses of identity in nineteenth-century colonial South India, especially among the
Shanars/Nadars, and on the upcoming Dravidian movement, see Hardgrave 1969; Kent
2004; Vaitheespara 2000; and Vaitheespara 1998.
5 For a recent overview of the history of the Protestant Tranquebar Mission in the 18th
century see Gross, Kumaradoss, and Liebau 2006.
6 For the social and theological background of British missionaries in India cf. Piggin
1984 and Potter 1974. For a general overview of the history of the British missionary
movement see Porter 2004. The biographical sources on Caldwell’s personal background
are rather rare. The Reminiscences of Bishop Caldwell, published and edited by Caldwell’s
No religion, but ritual? 133
The development of the missionary movement in Great Britain had led

to the foundation of missionary societies that distinguished themselves
along denominational lines. Fostered by the growth of independent
church bodies in England and Scotland through the Evangelical Awak-
ening, denominational identities were reshaped in Britain in the first half
of the 19th century. For example, Robert Caldwell began his missionary
career as a staunch Evangelical missionary of the London Missionary
Society (LMS) and was heavily influenced by the moderate Calvinism of
the new Scottish Congregationalism.7 He took an active part in denomina-
tional debates about ‘church principles’ and ‘church government’ that
also swept into the field of mission. Before coming to Tirunelveli in
1841, he decided to change his denominational alliance from the inde-
pendent LMS to the Anglican SPG, which represented the opposite pole
of denominational identity in Britain, namely the Anglican High Church
establishment, which was largely non-Evangelical.8
Caldwell changed his denominational alliance not only because he
disagreed with the LMS work in Madras. Like many Anglicans, he was
attracted by the prospect of reviving a mission in Tirunelveli that could
claim the tradition and success of their older 18th-century German prede-
cessors, like Christian Frederick Schwartz.9 Yet, the ways in which the
new Anglican missionaries continued the work of the older mission
resulted in a completely new concept of mission: they transferred the
model of the Anglican parochial system into the mission field. This
model relied completely on an ecclesiastical hierarchy and paternal
supervision, infused by the Evangelical zeal for ‘serious religion’ in
every-day practice.10 The Indian congregations, which had come into
existence before the reorganisation of the mission, had largely sustained
themselves independently by Indian catechists and ‘country priests’, and
son-in-law, Joseph L. Wyatt (Wyatt 1894), do not provide much detailed information about
Caldwell himself. For a recent biography of Caldwell see Kumaradoss 2007.
7 As a student at the Glasgow Theological Academy, which was founded by two leading
Scottish Congregational Evangelicals, Ralph Wardlaw (1779–1853) and Greville Ewing
(1767–1841), Caldwell was most probably influenced by the “Scottish school of mission
theory” (Stanley 2001: 19). His autobiographical remarks in Reminiscences show a
tendency to downplay his Evangelical upbringing; see Wyatt 1894: 3 ff.
8 Caldwell’s position in these debates and his decision to join the SPG is reflected in his
later remarks in Reminiscences (Wyatt 1894: 7 ff. and 62 ff.). Stanley (1996) provides an
insightful analysis of Caldwell in the context of the denominational debates in Madras in
the 1830s and 1840s. See also Copley 1997: 144 ff.
9 Christian Frederick Schwartz (1726–1798) was considered the ‘founder’ of the
‘Tinnevelly mission’. This view was enhanced by Caldwell in his works about the history
of the Tinnevelly mission, see Caldwell 1880 and 1881.
10 Cf. Caldwell 1857: 62, where he describes the method of “assembling the Christian
inhabitants of every village every morning, and evening, for public prayer and
catechization.”
had been only occasionally visited by European missionaries. This led to

the development of Christian congregations which were, more or less,
firmly bound to the local religious context, but did, however, not fit to the
ideals of the new missionaries. They established a system of mission
stations that exposed the Indian Christians to a new order: organized as
strongly hierarchical, it gave all authority to the missionaries as heads of
their own missionary establishments. The apostolic and Episcopalian
form of church government, as it was represented by the Church of
England, was held to suit especially to India and to the ‘genius of the
Orient’ in general.11 The mission work modelled Tirunelveli as an ideal
for the revivalist reorganisation of the Anglican Church in the first half of
the 19th century. Therefore, the importance of Anglican mission in
Tirunelveli exceeded the local or regional level of India and was of
importance for the religious discourse in Britain as well. In 1858, Thomas
Brotherton observed that “in no agricultural parish in England and Wales
[are the people] so systematically, carefully and effectively instructed in
the Christian doctrines [as are] the people in our Tinnevelly Missions.”12
Caldwell also ascribed the “success” of Christian mission in Tirunelveli
to the parochial system:
Much of the success realized in Tinnevelly has been owing to the personal influ-
ence of the Missionaries; and I am naturally led by what I have said respecting
the introduction of the parochial system, to mention this here, for it is only by
means of the parochial system that the personal influence of the Minister of
Christ can systematically cooperate with the influence of the truth.13
The great increase in the missionary presence throughout the district from
the 1820s onwards14 posed a significant threat to the established order of
Tirunelveli’s society. It resulted in fierce struggles with the upper caste
Hindu and Muslim communities. They were alarmed by the conversion of
––––––––––––––
11 Cf. Stanley 1996: 411. Caldwell probably shared this idea when he wrote, in a letter
home defending his change from the LMS to the SPG, “Should [I] be tied down to a
system of Christianity which whether suited or not to England, is not, I believe, suited to
India?” Letter, dated Madras June 20, 1841, cited in Wyatt 1894: 66.
12 Pascoe 1901: 541 f., citing the SPG Report for the year 1858. Spencer wrote in his
visitation journal of 1841: “I affirm it as my deliberate conviction, that the parochial
system of the Church of England in active operation in Tinnevelly. The plan pursued by the
missionary clergy both here and in Travancore seems to me particularly well-adapted to
accomplish their object. Their doctrine I have every reason to believe is simply, truly, and
fully that of the Church of England, neither turning to the right hand nor to the left, but
faithfully delivering that message which the Church has committed to them; while their
discipline and the management of their congregations is wholesome, godly, and primitive.”
(Spencer 1842: 128 f.).
13 Caldwell 1857a: 58.
14 Between 1829 and 1850 the number of European missionaries (CMS and SPG)
increased from 3 to 16 (6 SPG and 10 CMS Missionaries), cf. Pope 1850–51.
larger groups of Shanars / Nadars, including whole families and villages,

into the folds of the missionaries, seeing the conversions as a threat to the
social and ritual hierarchy of the South Indian society. In 1845, when
Bishop Spencer was on his next visitation tour through South India, he
received a petition from the villagers of “Streeveigoondum”. They
complained that the missionaries “make congregations of wicked Shanars
and thievish Maravars, and the Pullers and Pariahs, who have always
been our slaves and shoemakers, basketmakers, and other low-caste-
persons, and teach them the Gospel, the Ten Commandments, and the
other things.”15 In essence, the conversions were not, as the missionaries
thought, an effect of their own agency, but part of the already ongoing
emancipative movement of the Shanars / Nadars in order to escape from
social and religious oppression by the dominant elites. Especially in the
first half of the nineteenth century, the conversions in Tirunelveli were
fuelled by local conflicts between landowners and peasants.16 For many
subaltern groups in South Indian society, the Christian mission provided
an opportunity to flee from oppression and to benefit from the mission,
which provided protection and education.
However, the massive missionary activities in Tirunelveli were indeed
influential on local religious cults. For the missionaries, conversion
included the strict proscription of demonolatric practices among the
converts, as well as the systematic destruction of ‘devil temples’ (Tam.
pēy kōvil) and other places of worship in those cases where whole village
communities converted to Christianity. The destruction of temples –
along with the confiscation or destruction of ‘idols’ and ‘images’ – or
their conversion into places of Christian worship was frequently used by
the missionaries as an indicator of their success. George Uglow Pope,
who superintended the Sawyerpuram District of the SPG Mission,
reported in 1845:
I may also mention that since my appointment here 9 devil temples in this divi-
sion of the district, have either been destroyed or converted into Christian prayer-
houses, and that of the 22 villages in connexion with the mission, the whole of
the most respectable and influential inhabitants are under instruction.17
Such demolitions evoked local resistance from Hindu organisations, like
the Vibuthi Sangam and the Sadur Veda Siddhanta Sabha, which counter-
acted by destroying prayer houses and persecuting new Christians. As
Robert Frykenberg noted, these tensions between Hindus and Christians
––––––––––––––
15 Spencer 1848: 51.
16 For an analysis of the social and economical condition of Tirunelveli in the nineteenth
century see Ludden 2005.
17 Pope 1845: 5.
in Tirunelveli led to a form of early Hindu-Christian communalism.18 The

