Essays on Untouchables and Untouchability: Religious _______________________________________________________________
Contents
Chapter 1 : Away from the Hindus
Chapter 2 : Caste and conversion
Chapter 3 : Christianizing
the untouchables
Chapter 4 : The condition of the convert
Religious
(1) Hinduism as a Missionary Religion.
(2) Christianising the Untouchables.
(3) The Condition of the Convert.
(4) The Eternal Verity.
(5) The Untouchables and Their
Destiny. From these essays, Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 have been received from Shri S. S. Rege and Sr. No. I has
been found in our papers under the title ' Caste
and Conversion ', which was originally published in
the Telagu Samachar Special
No. of November 1926. One more typed essay entitled "Away from the Hindus ", which also deals with religious conversion of
the Untouchables, has been found and included in this Book. Rest of the titles
mentioned in the above scheme have not been found.)
AWAY FROM THE HINDUS
A large majority of Untouchables who have reached a capacity to think out their problem believe that one way to solve the problem of the Untouchables is for them to abandon Hinduism and be converted to some other religion. At a Conference of the Mahars held in Bombay on 31st May 1936 a resolution to this effect was unanimously passed. Although the Conference was a Conference of the Mahars1, the resolution had the support of a very large body of Untouchables throughout India. No resolution had created such a stir. The Hindu community was shaken to its foundation and curses imprecations and threats were uttered against the Untouchables who were behind this move.
Four principal objections have been urged by the
opponents against the conversion of the Untouchables:
(1) What can the Untouchables gain by
conversion? Conversion can make no change in the status of the Untouchables.
(2) All religions are true, all
religions are good. To change religion is a futility.
(3) The conversion of the Untouchables
is political in its nature.
(4) The conversion of the Untouchables
is not genuine as it is not based on faith.
It cannot take much argument to demonstrate that
the objections are puerile and inconsequential.
To take the last objection first. History abounds
with cases where conversion has taken place without any religious motive. What
was the
1[f1] The Conference was confined to Mahars
because the intention was to test the intensity of feeling communitywise and to
take soundings from each community.
The typed pages with Sr. Nos. from 279 to 342 have been found in this script which is titled as Chapter XX under the heading 'Away from the Hindus nature of its conversion of Clovis and his subjects to Christianity? How did Ethelbert and his Kentish subjects become Christians? Was there a religious motive which led them to accept the new religion? Speaking on the nature of conversions to Christianity that had taken place during the middle ages Rev. Reichel says:[f2]
" One after another the nations of
Europe are converted to the faith; their conversion is seen always to proceed
from above, never from below. Clovis yields to the bishop Remigius and forthwith he is followed by the Baptism
of 3,000 Franks. Ethelbert yields to the mission of Augustine and forthwith all
Kent follows his example; when his son Eadbald
apostatises, the men of Kent apostatise with him. Essex is finally won by the conversion of King Sigebert, who under the influence of another king, Oswy, allows himself to be baptised. Northumberland is
temporarily gained by the conversion of its king, Edwin, but falls away as soon
as Edwin is dead. It anew accepts the faith, when another king, Oswald,
promotes its diffusion. In the conversion of Germany, a bishop, Boniface, plays
a prominent part, in close connection with the princes of the country, Charles Martel and Pepin; the
latter, in return for his patronage receiving at Soissons
the Church's sanction to a violent act of usurpation. Denmark is gained by the
conversion of its kings, Herald Krag, Herald Blastand and Canute, Sweden by that of the two Olofs; and Russian, by the conversion of its
sovereign, Vladimir. Everywhere Christianity addresses itself first to kings and princes; everywhere the bishops and
abbots appear as its only representatives.
Nor was this all, for where a king had once been
gained, no obstacle by the Mediaeval missionaries to the immediate
indiscriminate baptism of his subjects. Three thousand warriors of Clovis
following the example of their king, were at once admitted to the sacred rite;
the subjects of Ethelbert were baptised in numbers after the conversion of
their prince, without preparation, and with hardly any instruction. The Germans
only were less hasty in following the example of others. In Russia, so great
was the number of those who crowded to be baptised after the baptism of
Vladimir, that the sacrament had to be administered to hundreds at a time."
History records cases where conversion has taken place as a result of
compulsion or deceit.
Today religion has become a piece of ancestral
property. It passes from father to son so does inheritance. What genuineness is
there in such cases of conversion? The conversion
of the Untouchables if it did take place would take after full deliberation of
the value of religion and the virtue of the different religions. How can such a
conversion be said to be not a genuine conversion? On the other hand, it would
be the first case in history of genuine conversion. It is therefore difficult to understand why the genuineness of the
conversion of the Untouchables should be doubted by anybody.
The third objection is an ill-considered
objection. What political gain will accrue to the Untouchables from their
conversion has been defined by nobody. If there is a political gain, nobody has
proved that it is a direct inducement to conversion.
The opponents of conversion do not even seem to
know that a distinction has to be made between a gain being a direct inducement
to conversion and its being only an incidental advantage. This distinction
cannot be said to be a distinction without a difference. Conversion may result
in a political gain to the Untouchables. It is only where a gain is a direct
inducement that conversion could be condemned as immoral or criminal. Unless
therefore the opponents of conversion prove that the conversion desired by the
Untouchables is for political gain and for nothing else their accusation is
baseless. If political gain is only an incidental gain then there is nothing
criminal in conversion. The fact, however, is that conversion can bring no new
political gain to the Untouchables. Under the constitutional law of India every
religious community has got the right to separate political safeguards. The
Untouchables in their present condition enjoy political rights similar to those
which are enjoyed by the Muslims and the Christians. If they change their faith
the change is not to bring into existence political rights which did not exist
before. If they do not change they will retain the political rights which they
have. Political gain has no connection with conversion. The charge is a wild
charge made without understanding.
The second objection rests on the premise that
all religions teach the same thing. It is from the premise that a conclusion is
drawn that since all religions teach the same thing there is no reason to
prefer one religion to other. It may be conceded that all religions agree in
holding that the meaning of life is to be found in the pursuit of ' good '. Up to this point
the validity of the premise may be conceded. But when the premise goes beyond
and asserts that because of this there is no reason to prefer one religion to
another it becomes a false premise.
Religions may be alike in that they all teach
that the meaning of life is to be found in the pursuit of ' good '. But
religions are not alike in their answers to the question 'What is good?' In this
they certainly differ. One religion holds that brotherhood is good, another
caste and untouchability is good.
There is another respect in which all religions
are not alike. Besides being an authority which defines what is good, religion
is a motive force for the promotion and spread of the '
good '. Are all religions agreed in the means and
methods they advocate for the promotion and spread of good? As pointed out by
Prof. Tiele[f3], religion is:
" One of the mightiest motors in the
history of mankind, which formed as well as tore asunder nations, united as
well as divided empires, which sanctioned the most atrocious and barbarous
deeds, the most libinous customs, inspired the most admirable acts of heroism, self renunciation, and
devotion, which occasioned the most sanguinary wars, rebellions and
persecutions, as well as brought about the freedom, happiness and peace of
nations—at one time a partisan of tyranny, at another breaking its chains, now
calling into existence and fostering a new and brilliant civilization, then the
deadly foe to progress, science and art."
Apart from these oscillations there are permanent
differences in the methods of promoting good as they conceive it. Are there not
religions which advocate violence ? Are there not
religions which advocate nonviolence ? Given these
facts how can it be said that all religions are the same and there is no reason
to prefer one to the other.
In raising the second objection the Hindu is
merely trying to avoid an examination of Hinduism on its merits. It is an
extraordinary thing that in the controversy over conversion not a single Hindu
has had the courage to challenge the Untouchables to say what is wrong with
Hinduism. The Hindu is merely taking shelter under the attitude generated by
the science of comparative religion. The science of comparative religion has
broken down the arrogant claims of all revealed religions that they alone are
true and all others which are not the results of revelation are false. That
revelation was too arbitrary, too capricious test to be accepted for
distinguishing a true religion from a false was undoubtedly a great service
which the science of comparative religion has rendered to the cause of
religion. But it must be said to the discredit of that science that it has
created the general impression that all religions are good and there is no use
and purpose in discriminating them.
The first objection is the only objection which
is worthy of serious consideration. The objection proceeds on the assumption
that religion is a purely personal matter between man and God. It is
supernatural. It has nothing to do with social. The argument is no doubt
sensible. But its foundations are quite false. At any rate, it is a one-sided view
of religion and that too based on aspects of religion which are purely
historical and not fundamental.
To understand the function and purposes of
religion it is necessary to separate religion from theology. The primary things
in religion are the usages, practices and observances, rites and rituals.
Theology is secondary. Its object is merely to nationalize them. As stated by
Prof. Robertson Smith :[f4]
" Ritual and practical usages were,
strictly speaking the sum total of ancient religions. Religion in primitive
times was not a system of belief with practical applications; it was a body of
fixed traditional practices, to which every member of society conformed as a
matter of courage, Men would not be men if they agreed to do certain things
without having a reason for their action; but in ancient religion the reason
was not first formulated as a doctrine and then expressed in practice, but
conversely, practice preceded doctrinal theory."
Equally necessary it is not to think of religion
as though if was super-natural. To overlook the fact that the primary content
of religion is social is to make nonsense of religion. The Savage society was
concerned with life and the preservation of life and it is these life processes
which constitute the substance and source of the religion of the Savage
society. So great was the concern of the Savage society for life and the
preservation of life that it made them the basis of its religion. So central
were the life processes in the religion of the Savage society that every thing
which affected them became part of its religion. The ceremonies of the Savage
society were not only concerned with the events of birth, attaining of manhood,
puberty, marriage, sickness, death and war but they were also concerned with
food.
Among the pastoral peoples the flocks and herds
are sacred. Among agricultural peoples seedtime and harvest are marked by
ceremonies performed with some reference to the growth and the preservation of
the crops. Likewise drought, pestilence, and other strange irregular phenomena
of nature occasion the performance of ceremonials. As pointed out by Prof. Crawley, the religion of the savage begins and ends
with the affirmation and consecration of life.
In life and preservation of life therefore
consists the religion of the savage. What is true of the religion of the savage
is true of all religions wherever they are found for the simple reason that
constitutes the essence of religion. It is true that in the present day society
with its theological refinements this essence of religion has become hidden
from view and is even forgotten. But that life and the preservation of life
constitute the essence of religion even in the present day society is beyond
question. This is well illustrated by Prof. Crawley, when speaking of the
religious life of man in the present day society he says how:
"man's religion does not enter into his
professional or social hours, his scientific or artistic moments; practically
its chief claims are settled on one day in the week from which ordinary worldly concerns are excluded. In fact, his life is in
two parts; but the moiety with which religion is
concerned is the elemental. Serious thinking on ultimate questions of life and
death is, roughly speaking, the essence of his Sabbath; add to this the habit
of prayer, the giving of thanks at meals, and the subconscious feeling that
birth and death, continuation and marriage are rightly solemnized by religion,
while business and pleasure may possibly be consecrated, but only metaphorically or by an overflow of religious
feeling." Students of the origin and history of religion when they began
their study of the Savage society became so much absorbed in the magic, the
tabu and totem and the rites and ceremonies connected therewith they found in
the Savage society that they not only overlooked the social processes of the
savage as the primary content of religion but they failed even to appreciate
the proper function of magic and other supernatural processes. This was a great
mistake and has cost all concerned in religion very dearly. For it is
responsible for the grave misconception about religion[f5] which prevails today among most
people. Nothing can be a greater error than to explain religion as having arisen
in magic or being concerned only in magic for magic sake. It is true that
Savage society practises magic, believes in tabu and worships the totem. But it
is wrong to suppose that these constitute the religion or form the source of
religion. To take such a view is to elevate what is incidental to the position
of the principal. The principal thing in the religion of the savage are the
elemental facts of human existence such as life, death, birth, marriage, etc.,
magic, tabu and totem are not the ends. They are only the means. The end is
life and the preservation of life. Magic, tabu, etc. are resorted to by the
Savage society not for their own sake but to conserve life and to exercise evil
influence from doing harm to life. Why should such occasions as harvest and
famine be accompanied by religious ceremonies ? Why
are magic, tabu and totem of such importance to the savage ? The only answer is that they all affect the
preservation of life. The process of life and its preservation form the main
purpose. Life and preservation of life is the core and centre of the religion
of the Savage society. That today God has taken the place of magic, does not
alter the fact that God's place in religion is only as a means for the
conservation of life and that the end of religion is the conservation and
consecration of social life.
The point to which it is necessary to draw
particular attention and to which the foregoing discussion lends full support
is that it is an error to look upon religion as a matter which is individual,
private and personal. Indeed as will be seen from what follows, religion
becomes a source of positive mischief if not danger when it remains individual,
private and personal. Equally mistaken is the view that religion is the
flowering of special religious instinct inherent in the nature of the
individual. The correct view is that religion like language is social for the
reason that either is essential for social life and the individual has to have
it because without it he cannot participate in the life of the society.
If religion is social in the sense that it
primarily concerns society, it would be natural to ask what is the purpose and
function of religion.
