But over and above these vague generalisations, we know it for a fact that the Brahma leaders in India like Partap Chandra Mazumdar, Siva Nath Shastri, including Keshab Chandra Sen himself, were in constant touch through correspondence and study of their literature, with Professor Max Muller, of Oxford, and notably with Unitarian leaders like Charles Voysey, Edward Carpenter, William Ellery Channing of America, and the late Dr. Stopford Brooke of London. In fact Charles Voysey, whose violent and at times irresponsible, polemic against Christianity made him notorious and cost him his incumbency, used to warn Keshab Chandra Sen that he was shivering on the perilous brink of Christian decision,and Professor Max Milner would tell P. C. Mozoomdar that he had better continue as an enlightened, fully-emancipated Hindu rather than formally seek initiation into the Christian Church.
We thus see that the cross-currents of modern thought had mingled their waters with the stream of eclectic tendencies that produced the Samaj on Hindu foundations. During an epoch, when advanced Christian thinkers in England were seeking for emancipation from the narrow formula of the Church and its stern dogmatism, that tended to suppress the demands of reason and stifle the dictates of conscience, it is interesting to note that in India there was a parallel revolt against the hide-bound conventions of rigid, lifeless Hinduism of the orthodox type. There was much give-and-take between Christianity and Hinduism without the one absolutely dominating the other.
It is very uncharitable to sit in judgment on a great man, by reason of one solitary blunder or error of judgment on his part. And we shall not attempt to do so. But the failing of Keshab Chandra Sen centred round a vital principle of reform which was mainly secured through his constant and strenuous agitation. And when the fateful moment came, when his sincerity of faith in the Reform secured could be put to the test, he hesitated and yielded to adverse pressure. We do not, for a moment, suggest that this fiasco materially detracts from his great and splendid qualities as reformer, missionary enthusiast and man of prayer. We are referring to this incident which led to a violent division of counsels, and to the storm it raised as evidence of the uncompromising spirit of the young party of progress and reform.
The young prince of Cooch-Behar was about to be sent to England. It was considered wise by the British Resident and others that he should be married to some girl, socially well-connected and refined.
Every eye looked to Keshab's daughter, who was well-educated, but was only twelve years of age.
The Brahmo Marriage Act required that no marriages be solemnised and considered valid until the boy was sixteen and the girl fourteen years of age. Keshab also knew that the prince of Cooch-Behar might contract polygamous alliances, even though he solemnly declared he would not do so. There were, further, no guarantees that idolatrous rites would not be observed during the ceremony of marriage, and in fact, these were practised, though, be it said to the credit of Keshab, that both he and his daughter withdrew when Hindu ceremonial was being intro duced. Of course, there is this to be said in favour of Sen, that the marriage was not to be consummated before the return of the prince from England, by which time the girl would have attained maturity. But trivial though the incident might seem if connected with some ordinary man, in Keshab, it was considered as a symptom of his moral break-down. His courageous spirit that defied conventions, his championship of unpopular causes, and his unique position as leader had raised high hopes in his followers, who expected him to rise superior to the solicitations of circumstance. But human nature is frail, and we see no reason why Keshab should be singled out for invective and diatribe, when greater men than he have succumbed to similar temptations.
This incident greatly weakened his position, though he survived it all, by sheer force of character and out standing ability, and till his death in January, 1884, retained unchallenged supremacy in the Samaj.
But towards the end, his career was rather dis appointing. As his influence grew, his followers showed him respect and veneration bordering on idolatrous homage. We have it, on undisputed authority, that he sternly rebuked these sycophantic tendencies among his followers. But the sphinx eyed vigilance of critics and even friends suggested approbation of unbridled flattery and effusive compliments. Nor was Keshab much to blame. He towered head and shoulders above his contem poraries, and as such respect and even homage were his bare due. In every country in the world, including those well-known for progress and democracy, conspicuous leaders have a way of being regarded as " tin gods." More so, would this obtain in India, where people are naturally hero-worshippers, and have erected many a noble shrine in honour of great men. The ineradicable instincts of the people lead them to believe that great men are gods. We are not approving of Keshab-worship, only venturing an explanation of what happens, very nearly in all countries, in regard to great men either truly great or enjoying fictitious or spurious greatness.