incidents in Tirunelveli were taken to the courts at Madras, where the
Hindu elite was already alarmed about the agency of Christian mission-
aries, and fuelled the heated debates in Madras newspapers about the
question of mission and conversion. Tirunelveli was labelled the “empo-
rium of missionaryism, flourishing under the auspice of the public
servants of the Company” by Hindu critics.19 The missionaries from
Tirunelveli did not remain silent, but published a lengthy reply that
disapproved of the allegation of interfering with ‘devil-worship’ by the
deliberate destruction of “Peycoils”.20 It is interesting to note that
Caldwell was among the signatories, though he mentions virtually noth-
ing concrete about these incidents in his reports from Tirunelveli besides
vague remarks about a “crisis in the history of the Missions in this
province”, caused by the “persecuting zeal” of “Hindooism”.21
Another problem the missionaries had to face while operating in the
‘mission field’ was revivalist and sectarian movements, which sprang up
in South India during the 19th century. The most prominent example was
that of Ayyavali (Tam. ayyāvaḻi), which originated in South Travancore
and was led by the Shanar / Nadar Muthukutty Swami (Tam. muttukuṭṭi
cuvami, c. 1809-c. 1850), later known as Vaikunda Swami or Ayya
Vaikundar (Tam. ayyā vaikuṇṭar).22 In his first report from Tirunelveli,
Caldwell reported that this movement also swept to the south of
Tirunelveli and gained considerable influence in his mission district. He
noticed that Muthukutty styled his message and mission method on the
practice of the (mostly Evangelical) missionaries:
It is held that there is but one God, whose name is Narayana, ‘The Predestinator,’
‘the Master,’ and whose mark or ‘seal,’ as it is styled, resembling that of the
Vaishnavas, is worn on the forehead. Mootoocootty and his disciples, orgininally
twelve, the inspired representatives of this deity, profess to foretell all events, to
avert all calamities, and to cure all diseases by giving sick persons copious
draughts of cold water. The followers of this system are required to renounce the
––––––––––––––
18 For a historical reconstruction of these affairs, cf. Frykenberg 1976. The conflict
between Hindus and Christians is also summarized in Suntharalingam 1974: 32 ff.
19 “Hindoo Memorial: To the Honourable the Court of Director of the East India
Company [Dated Madras, 7th October, 1846].” Allen’s Indian Mail and Register of
Intelligence 5/69, January 26, 1847: 41–44, p. 43. This statement was set up at a large
public meeting on October 7, 1846 in Madras, to claim the violation of “civil and religious
interests of the Hindoo community” by the missionary agency in the Madras Presidency,
particularly in Madras and Tirunelveli. (For the background of the statement cf.
Frykenberg 1976: 209 f.)
20 Pettitt 1847: 44. Cf. also Appasamy 1923: 79 ff., and Stock 1899.1: 324.
21 Caldwell 1847: 19.
22 Muthukutty Swami had probably also come into contact with Christian ideas, as the
LMS mission was active among the Shanars/Nadars in Travancore. Cf. Patrick 2003.
worship of devils to break their idols, to bring presents to the prophets of the sect
for distribution to the poor, and to assemble every Sunday for what they style
‘instruction’ and ‘prayer,’ but which seem to me to be screaming and dancing. So
greatly has this system prevailed among the heathens of the South, especially
those of the Shanar caste, that it bids fair to supersede devil worship.23
It has to be kept in mind that the reorganisation of the mission in the
1830s and 1840s, and the conflicts in Tirunelveli that followed from this,
constitute the historical background of Caldwell’s book, The Tinnevelly
Shanars. Another important element, though, was the prominence that the
Tinnevelly mission had gained in public and, particularly, in missionary
circles. The revitalization of the mission in Tirunelveli was presented to
the interested public in Britain as the homemade success of SPG and
CMS-Missions. The enormous amount of missionary reports that were
published, in all major missionary magazines from the 1830s onwards,
aimed primarily at raising funds for the Tirunelveli mission, but they also
presented the Tinnevelly Shanars as a distinct group of people to a wider
public in Britain. The encounter with Indian people, as the objects of
colonial and missionary endeavours, did not only take place at the over-
seas frontier, but also in the home of the Empire – by disseminating
images and descriptions of the ‘Shanars’ as ‘Palmyra climbers’ and ‘devil
worshipers’. Therefore, knowledge about the ‘indigenous races’ or the
‘heathens’ of the British Empire was not only accessible to the educated
classes and colonial elite.24 Missionary meetings were envisaged as a
proper means to teach the ordinary citizen about the “homes, habits, and
lot of remote nations”, as a writer in the London Quarterly Review
observed:
We cordially welcome the Missionary Meeting ... as an instrument of educating
the people into a sense of fellowship with ‘all sorts and conditions of men;’ of
acquainting them with the homes, habits, and lot of remote nations; of enlarging
their minds, and infusing lofty sentiments ... The influence already exerted by this
new element of social life has been great; for in some villages the Missionary
Meeting is now the great annual festival; and many a small tradesman or rustic
knows more of African or Polynesian life than London journalists.25
One could add here that this was certainly also true of India in general
and of Tirunelveli in particular. The influence of missionary representa-
tions of Indian people and religion in the colonial discourse is quite well
known. Nevertheless, I stress this point here for two reasons. First, as a
part of the SPG-Series, Missions to the Heathen, Caldwell’s book, The
––––––––––––––
23 Caldwell 1844: 21 (italics in the original).
24 Cf. Pennington 2005.
25 “Reports of the Various Missionary Societies for the Year 1856.” London Quarterly
Review 7, October (1856): 209–261, 239.
Tinnevelly Shanars, was part of the SPG policy to disseminate knowledge

and to arouse interest in Anglican missions throughout the British
Empire.26 Second, Caldwell’s social and religious theories about the
Shanars / Nadars draw directly and indirectly from the missionary
discourse in general, and particularly from the Evangelical concept of
religion that was dominant throughout the 19th century. We now turn to
look at this second point, and, first of all, briefly consider the context of
Caldwell’s book, The Tinnevelly Shanars, within the SPG series and other
journals.
The Missions to the Heathen series started in August 1844 with a
collection of correspondence between George Uglow Pope (1820–1908),
a missionary in Sawyerpuram, and the SPG officials in Madras (Madras
Diocesan Council) and London. Pope reported about the group conver-
sions of members of the Retti caste into his fold. During the next six
years, no less than thirteen out of twenty three issues published were con-
cerned with missionary reports and journals from Tirunelveli. The issues
were so frequently reprinted that some earlier issues reached their ninth
reprint after three years.27 By far the most industrious contributors were
the aforementioned Pope, of whom six reports from the Sawyerpuram
Mission were published,28 and Robert Caldwell, who contributed three
reports from Idaiyangudi (“Edeyenkoody”)29 and his book about the
Tinnevelly Shanars. The missionaries in Tirunelveli were also frequent
suppliers of reports for other missionary periodicals published by the
CMS and SPG, for example, the Mission Field and the Colonial Church
Chronicle and Missionary Journal. The latter was especially designed to
link the affairs of the Anglican Church at home with its missionary
endeavours abroad. Here again, Caldwell and Pope were the main authors
of lengthy reports about the Tinnevelly mission.30
––––––––––––––
26 Cf. the review of SPG publications in: Churchman’s Monthly Review (1846), 600–
601. See also the preface of Earnest Hawkins, secretary of the SPG, in Caldwell 1844: iv.
Compared to other missionary societies, such as the CMS, the SPG started to publish its
own periodicals and book series about its mission work relatively late. The first regular
periodical was the Quarterly Paper, which was published from 1834 onwards. The Mission
Field, which became the main periodical of the SPG in the second half of the 19th century,
was started as late as 1856. According to Thompson, the Missions to the Heathen series
together with its twin publication, The Church in the Colonies were intended to record
alternately from the two fields of the Society’s work, the ecclesiastical bodies in the
colonies and the missions to the heathen. Cf. Thompson 1951: 109 and Pascoe 1901.2:
813d–816 for a complete list of SPG home publications.
27 For example, the first issue of Missions to the Heathen (Pope 1844) reached its ninth
reprint in 1847.
28 Missions to the Heathen no. 1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 16.
29 Missions to the Heathen no. 2, 10, 19.
30 For example cf. Caldwell 1857, separately published as Caldwell 1857 and Pope
1849–50, Pope 1850–51.
The book, “The Tinnevelly Shanars: A Sketch of Their Religion and

Their Moral Condition, and Characteristics as a Caste ...” was published
in 1849 in Madras,31 and republished in 1850 by the SPG as number
twenty three of the series Missions to the Heathen.32 Written for an
English speaking public in Britain and India, it aimed primarily at
promoting an interest in the Tirunelveli mission and collecting funds for
it. In the following decades, it provoked the critique of members of the
Shanar / Nadar community by its unflattering statements about their
religion and their low ‘moral disposition’. From the 1880s on, a war
broke out – a war of petitions and counter petitions by different groups of
Shanars / Nadars, Christians and non-Christians alike, that centred around
the question of caste identity and the impact of Christian missionaries on
the Shanar / Nadar community in Tirunelveli. Before turning to the reper-
cussions of Caldwell’s book, though, it is necessary to have a closer look
at the book itself.
The Tinnevelly Shanars (1849)

as a ritual typology of ‘demonolatry’
Theories of religion were never absent in the observation of local reli-