The best statement regarding the purpose of
religion which I have come across is that of Prof. Charles A Ellwood[f6]. According to him:
" religion projects the essential
values of human personality and of human society into the universe as a whole.
It inevitably arises as soon as man tries to take valuing attitude toward his universe,
no matter how small and mean that universe may appear to him. Like all the
distinctive things in human, social and mental life, it of course, rests upon
the higher intellectual powers of man. Man is the only religious animal,
because through his powers of abstract thought and reasoning, he alone is
self-conscious in the full sense of that term. Hence he alone is able to
project his values into the universe and finds necessity of so doing. Given, in
other words, the intellectual powers of man, the mind at once seeks to universalise its values as well as its ideas. Just as
rationalizing processes give man a world of universal ideas, so religious
processes give man a world of universal values. The religious processes are,
indeed, nothing but the rationalizing processes at work upon man's impulses and
emotions rather than upon his precepts. What the reason does for ideas,
religion does, then, for the feelings. It universalizes
them; and in universalizing them, it brings them
into harmony with the whole of reality."
Religion emphasizes, universalizes social values
and brings them to the mind of the individual who is required to recognize them
in all his acts in order that he may function as an approved member of the
society. But the purpose of religion is more than this. It spiritualizes them.
As pointed out by Prof. Ellwood :[f7]
"Now these mental and social values, with
which religion deals, men call 'spiritual'. It is something which emphasizes as we may say,
spiritual values, that is, the values connected especially with the personal
and social life. It projects these values, as we have seen, into the universal
reality. It gives man a social and moral conception of the universe, rather
than a merely mechanical one as a theatre of the play of blind, purposeless
forces. While religion is not primarily animistic
philosophy, as has often been said, nevertheless it does project mind, spirit,
life, into all things. Even the most primitive religion did this; for in ' primitive dynamism '
there was a feeling of the psychic, in such concepts as mana or manitou.
They were closely connected with persons and proceeded from person, or things
which were viewed in an essentially personal way. Religion, therefore, is a
belief in the reality of spiritual values, and projects them, as we have said,
into the whole universe. All religion—even so-called atheistic
religions—emphasizes the spiritual, believes in its dominance, and looks to its
ultimate triumph." The function of religion in society is equally clear.
According to Prof. Ellwood1[f8] the function of religion: " is to act as an agency of social
control, that is, of the group
controlling the life of the individual, for what
is believed to be the good of the larger life of the group. Very early, as we
have seen, any beliefs and practices which gave expression to personal feelings
or values of which the group did not approve were branded as ' black magic ' or
baleful superstitions; and if this had not been done it is evident that the
unity of the life of the group might have become seriously impaired. Thus the
almost necessarily social character of religion stands revealed. We cannot have
such a thing as purely personal or individual religion which is not at the same
time social. For we live a social life and the welfare of the group is, after
all, the chief matter of concern." Dealing with the same question in
another place, he says[f9]:
" the function of religion is the same
as the function of Law and Government. It is a means by which society exercises
its control over the conduct of the individual in order to maintain the social
order. It may not be used consciously as a method of social control over the
individual. Nonetheless the fact is that religion acts as a means of social
control. As compared to religion, Government and Law are relatively inadequate
means of social control. The control through law and order does not go deep
enough to secure the stability of the social order. The religious sanction, on
account of its being supernatural has been on the other hand the most effective
means of social control, far more effective than law and Government have been
or can be. Without the support of religion, law and Government are bound to
remain a very inadequate means of social control. Religion
is the most powerful force of social gravitation without which it would be
impossible to hold the social order in its orbit."
The foregoing discussion, although it was
undertaken to show that religion is a social fact, that religion has a specific
social purpose and a definite social function it was intended to prove that it
was only proper that a person if he was required to accept a religion should
have the right to ask how well it has served the purposes which belong to
religion. This is the reason why Lord Balfour was justified in putting some very
straight-questions to the positivists before he
could accept Positivism to be superior to Christianity. He asked in quite trenchent language.
" what has (positivism) to say to the
more obscure multitude who are absorbed, and well nigh overwhelmed, in the
constant struggle with daily needs and narrow cares; who have but little
leisure or inclination to consider the precise role they are called on to play
in the great drama of 'humanity' and who might in any case be puzzled to discover its
interest or its importance? Can it assure them that there is no human being so
insignificant as not to be of infinite worth in the eyes of Him who created the
Heavens, or so feeble but that his action may have consequences of infinite moment long after this material system shall
have crumbled into nothingness? Does it offer consolation to those who are
bereaved, strength to the weak, forgiveness to the sinful, rest to those who are
weary and heavy laden?"
The Untouchables can very well ask the
protagonists of Hinduism the very questions which Lord Balfour asked the
Positivists. Nay the Untouchables can ask many more. They can ask: Does
Hinduism recognize their worth as human beings? Does it stand for their
equality? Does it extend to them the benefit of liberty ? Does it at least help to forge the bond of
fraternity between them and the Hindus? Does it teach the Hindus that the
Untouchables are their kindred? Does it say to the Hindus it is a sin to treat
the Untouchables as being neither man nor beast ? Does it tell the Hindus to be righteous to the
Untouchables ? Does it preach to the Hindus to be
just and humane to them ? Does it inculcate upon
the Hindus the virtue of being friendly to them ?
Does it tell the Hindus to love them, to respect them and to do them no wrong.
In fine, does Hinduism universalize the value of
life without distinction?
No Hindu can dare to give an affirmative answer
to any of these questions? On the contrary the wrongs to which the Untouchables
are subjected by the Hindus are acts which are sanctioned by the Hindu
religion. They are done in the name of Hinduism and are justified in the name
of Hinduism. The spirit and tradition which makes lawful the lawlessness of the
Hindus towards the Untouchables is founded and supported by the teachings of
Hinduism. How can the Hindus ask the Untouchables accept Hinduism and stay in
Hinduism? Why should the Untouchables adhere to Hinduism which is solely
responsible for their degradation? How can the Untouchables stay in Hinduism? Untouchability is the lowest depth to which the
degradation of a human being can be
carried. To be poor is bad but not so bad as to be an Untouchable. The poor can
be proud. The Untouchable cannot be. To be reckoned low is bad but it is not so
bad as to be an Untouchable. The low can rise above his status. An Untouchable
cannot. To be suffering is bad but not so bad as to be an Untouchable. They
shall some day be comforted. An Untouchable cannot hope for this. To have to be
meek is bad but it is not so bad as to be an Untouchable. The meek if they do
not inherit the earth may at least be strong. The Untouchables cannot hope for
that.
In Hinduism there is no hope for the
Untouchables. But this is not the only reason why the Untouchables wish to quit
Hinduism. There is another reason which makes it imperative for them to quit
Hinduism. Untouchability is a part of Hinduism. Even those who for the sake of
posing as enlightened reformers deny that untouchability is part of Hinduism
are to observe untouchability. For a Hindu to believe in Hinduism does not
matter. It enhances his sense of superiority by the reason of this
consciousness that there are millions of Untouchables below him. But what does
it mean for an Untouchable to say that he believes in Hinduism? It means that
he accepts that he is an Untouchable and that he is an Untouchable is the
result of Divine dispensation. For Hinduism is divine dispensation. An
Untouchable may not cut the throat of a Hindu. But he cannot be expected to
give an admission that he is an Untouchable and rightly so. Which Untouchable
is there with soul so dead as to give such an admission by adhering to
Hinduism. That Hinduism is inconsistent with the self-respect and honour of the
Untouchables is the strongest ground which justifies the conversion of the
Untouchables to another and nobler faith.
The opponents of conversion are determined not to
be satisfied even if the logic of conversion was irrefutable. They will insist
upon asking further questions. There is one question which they are always
eager to ask largely because they think it is formidable and unanswerable; what
will the Untouchables gain materially by changing their faith? The question is
not at all formidable. It is simple to answer. It is not the intention of the
Untouchables to make conversion an opportunity for economic gain. The
Untouchables it is true will not gain wealth by conversion. This is however no
loss because while they remain as Hindus they are doomed to be poor.
Politically the Untouchables will lose the political rights that are given to
the Untouchables. This is, however, no real loss. Because they will be entitled
to the benefit of the political rights reserved for the community which they
would join through conversion. Politically there is neither gain nor loss.
Socially, the Untouchables will gain absolutely and immensely because by
conversion the Untouchables will be members of a community whose religion has universalized and equalized all values of life. Such a
blessing is unthinkable for them while they are in the Hindu fold.
The answer is complete. But by reason of its
brevity it is not likely to give satisfaction to the opponents of conversion. The
Untouchables need three things. First thing they need is to end their social
isolation. The second thing they need is to end their inferiority complex. Will
conversion meet their needs? The opponents of conversion have a feeling that
the supporters of conversion have no case. That is why they keep on raising
questions. The case in favour of conversion is stronger than the strongest
case. Only one does wish to spend long arguments to prove what is so obvious.
But since it is necessary to put an end to all doubt, I am prepared to pursue
the matter. Let me take each point separately.
How can they end their social isolation? The one
and the only way to end their social isolation is for the Untouchables to
establish kinship with and get themselves incorporated into another community
which is free from the spirit of caste. The answer is quite simple and yet not
many will readily accept its validity. The reason is, very few people realize
the value and significance of kinship. Nevertheless its value and significance
are very great. Kinship and what it implies has been
described by Prof. Robertson
Smith in the following terms1[f10]:
"A kin was a group of persons whose lives
were so bound up together, in what must be called a physical unity, that they
could be treated as parts of one common life. The members of one kindred looked
on themselves as one living whole, a single animated mass of blood, flesh and
bones, of which no member could be touched without all the members
suffering."
The matter can be looked at from the point of
view both of the individual as well as from that of the group. From the point
of the group, kinship calls for a feeling that one is first and foremost a
member of the group and not merely an individual. From the point of view of the
individual, the advantages of his kinship with the group are no less and no
different than those which accrue to a member of the family by reason of his
membership of the family. Family life is characterized by parental tenderness.
As pointed out by Prof. McDougall [f11]:
" From this emotion (parental tenderness) and its impulse to cherish and protect, spring generosity, gratitude, love, pity, true benevolence, and altruistic conduct of every kind; in it they have their main and absolutely essential root, without which they would not be."
Community as distinguished from society is only
an enlarged family. As such it is characterised by all the virtues which are
found in a family and which have been so well described by Prof. McDougall.
Inside the community there is no discrimination
among those who are recognized as kindred bound by kinship. The community recognizes that every one within it is
entitled to all the rights equally with others. As Professors Dewey and Tufts have pointed out:
" A State may allow a citizen of
another country to own land, to sue in its courts, and will usually give him a
certain amount of protection, but the first-named
rights are apt to be limited, and it is only a few years since Chief Justice Taney's dictum stated the existing legal theory of the
United States to be that the Negro ' had no rights which the white man was
bound to respect'. Even where legal theory does not
recognize race or other distinctions, it is often hard in practice for an alien
to get justice. In primitive clan or family groups this principle is in full
force. Justice is a privilege which falls to a man as belonging to some
group—not otherwise. The member of the clan or the household or the village
community has a claim, but the Stranger has nothing standing. It may be treated
kindly, as a guest, but he cannot demand 'justice' at the hands of any group but his own. In this
conception of rights within the group we have the prototype of modern civil
law. The dealing of clan with clan is a matter of war or negotiation, not of
law; and the clanless man is an 'outlaw' in fact as well as in name."
Kinship makes the community take responsibility
for vindicating the wrong done to a member. Blood-flood which objectively
appears to be a savage method of avenging a wrong done to a member is subjectively speaking a manifestation of sympathetic
resentment by the members of the community for a wrong done to their fellow.
This sympathetic resentment is a compound of tender emotion and anger such as
those which issue out of parental tenderness when it comes face to face with a
wrong done to a child. It is kinship which generates, this sympathetic
resentment, this compound of tender emotion and anger. This is by no means a
small value to an individual. In the words of Prof. McDougall:
"This intimate alliance between tender
emotion and anger is of great importance for the social life of man, and the
right understanding of it is fundamental for a true theory of the moral
sentiments; for the anger evoked in this way is the germ of all moral
indignation and on moral indignation justice and the greater part of public law
are in the main founded."
It is kinship which generates generosity and
invokes its moral indignation which is necessary to redress a wrong. Kinship is
the will to enlist the support of the kindred community to meet the tyrannies
and oppressions by the Hindus which today the Untouchables have to bear
single-handed and alone. Kinship with another community is the best insurance which
the Untouchable can effect against Hindu tyranny and Hindu oppression.
Anyone who takes into account the foregoing
exposition of what kinship means and does, should have no difficulty in
accepting the proposition that to end their isolation the Untouchables must
join another community which does not recognise caste.
Kinship is the antithesis of isolation. For the
Untouchables to establish kinship with another community is merely another name
for ending their present state of isolation. Their isolation will never end so
long as they remain Hindus. As Hindus, their isolation hits them from front as
well as from behind. Notwithstanding their being Hindus, they are isolated from
the Muslims and the Christians because as Hindus they are aliens to all—Hindus as
well as Non-Hindus. This isolation can end only in one way and in no other way.
