# Isvar Chandra Vidyasagar, a story of his life and work/Chapter 31

CHAPTER XXXI.
The Shoe Question.
On the 28th January, 1874, Vidyasagar, having an occasion to visit the Library of the Asiatic Society, proceeded to the place, accompanied by Haris Chandra, the celebrated Hindi poet of Benares (since deceased), and Surendra Nath Banarji, a son of Raj Krishna Banarji, who wanted to see the Indian Museum. It is needless to say that, at that time, the two institutions were located in one and the same building in Park Street. Vidyasagar was clothed, as usual with him, in a plain Dhuti and Chadar with a pair of native slippers covering his feet. Haris Chandra was dressed in accordance with the modern style of civilization, clothing his legs with trousers, his body with Choga and Chapkan, his head with a Pagri, and covering ​his feet with a pair of English-made shoes. Surendra Nath was also very fashionably clothed. When they arrived at the gates of the building, Vidyasagar was prevented by the porter to enter into the rooms; he was told to leave his shoes behind, as an Uriya like him could not be permitted to go in with his native slippers on. His two companions were allowed to go in without objection. Vidyasagar felt himself quite affronted, but thought fit not to utter a word of remonstrance. He at once left the place and stepped into his carriage, that was waiting outside the gates. No sooner did the news of the incident reach the ears of Babu Pratap Chandra Ghosh, the Assistant Secretary to the Asiatic Society, than he ran with all haste to Vidyasagar, and urgently requested him to come in, but our hero was a man of strong mind, and refused to re-enter the building, until he received a satisfactory reply to his letter, which, he said, he would soon write to the authorities. He then returned home, followed by his two companions.
On the 5th February, he addressed to the Secretary to the Trustees to the Indian Museum a long letter, some portions of which are quoted below:—
"H. F. Blanford Esqr.
"Indian Museum."
"Sir,
"Having had occasion to visit the library of ​the Asiatic Society of Bengal, I called on the 28th January last, and as I wore native shoes, I was not admitted, unless I would leave my shoes behind. I felt so much affronted that I came back without an expostulation.
"Whilst I was in the compound, I saw that native visitors, wearing native shoes, were made not only to uncover their feet, but also to carry their shoes with their own hands, though there were some upcountry people moving about in the museum-rooms with their shoes on. **** "Besides, if persons so wearing shoes of the English pattern, though coming on foot, could be admitted with shoes on, I could not make out why persons of the same status in life and under similar circumstances should not be admitted, simply because they happened to wear native shoes. ****
"I have &c., (Sd). "Isvar Chandra Sarma,
5-2-74."
The Secretary to the Trustees to the Museum forwarded Vidyasagar's letter to the Honorary Secretary to the Asiatic Society on the 26th March, and on the same day informed Vidyasagar of his having done so. In fact, there was much red tape spent on the subject, but the authorities found no cause of complaint in the treatment accorded to Vidyasagar, and they dismissed the ​subject. This was what the Hindoo Patriot of the 26th July, 1874, said on the subject:—
"The great shoe question has turned up in quite an unexpected quarter—we mean in the rooms of the Asiatic Society. We have much pleasure in transcribing the following from the Englishman on the subject:—
'We understand that the great shoe question has again come to the front and is occupying the attention of no less distinguished a body than the Council of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Pundit Ishwur Chunder Vidyasagar, a native gentleman of learning, modesty and merits, who has rendered inestimable services to his fellow countrymen and whose reputation extends far beyond the bounds of Asia, complains that he is not allowed to enter the rooms of the Asiatic Society with his shoes—native shoes—on, and the Council does not know precisely how to act in the matter. We can see but one course sufficiently dignified for the successors of Jones and Colebrooke—viz. to abstain from laying down, or in the remotest degree countenancing, a petty regulation which will fetter the usefulness of the Society, discourage the resort to it of eminent persons of the Pundit's stamp, render it the laughing stock of Europe. A learned Society is the last body in the world that should revive obsolete caste distinctions and if, as in duty bound, it seeks to counterbalance an oppressive rule on one side by making an oppressive rule on the ​other. We shall see many an unseemly fracas between the servants of the Society and scientic gentlemen who insist on the right of entering the rooms with their hats on,—a practice which is more unseemly because more conspicuous than the practice of wearing shoes.'
"The facts of the case, we believe, are these:—About three or four months ago, one day Pundit Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, accompanied by a native friend from the North-west, went to the Indian Museum located in the Asiatic Society's building and was asked by the porters to leave his shoes at the portico, or rather to take off his shoes and keep them in his own hand if he wanted to go in. To this he did not of course consent, returned home, wrote a letter to the trustees of the museum enquiring as to whether they have passed any rule of the kind and observing if such a rule has been passed it would deter respectable native gentlemen, who wore shoes of the native pattern, from visiting the institution. He also wrote to the Council of the Asiatic Society that if the museum authorities enforced such a rule it would discourage respectable Pundits who like him wore native shoes from visiting Society's library—in as much as both the institutions were located in the same building. The museum authorities replied that they had not passed any such rule on the subject, but did not say whether they would pass any order for the discontinuance of the practice. ​They also seemed to doubt whether the complaint applied to their servants. The Council of the Asiatic Society went farther and wrote to the Pundit in reply that native gentlemen ought to know the Indian etiquette in the matter. The Pundit, we learn, has sent rejoinders to the both. To the trustees of the museum he has written to say—'It was the servants of the museum, as he had distinctly stated in his first letter, who had required him to take off his shoes.' To the Council of the Society he has explained that the Indian custom is not to take off the shoes as a mark of respect, that the Indians do not leave their shoes behind in visiting each other if they are seated in rooms furnished with chairs, but that they do so when they sit on the Farash or carpet for their own comfort and convenience. The question is accordingly pending before the trustees of the Museum and the Council of the Asiatic Society. We are really surprised that the above question should be raised in institutions where above all others no invidious race distinctions should be made. The Museum is a place of public resort like a park or a public garden, and would a European gentleman think of taking off his hat at such a place, and if not why should a native be required to put off his shoes there. As for the Asiatic Society, it is the last place where the badge of racial degradation should be insisted upon. There men of all classes resort to cultivate ​science, that is not a place for raising social questions on which it is notorious the natives are keenly and justly sensitive. The shoe question had one time assumed by no means a pleasant political character, and the highest authority in the land wisely decided that it should not be allowed to interfere with the social relations of the people with their rulers. It is said that Government order does not apply to native shoes. We do not understand what occult meaning is there in this distinction. If the leaving the shoes behind is a mark of respect, it matters little whether the shoes are of the European or the native pattern. But if there is a mark of respect attached to the leather, it is immaterial as to what form the leather may take. We hope the Council of the Asiatic Society and the trustees of the Museum will have the good sense not to make native gentlemen feel that to enter their rooms is to court insult."