gious practices by missionaries like Robert Caldwell. Their remarks on
‘superstitions’ and ‘idolatry’ are, of course, no more than rough and
stereotyped sketches of the local field. However, the importance of such
accounts is not so much on their verifiability. Rather, they have to be
understood from the perspective of category formation and comparative
theories of religion which emerged at the colonial and missionary fron-
tiers.33 As Brian Pennington has observed:
The construction of religion ... was more than an imaginative exercise involving
category formation and descriptive discourses. It also involved the manufacture
of actual religious ideas and practises for Christians and non-Christians alike.
New religious ideas and practises appeared across the globe in places touched by
British colonialism, and they conformed to the categories and descriptive habits
of the emerging study of religion.34
––––––––––––––
31 Caldwell 1849.
32 Caldwell 1850. This edition of Caldwell’s book contains numerous slight variations,
additions and deletions, compared to the original edition of 1849. (Cf. also Hardgrave1969:
21). My references in this article are to the original edition from 1849.
33 For this understanding of Caldwell’s book, I am indebted to David Chidester’s
analysis of the history of comparative religion in Southern Africa as a “science of contact”
that emerged out of colonial frontier situations. Chidester 1996.
34 Pennington 2005: 24.
It is certainly true that Caldwell’s book fits well in this frame, because it
is a good example for this discursive liaison of description and missionary
practice.
As noted before, Caldwell’s earlier reports in the series Missions to the
Heathen give an insight into his first observations on the local people and
the religious context in Tirunelveli, prior to his book in 1849. A compari-
son of his different works about South Indian culture and religion indi-
cates that his theories underwent a considerable development in the
period between the 1840s and 1880s. For example, while he observed
from the beginning the difference between the “orthodox system” of the
Brahmans and the local religious practices of the lower castes in
Tirunelveli,35 which were depreciated as ‘devil-worship’ by the mis-
sionaries, in his later accounts he separated the Shanars / Nadars, and
subsequently the Dravidians, on the basis of linguistic, racial, and par-
ticularly religious arguments from the dominant Brahmans / Aryans.
Moreover, in his first report from the “Edeyenkoody Mission” (1844), he
described devil worship only as a “primitive form of Hindoo superstition,
on which the Brahmanical system afterwards grafted”, but did not stress
this point further in terms of a conceptual difference between two differ-
ent systems of religion.36
Although Caldwell claimed to have gained his knowledge about the
Shanars / Nadars from personal observation and local informants (“intel-
ligent Hindus” and Shanars)37, his book should not be read as a firsthand
account of the local religious practices in Tirunelveli. As he admits in his
description of the ritual of ‘devil-dancing’, he did not witness such ritual
practices at close range.38 Obviously, missionaries were not admitted to
be present at such occasions, because their presence was considered to be
inauspicious and an obstacle to the right performance of the ritual. Joseph
Mullens, a missionary of the London Missionary Society (LMS), reported
that missionaries had only seldom the opportunity of obtaining a sight of
rituals like devil-dancing and sacrifices, as the people believed that “their
devils cannot cope with Europeans.”39 According to Caldwell, Europeans
––––––––––––––
35 Caldwell 1849: 7.
37 Cf. Wyatt 1894: 84–85.
38 Cf. Caldwell 1849: 20–21.
39 Mullens 1854: 99, see also p. 112. Joseph Mullens (1820–1879) worked from 1843 till
1865 as a missionary in Calcutta, and from 1868 as Foreign Secretary of the LMS. He
visited South India in the years 1853 and 1865–66 and published two books on South
Indian missions: Mullens 1854 and 1863. His description of the mission among the
Shanars/Nadars is mainly based on Caldwell, with whom he was personally acquainted.
For biographical information on Mullens, see Sibree 1923: 57.
were attributed with immunity against the power of demons,40 but proba-
bly the refusing of a European presence at such events was also an indi-
cation of the serious threat that the agency of Christian missionaries
among the Shanars / Nadars posed to local religious cults.
If not derived from personal observation, Caldwell’s ideas about the
Shanars and their ‘religion’ were predetermined by the Evangelical (more
specifically Calvinistic) concept of religion. As a missionary, his tacit
axiom was the question of conversion, which, in the language of the
Evangelicals, always meant the attainment of a personal conviction con-
cerning God’s salvation of humanity in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the
parameters of his accession on the religion and culture of the Shanars /
Nadars – and in general terms also to South Indian religion and culture –
were primarily theological, even if they were combined with linguistic
arguments and the intermixed language of “race”, “class”, and “nation”.41
The structure of the book indicates this more clearly: “True”, or rather
“genuine” religion could be detected and determined by the knowledge of
a superior divine being (I.1.), the personal commitment to a future state of
being (“spiritual condition” I.2.) and the effects on the “moral constitu-
tion” of a subject (II.). For Caldwell, the religion of the Shanars / Nadars
had to be evaluated according to these terms. It is obvious that the close
connection between mission theory and a theory of religion is already
provided by the structure of the book, and that, more specifically, the
theory of Shanar religion evolves out of his missionary ambitions. The
main internal contradiction of his argument is, therefore, that while he is
constantly stressing the (un)readiness of the Shanars / Nadars for Christi-
anity due to their lack of any ‘serious’ or ‘higher’ religion at all, he is
delineating a religious “system” of a lower degree that affords important
points of contact to Christianity.42
According to Caldwell, the religious system of the Shanars / Nadars
could be denoted as devil-worship or “demonolatry”.43 The latter term is
used by Caldwell in an abstract sense. It indicates an attempt to systema-
tize his cultural, historical and linguistical observations into a coherent
theory of demonolatry. According to Caldwell, this religious system had
––––––––––––––
40 Cf. Caldwell 1849: 16–17.
41 Caldwell 1849: 4. This is not to deny the importance of Orientalist theories about
Indian religions. Caldwell was, for sure, deeply influenced from the very beginning by his
own studies of Orientalist theories of Indian religions and culture. But the relationship of
Evangelical conceptions of religion and Orientalism needs to be more carefully considered
than is currently done, at least when speaking of ‘missionary orientalism’. For an analysis
of Caldwell’s Orientalist studies, see Vaitheespara 1998: 26 ff.
42 Caldwell 1849: 18.
43 Caldwell 1849: 12.
to be clearly separated from “Brahmanism”, which was, for Caldwell,

largely identical with Hinduism:
Their connection with the Brahmanical systems of dogmas and observances,
commonly described in the mass as Hinduism, is so small that they may be con-
sidered as votaries of a different religion. ... The mind of the Shanars has
appeared to be a dreary void, a desert in which no trace of religious ideas is to be
found. I have now to show how this desert has been peopled by a gloomy imagi-
nation with visions of goblins and demons. ... Demonolatry, or devil-worship is
the only term by which the religion of the Shanars can be accurately described. ...
Demonism in one shape or another may be said to rule the Shanars with undis-
puted authority. ... A large majority however of the devils are of purely Shanar or
Tamil origin, and totally unconnected with Brahmanism.44
His attempt to describe demonolatry as a system totally different from
Brahmanical Hinduism was motivated by considerable anti-Brahman
reservations, which were shared by nearly all missionaries in India at that
time. From the missionaries’ point of view, Brahmanical Hinduism was
liable for the caste system which was considered by the new British
Protestant missionaries to be the greatest obstacle to Christian mission in
India. Caldwell might have been also aware of the internal debates
between Catholic and Protestant missionaries, like Abbé Dubios and
James Hough, about the Catholic partiality for a mission among the
higher castes.45 But Caldwell’s concern to construct a system of ‘Shanar
religion’ independent from Brahmanism served primarily his missionary
agenda, to utilize it as the soil on which the mission could plant its Chris-
tian tree. Therefore, his main argument was that demonolatry failed to be
a higher form of religion at all, as it could not comply with the (Christian)
criteria of religion. For example, the Shanars did not have any real
knowledge about a God or any good divine being that was worshipped on
a regular basis, as well as any apprehension of divine salvation, and the
person’s future state of being.46 Whereas these failings could be consid-
ered as disadvantages at first sight, the absence of a higher religion was
seen by Caldwell as an advantage for Christian mission:
It must be obvious that the sincerity of the belief entertained by the Shanars in
their demons, though productive of superstitious gloom and incompatible with a
high caste of thought, is morally a more promising feature of mind than the
conceited rationalism or universal scepticism of the Brahmanical higher castes,
and capable of being turned to better account.47
––––––––––––––
44 Caldwell 1849: 7, 11–13.
45 Cf. Vaitheespara 2006: 43 ff.
46 Cf. Caldwell 1849: 8 ff.
47 Caldwell 1849: 43.
Caldwell’s strategy, to construct demonolatry as a cohesive system, is

worthy of consideration from a methodological point of view. His de-
scription of devil-worship is a reduction of the complex variety of South
Indian religious practices and rituals to one uniform system. The first step
he takes is the reduction of certain gods and divine beings to one “genus”
of deity:
I shall now mention some particulars illustrative of the opinions entertained
respecting these demons and the peculiarities of their worship, as it exists at
present. I shall not attempt to enter upon a minute description of the system, or
exemplify it by specific illustrations; but shall confine myself to the more general
object of furnishing the reader with a sketch of its salient points and more promi-
nent characteristics, and helping him to form an estimate of its tendencies and
effects. My description will therefore apply rather to the genus ‘demon’ than to
any demon in particular – rather to the points in which all diabolical rites agree
than to local or incidental varieties.48
Caldwell admitted that his account was somehow generalized, but it was
exactly this method of generalization which enabled him to construct
demonolatry as the prototype of non-Brahman, Tamil religion in South
India. This religion, he believed, had been prevalent in South India prior
to the immigration of Brahmans from the north.49 Accordingly, his under-
standing of demonolatry is rather inclusive, as it includes the spiritual
beings that were denoted as pēy, but also, to some extent, the Amman
(Tam. ammaṉ) goddesses, which were typical of South Indian villages.
Although Caldwell denotes the Amman goddesses as female “demons”,
the relationship between Amman-worship and demon-worship seems to
be quite ambivalent.50 On the one hand, he is aware of the strong relation-
ship between village cults and the worship of pēys, including the fact that
animal-sacrifices were part of both cults. On the other hand, he assumes
that the worship of Amman goddesses did not belong to the original form
of demonolatry, because the goddesses are seen as forms of Kali (Skt.
kālī, Tam. kāḷi), thus providing for them a Brahman lineage. Hence, the
worship of Amman goddesses becomes, for him, an example of the
partial Brahmanisation of demonolatry over the course of time. Further,
the two most important male deities in South India, Murugan (Tam.
murukaṉ) and Aiyanar (Tam. aiyaṉār), are decidedly excluded by him
from the concept of demonolatry, because of their clear connection with
Brahmanical mythology. He only gives their Sanskrit names, “Subrah-
manya” (Skt. subrahmaṇya, Tam. cuppiramaṇiyaṉ) and “Shástá” (Skt.
śāstṛ, Tam. cāstā) without mentioning any particularities of their worship
––––––––––––––
48 Caldwell 1849: 13.
49 Cf. Caldwell 1849: 24.
50 Cf., for example, Caldwell 1849: 13–14 and 23 ff.
in South India.51 It is interesting that, in his article on “Demonolatry in