That way is for the Untouchables to join some non-Hindu community and thereby
become its kith and kin.
That this is not a meaningless move will be
admitted by all those who know the disadvantages of isolation and the
advantages of kinship. What are the consequences of isolation? Isolation means
social segregation, social humiliation, social discrimination and social
injustice. Isolation means denial of protection, denial of justice, denial of
opportunity. Isolation means want of sympathy, want of fellowship and want of
consideration. Nay, isolation means positive hatred and antipathy from the
Hindus. By having kinship with other community on the other hand, the
Untouchables will have within that community equal position, equal protection
and equal justice, will be able to draw upon its sympathy, its good-will.
This I venture to say is a complete answer to the
question raised by the opponents. It shows what the Untouchables can gain by
conversion. It is however desirable to carry the matter further and dispose of
another question which has not been raised so far by the opponents of
conversion but may be raised. The question is: why
is conversion necessary to establish kinship?
The answer to this question will reveal itself if
it is borne in mind that there is a difference between a community and a
society and between kinship and citizenship.
A community in the strict sense of the word is a
body of kindred. A society is a collection of many communities or of different
bodies of kindreds. The bond which holds a community together is called kinship
while the bond which holds a society together is called citizenship.
The means of acquiring citizenship in a society
are quite different from the means of acquiring kinship in a community.
Citizenship is acquired by what is called naturalization. The condition
precedent for citizenship is the acceptance of political allegiance to the
State. The conditions precedent for acquiring kinship are quite different. At
one stage in evolution of man the condition precedent for adoption into the
kindred was unity of blood. For the kindred is a body of persons who conceive
themselves as spring from one ancestor and as having in their veins one blood.
It does not matter whether each group has actually and in fact spring from a
single ancestor. As a matter of fact, a group did admit a stranger into the
kindred though he did not spring from the same ancestor. It is interesting to
note that there was a rule that if a stranger intermarried with a group for
seven generations, he became a member of the kindred. The point is that, fiction though it be,
admission into the kindred required as a condition precedent unity of
blood.
At a later stage of Man's Evolution, common
religion in place of unity of blood became a condition precedent to kinship. In
this connection it is necessary to bear in mind the important fact pointed out
by Prof. Robertson Smith[f12] that in a community the social body
is made not of men only, but of gods and men and therefore any stranger who
wants to enter a community and forge the bond of kinship can do so only by
accepting the God or Gods of the community. The Statement in the Old Testament
such as those of Naomi to Ruth saying: " Thy sister is
gone back into her people and unto her gods " and
Ruth's reply "Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God " or the calling of the Mobites
the sons and daughters of Chemosh are all evidences
which show that the bond of kinship in a community is the consequence of their
allegiance to a common religion. Without common religion there can be no
kinship.
Where people are waiting to find faults in the argument in favour of conversion it
is better to leave no ground for fault-finders to create doubt or
misunderstanding. It might therefore be well to explain how and in what manner
religion is able to forge the bond of kinship. The answer is simple. It does it
through eating and drinking together.[f13] The Hindus in defending their caste
system ridicule the plea for interdining. They ask: What is there in inter-dining? The answer from a sociological point of view is that is everything in
it. Kinship is a social covenant of brotherhood. Like all convenants it required to be signed, sealed and
delivered before it can become binding. The mode of signing, sealing and
delivery is the mode prescribed by religion and that mode is the participation
in a sacrificial meal. As said by Prof. Smith[f14]:
" What is the ultimate nature of the
fellowship which is constituted or declared when men eat and drink together? In
our complicated society fellowship has many types and many degrees; men may be united by bonds of duty and honour for
certain purposes, and stand quite apart in all other things. Even in ancient
times—for example, in the Old Testament—we find the
sacrament of a common meal introduced to seal engagements of various kinds. But
in every case the engagement is absolute and inviolable; it constitutes what in
the language of ethics is called a duty of perfect obligation. Now in the most
primitive society there is only one kind of fellowship which is absolute and
inviolable. To the primitive man all other men fall under two classes, those to
whom his life is sacred and those to whom it is not sacred. The former are his
fellows; the latter are strangers and potential foemen, with whom it is absurd to think of forming any
inviolable tie unless they are first brought into
the circle within which each man's life is sacred to all his comrades." If
for the Untouchables mere citizenship is not enough to put an end to their
isolation and the troubles which ensue therefrom, if kinship is the only cure
then there is no other way except to embrace the religion of the community
whose kinship they seek.
The argument so far advanced was directed to show
how conversion can end the problem of the isolation of the Untouchables. There
remain two other questions to be considered. One is, will conversion remove
their inferiority complex? One cannot of course dogmatize. But one can have no
hesitation in answering the question in the affirmative. The inferiority
complex of the Untouchables is the result of their isolation, discrimination
and the unfriendliness of the social environment. It is these which have
created a feeling of helplessness which are responsible for the inferiority
complex which cost him the power of self-assertion.
Can religion alter this psychology of the
Untouchables? The psychologists are of opinion that religion can effect this
cure provided it is a religion of the right type;
provided that the religion approaches the individual not as a degraded
worthless outcastes but as a fellow human being; provided religion gives him an
atmosphere in which he will find that there are
possibilities for feeling himself the equal of every other human being there is
no reason why conversion to such a religion by the Untouchables should not
remove their age-long pessimism which is responsible for their inferiority
complex. As pointed out by Prof. Ellwood :[f15]
"Religion is primarily a valuing attitude, universalizing the will and the emotions, rather than
the ideas of man. It thus harmonizes men, on the side of will and emotion, with
his world. Hence, it is the fee of pessimism and despair. It encourages hope,
and gives confidence in the battle of life, to the savage as well as to the
civilized man. It does so, as we have said, because it braces vital feeling; and psychologists tell us that the reason why it
braces vital feeling is because it is an adaptive process in which all of the
lower centres of life are brought to reinforce the higher centres. The universalization
of values means, in other words, in psycho-physical terms, that the lower nerve
centres pour their energies into the higher nerve centres, thus harmonizing and
bringing to a maximum of vital efficiency life on its inner side. It is thus
that religion taps new levels of energy, for meeting the crisis of life, while
at the same time it brings about a deeper harmony between the inner and the
outer."
Will conversion raise the general social status
of the Untouchables? It is difficult to see how there can be two opinions on
this question. The oft-quoted answer given by Shakespeare to the question what
is in a name hardly shows sufficient understanding of the problem of a name. A
rose called by another name would smell as sweet would be true if names served
no purpose and if people instead of depending upon names took the trouble of
examining each case and formed their opinions and attitudes about it on the
basis of their examination. Unfortunately, names serve a very important
purpose. They play a great part in social economy. Names are symbols. Each name
represents association of certain ideas and notions about a certain object. It
is a label. From the label people know what it is. It saves them the trouble of
examining each case individually and determine for themselves whether the ideas
and notions commonly associated with the object are true. People in society
have to deal with so many objects that it would be impossible for them to
examine each case. They must go by the name that is why all advertisers are
keen in finding a good name. If the name is not
attractive the article does not go down with the people.
The name 'Untouchable' is a bad name. It repels, forbids, and stinks. The
social attitude of the Hindu towards the Untouchable is determined by the very
name ' Untouchable '.
There is a fixed attitude towards 'Untouchables' which is determined by the stink which
is imbedded in the name ' Untouchable '. People have no mind to go into the
individual merits of each Untouchable no matter how meritorious he is. All
untouchables realize this. There is a general attempt to call themselves by
some name other than the 'Untouchables'. The Chamars call themselves Ravidas
or Jatavas. The Doms
call themselves Shilpakars. The Pariahs call
themselves Adi-Dravidas, the Madigas call themselves Arundhatyas,
the Mahars call themselves Chokhamela
or Somavamshi and the Bhangis
call themselves Balmikis. All of them if away from
their localities would call themselves Christians.
The Untouchables know that if they call
themselves Untouchables they will at once draw the Hindu out and expose
themselves to his wrath and his prejudice. That is why they give themselves
other names which may be likened to the process of undergoing protective discolouration.
It is not seldom that this discolouration
completely fails to serve its purpose. For to be a Hindu is for Hindus not an
ultimate social category. The ultimate social category is caste, nay sub-caste
if there is a sub-caste. When the Hindus meet ' May I know who are you ' is a
question sure to be asked. To this question ' I am a Hindu ' will not be a
satisfactory answer. It will certainly not be accepted as a final answer. The
inquiry is bound to be further pursued. The answer
' Hindu '
is bound to be followed by another; ' What caste ?'. The
answer to that is bound to be followed by question:
" What subcaste?" It is only when the
questioner reaches the ultimate social category which is either caste or
sub-caste that he will stop his questionings.
The Untouchable who adopts the new name is a
protective discolouration finds that the new name
does not help and that in the course of relentless questionings he is, so to
say, run down to earth and made to disclose that he is an Untouchable. The
concealment makes him the victim of greater anger than his original voluntary
disclosure would have done.
From this discussion two things are clear. One is
that the low status of the Untouchables is bound upon with a stinking name.
Unless the name is changed there is no possibility of a rise in their social
status. The other is that a change of name within Hinduism will not do. The
Hindu will not fail to penetrate through such a name and make the Untouchable
and confer himself as an Untouchable. The name matters and matters a great
deal. For, the name can make a revolution in the status of the Untouchables.
But the name must be the name of a community outside Hinduism and beyond its
power of spoilation and degradation. Such name can be the property of the
Untouchable only if they undergo religious conversion. A conversion by change
of name within Hinduism is a clandestine conversion which can be of no avail.
This discussion on conversion may appear to be
somewhat airy. It is bound to be so. It cannot become material unless it is
known which religion the Untouchables choose to accept. For what particular
advantage would flow from conversion would depend upon the religion selected
and the social position of the followers of that religion. One religion may
give them all the three benefits, another only two
and a third may result in conferring upon them only one of the advantages of
conversion. What religion the Untouchables should choose is not the subject
matter of this Chapter. The subject matter of this Chapter is whether conversion
can solve the problem of untouchability. The answer
to that question is emphatically in the
affirmative.
The force of the argument, of
course, rests on a view of religion which is somewhat different from the
ordinary view according to which religion is concerned with man's relation to
God and all that it means. According to this view
religion exists not for the saving of souls but for
the preservation of society and the welfare of the individual. It is only those
who accept the former view of religion that find it difficult to understand how
conversion can solve the problem of untouchability.
Those who accept the view of religion adopted in this Chapter will have no
difficulty in accepting the soundness of the conclusion.
CASTE AND CONVERSION'
The instinct of self-preservation is responsible
for the present upheaval in the Hindu Community. There was a time when the
elite of the society had no fear about its preservation. Their argument was
that the Hindu community was one of the oldest communities that has withstood
the onslaught of many adverse forces and therefore there must be some native
strength and stamina in its culture and civilization as to make it survive.
They were therefore firm in their belief that their community was destined ever
to survive. Recent events seem to have shaken this belief. In the Hindu-Muslim
riots that have taken place all over the country in recent times it has been
found that a small band of Muslims can beat the Hindus and beat them badly. The
elite of the Hindus are therefore reflecting afresh upon the question whether
such a kind of survival in the struggle for existence is of any value. The
proud Hindu who always harped upon the fact of survival as a proof of his
fitness to survive never stopped to think that survival was of many types and
not all are of equal value. One can survive by marching against the enemy and
conquering him. Or one can survive by beating a retreat and hiding oneself in a
position of safety. In either case there would be survival. But certainly the
value of the two survivals is measures apart. What is important is not the fact
of survival but the plane of survival? Survive the Hindus may, but whether as
free men or slaves is the issue. But the matter seems so hopeless that granting
that they manage to survive as slaves it does not seem to be altogether certain
that they can survive as Hindus. For
they are not only beaten by the Muslims in the physical struggle but they seem also to be beaten in the cultural struggle. There is in recent days
a regular campaign conducted vigorously by the Muslims for the spread of
Islamic culture, and by their conversion movement, it is alleged, they have
made vast additions to their numerical strength by winning over members of the
Hindu faith. Fortunately for the Muslims there is a large mass of non-descript
population numbering about seven crores which is classed as Hindus but which
has no particular affinity to the ' Originally published in the 'Telugu
Samachar Special Number', Nov. 1926.
Hindu faith and whose position is made so
intolerable by that faith that they can be easily induced to embrace Islam.
Some of these are going over to Islam and yet more may go.
This is sufficient to cause alarm among the elite
of the Hindus. If with a superiority of numbers the Hindus are unable to face
the Muslims what would be their fate if their following was depleted by
conversions to Islam? The Hindus feel that they must save their people from
being lost to them and their culture. Herein lies the origin of the Shudhi Movement or the movement to
reclaim people to the Hindu faith.