Southern India” which appeared more than 30 years later (1886), he
revised this classification in a significant way. Here, he included male
deities, such as Aiyanar, as well as the female deities, such as the various
forms of Amman, in the system of demonolatry, but clearly distinguished
them as “semi-divine beings” from the devils / demons (pēy) as “semi-
diabolical beings”.52 This is contrary to his arguments in The Tinnevelly
Shanars (1849). In 1886, he gives a fuller account of at least one male
deity, Aiyanar, and does not emphasise the opposition of Brahmanism
and demonolatry to the same extent as he did before.53 However, in The
Tinnevelly Shanars the worship of spirits – and to some extent also that of
Amman deities – provides the background for Caldwell’s theory of
demonolatry.
This reduction of different deities to one “genus demon” reinforced his
claim that the Shanars / Nadars were a separate social entity with a
distinct ritual identity. The second step, therefore, was the generalization
of the variety of ritual practices connected with spirit worship and village
deities. Caldwell took two rituals as the key practices of the system of
demonolatry. The first is called “devil-dance” by him (Tam. cāmiyāṭṭam).
The description of the devil-dance is chiefly used by him to show that the
Shanars do not know any separate priesthood, but that this rite “may be
performed by any one who chooses” and who, then, carries out the role of
the priest.54 He seems to acknowledge this indirectly as a positive aspect,
since the presence of a strong religious authority – the Brahmans for
example – was usually seen as a major obstacle to the success of Chris-
tian mission. In connection with the devil-dance he could, of course, not
abstain from explaining the issue of demoniacal possession, which was
one of the most striking features of the Indian religious context for the
––––––––––––––
51 Cf. Caldwell 1849: 12.
52 Caldwell 1886: 93 ff.
53 Caldwell 1886: 93–94. Caldwell’s article, which is partly a revision of his concept of
demonolatry after a fierce conflict with the Shanar/Nadar community of Tirunelveli, cannot
be discussed here at length, although there are significant differences compared to his
argument in 1849. The most striking feature is his attempt to re-integrate the system of
demonolatry into a broader concept of Hinduism, following Monier Monier-Williams’
description of ‘demon-worship’ as an integral part of Hinduism (Monier-Williams 1883:
230–256). Citing Monier-Williams, Caldwell wrote: “In fact, a belief in every kind of
demoniacal influence has always been, from the earliest times, an essential ingredient in
Hindu religious thought.” (Caldwell 1886: 92). In fact, this was a retraction from his earlier
positions due to the protest of the Shanars/Nadars, who denied that their religion was not to
be considered as part of Hinduism. The article was republished in the Indian Evangelical
Review 14 (1887–88): 192–203. For the conflict between Caldwell and the Shanar/Nadar
community see also the next paragraph.
54 Caldwell 1849: 19–20.
missionaries.55 Although he gives the typical rationalistic explanation,

reducing the description to the performative acts of the ritual, the question
of possession was nevertheless an ambivalent issue for the European
missionaries. The possibility of ‘real’ demoniacal possession – under-
stood as the presence of the devil in Christian terms – was never far from
their mind. Hence, their descriptions very frequently display this
ambivalence between the Christian devil (singular) and the local devils
(plural). Edward Sargent’s (CMS) short account of devil worship, which
appeared also in 1849, can be seen as a good example:
It is a curious question whether those who dance and are said to become pos-
sessed are really so in the strict sense of the word. The whole service is the
service of the devil, and must, in a certain sense, be attributed to his influence and
agency; but whether he so possesses their bodies and governs their minds as to
make their volition and action not properly their own, but his, appears to me very
questionable. From all that I have seen and heard, I should rather consider it as a
voluntary excitement, which works itself up to a species of frenzy, and which
gradually subsides as the party becomes exhausted.56
The second ritual, which Caldwell designates as the “offering of bloody
sacrifices”, becomes the key point in his construction of a coherent
system of demonolatry and its ritual typology.57 The description provided
in this section differs substantially from that of devil-dancing; he does not
give a very detailed account of the ritual performance, but goes on to
introduce a theory about the genealogy of demonolatry as the original
religion of the Tamil people. It is noteworthy that he does not use the
term ‘Dravidians’ here, which was a few years later the key term in his
––––––––––––––
55 See Kent 2004: 58 ff., for an insightful analysis of Caldwell’s account.
56 Sargent 1849: 61. It is worth mentioning here that, around 1850, a number of
descriptions of devil worship in Tirunelveli appeared in periodicals and books. See, for
example, Tucker 1848: vol. 2, chapter 4–5; Best 1849; and Pope 1850–51. Some of them,
like Edward Sargent’s description, are autonomous accounts, which describe similar
features of the religious practices in Tirunelveli, but are virtually independent from
Caldwell’s book. Interestingly, Sargent does not seem to share Caldwell’s idea of a
coherent system of demonolatry, because he uses the term ‘devil worship’ without any
systematic intention. His account is also rather differentiated compared to Caldwell’s book,
and is at least willing to differentiate between Amman and spirit cults.
Other descriptions of devil worship in Tirunelveli, which refer to Caldwell’s book are,
for example, Pettitt 1851: 476 ff.; and Mullens 1854: 96 ff. The latter reflects Caldwell’s
typology of Shanar ritual practice by stating that “the service presented to the demons is of
two kinds, DEVIL-DANCING and DEVIL-SACRIFICE [sic].” (Mullens 1854: 98).
An Abridgement of Caldwell’s book was reprinted by G. J. Metzger in the English
edition of Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg’s Genealogy of the South Indian Gods (Metzger and
Germann 1869).
57 Caldwell 1849: 21 ff.
Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of

Languages (1856).58
However, the idea of demonolatry as the “aboriginal” religion in South
India, prior to the immigration of the Brahmans from the North, is already
to be found in his earlier book (1849). According to Caldwell, the “origin
of the Shanar Demonolatry lies in the unknown depths of antiquity. ...
The worship of devils would seem to have been anterior to the Vedaic
[sic] system itself.”59 He is arguing that demonolatry is not only more
ancient than Vedic religion and subsequent Brahmanism, but not
dependent on both in any way: “There are many direct reasons for
assigning to demonolatry an origin independent of Brahmanism and
anterior to its introduction into the Tamil country, or even into India.”60
The complex argument which follows tries to examine the religious
antiquity of demonolatry by a combination of mythological evidences
from Brahmanical Hinduism, contemporary theories of the history of
religions, and linguistic and cultural observations. It is obvious that they
serve Caldwell’s intention to restore the historical antiquity and theo-
logical independency of demonolatry in India, which can readily be
adapted for Christian mission:
Here, in polished and metaphysical India we find a civilization but little raised
above that of the Negroes, and a religion which can only be described as
fetishism. And what exists in Tinnevelly is only a type of the social and religious
condition of extensive tracts throughout India with which Europeans have not yet
become familiar.61
The idea of adaptability of ‘ancient’, that is to say ‘primitive’, religions
with Christian concepts is further enhanced by Caldwell’s theory about
the genealogy of animal sacrifices among the Shanars / Nadars. It is
obvious that his definition of ‘sacrifice’ was dictated by the Evangelical
notion of Jesus’ death as sacrifice for the redemption from sin; the latter
being primarily understood as offences which affected the moral con-
sciousness of Christian believers:
The sole object of the sacrifice is the removal of the devil’s anger or of the
calamities which his anger brings down. It should be distinctly understood that
sacrifices are never offered on account of the sins of the worshippers, and that the
––––––––––––––
58 Cf. Caldwell 1856. Appendix IV is entitled “Ancient Religion of the Dravidians”.
Parts of the text (pp. 521–522) were taken from his earlier book. Here, Caldwell used
explicitly the term ‘Dravidian demonolatry’. For his explanation of the term ‘Dravidian’,
see pp. 26–28.
59 Caldwell 1849: 24.
60 Caldwell 1849: 25.
61 Caldwell 1849: 29.
devil’s anger is not excited by any moral offence. The religion of the Shanars,
such as it is, has no connection with morals.62
Indeed, nowhere else can Caldwell’s Evangelical attitudes be seen more
clearly than in his interpretation of sacrifice. What, one could ask, makes
in the eyes of Evangelical missionaries, like Caldwell, such people better
objects for the Christian mission than any devotee of ‘higher’ religions?
Here, Caldwell’s astonishing answer is that, even if there is no connection
between belief and ethics in demonolatry, its theological adaptability
exists primarily in the idea of substitution which lies behind the sacrificial
rituals. Although he claims that the Shanars / Nadars do not explicitly
know a theory of substitution, the ritual of bloody sacrifice is interpreted
by Caldwell as a substitutional practice, which, implicitly, serves as a
kind of ‘praeparatio evangelica’. Aside from the historical and theological
independence of demonolatry from ‘higher Hinduism’, its ritual practice
is, according to Caldwell, the most important point of contact for Chris-
tian mission and the main reason for the success of Christian missions
among the Shanars / Nadars:
The Shanars have not intellect enough to frame for themselves a theory of
substitution; but their practice and their mode of expression prove that they
consider their sacrifices as substitutions and nothing else. ... It is sufficiently
obvious that ... they are in a better position [than other Hindus] for understanding
the grand Christian doctrine of redemption by sacrifice. ... The prevalence of
bloody sacrifices for the removal of the anger of superior powers is one of the
most striking [facts] in the religious condition of the Shanars, and is appealed to
by the Christian Missionary with the best effect.63
Turning the idea of substitution into a historical fact, he even supposed
that the animal sacrifices were themselves a substitution of the even more
ancient “human sacrifices to the demons”, which had prevailed in ancient
times all over South India. Like many of his contemporaries, Caldwell
believed the ‘meriah’ sacrifice of the Khonds, a tribe in the north-eastern
parts of Madras Presidency, to be a vivid remnant of this history.64
A further point, which cannot be analysed here at length, is his account
of the ‘moral constitution’ of the Shanars that follows in chapter two. As
mentioned before, Caldwell attested that the Shanars / Nadars had a total
––––––––––––––
62 Caldwell 1849: 21.
63 Caldwell 1849: 22. In the introduction he writes: “There are certain facts and truths
proper to Christianity, such as the doctrine of our redemption by sacrifice, which are
peculiarly offensive to some of the Brahmanical sects, and are supposed to be offensive to
the Hindu mind every where, but which convey no offence in Tinnevelly; where the
shedding of blood in sacrifice and the substitution of life for life are ideas with which the
people are familiar.” (Caldwell 1849: 7).
64 Cf. Caldwell 1849: 22. Consequently, he marked the Khonds as the “most primitive
and least Brahmanized portion of the aboriginal Tamil race.” (ibid.)
absence of any ethical consciousness (“morals”).65 However, the fact that