Some people of the orthodox type are opposed to
this movement on the ground that Hindu religion was never a proselytising
religion and that Hindu must be so by birth. There is something to be said in
favour of this view. From the commencement of time to which memory or tradition
can reach back, proselytism has never been the practising creed of the Hindu
faith. Prof. Max Muller, the great German Savant and Oriental Scholar in an
address delivered by him in the name of the Westminster Abbey on the 3rd of
December 1873 Day of Intercession for Missions, emphatically declared that the
Hindu Religion was a non-missionary religion. The orthodoxy which refuses to
believe in expediency may therefore feel well grounded in its opposition to
Shudhi, as a practice directly opposed to the most fundamental tenets of the
Hindu faith. But there are other authorities of equally good repute to support
the promoters of the Shudhi movement, for it is their opinion that the Hindu
Religion has been and can be a missionary religion. Prof. Jolly in an article '
DIE AUSBREITUNG DER INDISCHEN FULTUR',
gives a graphic description of the means and methods adopted by the ancient
Hindu Rulers and Priests to spread the Hindu Religion among the aborigines of
the country. The late Sir Alfred Lyall who wrote in reply to Prof. Max Muller
also sought to prove that the Hindu religion was a missionary religion. The
probability of the case seems to be .definitely in favour of Jolly and Lyall.
For unless we suppose that the Hindu Religion did in some degree do the work of
proselytization, it is not possible to account for its spread over a vast
continent and inhabited by diverse races which were in possession of a distinct
culture of their own. Besides, the prevalence of certain YAJNAS and YAGA S cannot be explained except on the hypothesis
that there were ceremonies for the Shudhi of the Vratya. We may therefore
safely conclude that in ancient times the Hindu religion was a missionary religion.
But that owing to some reason it ceased to be so long back in its historical
course.
The question that I wish to consider is why did
the Hindu religion cease to be a missionary religion. There may be various explanations
for this, and I propose to offer my own explanation for what it is worth
Aristotle has said that man is a social being. Whatever be the cogency of the
reasons of Aristotle in support of his statement this much is true that it is
impossible for any one to begin life as an individualist in the sense of
radically separating himself from his social fellows. The social bond is
established and rooted in the very growth of self-consciousness. Each
individual's apprehension of his own personal self and its interest involves
the recognition of others and their interests; and his pursuit of one type of
purposes, generous or selfish, is in so far the pursuit of the other also. The
social relation is in all cases intrinsic to the life, interests, and purposes
of the individual; he feels and apprehends the vitality of social relations in
all the situations of his life. In short, life without society is no more
possible for him than it is for a fish out of water.
Given this fact it follows that before a society
can make converts, it must see to it that its c,onstitution provides for aliens
being made its members and allowed to participate in its social life. It must
be used to make no difference between individuals born in it and individuals
brought into it. It must be open to receive him in the one case as in the other
and allow him to enter into its life and thus make it possible for him to live
and thrive as a member of that society. If there is no such provision on
conversion of an alien the question would at once arise where to place the
convert. If there is no place for the convert there can be no invitation for
conversion nor can there be an acceptance of it.
Is there any place in the Hindu society for a
convert to the Hindu faith? Now the organisation of the Hindu society is
characterized by the existence of castes. Each caste is endogamous and lives by
antogony. In other words it only allows individuals born in it to its
membership and does not allow any one from outside being brought into it. The
Hindu Society being a federation of castes and each caste being self-enclosed
there is no place for the convert for no caste will admit him. The answer to
the question why the Hindu Religion ceased to be a missionary religion is to be
found in the fact that it developed the caste system. Caste is incompatible
with conversion. So long as mass conversion was possible, the Hindu Society
could convert for the converts were large enough to form a new caste which
could provide the elements of a social life from among themselves. But when
mass conversions were no more and only individual converts could be had, the
Hindu Religion had necessarily to cease to be missionary for its social
organisation could make no room for the incoming convert.
I have not propounded this question as to why the
Hindu Religion ceased to be missionary simply to find an opportunity for
obtaining credit for originality of thought by offering a novel explanation. I
have propounded the question and given an answer to it because I feel that both
have a very important bearing upon the Shudhi movement. Much as I sympathise
with the promoters of that movement, I must say that they have not analysed the
difficulties in the way of the success of their movement. The motive behind the
Shudhi movement is to increase the strength of the Hindu Society by increasing
its numbers. Now a society is strong not because its numbers are great but
because it is solid in its mass. Instances are not wanting where a solid
organised band of fanatics have routed a large army of disorganised crusaders.
Even in the Hindu-Muslim riots it has been proved that the Hindus are beaten
not only where they are weak in numbers, but they are beaten by the Muslims
even where the Hindus preponderate. The case of Moplahs
is in point. This alone ought to show that the Hindus suffer not from want of
numbers but from want of solidarity. To increase solidarity of the Hindu
Society one must tackle the forces which have brought about its disintegration.
My fear is that mere Shudhi, instead of integrating the Hindu Society, will
cause greater disintegration and will annoy the Muslim Community without any
gain to the Hindus. In a society composed of castes, Shudhi brings in a person
who can find no home and who is therefore bound to lead an isolated and
separate existence with no attachment or loyalty to any one in particular. Even
if Shudhi were to bring into the Hindu fold a mass like the Malkana catch of Shradhanand, it will only add one
more caste to the existing number. Now the greater the castes the greater the
isolation and the greater the weakness of the Hindu society. If the Hindu
society desires to survive it must think not of adding to its numbers but
increasing its solidarity and that means the abolition of caste. The abolition
of castes is the real Sanghatan of the Hindus and when Sanghatan is achieved by
the abolishing of castes, Shudhi will be unnecessary and if practised, will be
gainful of real strength. With the castes in existence, it is impossible and if
practised would be harmful to the real Sanghatan and solidarity of the Hindus.
But somehow the most revolutionary and ardent reformer of the Hindu society
shies at the idea of abolition of the caste and advocates such puerile measures
as the reconversion of the converted Hindu, the changing of the diet and the
starting of Akhadas. Some day it will
dawn upon the Hindus that they cannot save their society and also preserve
their caste. It is to be hoped that that day is not far off.
CHRISTIANIZING THE UNTOUCHABLES
1. Growth of Christianity in India. II. Time and money spent in
Missionary effort. III. Reasons for slow growth.
How old is Christianity in India? What progress has it made among the
people of India? These are questions which no one who is interested in the Untouchables
can fail to ask. The two questions are so intimately connected that the
endeavour for the spread of Christianity would be hopeless if there were not in
India that vast body of untouchables who, by their peculiar circumstances, are
most ready to respond to the social message of Christianity.
The following figures will give some idea of the population of Indian
Christians as compared with other communities in India according to the Census
of 1931.
INDIA AND BURMA
|
Population by Religion |
1891 Census |
1921 Census |
1931 Census |
lncrease# Decrease— |
|
Hindu |
|
216,734,586 |
239,195,140 |
#10.4 |
|
Muslims |
|
68,735,233 |
77,677,545 |
#13 |
|
Buddhist |
|
11,571,268 |
12,786,806 |
#10.5 |
|
Sikh |
|
3,238,803 |
4,335,771 |
#33.9 |
|
Primitive Religions |
|
9,774,611 |
8,280,347 |
—15.3 |
|
Christian |
|
4,754,064 |
6,296,763 |
#32.5 |
|
Jain |
|
1,178,596 |
1,252,105 |
# 6.2 |
|
Zoroastrian |
|
101,778 |
109,752 |
# 7.8 |
|
Jews |
|
21,778 |
24,141 |
#10.9 |
|
Unreturned |
|
18,004 |
2,860,187 |
.... |
|
Total |
|
316,128,721 |
352.818,557 |
#10.6 |
It is true that during the 1921 and 1931 Christianity has shown a great
increase. From the point of growth Sikhism takes the first place. Christianity comes
second and Islam another proselytizing religion comes third. The difference
between the first and the second is so small that the second place occupied by
Christianity may be taken to be as good as first. Again the difference between
the second and the third place occupied by Islam is so enormous that Christians
may well be proud of their having greatly outdistanced so serious a rival.
With all this the fact remains that this figure of 6,296,763 is out of a
total of 352,818,557. This means that the Christian population in India is
about 1.7 p.c. of the total.
II
In how many years and after what expenditure? As to expenditure it is not
possible to give any accurate figures. Mr. George Smith in his book on
"The Conversion of India" published in 1893 gives statistics which
serve to give some idea of the resources spent by Christian Nations for
Missionary work in heathen countries. This is what he says:
"We do not take into account their efforts, vigorous and necessary,
especially in the lands of Asia and North Africa occupied by the Eastern
Churches for whom Americans do much, nor any labours for Christians by
Christians of a purer faith and life. Leaving out of account also the many
wives of missionaries who are represented statistically in their husbands, Rev.
J. Vahl, President of the Danish Missionary Society, gives us these results. We
accept them as the most accurately compiled, and as almost too cautiously
estimated where estimate is unavoidable. In Turkey and Egypt only work among
the Musalmans is reckoned.
1890 1891
Income (English Money) £2,412,938 £2,749,340
Missionaries 4,652 5,094
Missionaries unmarried ladies 2,118 2,445
Native Ministers 3,424 3,730
Other Native helpers 36,405 40,438
Communicants 966,856 1,168,560
We abstain from estimating in detail the results for 1892, as they are
about to appear, and still less for the year 1893, but experts can do this for
themselves. This only we would say, that the number of native communicants
added in those two years has been very large, especially in India. Allowing for
that, we should place them now at 1,300,000 which gives a native Christian
community of 5,200,000 gathered out of all non-Catholic lands.
Dean Vahl's statistics are drawn from the reports of 304 mission
societies and agencies in 1891, beginning with Cromwell's New England Company,
for America, in 1649. On the following page the details are summarised from seventeen
lands of Reformed Christendom. The
amount raised in 1891 by the 160 Mission Churches and Societies of the British
Empire was £ 1,659,830 and by the 57 of the United States of America £ 786,992.
Together the two great English speaking peoples spent £ 2,446,822 on the evangelisation of the non-Christian world.
The balance 302,518 was contributed by
Germany and Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, Finland
and in Asia." It is not possible to give any idea of the resources now utilized
in the cause because they are not published. But we have sufficient data to
know how many years it has taken to produce these 6 millions of converts.
Of the first missionary to India who came and sowed there the seed of
Christianity there is no record. It is believed that Christianity in India is
of apostolic origin and it is suggested that the apostle Thomas was the founder
of it. The apostolic origin of Christianity is only a legend notwithstanding
the existence of what is called St. Thomas's Mount near Madras which is said to
be the burial place of the Apostle. There is no credible evidence to show that
the Gospel was even preached in India during the first Century. There is some
evidence to show that in the second century the Gospel had reached the ears of
the dwellers on the Southern Indian Coast, among the pearl fishers of Ceylon
and the cultivators on the coasts of Malabar and Coromondel. This news when
brought back by the Egyptian Mariners spread among the Christians of
Alexandria. Alexandria was the First to send a Christian Missionary to India,
whose name is recorded in history. He was Pantoenus, a Greek stoic who had
become a Christian and was appointed by Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria as
the principal and sole catechist of the school of the Catechumens, which had
been established for the instruction of the heathen in the facts and doctrines
of Christianity. At some time between the years 180 and 190 the Bishop of
Alexandria received an Appeal from the Christians in India to send them a Missionary
and Pantoenus was accordingly sent. How long he was in India, how far inland he
travelled and what work he actually did, there is no record to show. All that
is known is that he went back to Alexandria, and took charge of his school and
continued to be its principal till 211 A.D.
Little is known of the progress of the Gospel on Indian soil through the
third century. But there is this fact worthy of notice. It is this that when
the Council of Nicaca was held in 325 A.D. after the conversion of the Emperor
Constantine Johannes, one of the Assembled prelates described himself as "
Metropolitan of Persian and of the Great India". This fact seems to
indicate that there was at that time a Christian Church of some bulk and
significance planted on the Indian Coast. On the other hand this probably
implied little more than an episcopal claim to what had always, as in the Book
of Esther, been considered a province of the Persian Empire.
The scene shifts from Alexandria to Antioch and from the beginning of the
third to the end of the fifth century. It is Antioch which took the burden of
Christian enterprize upon its own shoulder.
The sixth century was the last peaceful year for Christian propaganda.
This seems to mark the end of one epoch. Then followed the rise of the Saracens
who carried the Koran and Sword of Mahammad all over Western Asia and Northern
Africa, then threatened Europe itself up to Vienna and from Spain into the
heart of France. The result was that all the Christian people were distracted
and their Missionary effort was held up for several centuries.
The voyage of Vasco de Gama in the year 1497 to India marks the beginning of
a new epoch in the history of Christian Missionary effort in India and the most
serious and determined effort commenced with the arrival of the great
Missionary .Francis Xavier
in the year 1542. The Portuguese were the first European power in the East and
the earliest efforts of modern times in the direction of Christianizing the
natives of India were made under their auspices. The conversions effected under
the auspices of the Portuguese were of course conversions to the Roman Catholic
faith and were carried out by Roman Catholic Missions.
They were not, however, left long without rivals. The Protestants soon
came into the field. The earliest Protestant propaganda was that of the
Lutherans who established themselves in Tranquebar in 1706 under the patronage
of the King of Denmark. The able and devoted Schwartz,
who laboured in Trichinopoly and Tanjore throughout the second half of the 18th Century
was a member of this mission, which has since, to a great extent, been taken
over by the Society for the propagation of the Gospel.