this chapter makes up more than half of the whole book indicates that
Caldwell’s theory of demonolatry, evolved in chapter one, serves primar-
ily as a prerequisite for the typical Evangelical agenda of Christian mis-
sion as moral and social improvement directed towards the lower classes
of society. Caldwell, thus, writes in the beginning of chapter two:
From the description now given of the religion of the Shanars, it will not be
difficult to form an estimate of its moral results. The influence of religion in
forming or modifying the character of nations is well known ... Nations are what
their gods are. ... In considering the moral condition of the Shanars as affected by
their demonolatry ... incidental light will be thrown on some correlative ques-
tions. Reasons will probably appear why Christianity has prevailed more amongst
the Shanars than amongst higher castes; reasons why the Shanars as a class
should be less bigotedly attached to their religion and more easily impressed by
Christian teaching and influences than other Hindus; and reasons also why the
style of character exhibited by the native Christians in Tinnevelly differs so
considerably from that of the Christians of Tanjore and Madras.66
As Eliza Kent has observed, the missionary interest in social uplift did not
stem from altruism alone, but was motivated by the theological
presumption that the “low castes’ depths of degradation made their mate-
rial and spiritual uplift a persuasive index of the power of Christian faith.
... God’s greatness was affirmed by his ability to lift up wretches from
their lowly and benighted state.”67 Hence, missionary descriptions like
Caldwell’s book were always inclined to amplify the antagonism between
the factual condition of its missionary objects and their own Evangelical
ideals of ‘moral religion’. The Shanars / Nadars were constructed as
idealised representatives of a ‘particular need’ of the missionary agency
for all lower caste groups in Tirunelveli, by means of adapting them to
the common Evangelical narratives. Not only in the case of Caldwell, the
peculiar dynamics of these narratives in Tirunelveli resulted from their
strategy to represent Tirunelveli as a land without religion, which was at
the same time the habitat of the devil(s) and, as Bishop Spencer said, the
land of promise for the missionary endeavour. Caldwell’s book is a good
example of how missionary narratives about the Tirunelveli mission
covered up this space between the devil and the devils, between the ‘land
without religion’ and the ‘field white to harvest’. Missionaries like
Caldwell were well aware that the congruence between accounts of devil
worship and Christian conceptions of the devil could be understood as
––––––––––––––
65 Caldwell 1849: 11.
66 Caldwell 1849: 32.
67 Kent 2004: 52–53.
contrived.68 Yet, he and other missionaries did not invest much effort into
dissolving such identifications. Far from it, it had a massive impact on
their missionary strategies. In an account of a (typical) dialogue between
a missionary and a ‘devil worshipper’, written by George Uglow Pope,
the missionary asks the devotee: “Have you never heard of holy and
beneficient beings that protect the sons of men, and deliver them from the
power of demons?”69
Caldwell’s method of systematizing the religious practice of Shanars as
demonolatry, and the temporal theories he then imposed on his findings,
led to several consequences that I will now consider briefly in the end of
this paragraph. First, he constructed the Shanars / Nadars as a coherent
community with a distinct ritual identity, depending on their low caste
status in South Indian society. As I have already indicated, Evangelical
narratives had a preliminary tendency to locate the objects of their
missionary concern at the lower ends of society, which, in turn, forced
their emphasis on the necessity of social uplift. Caldwell’s theory of
demonolatry is, therefore, also a theory of lower class religion; based on
the assumption that demonolatry was not only the most ancient religion of
South India, but a typical example of the religious degradation of the
lower classes. It is unsurprising that he shows no serious intention – if he
had any – to differentiate between the Shanar / Nadars and other lower
caste groups. He even admitted that he would go so far as to “include
[sometimes] the whole of the lower classes of the local population under
that predominating name”,70 and extended this claim by substituting
demonolatry, occasionally, by the term ‘Shanarism’.71 His book adapted
the Shanars / Nadars, therefore, not only to the Evangelical narratives, but
also fixed their place on the social scale of South Indian society. His
frequently cited words from the beginning of his book ascribe to the
Shanars / Nadars a position at the lower end of social hierarchy:
The caste of Shanars occupies a middle position between the Vellalers and their
Pariar slaves. ... They may in general be described as belonging to the highest
––––––––––––––
68 See, for example, Caldwell 1849: 12, where he writes: “When Missionaries allude to
the devil worship prevalent in Tinnevelly, some persons seem to suppose that by the term
‘devils’ we mean the gods worshipped by the people; and that we style them ‘devils’
because their claims are supposed to those of the true God ... It is thought that we use the
term in a controversial sense ... But ... in describing the positive [sic] portion of the religion
of the Shanars as devil worship, the word used is not only the most appropriate one we
know, but it exactly corresponds with the term used by the Shanars themselves. ...
Consequently, demonolatry, or devil worship, is the only term by which the religion of the
Shanars can be accurately described.”
69 Pope 1850–51: 60.
71 Caldwell 1849: 34.
division of the lower classes, or the lowest of the middle classes: poor, but not
paupers; rude and unlettered, but by many degrees removed from a savage state.72
This assignment became the bone of contention for Caldwell’s Shanar
opponents in the following decades.
Second, his method led him to the level of religious theory and
comparative religion. Having separated demonolatry from its religious
and cultural context in South India, he could even claim that the rituals
and religious practices of the Shanars were to be compared to other forms
of primitive religion, for example “fetishism” in Western Africa.73 This
introduced the Shanars / Nadars as a separate group, with distinct rituals
and a distinct identity, into the field of global comparison. Although he
asserts that there exists no common historical origin for both Shanar
demonolatry and fetishism, “the two systems have a greater resemblance
to one another than either of them has to any of the other religions of the
heathen world.”74 It is telling to see how he constructs the similarity on
the basis of a morphological comparison, referring to a fixed set of com-
ponents, for example, the transformation of the spirits of the dead into
demons, the same forms of worship (“frantic dances” and sacrifices),
possession, exorcism, the absence of a regular priesthood, and of “every
idea of revelations and incarnations.”75 Hence, demonolatry was for him
not only a religion specific to South India, but also a translocal phenome-
non that could be found, for example, also in Sri Lankan Buddhism.76
Moreover, the Evangelical conviction that religion and morals were
inextricably bound to each other enabled him also to treat demonolatry as
a specific mentality, signifying a complete absence of any “morals” in
parallel to “atheism” and “materialism”.77
It is remarkable that he did not follow up his assumption of a structural
identity between fetishism and demonolatry in his later works. A few
years later, in his Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-
Indian Family of Languages (1856), he replaced it by a comparison with
“shamanism” in Siberia, explaining that he had written his earlier book
“before I was aware of the identity of the demonolatry of Siberia with that
––––––––––––––
73 Caldwell 1849: 25.
74 Caldwell 1849: 28.
75 Caldwell 1849: 28.
76 See Caldwell 1849: 27, where Caldwell asserts that the worship of devils could also
affect higher religions, for example Buddhism: “The Buddhists of Burma and Ceylon have
added to Buddhism the worship of indigenous demons, though nothing can be supposed
more foreign to the genius of Buddhism than such a system.” For an analysis of colonial
representations of Singhalese religion and the ritual of “Yaktovil” in particular, see Scott
1994.
77 Caldwell 1849: 36.
of Tinnevelly”.78 This enabled him to incorporate the theory of

demonolatry into his broader theory about a common racial and linguistic
origin of the Dravidians and Scythians in Upper Asia. It should be clear
from these few remarks that his theory of demonolatry made up an
essential part of his theory of the Dravidians, filling the gap of historical
evidence for a uniform pre-Aryan and non-Brahman culture in Asia.
Casting and re-casting the Shanars:

Reactions of the Tirunelveli Shanars / Nadars
In missionary circles, in India as well as in Britain, Caldwell’s book was

readily received as an exemplary testimonial of mission work in India. In
a review, the Madras Quarterly Missionary Journal praised Caldwell for
providing his readers with “something to read”, in contrast to the over-
whelming mass of missionary literature which bored its readers with
patchy extracts from journals and diaries:
In such a sketch the real work of the Missionary is made manifest; the many
strange phases of human error which he has to oppose and dissipate are
illustrated, we are enabled to enter into the arena of conflict and see unbelief set
face to face with ‘the truth as it is in Jesus,’ and to anticipate its shameful
retreat.79
The reviewer’s call, for more accounts of missionary work in the style of
Caldwell’s book, indicates that missionary circles in India felt a demand
for quasi-ethnographical accounts of their converts, which helped to
overcome the conceptual lacks of standard Evangelical anthropology in
the field of missions. Whereas in the following decades Caldwell’s book
gained recognition as a canonical work on South Indian religion and
culture, absorbed as an integral part of colonial knowledge, the repre-
sentation of Tirunelveli and the Tirunelveli Shanars by Caldwell and his
epigones did not remain unanswered by Shanars / Nadars and other local
groups, Christians and non-Christians alike. The battle about their
customary ritual and social ranking in South Indian society during the
nineteenth century is a good example, which displays the effects of colo-
nial representations of Indian society and how the dynamics of represen-
tation and counter representation unmasked the dominance of cultural and
religious paradigms in colonial discourse.
––––––––––––––
78 Caldwell 1856: 521.
79 ‘Reviews and Notices of New Publications: 1. The Tinnevelly Shanars, a Sketch. By
the Rev. R. Caldwell, Edeyengoody’. Madras Quarterly Missionary Journal 1,2 (1850):
123–128, p. 124.
As already mentioned, the general resistance to missionary activities

was organised by the dominant caste groups in Tirunelveli. The more
specific critique of Caldwell’s book came from the side of the Shanars /
Nadars, who disagreed particularly with the low social status Caldwell
had ascribed to them, and with his claim that their religion was to be
denounced as aboriginal demonolatry that had no connection with
Brahmanical Hinduism. Parallel to Caldwell’s preferred methods, theories
about historical genealogy, linguistics, and ritual became the most
important ingredients of their counter manoeuvre in the following
decades. According to Hardgrave, the movement took its initial motiva-
tion from conflicts between Shanar / Nadar Christians and European
missionaries in Tirunelveli.80 Converts to Christianity challenged the
paternalism of European missionaries and their narratives about Tirunel-
veli and the Shanars / Nadars in missionary publications. Arumai
Nayakam Sattampillai (Tam. aṟumaināyakam caṭṭampiḷḷai, 1824–1919), a
catechist of the SPG mission in Nazareth (Tirunelveli), took the lead in
organising resistance to missionary dominance among Christian converts.
He was dismissed from his post as catechist in the SPG mission after
fierce debates with the local missionary in Nazareth, August Frederic
Caemmerer. In reaction, he founded, in 1857, his own church, the ‘The
Hindu Church of the Lord Jesus’, which he also called the ‘Hindu
Christian Church’. At that time it was probably the only independent
Protestant Indian church in South India.81
In contrast to European theorists like Caldwell, Shanar activists claimed
a different status – one within the Brahmanical varna (Skt. varṇa)
system – as Kshatriyas (Skt. kṣatriya). This was based on the assumption
that Shanars were descendants not of any aboriginal Dravidian race, but
of the Pandya kings, once the powerful rulers of ancient South Indian
kingdoms, who had lost their original social and ritual status over the cen-
turies and were reduced to servitude.82 According to Hardgrave, the
writing of caste histories to prove this genealogy became one of the major
activities of the emerging movement, resulting in the production of more
than forty books, pamphlets and articles in the years following the schism
in 1857.83 This claim of a noble descent was further justified by an
etymological re-interpretation of the word ‘Shanar’, which seemed to
have a contemptuous meaning as a caste designation in the 19th century.
The standard orientalist etymology interpreted Shanar as a derivation of
––––––––––––––
80 As Hardgrave and Kent have both given detailed accounts of this movement, I confine
myself here to a short summary of their findings. Hardgrave 1979; Kent 2004.
81 For Sattampillai and his church, see Thangaraj 1971; Kumaradoss 1996; and
Sugirtharajah 2005: 175–189.
82 Cf. Surguner 1883: 17–18.
83 See Hardgrave 1969: 78 ff. and Appendix III, for a full account.
the Tamil word for toddy, ‘caru’ (Tam. cāṛu), thus associating the
Shanars with the production of alcohol from the Palmyra juice, which
was considered a polluting business by the higher castes. In contrast,
Shanar activists, like Samuel Sargunar, interpreted a variant of their caste
name, ‘canrar’ (Tam. cāṉṟār), as a derivation of the Tamil word ‘canror’
(Tam. cāṉṟōr), frequently used in Sangam Literature. According to
Sargunar, there it designated not only a ‘noble’ or ‘learned’ man, but their
ancestors as a distinct group.84 All these arguments were closely linked to
a detailed criticism of Caldwell’s book. Grasping precisely the major
shortcomings of colonial knowledge production, Sarguner wrote:
The whole of this discussion by the Bishop, so far as it relates to the Dravidians,
is nothing but a mass of unadulterated falsehood, which appears to have
originated with the Bishop’s unsound and superficial knowledge of Tamil,
combined with the imagination of his illogical mind, which too readily took it for
granted that what it found to exist now had existed always, just as it believed
[sic], as I have shown above, [and] that what was true of a few Shanars at or
about Edeyengudi must be true of each of the Shanars all over the Tinnevelly
District. ... It is none the less true ... that he has been a greater writer than thinker,
and that his forte is to compare a dozen Grammars and Dictionaries of as many
languages and boil down bundles of papers, be they Government records,
Missionaries’ letters, or copies of inscriptions, into forms of narratives.85
Yet, these claims were more than only a tug of war over words. The
example of Sattampillai’s Hindu Christian Church demonstrates that such
counter representations did not remain in the sphere of mere words, but
were also transferred to the field of ritual practice and religious identity.
Based on the claim that Shanars / Nadars had originally a Kshatriya status
and had to be called ‘Nadars’ as the correct name for their caste,
Sattampillai and his followers challenged the image of Shanars / Nadars
as a low caste community by a reconstruction of a ritual canon that served
the religious needs of Shanar / Nadar Christians as Kshatriyas. They
combined an adaption of Jewish rites from the Old Testament with the
attempt to confer high caste moral and social norms upon the Shanar /
Nadar community. As Eliza Kent has demonstrated, this implied substan-
tial changes on gender relations within the Shanar / Nadar community,
because the revaluation of matrimonial concepts was a central concern of
––––––––––––––
84 Cf. Samuel Sarguner: Dravida Kshatriyas (1880), cited in Hardgrave 1979: 174. See
also Surguner 1883: 6 ff. Hardgrave gives a detailed analysis of these “new mythologies”
and the etymological evidence. According to him, these linguistic theories were even
debated in public newspapers, for example, the Madras Mail in 1899.
85 Surguner 1883: 5–6.
Sattampillai’s agenda.86 Sattampillai understood his Hindu Christianity as