Next came the Baptist Mission under Carey who
landed in Calcutta in 1793. Last came the Anglican Church which entered the
Missionary field in 1813 and since then the expansion of Missionary enterprize
was rapid and continuous.
Thus Christian propaganda has had therefore a long run in India. It had
had four centuries before the rise of the Saracens who caused a break in the
Mission Activity. Again after subsidence of the Saracens it has had nearly four
centuries. This total of six millions is the fruit gathered in eight centuries. Obviously this is a very depressing
result. It depressed Francis Xavier. It even depressed Abbe Dubois who, writing
in 1823 some three hundred years after Xavier, declared that to convert Hindus
to, Christianity was a forlorn hope. He was then criticized by the more
optimistic of Christian Missionaries. But the fact remains that at the end of
this period there are only about 6 million Christians out of a total population
of about 358 millions. This is a very slow growth indeed and the question is,
what are the causes of this slow growth.
Ill
It seems to me that there are three reasons which have impeded the growth of Christianity.
The first of these reasons is the bad morals of the early European
settlers in India particularly Englishmen who were sent to India by the East
India Company. Of the character of the men who were sent out to India Mr. Kaye,
an Appologist of the Company and also of its servants speaks in the following
terms in his "Christianity in India": " Doubtless there were
some honest, decent men from the middle classes amongst them..... But many, it appears from contemporary
writers, were Society's hard bargains—youngsters, perhaps, of good family, to
which they were a disgrace, and from the bosom of which therefore they were to
be cast out, in the hope that there would be no prodigals return from the '
Great Indies '. It was not to be expected that men who had disgraced themselves
at home would lead more respectable lives abroad.
* * *
" There were, in truth, no outward motives to preserve morality of conduct,
or even decency of demeanour; so from the moment of their landing upon the
shore of India, the first settlers cast off all these bonds which had
restrained them in their native villages; they regarded themselves as
privileged beings—privileged to violate all the obligations of religion and
morality and to outrage all the decencies of life. They who went thither were
often desperate adventurers, whom England, in the emphatic language of the
Scripture, had spud out; men who sought those golden sands of the East to
repair their broken fortunes; to bury in oblivion a sullied name; or to bring,
with lawless hand from the weak and unsuspecting, wealth which they had not the
character or capacity to obtain by industry at home. They cheated; they
gambled; they drank; they revelled in all kinds of debauchery. Associates in
vice, linked together by a common bond of rapacity, they still often pursued
one another with desperate malice, and, few though they were in numbers, among
them there was no fellowship, except a fellowship of crime."
" All this was against the new comer; and so,
whilst the depraved met with no inducement to reform, the pure but rarely
escaped corruption. Whether they were there initiated, or perpetrated in
destructive error, equally may they be regarded as the victims of circumstance.....
How bad were the morals and behaviour of the early Christians can be
gathered from the following instances quoted by Mr. Kaye.
"The Deputy-Governor of Bombay was in 1669 charged as under:
That he hath on the Sabbath day hindered the performance of public duty to God
Almighty at the accustomary hour, continuing in drinking of health; detaining
others with him against their wills; and whilst he drank, in false devotions
upon his knees, a health devoted to the Union, in the time appointed for the
service belonging to the Lord's day, the unhappy sequel showed it to be but the
projection of a further disunion.
" That to the great scandal of the inhabitants of the island, of all
the neighbours round about, both popists and others that are idolaters, in
dishonour of the sobriety of the Protestant religion, he hath made frequent and
heavy drinking meetings, continuing some times till two or three of the clock
in the morning, to the neglecting of the service of God in the morning prayers,
and the service of the Company in the meantime had stood still while he slept,
thus perverting and converting to an ill private use, those refreshment
intended for the factory in general." On these charges he was found
guilty.
In the factories of the East India Company there was enough of
internecine strife and the factors of the Company committed scandalous outrages
in general defiance both of the laws of God and the decencies of man. They
fought grievously among themselves; blows following words; and the highest
persons in the settlement settling an example of pugnacity with their inferiors
under the potent influence of drink.
The report of the following incident is extracted from the records of the
Company's factory at Surat [f.16]
:
"We send your honours our consultation books from the 21st of August
1695 to 31st December 1696, in which does appear a conspiracy against the
President's life, and a design to murder the guards, because he would have
opposed it. How far Messrs. Vauxe and Upphill were concerned, we leave to your
honours to judge by this and depositions before mentioned. There is strong
presumption that it was intended first that the President should be stabbed and
it was prevented much through the vigilence of Ephraim
Bendall; when hopes of that failed by the guards
being doubled, it seems poison was agreed on, as by the deposition of Edmund
clerk and all bound to secrecy upon an horrid imprecation of damnation to the discoverer, whom the rest were to fall upon and cut
off." In the same document is recorded the complaint of Mr. Charles Peachey against the President of the Council at Surat—
"I have received from you (i.e. the President) two cuts on my head,
the one very long and deep, the other a slight thing in comparison to that.
Then a great blow on my left arm, which has enflamed
the shoulder, and deprived me (at present), of the use of that limb; on my
right side a blow on my ribs just beneath the pap, which is a stoppage to my
breath, and makes me incapable of helping myself; on my left hip another,
nothing inferior to the first; but above all a cut on the brow of my eye."
Such was the state of morality among the early English Settlers who came down
to India. It is enough to observe that these settlers managed to work through
the first eighty years of the seventeenth century without building a Church.
Things did not improve in the 18th Century. Of the state of morality among
Englishmen in India during the 18th Century this is what Mr. Kaye has to say—
"Of the state of Anglo Indian Society during the protracted
Administration of Warren Hastings, nothing indeed can be said in praise. . . ..
those who ought to have set good example, did grievous wrong to Christianity by
the lawlessness of their lives. .. .. Hastings took another man's wife with his
consent; Francis did the same without it..... It was scarcely to be expected
that, with such examples before them, the less prominent members of society
would be conspicuous for morality and decorum. In truth, it must be
acknowledged that the Christianity of the English in India was, at this time,
in a sadly depressed state. Men drank hard and gamed high, concubinage with the
women of the country was the rule rather than the exception.
It was no uncommon thing for English gentlemen to keep populous zenanas.
There was no dearth of exciting amusement in those days. Balls, masquerades,
races and theatrical entertainments, enlivened the settlements, especially in
the cold weather; and the mild excitement of duelling varied the pleasures of
the season. Men lived, for the most part, short lives and were resolute that
they should be merry ones."
* * *
The drunkenness, indeed, was general and obstrusive. It was one of the
besetting infirmities—the fashionable vices—of the period. .. .. At the large
Presidency towns—especially at Calcutta—public entertainments were not
frequent. Ball suppers, in those days, were little less than orgies. Dancing
was impossible after them, and fighting commonly took its place. If a public
party went offwithout a duel or two, it was a circumstance as rare as it was
happy. There was a famous club in those days, called Selby's Club, at which the
gentlemen of Calcutta were wont to drink as high as they gamed, and which some
times saw drunken bets of 1,000 gold mohurs laid about the merest trifles. Card
parties often sat all through the night, and if the night chanced to be a
Saturday, all through the next day.
* * *
Honourable marriage was the exceptional state. . ..
.. The Court of Directors of the East India
Company. . . ... were
engaged in the good work of reforming the morals of their settlements; and
thinking that the means of forming respectable marriages would be an important
auxiliary, they sent out not only a supply of the raw material of soldiers'
wives, but some better articles also, in the shape of what they called gentle
women, for the use of such of their merchants and factors as might be matrimonially
inclined. The venture, however, was not a successful one. The few who married
made out indifferent wives, whilst they who did not marry,—and the demand was
by no means brisk,—were, to say the least of it, in an equivocal position. For
a time they were supported at the public expense, but they received only
sufficient to keep them from starving, and so it happened naturally enough that
the poor creatures betook themselves to vicious courses, and sold such charms
as they had, if only to purchase strong drink, to which they became
immoderately addicted, with the wages of their prostitution.
The scandal soon became open and notorious; and the President and Council
at Surat wrote to the Deputy Governor and Council at Bombay, saying: "
Whereas you give us notice that some of the women are grown scandalous to our
native religion and Government, we require you in the Honourable Company's name
to give them all fair warning that they do apply themselves to a more sober and
Christian conversation: otherwise the sentence is that they shall be deprived
totally of their liberty to go abroad, and fed with bread and water, till they
are embarked on board ship for England. [f.17]
How bad were the morals and behaviour of the early Christians can be
gathered from the three following instances which are taken from contemporary
records.
Captain Williamson in his 'Indian Vade Mecum'
published about the year 1809 says—
"I have known various instances of two ladies being conjointly domesticated, and one of an elderly
military character who solaced himself with no less than sixteen of all sorts and sizes. Being interrogated by a friend as
to what he did with such a member, " Oh ", replied he, ' I give them little rice, and let them run about '. This same gentleman when paying his addresses to an
elegant young woman lately arrived from Europe, but who was informed by the
lady at whose house she was residing, of the state of affairs, the description
closed with 'Pray, my dear, how should you like to share a sixteenth of
Major?"
Such was the disorderliness and immorality among Englishmen in India. No
wonder that the Indians marvelled whether the British acknowledged any God and
believed in any system of morality. When asked what he thought of Christianity
and Christians an Indian is reported to have said in his broken English—"
Christian religion, devil religion; Christian much drunk; Christian much do
wrong; much beat, much abuse others"—and who can say that this judgment
was contrary to facts?
It is true that England herself was not at the relevant time over burdened with morality. The English people at home
were but little distinguished for the purity of their lives and there was a
small chance of British virtue dwarfed and dwindled at home, expending on
foreign soil. As observed by Mr. Kaye [f.18]"The courtly licentiousness of
the Restoration had polluted the whole land. The stamp of Whitehall was upon
the currency of our daily lives; and it went out upon our adventurers in the
Company's ships, and was not, we may be sure, to be easily effaced in a heathen
land ". Whatever be the excuse for this
immorality of Englishmen in the 17th and 18th Century the fact remains that it
was enough to bring Christianity into disrepute, and make its spread extremely
difficult.
The second impediment in the progress of Christianity in India was the
struggle between the Catholic and Non-catholic Missions for supremacy in the
field of proselytization.
The entry of the Catholic Church in the field of the spread of
Christianity in India began in the year 1541 with the arrival of Francis
Xavier. He was the first Missionary of the new Society of Jesus formed to
support the authority of the Pope. Before the Catholic Church entered this field
there existed in India particularly in the South a large Christian population
which belonged to the Syrian Church. These Syrian Christians, long seated on
the coast of Malabar, traced their paternity to the Apostle Thomas, who it is
said "went through Syria and Cilicia conforming the Churches ". They
looked to Syria as their spiritual home. They aknowledged the supremacy of the
Patriarch of Babylon. Of Rome and the Pope they knew nothing. During the rise
of the Papacy, the Mahomedan power, which had overrun the intervening
countries, had closed the gates of India against the nations of the West. This
had saved the Syrian Churches in India from the Roman Catholic Church. As to
the question whether the Christianity of the Catholic Church was the true form
of Christianity or whether the Christianity of the Syrian Church was the true
form I am not concerned here. But the facts remain that the Portuguese who
represented the Catholic Church in India were scandalized at the appearance of
the Syrian Churches which they declared to be heathen temples scarcely
disguised. The Syrian Christians shrank with dismay from the defiling touch of
the Roman Catholics of Portugal and proclaimed themselves Christians and not
idolators. The other is that the Malabar Christians had never been subject to
Roman supremacy and never subscribed to the Roman doctrine.
The elements of a conflict between the two Churches were thus present and
the inquisition only gave an occasion for the conflagration.
The inquisitors of Goa discovered that they were heretics and like a wolf
on the fold, down came the delegates of the Pope upon the Syrian Churches. How
great was the conflict is told by Mr. Kaye in his volume already referred to.
The first Syrian prelate who was brought into antagonism with Rome,
expiated his want of courage and sincerity in the dungeons of the Inquisition.
The second shared the same fate. A third, whose sufferings are more worth of
commiseration, died after much trial and tribulation in his diocese, denying
the Pope's supremacy to the last. The churches were now without a Bishop, at a
time when they more than ever needed prelatical countenance and support; for
Rome was about to put forth a mighty hand and a stretched-out arm. Don Alexis
de Menezes was appointed Archbishop of Goa. It was his mission less to make new converts than
to reduce old ones to subjection; and he flung himself into the work of
persecution with an amount of zeal and heroism that must have greatly endeared
him to Rome. Impatient of the slow success of his agents, he determined to take
the staff into his own hand. Moving down to the South, with an imposing
military force, he summoned the Syrian Churhes to
submit themselves to his authority. The Churhes were under an Archdeacon, who,
sensible of the danger that impended over them, determined to temporize, but at
the same time to show that he was prepared to resist. He waited on the
Archbishop. An escort of three thousand resolute men who accompanied him on his
visit to Menezes, were with difficulty restrained, on the first slight and
delusive sign of violence, from rushing on their opponents and proving their
burning zeal in defence of their religion. It was not a time for Menezes to
push the claims of the Romish Church. But no fear of resistance could divert him
from his purpose; and he openly denounced the Patriarch of Babylon as a
pestilent schismatic, and declared it a heresy to acknowledge his supremacy. He
then issued a decree forbidding all persons to acknowledge any other supremacy
than that of the Roman Pontiff, or to make any mention of the Syrian Patriarch
in the services of their Church; and,
this done, he publicly excommunicated the acknowledged head of the Syrian
Churches, and called upon the startled Archdeacon
to sign the writ of excommunication. Frightened and confused, the wretched man put his name to the apostate
document; and it was publicly affixed to the gates of the church.