a true challenge to the Protestant missions in Tirunelveli. As Caldwell
noted:
They call themselves in their documents ‘The Hindu Church of the Lord Jesus;’
but amongst their neighbours they call themselves, and are generally called, the
Nattar, or ‘national party’. In their zeal for caste and Hindu nationality, they have
rejected from their system everything which appeared to them to savour of a
European origin. Hence they have abandoned infant-baptism and an ordained
ministry. Instead of wine they use the unfermented juice of grapes in an ordi-
nance which they regard as the Lord’s Supper, and observe Saturday instead of
Sunday as their Sabbath.87
The catechism Sattampillai wrote in 1890 was primarily a harsh critique
of the Western concept of Christian religion, in which he accused the
missionaries of mixing their national customs with Christianity. The
appendices of his book were filled with carefully selected references to
prove “Anglican national profligacy” and the “idolatry” of the old Saxons
“quoted from the very words of the Europeans themselves”.88 Yet,
Sattampillai’s method not only mirrored the tune of missionary rhetoric
adopted by Caldwell and others. Besides discrediting European Chris-
tianity, he used such statements to argue that Christianity was tampered
with Western decadence, sexual immorality and materialism, which were
contradictory to the “national customs” of the Hindus. Converts to Chris-
tianity were thus allowed to keep their respective traditions alive, based
on the argument that in the time of ancient Christianity “the Gentile con-
verts would be incorporated with the Jewish Holy Church, with the full
liberty to practise such of their own respective national customs ... as
would not violate but naturally be in accordance with the righteousness of
the [Jewish] law ...”.89 Although Sattampillai’s reconstruction of a Nadar
Christianity with the help of Old Testament law and rituals was to a
certain extent an idiosyncratic endeavour, it was much more oriented
towards Brahmanical Hinduism than towards Jewish religion. He seems
to have adapted only those rituals which were not objectionable from the
point of view of Brahmanical Hinduism. For example, he demanded
“sacrificial nourishments” to Jesus Christ during worship, but allowed
only “pure offerings, that is, substances not offensive to any class of
––––––––––––––
86 Kent 2004: 190–196 gives an excellent analysis of Sattampillai’s concept of Indian
Christian marriage and his role in the emerging discourse on Shanar/Nadar identity in the
second half of the nineteenth century.
87 Cited in Mullens 1863: 51–52.
88 See the appendix of his book where he cites contemporary critics of Western culture
at length to emphasise his argument. Sattampillai 1890: 30–47.
89 Sattampillai 1890: 3–4. See also p. 7.
people.”90 Thus, the offering of “food, drink and perfumes [i. e. burning
of incense]” during worship,91 as well as the substitution of wine by grape
juice during the Eucharist, indicate that the rituals in the Hindu Christian
Church were clearly oriented towards Brahman standards.
The criticism of Caldwell and his book continued until the late 1880s
and resulted in a war of petitions that was closely related to caste conflicts
within the mission congregations. Furthermore, it was also related to the
conflict between Caldwell and his fellow missionary Margöschis, in
which Indian Christians of different castes were also involved. The
petitions accused as well as supported Caldwell. They were written to
different ecclesiastical and political authorities in Britain and India, which
set the question of Shanar Christian and non-Christian identity again from
the local to a global level of discourse. Besides the plea to withdraw the
book entirely from circulation, the petitioners all shared the opinion that
this was a debate on the issue of the ‘respectability’ of their caste, as well
as a clear knowledge of the reception and reproduction of their image in
Britain and in the missionary discourse in particular.
In the SPG archive there are no less than eight petitions filed, which
were written in only two years between 1882 and 1884.92 Each petition
complaining about Caldwell was followed by one in favour of him. Both
sides accused each other of deception and forgery in obtaining signa-
tures.93 By far the most interesting point concerning these petitions relates
to how they mirror the effects caused by Caldwell’s book and the debates
among the parties involved; for example, about the role of missionaries.
First, the authors were fully aware of the effects Caldwell’s book had on
the colonial discourse and their popularity as ‘mission objects’.
Gnanamutthu Nadar, Caldwell’s most active and distinguished opponent
in the course of the affair, observed that the circulation of Caldwell’s
book in Britain led the “enlightened world” to form a low opinion about
Shanar Christians in Tirunelveli. The dissemination of this image through
the work of various copyists made things much worse. He claimed that
“every writer having read Bishop Caldwell’s work writes as if he were
quite sure of the non aryan and aboriginal origin of the Shanars, and their
––––––––––––––
90 Sattampillai 1890: 12 (italics in the original).
91 Sattampillai 1890: 12.
92 All petitions are held in the archive of the United Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel (USPG), Rhodes House Library, Oxford, Copies of Letters Received (CLR) vol.
52, henceforth cited as CLR 52. I am grateful to the USPG for permission to cite from their
archives.
93 This was claimed in a Petition of “Native Christians of Tinnevelly”, July 25, 1883,
CLR 52: 268 ff.
degraded condition. ... Every writer ventures to call the Shanars an

aboriginal race which is far from being the fact.”94
Moreover, one petition of the Shanar Christians argued that Caldwell’s
depiction of the Shanars / Nadars as a degraded caste provoked local
Hindus as well as Christians to uphold their caste distinctions even more
furiously: “Because they think, that this system is inquired into, and made
much of, even by the European Missionaries.”95 They very clearly stated
that this had led to an increased consciousness of Shanar identity among
Hindus as well as Christians. The petitioners even went so far as to state
that Caldwell and his book alone had – ironically – become the cause of
the extraordinary caste consciousness amongst the Shanar / Nadar
Christians and the greatest obstacle to the progress of Christianity in
Tirunelveli. Finally, the wave of resistance Caldwell had to face from the
Shanars / Nadars induced him to retract the book from further publication
by the late 1880s, a fact providing powerful evidence that missionaries –
and colonial representatives in general – were not always powerful
enough to control the genies they let out of their bottles.
Conclusion
In this article I have sketched how, in the period between the 1840s and
1880s, the missionary agency and the reflection on it by local Shanars /
Nadars in Tirunelveli, contributed to the emergence of a globalised
colonial image of the Shanars / Nadars and, closely related, to discourses
of identity among this particular South Indian caste group. Their claim for
a higher social position in South Indian society strongly affected the
formation of a transregional Shanar / Nadar identity in the decades to
come after Caldwell.96 To briefly sum up my argument, it is necessary to
return to the question at the beginning of how the restructuring of the
Christian mission in Tirunelveli necessitated missionary narratives about
Tirunelveli and the Shanars / Nadars. These narratives were distinctly
elaborated in Caldwell’s book, The Tinnevelly Shanars. His book should
be seen in the broader context of comparative theories of religion, as they
emerged all over the world in fields of colonial conquest during the nine-
teenth century. As David Chidester has observed, in the case of compara-
tive religion in colonial South Africa, the colonial reaction to the encoun-
––––––––––––––
94 “Petition from certain Shanar Christians of Tinnevelly” (written by Y. Gnanamutthoo
Nadar), May 19, 1883, CLR 52: 230.
95 “Petition from certain Shanar Christians of Tinnevelly” (written by Y. Gnanamutthoo
Nadar), May 19, 1883, CLR 52: 231.
96 See Hardgrave 1969.
ter of alien peoples and their culture was a shift from a denial to a
‘discovery’ of their religions. Accordingly, the evolution of comparative
theories about ‘indigenous’ religions was linked to the implementation of
control on colonial frontier zones.97 It should now be clear how this
entanglement of the global and local levels of discourse helped Caldwell
to galvanise the local missionary agency with a comparative religion
approach and, in return, helped discourses of identity among Shanars /
Nadars to take place at the intersection of regional as well as global levels
of colonial discourse.
Bibliography
Appasamy, Paul. 1923. Centenary History of the C. M. S. In Tinnevelly. Palamcottah:

Printing Press.
Best, James Kershaw. 1849. ‘Devil-Worship in Tinnevelly.’ Parochial Missionary
Magazine 2: 190–191.
Caldwell, Robert. 1844. Mission of Edeyenkoody, in the District of Tinnevelly, and Diocese
of Madras. [Part One] 8th ed. 1847. (Missions to the Heathen; 2) London: SPG.
——. 1847. Mission of Edeyenkoody, in the District of Tinnevelly and Diocese of Madras.
Part Third: Report of the Rev. R. Caldwell, 1846. 1st ed. (Missions to the Heathen; 19)
London: SPG.
——. 1849. The Tinnevelly Shanars: A Sketch of Their Religion and Their Moral
Condition, and Characteristics as a Caste. With Special Reference to the Facilities and
Hindrances to the Progress of Christianity Amongst Them. Madras: R. Twigg.
——. 1850. The Tinnevelly Shanars: A Sketch of Their Religion, and Their Moral
Condition and Characteristics, with Special Reference to the Facilities and Hindrances
to the Progress of Christianity Amongst Them. (Missions to the Heathen; 23) London:
SPG.
——. 1856. A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of
Languages. London: Harrison.
——. 1857a. Lectures on the Tinnevelly Missions, Descriptive of the Field, the Work, and
the Results: With an Introductory Lecture on the Progress of Christianity in India.
London: Bell and Daldy.
——. 1857. ‘Progress of Christianity in India: The Tinnevelly Missions No. I-VII.’
Colonial Church Chronicle and Missionary Journal 11: 88–103, 129–136, 177–186,
244–253, 286–296, 332–345, 365–378, 494–510.
——. 1880. The First Centenary of the Tinnevelly Mission. Palamcottah: Church Mission
Press.
——. 1881. Records of the Early History of the Tinnevelly Mission of the Society of
Promoting Christian Knowledge and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in
Foreign Parts. Madras: Higginbotham.
——. 1886. ‘On Demonolatry in Southern India’, Journal of the Anthropological Society
of Bombay 1,1: 91–105.
––––––––––––––
97 See Chidester 1996: 1–29.
Chidester, David. 1996. Savage Systems: Colonialism and Comparative Religion in