This intolerable insult on the one hand—this wretched compromise on the
other—roused the fury of the people against the Archbishop, and against their
own ecclesiastical chief. Hard was the task before him, when the latter went
forth to appease the excited multitude. They would have made one desperate
effort to sweep the Portuguese intruders from their polluted shores; but the
Archdeacon pleaded with them for forbearance; apologised for his own weakness;
urged that dissimulation would be more serviceable than revenge; promised, in
spite of what he had done, to defend their religion; and exhorted them to be
firm in their resistance of Papal aggression. With a shout of assent, they
swore that they would never bow their necks to the yoke, and prepared
themselves for the continuance of the struggle.
But Menezes was a man of too many resources to be worsted in such a
conflict. His energy and perseverance were irresistible; his craft was too deep
to fathom. When one weapon of attack failed, he tried another. Fraud took the
place of violence; money took the place of arms. He bribed those whom he could
not bully, and appealed to the imaginations of men when he could not work upon
their fears. And, little by little, he succeeded. First one Church fell, and
then another.' Dangers and difficulties beset them. Often had he to encounter
violent resistence, and often did he beat it down. When the strength of the
Syrian Christians was too great for him, he called in the aid of the native
princes. The unhappy Archdeacon, weary of resistance and threatened with
excommunication, at last made submission to the Roman Prelate. Menezes issued a
decree for a synod; and, on the 20th June 1599, the Churches assembled at
Diamper. The first session passed quietly over, but not without much secret
murmuring. The second, at which the decrees were read, was interrupted at that
trying point of the ceremony where, having enunciated the Confession of Faith,
the Archbishop renounced and anathematized the Patriarch of Babylon. The
discontent of the Syrians here broke out openly; they protested against the
necessity of a confession of Faith, and urged that such a confession would
imply that they were not Christians before the assembling of the Synod. But
Menezes allayed their apprehensions and removed their doubts, by publicly
making the confession in the name of himself and the Eastern Churches. One of
the Syrian priests, who acted as interpreter, then read the confession in the
Malabar language, and the assembled multitude repeated it after him, word for
word, on their knees. And so the Syrian Christians bowed their necks to the
yoke of Rome.
Resolute to improve the advantages he had gained, Menezes did not suffer
himself to subside into inactivity, and to bask in the sunshine of his past
triumphs. Whether it was religious zeal or temporal ambition that moved him, he
did not relax from his labours; but feeling that it was not enough to place the
yoke upon the neck of the Syrian Christians, he endeavoured, by all means, to
keep it there. The Churches yielded sullen submission; but there were
quick-witted, keen-sighted men among them, who, as the seventeenth century began
to dawn upon the world, looked hopefully into the future, feeling assured that
they could discern even then unmistakable evidences of the waning glories of
the Portuguese in the East. There was hope then for the Syrian churches. The
persecutions of Menezes were very grievous—for he separated priests from their
wives; excommunicated on trifling grounds, members of the churches; and
destroyed all the old Syriac records which contained proofs of the early purity
of their faith.
The irreparable barbarism of this last act was not to be forgotten or
forgiven; but, in the midst of all other sufferings, there was consolation in
the thought, that this tyranny was but for a time. "Sixty years of
servitude and hypocrisy," writes Gibbon, "were patiently endured, but
as soon as the Portuguese empire was shaken by the courage and industry of the
Dutch, the Nestorians asserted with vigour and effect the religion of their
fathers. The Jesuits were incapable of defending the power they had abused. The
arms of forty thousand Christians were pointed against their falling tyrants;
and the Indian Archdeacon assumed the character of Bishop till afresh supply of
Episcopal gifts and Syriac missionaries could be obtained from the Patriarch
of Babylon ". Such briefly
narrated, were the results of the oppression of Menezes. In the course of six
months that ambitious and unscrupulous prelate reduced the Syrian church to
bondage, and for sixty years they wore the galling chains of Rome. But Menezes
trusted in his own strength; he came as an earthly conqueror, and his reliance
was on the arm of temporal authority. " His example," writes Mr.
Hough, " should be regarded as abeacon to warn future Christian
missionaries from the rock on which he foundered. Without faith and godliness
nothing can ensure a church's prosperity. Failing in these, the prelate's
designs, magnificent as they were deemed, soon came to nothing; and it deserves
special remark, as an instructive interposition of Divine Providence, that the
decline of the Portuguese interest in India commenced at the very period when
he flattered himself that he had laid the foundation of its permanency."
There was no such open conflict between the Catholic Church and the
Protestant Missionaries. There was however sufficient rivalry between them to
prevent cooperation and conceited activity the lack of which also prevented a
rapid growth of Christianity.
The third reason which is responsible for the slow growth of Christianity
was the wrong approach made by the Christian Missionaries in charge of
Christian propaganda. The early Christian Missionary started his campaign by
inviting public disputations with learned Brahmins on the comparative merits of
the Christian and the Hindu religions. This was a strange way of going about
his task. But there was a plan behind it. The Christian Missionary felt that
his task of converting the masses would be easy of achievement if he succeeded
in converting the Brahmin and the higher classes of Hindus. For they and the
Brahmins held sway over the masses. And the easiest way of converting the
Brahmin was to defeat in disputation and to show him that his religion was an
error. The Christian Missionary wanted to get at the Brahmin. Nothing can
explain why the Missionaries started so many schools, colleges, hospitals etc.,
except this namely the Christian Missionary wanted to establish a contact with
the Brahmin. That the Christian Missionary has been deceived is now realized by
many. The Brahmin and the higher classes have taken full advantage of the
institutions maintained by the Christian Missions. But hardly any one of them
has given any thought to the religion which brought these institutions into
existence.
There is nothing strange in this. The pursuit of the Brahmin and the
higher classes of Hindus by the Christian Missionaries was doomed to fail.
There would be no common ground for the disputation between Hinduism and
Christianity and where there is a common ground the Hindu could always beat the
Christian.
That there could be no common ground for disputation between Hindus and
Christians is due to the fact that the two have a totally different attitude to
the relations of theology to philosophy. As has been well observed by Mr. Burn,
[f.19]
" The Educated Hindu, when he considers religious questions, refuses
to separate theology from philosophy and demands what shall appear to him a
reasonable cosmogony. It has been shown in dealing with Hinduism that its
prevailing tendency is pantheistic, and although for at least two thousand
years sects have constantly been forming which asserted the duality of God and
Spirit, there has always been a tendency to relapse into pantheism, and to
regard the present world as an illusion produced by Maya. The average Christian however gets on with very little
philosophy and regards that as a rule as more speculative than essential to his
religious beliefs. The methods of thought which a man has been brought up to
regard, inevitably affect the conclusions at which he arrives, and it appears
to me that this forms one of the reasons why to the majority of educated Hindus
the idea of accepting Christianity is incredible. To take a single concrete
example, the ordinary educated Hindu laughs at the belief that God created the
Universe out of nothing. He may believe in a creation, but he also postulates
the necessity for both a material cause, matter
and an efficient cause, the creator.
Where his belief is purely pantheistic, he also has no regard for historical
evidences. A further difficulty on a fundamental point is caused by the belief
in transmigration, which is based on the idea that a man must work out his own
salvation and thus conflicts entirely with the belief in Divine
atonement."
Thus the Hindu speaks in terms of philosophy and the Christian speaks in
terms of theology. There is thus no common ground for evaluation, or
commendation or condemnation. In so far as both have theology the Christians
with their God and Jesus as his son and the Hindus with their God and his
Avatars, the superiority of one over the other, depends upon the miracles
performed by them. In this the Hindu theology can beat the Christian theology
is obvious enough and just as absence of philosophy in Christianity is
responsible for its failure to attract the Brahmin and the Educated Hindu.
Similarly the abundance of miracles in Hindu theology was enough to make
Christian theology pale off in comparison. Father Gregory a Roman Catholic
priest seems to have realized this difficulty and as his view is interesting as
well as instructive I give below the quotations from Col. Sleeman's book in
which it is recorded. Says Col. Sleeman [f.20] .
" Father Gregory, the Roman Catholic priest, dined with us one evening,
and Major Godby took occasion to ask him at table, 'What progress our religion
was making among the people'?
"Progress"? said he, "why, what progress can we ever hope
to make among a people who, the moment we begin to talk to them about the
miracles performed by Christ, begin to tell us of those infinitely more
wonderful performed by Krishna, who lifted a mountain upon his little finger,
as an umbrella, to defend his shepherdesses at Govardhan from a shower of rain.
"The Hindoos never doubt any part of the miracles and prophecies of
our scripture—they believe every word of them and the only thing that surprises
them is that they should be so much less wonderful than those of their own
scriptures, in which also they implicitly believe. Men who believe that the
histories of the wars and amours of Ram and Krishna, two of the incarnations of
Vishnu, were written some fifty thousand years before these wars and amours
actually took place upon the earth, would of course easily believe in the
fulfilment of any prophecy that might be related to them out of any other book;
and, as to miracles, there is absolutely nothing too extraordinary for their
belief. If a Christian of respectability were to tell a Hindoo that, to satisfy
some scruples of the Corinthians, St. Paul had brought the sun and moon down
upon the earth, and made them rebound off again into their places, like tennis
balls, without the slightest injury to any of the three planets (sic), I do not
think he would feel the slightest doubt of the truth of it; but he would
immediately be put in mind of something still more extra-ordinary that Krishna
did to amuse the milkmaids, or to satisfy some sceptics of his day, and relate
it with all the naivete imaginable."
As events in India have shown this was a wrong approach. It was certainly
just the opposite to the one adopted by Jesus and his disciples. Gibbon has
given a description of the growth of Christianity in Rome which shows from what
end Christ and his disciples began. This is what he says—
" From this impartial, though imperfect, survey of the process of
Christianity, it may, perhaps seem probable that the number of its proselytes
has been excessively maginified by fear on one side and by devotion on the
other. According to the irreproachable testimony of Origen, the proportion of
the faithful was very inconsiderable when compared with the multitude of an
unbelieving world; but, as we are left without any distinct information, it is
impossible to determine, and it is difficult even to conjecture, the real
numbers of the primitive Christians. The most favourable calculation, however,
that can be deduced from the examples of Antioch and of Rome will not permit us
to imagine that more than a twentieth part of the subjects of the empire had
enlisted themselves under the banner of the cross before the important
conversion of Constantine. But their habits of faith, of zeal, and of union
seemed to multiply their numbers; and the same causes which contributed to
their future increase served to render their actual strength more apparent and
more formidable.
" Such is the constitution of civil society that,
whilst a few persons are distinguished
by riches, by honours, and by knowledge, the body of the people is condemned to
obscurity, ignorance and poverty. The Christian religion, which addressed
itself to the whole human race, must consequently collect a far greater number
of proselytes from the lower than from the superior ranks of life. This
innocent and natural circumstance has been improved into a very odious
imputation, which seems to be less strenuously denied by the apologists than it
is urged by the adversaries of the faith; that the new sect of Christians was
almost entirely composed of the dregs of the populace, of peasants and
mechanics, of boys and women, of beggars and slaves; the last of whom might
sometimes introduce the missionaries into the rich and noble families to which
they belonged. These obscure teachers (such was the charge of malice and
infidelity) are as mute in public as they are loquacious and dogmatical in
private. Whilst they cautiously avoid the dangerous encounter of philosophers,
they mingle with the rude and illiterate crowd, and insinuate themselves into
those minds, whom their age, their sex, or their education has the best disposed
to receive the impression of superstitious terrors.
"This favourable picture, though not devoid of a faint resemblance,
betrays, by its dark colouring and distorted features, the pencil of an enemy. As
the humble faith of Christ diffused itself through the world, it was embraced
by several persons who derived some consequences from the advantages of nature
or fortune. Aristides, who presented an eloquent
apology to the emperor Hadrian, was an Athenian philosopher. Justin Martyr had sought divine knowledge in the
schools of Zeno, or Aristotle, of Pythogoras, and of Plato, before he fortunately was
accosted by the old men, or rather the angel, who turned his attention to the
study of the Jewist prophets. Clemens of Alexandria had acquired much various
reading in the Greek, and Tertullian in the Latin
language; Julius Africanus and Origen possessed a very considerable share of the
learning of their times; and, although the style of Cyprian is very different
from that of Lactantius, we might almost discover
that both those writers had been public teachers of rhetoric. Even the study of
philosophy was at length introduced among the Christians, but it was not always
productive of the most salutary effects; knowledge was as often the parent of
heresy as of devotion, and the description which was designed for the followers
of Artemon may, with equal propriety, be applied to
the various sects that resisted the successors of the apostles. 'They presume to alter the holy scriptures, to abandon
the ancient rule of faith, and to form their opinion according to the subtile
precepts of logic. The science of the church is neglected for the study of
geometry, and they lose sight of Heaven while they are employed in measuring
the earth. Euclid is perpetually in their hands.
Aristotle and Theophrastus are the objects of their
admiration; and they express an uncommon reverence for the works of Galen.
Their errors are derived from the abuse of the arts and sciences of the infidels,
and they corrupt the simplicity of the Gospel by the refinements of human
reason.'
"Nor can it be affirmed with truth that the advantages of birth and
fortune were always separated from the profession of Christianity. Several
Roman citizens were brought before the tribunal of Pliny, and he soon
discovered that a great number of persons of every order of men in Bithynia had deserted the religion of their ancestors. His unsuspected
testimony may, in this instance, obtain more credit than the bold challenge of
Tertullian, when he addresses himself to the fears as well as to the humanity
of the proconsul of Africa, by assuring him that, if he persists in his cruel
intentions, he must decimate Carthage, and that he will find among the guilty
many persons of his own rank, senators and matrons of noblest extraction, and
the friends or relations of his most intimate friends. It appears, however,
that about forty years afterwards the emperor Valerian was persuaded of the
truth of this assertion, since in one of his rescripts he evidently supposes
that senators, Roman knights, and ladies of quality were engaged in the
Christian sect. The church still continued to increase its outward splendour as
it lost its internal purity; and in the reign of Diocletian the palace, the
courts of justice, and even the army concealed a multitude of Christians who
endeavoured to reconcile the interests of the present with those of a future
life.
And yet these exceptions are either too few in number, or too recent in
time, entirely to remove the imputation of ignorance and obscurity which has
been so arrogantly cast on the first proselytes of Christianity. Instead of
employing in our defence the fictions of later
ages, it will be more prudent to convert the occasion of scandal into a subject
of edification. Our serious thoughts will suggest to us that the apostles
themselves were chosen by providence among the fishermen of Galilee, and that the lower we depress the temporal
condition of the first Christians, the more reason we shall find to admire
their merit and success. It is incumbent on us diligently to remember that the
kingdom of heaven was promised to the poor in spirit, and that minds afflicted
by calamity and the contempt of mankind cheerfully listen to the divine promise
of future happiness; while, on the contrary, the fortunate are satisfied with
the possession of this world; and the wise abuse in doubt and dispute their
vain superiority of reason and knowledge." Similarly Hallam in his ' History of
the Middle Ages ' speaks of the class from which
the early Christians were drawn.
The reason why Christianity became the religion of all citizens of Rome
i.e. of the higher classes as well was because of two extraneous reasons. The
first reason was the making of Christianity state religion which meant the
proscribing every other religion. The second reason was the change in the law
of inheritance by the Roman Emperors after they became converts to Christianity
a preferential right to inherit the property of the parents over a child which
had remained pagan.
This only shows that the people to whom Christianity made a natural
appeal were the poorer classes and it is among them that Christianity first
spread without the help of law or other extraneous advantage.
The early Christian Missionary began by reversing this natural order of
things. I call it natural because it befits human psychology. Prof. Thorndyke [f.21] a great authority on Psychology says—"That
a man thinks is a biological fact. But What
he thinks is a sociological fact ". This profound observation, the early Christian
Missionary absolutely overlooked. Every kind of thought is not aggreeable to every person. This is evident from the
fact that capitalism appeals to the rich and does not appeal to the poor. On
the contrary socialism appeals to the poor but does not appeal to the rich.
This is beause there is a very intimate connection
between the interests of a man and the thoughts which have an adverse effect on
his interests. He will not give them any quarters in his mind. Applying this annalysis of the working of the human mind it is clear
that the Brahmin and the higher classes could never be receptive to the
Christian doctrine. It preaches brotherhood of man and when applied leads to
equality of man. Now the interests of the Brahmin and the higher classes is to
maintain the system of Chaturvarna—which is a
system based upon inequality and which in the scale gives them a higher rank,
greater opportunity to dominate and exploit the others. How can they be
expected to accept Christianity? It means a surrender of their power and
prestige. To have pursued them has been a vain effort and if the pursuit had
been continued I am sure there would have been no Christians in India at all.
The number of Christians we see in India today is due to the fact that some
Christian Missionaries saw the futility of this. If they had not realized this
error and started to win over the lower classes, there would have been no
Christians in India at all. Even today hundreds and thousands of high caste
Hindus take advantage of Christian schools, Christian colleges and Christian
hospitals. How many of those who reap these
benefits become Christian? Every one of them takes the benefit and runs away
and does not even stop to consider what must be the merits of a religion which
renders so much service to humanity.
THE CONDITION OF THE CONVERT
I.
Gandhi and his
opposition to Christianity.
II. Christianity and social service.
III. Christianity and Paganism.
IV. Christianity and the spirit of the Convert.
V. Christian Community and its social standing.
I
In 1928, there was held a meeting of the
International Fellowship, a body devoted to promoting fellow feeling among
persons of different faiths. It was attended by Christian missionaries as well
as by Hindus and Moslems. Mr. Gandhi was also present. At this meeting the
question was raised as to how far the fellowship could remain true to its
ideal, if those who belonged to it wished to convert others to their own faith.
In the debate that followed, Mr. Gandhi spoke. His friend Mr. C. F. Andrews,
writes concerning the discussion as follows: [f.22]
" At the back of this question, there was a
definite challenge to the whole Christian Missionary position in India.
Missionaries of a liberal type of mind had been finding great joy in the
Fellowship .. .. Then came Mahatma
Gandhi's declaration. He stated that in doing so, or injoining the Fellowship, if
there was the slightest wish, or even the slightest thought at the back of the
mind, to influence, or convert, any other member of the Fellowship, then the
spirit of the movement could be destroyed. Any one who had such a wish ought to
leave the Fellowship ".
On being further questioned by Christian
Missionaries 'Whether if they possessed the greatest treasure in the World,
they would be wrong in wishing to share if, Mr. Gandhi was quick to rebuff
their presumption. Mr. Andrews says—"he was adamant". "Even the
idea of such a desire was wrong ", he said emphatically; " and he
would not move from that position at all".
Mr. Gandhi's opposition to Christian conversion
is by now quite well known. And since 1936 he has become quite a virulent adversary
of all missionary propaganda. He particularly objects to the missionaries
spreading the Christian Gospel among the Untouchables. His antagonism to
Christian Missions and the conversion of Untouchables to Christianity is based
on certain propositions which have been enunciated by him in quite unmistakable
terms. I think the following four propositions may be taken to sum up his
position. I give them in his own words. He says:
1. " My position is that all religions are
fundamentally equal. We must have the same innate respect for all religions as
we have for our own. Mind you, not mutual toleration but equal respect."
[f.23]
II. " All I want them (the Missionaries) to
do is to live Christian lives, not to annotate them. [f.24]Let your lives speak to us. The blind
who do not see the rose, perceive its fragrance. That is the secret of the
Gospel of the rose. But the Gospel that Jesus preached is more subtle and
fragrant than the Gospel of the rose. If the rose needs no agents, much less
does the Gospel of Christ need agents". [f.25]As to the work of the Christian
Missions he says:
III. "The social work of the missions is
undertaken not for its own sake, but as an aid to the salvation of those who
receive social service. [f.26] . . . .. While you give medical help,
you expect the reward in the shape of your patients becoming Christians." [f.27] As to the Untouchables he says—
IV. " I do maintain . .. .. that the vast
masses of Harijans and for that matter of Indian humanity, cannot understand
the presentation of Christianity, and that, generally speaking, conversion,
wherever it has taken place, has not been a spiritual act in any sense of the
term. They are conversions of convenience. [f.28]
They (the Harijans) can no more distinguish between the relative merits
(words omitted?) than can a cow. Harijans have no mind, no intelligence, no
sense of difference between God and no-God." [f.29]
Gandhi advises the Christian Missions in the
following somewhat offensive terms as to what would be proper for them to do.
He says—
"If Christian Missions will sincerely play
the game..... they must withdraw from the indecent competition to convert the
Harijans.....
" Just..... forget that you have come to a
country of heathens and (to) think that they are as much in search of God as
you are; just ..... feel that you are not going there to give your spiritual
goods to them, but that you will share worldly goods of which you have a good
stock. You will then do your work without mental reservation and thereby you
will share your spiritual treasures. The knowledge that you have this mental
reservation, i.e. you are expecting a man to be a convert in return for
service, creates a barrier between you and me."
" The history of India would have been
written differently if the Christians had come to India to live their lives in
our midst and permeate ours with their aroma, if there was any. "2 This
hostility of Mr. Gandhi to Christian Missions and their work is of very recent
origin. I do not know if it can be traced beyond the Yeola Decision.
It is as recent as it is strange. I do not know
of any declaration made by Mr. Gandhi expressing in such clear and determined
manner opposition to the conversion of the Untouchables to Islam. The Muslims
have made no secret of their plan to convert the Untouchables. The plan was
given out openly from the Congress platform by the late Maulana Mohomed Ali
when he presided over the annual session of the Congress held at Coconada in
1923. In his Presidential address the Maulana pointed out in clear terms that:
"The quarrels (between Hindus and Musalmans)
about Alams and pipal trees and musical processions are truly childish; but there is one question which can easily furnish a
ground for complaint of unfriendly action if communal activities are not
amicably adjusted. This is the question of the conversion of the suppressed
classes, if Hindu Society does not speedily absorb them. The Christian
missionary is already busy and no one quarrels with him. But the moment some
Muslim missionary society is organized for the same purpose there is every
likelihood of an outcry in the Hindu press. It has been suggested to me by an
influential and wealthy gentleman who is able to organize a (Muslim) missionary
society on a large scale for the conversion of the suppressed classes, that it
should be possible to reach a settlement with leading Hindu gentlemen and
divide the country into separate areas where Hindu and Muslim missionaries
could respectively work, each community preparing for each year, or longer unit
of time, if necessary, an estimate of the numbers it is prepared to absorb, or
convert. These estimates would, of course, be based on the number of workers
and funds each had to spare, and tested by the actual figures of the previous
period. In this way each community would be free to do the work of absorption and
conversion, or rather of reform, without chances of collision with one
another".
Nothing can be more explicit than this. Nothing
can be more businesslike and nothing can be more materialistic than this
pronouncement from the Congress platform. But I am not aware that Mr. Gandhi
has ever condemned it in the way in which he now condemns the endeavour of
Christian Missions to convert the Untouchables. Nobody from Gandhi's camp
protested against this outrageous suggestion. Probably they could not because
the Congress Hindus believed that it was their duty to help the Musalmans to
fulfil what they regarded as their religious duty, and that conversion is a
religious duty with the Musalman nobody can deny. At any rate the Hindu leaders
of Congress, as stated by George Joseph in 1920, held "that it was the
religious duty of the Hindus to help Muslims in the maintenance of the Turkish
Khilafat over the Arabs in the Jazirut-al-Arab because Muslim theologians and
political leaders assured us that it was their religious duty. It went against
the grain because it meant the maintenance of a foreign Government over Arabs;
but Hindus had to stomach it because it was urged on them as part of the
religious duty of the Hindus [f.30] . If this is true why should Gandhi
not help the Christians to carry on conversion because conversion is also a
fulfilment of their religious duty.
Why there should be a different measuring rod
today because it is the Christians that are involved is more than one can
understand. Mr. George Joseph was well within bounds when he said:
" The only difference is that there are 75
millions of Muslims and there are only 6 millions of Christians. It may be
worth-while making peace with Muslims because they can make themselves a thorn
in the side of Nationalism: Christians do not count, because they are small in
numbers."
That Mr. Gandhi is guided by such factors as the
relative strength of the Musalmans and Christians, their relative importance in
Indian politics, is evident from the terms he uses in condemning what he calls
" propaganda by villification ". When such a propaganda emanates from
Christian missionaries he uses the following, language to condemn it. (Quotation is not there in the MS.—Ed.).
On the other hand when he comes out against a
propaganda emanating from the Muslim all that he says-. [f.31]
" It is tragic to see that religion is
dragged down to the low level of crude materialism to lure people into mission
which the most cherished sentiments of millions of human beings are trodden
under foot.
" I hope that the pamphlet has no support
from thoughtful Musalmans who should read it to realize the mischief such
pamphlets can create.
" My correspondent asks me how to deal with
the menace. One remedy I have applied, viz, to bring hereby the villifying
propaganda to the notice of the responsible Muslim world. He himself can claim
the attention of the local Musalman leaders to the publication. The second and
the most important thing to do is purification from within. So long as the
position of untouchability remains in the Hindu body it will be liable to
attacks from outside. It will be proof against such attacks only when a solid
and impregnable wall of purification is erected in the shape of complete
removal of untouchability."