Southern Africa. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Copley, Antony. 1997. Religions in Conflict: Ideology, Cultural Contact and Conversion
in Late-Colonial India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Frykenberg, Robert E. 1976. ‘The Impact of Conversion and Social Reform Upon Society
in South India During the Late Company Period: Questions Concerning Hindu-Christian
Encounters with Special Reference to Tinnevelly’, in: Cyril H. Philips, ed. Indian
Society and the Beginnings of Modernization: c. 1830–1850. London: School of Oriental
and African Studies, 187–243.
Grafe, Hugald. 1990. The History of Christianity in Tamilnadu from 1800 to 1975.
Erlangen: Verlag der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Mission.
Gross, Andreas, Kumaradoss, Vincent Y., and Liebau, Heike, eds. 2006. Halle and the
Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India. Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen
Stiftungen.
Hardgrave, Robert L. 1969. The Nadars of Tamilnad: The Political Culture of a
Community in Change. Berkeley: University of California Press.
——.1979 ‘The New Mythology of a Caste in Change’, in: Robert L. Hardgrave, ed.
Essays on the Political Sociology of South India. New Delhi: Usha Publications, 164–
188.
Kent, Eliza F. 2004. Converting Women: Gender and Protestant Christianity in Colonial
South India. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kumaradoss, Y. Vincent. 1996. ‘Negotiating Colonial Christianity: The Hindu Christian
Church of Late Nineteenth Century Tirunelveli.’ South Indian Studies 1: 35–53.
——. 2007. Robert Caldwell, a Scholar-Missionary in Colonial South India. Delhi:
ISPCK.
Ludden, David. 2005. Early Capitalism and Local History in South India. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Metzger, G. J., and Germann, Wilhelm, eds. 1869. Genealogy of the South-Indian Gods: A
Manual of the Mythology and Religion of the People of Southern India, Including a
Description of Popular Hinduism, by Bartholomaeus Ziegenbalg. Freely Translated into
English, and Enriched with Various New Additions and an Index by G. J. Metzger.
Madras: Higginbotham.
Monier-Williams, Monier. 1883 ‘Demon-Worship and Spirit-Worship’, in: Monier
Monier-Wiliams, ed. Religious Thought and Life in India. Vol. 1: Vedism, Brahmanism,
and Hinduism. London: Murray, 230–256.
Mullens, Joseph. 1854. Missions in South India Visited and Described, London: W. H.
Dalton.
——. 1863. A Brief Review of Ten Year’s Missionary Labour in India, between 1852–
1861, Prepared from Local Reports and Original Letters. London: Nisbet.
Pascoe, Charles Frederick. 1901. Two Hundred Years of the S. P. G.: An Historical
Account of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 1701–1900. 2
vols. London: Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.
Patrick, G. 2003. Religion and Subaltern Agency: A Case-Study of Ayya Vali, a Subaltern
Religious Phenomenon in South Tiruvitankur. Dissertation Series, Vol. 2. Chennai:
Department of Christian Studies, University of Madras.
Pennington, Brian K. 2005. Was Hinduism Invented? Britons, Indians, and the Colonial
Construction of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pettitt, George. 1847. ‘The Tinnevelly Missionaries to the Editor of the Madras Athenaeum
[Republished from the Madras Athenaeum, November 23, 1846]’, Allen’s Indian Mail
and Register of Intelligence 5,69, January 26: 44–45.
——. 1851. The Tinnevelly Mission of the Church Missionary Society. London: Seeleys.
Piggin, F. Stuart. 1984. Making Evangelical Missionaries 1789–1858: The Social
Background, Motives and Training of the British Protestant Missionaries to India.
(Evangelicals & Society from 1750; 2) Abingdon: Sutton Courtenay Press.
Pope, George U. 1844. Mission of Sawyerpooram in the District of Tinnevelly and Diocese
of Madras [Part One]. 9th ed. 1847. (Missions to the Heathen; 1) London: SPG.
——. 1845. Mission of Sawyerpooram. Part Third. Report of the Rev. G. U. Pope, January
1845. 4th ed. 1847. (Missions to the Heathen; 7) London: Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel.
——. 1849–50. ‘Missions of the Church in Tinnevelly No. I-IV’, Colonial Church
Chronicle and Missionary Journal 3: 246–252, 281–287, 361–369, 441–450.
——. 1850–51 ‘Missions of the Church in Tinnevelly No. V-VIII’, Colonial Church
Chronicle and Missionary Journal 4: 55–65, 121–125, 201–206, 281–287.
Porter, Andrew. N. 2004. Religion Versus Empire? British Protestant Missionaries and
Overseas Expansion, 1700–1914. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Potter, Sarah Caroline. 1974. The Social Origins and Recruitment of English Protestant
Missionaries in the Nineteenth Century. Ph. D., University of London.
Sargent, Edward. 1849. ‘Some Account of the Devil-Worship Practised in the Province of
Tinnevelly, South India, by the Rev. Edward Sargent, Church Missionary at
Suviseshapuram’ Church Missionary Intelligencer 1,2–4: 34–37, 60–62, 84–85.
Sattampillai, Arumai Nayakam. 1890. A Brief Sketch of the Hindu Christian Dogmas: By
A. N. Suttumpillai, Alias S. A. Nayaga Nadan. Palamcottah: Shunmuga Vilasam Press.
Scott, David. 1994. Formations of Ritual: Colonial and Anthropological Discourses on the
Sinhala Yaktovil. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sibree, James. 1923. London Missionary Society: A Register of Missionaries, Deputations,
Etc. From 1796 to 1923. 4th ed. London: London Missionary Society.
Spencer, George John Trevor. 1842. Journal of a Visitation to the Provinces of Travancore
and Tinnevelly, in the Diocese of Madras, 1840–1841. London: Rivington.
——. 1848. Journal of a Visitation Tour in January and February 1845, through the
Missionary Stations of the S. P. G. In the South-Eastern Portion of His Diocese.
(Missions to the Heathen; 9) London: Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.
Stanley, Brian. 1996. ‘The Reshaping of Christian Tradition: Western Denominational
Identity in Non-Western Context’, in: R. N. Swanson, ed. Unity and Diversity in the
Church: Papers Read at the 1994 Summer Meeting, and the 1995 Winter Meeting of the
Ecclesiastical History Society. Cambridge: Blackwell, 399–426.
——. 2001. ‘Christian Missions and the Enlightenment: A Reevaluation’, in: Brian
Stanley, ed. Christian Missions and the Enlightenment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1–21.
Stock, Eugene. 1899. The History of the Church Missionary Society: Its Environment, Its
Men and Its Work. 4 vols. London: Church Missionary Society.
Sugirtharajah, Rasiah S. 2005. Bible and Empire: Postcolonial Explorations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Suntharalingam, R. 1974. Politics and Nationalist Awakening in South India, 1852–1891.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Surguner, Samuel. 1883. Bishop Caldwell and the Tinnevelly Shanars. Palamcottah: Pillai.
Thangaraj, M. Thomas. 1971. ‘The History and Teachings of the Hindu Christian
Community Commonly Called Nattu Sabai in Tirunelveli’, Indian Church History
Review 5: 43–67.
Thompson, Henry Paget. 1951. Into All Lands: The History of the Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 1701–1950. London: SPCK.
Tucker, Sara. 1848. South Indian Sketches: Containing a Short Account of Some of the
Missionary Stations, Connected with the Church Missionary Society in Southern India,
in Letters to a Young Friend. Part One: Madras and Mayaveram. Part Two: Tinnevelly,
Travancore Etc. 2 vols. 3rd ed. London: James Nisbet.
Vaitheespara, Ravindiran. 1998. Caste, Hybridity and the Construction of Cultural Identity
in Colonial India: Maraimalai Adigal and the Intellectual Genealogy of Dravidian
Nationalism, 1800–1950. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Toronto.
——. 2000. ‘Discourses of Empowerment: Missionary Orientalism in the Develoment of
Dravidian Nationalism’, in: Timothy Brook and Andre Schmid, eds. Nation Work: Asian
Elites and National Identity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 51–82.
——. 2006. ‘Christianity, Missionary Orientalism and the Origins of Tamil Modernity’, in:
Andreas Gross, ed. Halle and the Beginning of Protestant Christianity in India; Vol. 2:
Christian Mission in the Indian Context. Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen,
973–1017.
Wyatt, Joseph L., ed. 1894. Reminiscences of Bishop Caldwell. Madras: Addison & Co.

No Religion But Ritual Robert Caldwell A PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No Religion But Ritual Robert Caldwell A PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

No Religion But Ritual Robert Caldwell A PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ritual, Caste, and Religion

in Colonial South India

Edited by Michael Bergunder,

Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle

No religion, but ritual?

When the Bishop of Madras, George Trevor Spencer (1799–1866),

Hindrances to the Progress of Christianity Amongst Them.3 Although

The context: The reorganisation of mission in Tirunelveli

The development of the missionary movement in Great Britain had led

had been only occasionally visited by European missionaries. This led to

larger groups of Shanars / Nadars, including whole families and villages,

in Tirunelveli led to a form of early Hindu-Christian communalism.18 The

Tinnevelly Shanars, was part of the SPG policy to disseminate knowledge

The book, “The Tinnevelly Shanars: A Sketch of Their Religion and

The Tinnevelly Shanars (1849)

Theories of religion were never absent in the observation of local reli-

to be clearly separated from “Brahmanism”, which was, for Caldwell,

Caldwell’s strategy, to construct demonolatry as a cohesive system, is

in South India.51 It is interesting that, in his article on “Demonolatry in

missionaries.55 Although he gives the typical rationalistic explanation,

Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of

absence of any ethical consciousness (“morals”).65 However, the fact that

of Tinnevelly”.78 This enabled him to incorporate the theory of

Casting and re-casting the Shanars:

In missionary circles, in India as well as in Britain, Caldwell’s book was

As already mentioned, the general resistance to missionary activities

Sattampillai’s agenda.86 Sattampillai understood his Hindu Christianity as

degraded condition. ... Every writer ventures to call the Shanars an

Appasamy, Paul. 1923. Centenary History of the C. M. S. In Tinnevelly. Palamcottah:

Chidester, David. 1996. Savage Systems: Colonialism and Comparative Religion in

You might also like