The ferocity of the former and the timidity and
softness of the latter are obvious enough. Surely Gandhi must be regarded as an
astute " respecter of persons ".
But apart from this difference in his attitude towards
Muslim and Christian propaganda, have Mr. Gandhi's arguments against Christian
Missions, which I have summarized above, any validity ? They are just clever.
There is nothing profound about them. They are the desperate arguments of a man
who is driven to wall. Mr. Gandhi starts out by making a distinction between
equal tolerance and equal respect. The phrase "equal respect " is a
new phrase. What distinction he wants to make thereby is difficult to
recognize. But the new phraseology is not without significance. The old phrase
"equal tolerance" indicated the possibility of error. " Equal
respect " on the other hand postulates that all religions are equally true and equally valuable. If I have
understood him correctly then his premise is utterly fallacious, both logically
as well as historically. Assuming the aim of religion is to reach God— which I
do not think it is—and religion is the road to reach him, it cannot be said
that every road is sure to lead to God. Nor can it be said that every road, though
it may ultimately lead to God, is the right road. It may be that (all existing
religions are false and) the perfect religion is still to be revealed. But the
fact is that religions are not all true and therefore the adherents of one
faith have a right, indeed a duty, to tell their erring friends what they
conceive to be the truth. That Untouchables are no better than a cow is a
statement which only an ignoramus, or an arrogant person, can venture to make.
It is arrant nonsense. Mr. Gandhi dares to make it because he has come to
regard himself as so great a man that the ignorant masses will not question his
declarations and the dishonest intelligentsia will uphold him in whatever he
says. Strangest part of his argument lies in wishing to share the material
things the Christian Missions can provide. He is prepared to share their
spiritual treasures provided the Missionaries invite him to share their
material treasures "without obligation".* (What he minds is an
exchange.) It is difficult to understand why Mr. Gandhi argues that services
rendered by the Missionaries are baits or temptations, and that the conversions
are therefore conversions of convenience. Why is it not possible to believe
that these services by Missionaries indicate that service to suffering humanity
is for Christians an essential requirement of their religion ? Would that be a
wrong view of the process by which a person is drawn towards Christianity? Only
a prejudiced mind would say. Yes.
All these arguments of Mr. Gandhi are brought
forth to prevent Christian Missionaries from converting the Untouchables. No
body will deny to Mr. Gandhi the right to save the Untouchables for Hinduism.
But in that case he should have frankly told Missions " Stop your work, we
want now to save the Untouchables, and ourselves. Give us a chance! "It is
a pity that he should not have adopted this honest mode of dealing with the
menace of the Missionaries. Whatever anybody may say I have no doubt, all the
Untouchables, whether they are converts or not, will agree that Mr. Gandhi has
been grossly unjust to Christian Missions. For centuries Christian Missions
have provided for them a shelter, if not a refuge.
This attitude of Mr. Gandhi need not deter either
the missionaries or the Untouchables. Christianity has come to stay in India
and, unless the Hindus in their zeal for nationalism misuse their political,
social and economic power to suppress it, will live and grow in numbers and
influence for good.
What Christianity has achieved in India therefore
becomes a proper subject for examination from the points of view both of
Christian Missions and of the Untouchables.
That Christian Missions have been endeavouring to
provide the corpus sanum for the
people of India and to create the Mens
Sana among those who have entered
the fold is undeniable. It would be difficult in this place to describe all the
activities carried on by Christian Missions in India. The work done by the
Missionaries falls under five heads: (1) among children, (2) among young men,
(3) among the masses, (4) among women and (5) among the sick.
The work done is vast. The following figures will
give an idea of the scale on which the work for education and relieving
sickness is being carried on.
1. CHRISTIAN MEDICAL WORK [f.32]
|
1 |
Hospitals |
256 |
|
2 |
Dispensaries |
250 |
|
3 |
Sanatoriums |
10 |
|
4 |
Leper
Homes |
38 |
|
5 |
Medical
Schools |
3 |
|
6 |
Number of
Hospital ds |
12000 |
|
7 |
Number of
Sanatorium Beds |
755 |
|
8 |
Doctors,
Foreign |
350 |
|
9 |
Doctors,
National |
390 |
|
10 |
Nurses,
Foreign |
300 |
|
11 |
Nurses,
National |
900 |
|
12 |
Student
Nurses |
1800 |
|
13 |
Operations,
Major |
44000 |
|
14 |
Obstretrics,
Total |
32000 |
|
15 |
In—Patients |
285000 |
|
16 |
Out—Patients |
2600000 |
II. CHRISTIAN EDUCATION [f.33]
|
|
|
|
What have the Hindus to show as against this? Historically
speaking, service to humanity is quite foreign to Hinduism and to Hindus. The
Hindu religion consists primarily, of rituals and observances. It is a religion
of temples. Love of man has no place in it. And without love of man how can
service to man be inspired ? This is well reflected in the purposes and objects
for which Hindu charities are given. Very few people, even in India, know the
extent to which caste determines the scope and objects of charities provided by
the Hindus. It is difficult to get full and precise facts relating to Hindu
Charities. However, data collected several years ago, in the City of Bombay,
throws a flood of light on the subject. (Data
not typed in the MS.)
That caste can influence doctors in the
ministration to the sick was a charge made among certain doctors in Bombay in
1918 during the influenza epidemic.
Comparatively speaking, the achievements of
Christian Missions in the field of social service are very great. Of that no
one except a determined opponent of every thing Christian can have any doubt.
Admitting these great services, one may raise two questions. Are these services
required for the needs of the Indian Christian Community? Are there any needs
of the Indian Christian Community which have not been attended to by Missions?
It is necessary to bear in mind that Indian
Christians are drawn chiefly from the Untouchables and, to a much less extent,
from low ranking Shudra castes. The Social Services of Missions must,
therefore, be judged in the light of the needs of these classes. What are those
needs?
The services rendered by the Missions in the
fields of education and medical relief are beyond the ken of the Indian
Christians. They go mostly to benefit the high caste Hindus. The Indian
Christians are either too poor or too devoid of ambition to undertake the
pursuit of higher education. High schools, colleges and hostels maintained by
the Missions are, therefore, so much misplaced and misapplied expenditure from
the point of view of the uplift of Indian Christians. In the same way much of
the medical aid provided by the Missions goes to the Caste Hindus. This is
especially the case with regard to hospitals.
I know many missionaries realize this. None the
less this expenditure is being incurred from year to year. The object of these
services is no doubt to provide occasion for contact between Christian
Missionaries and high caste Hindus. I think it is time the Missionaries
realized that the pursuit of the Caste Hindus in the hope of converting them to
Christianity is a vain pursuit which is sure to end in complete failure. Mr.
Winslow, I think, is correct when he concludes his survey of the attitude of
the intelligentsia of India towards Christianity by saying: " Whilst the
work of Duff and the Serampore Missionaries resulted in some notable
conversions and it seemed for a time as though English education were going to
lead to many and rapid accessions to the Christian Church from amongst those
who received it, a reaction soon set in and the movement died down. Its place
was taken by the Theistic Samajes, and in particular by the Brahmo Samaj in
Bengal, which enabled those Hindus who through the influence of Western thought
had become dissatisfied with idolatry and caste to surrender these without
forfeiting entirely their place within the Hindu system. For many years
Christian missionaries hoped and believed that the Brahmo Samaj would prove a
half-way house to Christianity and that many of its members would in course of
time become dissatisfied with an intermediate position and accept the Christian
Faith, but this hope has in the main been disappointed, though a few notable
converts have come from the rank of the Samajes. .....
* *
* * *
What then, does the educated Indian of today,
more particularly the Brahman, think of Christ? It is perhaps foolish to try to
generalize..... Yet there are certain broad features in the picture which may
be safely described ..... There is a wide-spread acceptance of the main principles of Christ's teaching,
particularly of His ethical teaching. It would be generally conceded that the
Sermon on the Mount, while not necessarily containing any thing which might not
be paralleled from other sources, is unsurpassable as a directory for human
conduct ..... Side by side with this widespread acceptance of Christ's teaching
goes a very general reverence for His life and character .....
On the other hand, the claim that Christ was, and
is, in a unique sense divine is not
one which the majority of Hindus, even of those deeply attracted by His life,
would be prepared to accept ..... (They) would set Him side by side with
(their) own great Prophet, the Buddha. But the Christian claim that He, and He
only, is God Incarnate, and that salvation is to be won through faith in Him,
and Him alone, (they) reject as exclusive and narrow ..... Thus the Christian
claim to possess the one way of salvation arouses in India an almost
instinctive repugnance. ...... The characteristic religious attitude of the
educated Hindu to day (is) still, whilst he greatly reverences Christ, and
accepts the main principles of His teaching, he is quite content to remain a
Hindu."
I have no doubt that this correctly sums up the
position. If this is so then the money and energy spent by the Christian
Missions on education and medical relief is misapplied and do not help the
Indian Christians.
The Indian Christians need two things. The first
thing they want is the safeguarding of their civil liberties. The second thing
they want is ways and means for their economic uplift. I cannot stop to discuss
these needs in all their details. All I wish to point out is that this is a
great desideratum in the social work the Christian Missions are doing in India.
While what has been accomplished by Christian
Missionaries in the field of education and medical aid is very notable and
praise worthy there still remains one question to be answered. What has
Christianity achieved in the way of changing the mentality of the Convert ? Has the Untouchable convert risen to the status of
the touchable? Have the touchable and untouchable converts discarded caste?
Have they ceased to worship their old pagan gods and to adhere to their old
pagan superstitions? These are far-reaching questions. They must be answered
and Christianity in India must stand or fall by the answers it can give to
these questions.
The following extracts taken from the memorandum
submitted by the Christian Depressed Classes of South India to the Simon
Commission throw a flood of light on the position of the Untouchables who have
gone into the Christian fold so far as the question of caste is concerned.
" We are by religion Christians, both Roman
Catholics and Protestants. Of the total population of Indian Christians of the
Presidency the converts from the Depressed Classes form about sixty per cent.
When the Christian religion was preached in our lands, we, the Pallas, Pariahs,
Malas, Madigas, etc., embraced Christianity. But others of our stock and origin
were not converted and they are known to be the Hindu Depressed classes, being
all Hindus or adherants to the Hindus in religion. In spite, however, of our
Christian religion which teaches us fundamental truths the equality of man and
man before God, the necessity of charity and love for neighbours and mutual
sympathy and forbearance, we, the large number of Depressed class converts
remain in the same social condition as the Hindu Depressed Classes. Through the
operation of several factors, the more important of them being the strong caste
retaining Hindu mentality of the converts to Christianity, and the
indifference, powerlessness and apathy of the Missionaries, we remain today
what we were before we became Christians— Untouchables—degraded by the laws of
social position obtaining in the land, rejected by caste Christians, despised
by Caste Hindus and excluded by our own Hindu Depressed Class brethren.
"The small proportion of the Christians of
South India, whose representatives are found in the Legislative Council, say,
in Madras, are caste Christians, a term which sounds a contradiction, but
which, unfortunately, is the correct and accepted description of high caste
converts from Hinduism, who retain all the rigour and exclusiveness of caste. Particularly in the Mofussil parts and
the villages, they who ought to be our fellow Christians follow all the
orthodox severity and unreason of caste exclusion; they damn us as "
Panchamas or Pariahs " and ignore our Christian claims and in the fulness
of their affluence, power, prestige and position exclude us poorer Christians
from society, ...... Frequent outbursts of anti-Panchama activity are the
scandal of the South Indian Christian life, and the least attempt on our part
to better our lot, forward our progress and assert our elementary rights call
down the wrath and fury of every man—official and non-official—Christian or
Hindu, who claims a foolish superiority of birth. Denying the very foundations
of Christianity, contrary to all love and charity and brotherhood, our
"fellow-Christians" treat us even in the Churches as Untouchables and
Unapproachables, and relegate us to separate accommodation removed from their
precincts and barricade their portions by means of iron rails and walls and
fencings. There are several such churches.
"In the matter of reception of sacraments, a
most ridiculous segregation is practised to avoid pollution; our claims to
educate our children and train them for life are ruthlessly denied and through
sheer prejudice our children are denied access to schools, convents, hostels,
boarding houses, or if admitted, are assigned an ignominous separate
accommodation. Tracing his descent from high caste Hindu progenitors the caste
Christian looks for social status and position and finds favour in the eyes of
his fellow caste-men, the Hindus. He treats the Depressed Class Christians in
the same way as the Hindu Depressed Classes are treated by the Hindu Caste
people". What is stated here in general terms may be made concrete by
reference to the two following incidents. (Incidents
not mentioned in the MS.— Ed.).
This is a terrible indictment. It is a relief to
know that it does not apply to all parts of India nor does it apply to all
denominations of Christians. The picture is more true of the Catholics than of
the Protestants. It is more true of Southern India than it is of the Northern
or even Central India. But the fact remains that Christianity has not succeeded
in dissolving the feeling of caste from among the converts to Christianity. The
distinction between touchables and untouchbles may be confined to a corner. The
Church School may be open to all. Still there is no gainsaying the fact that
caste governs the life of the Christians as much as it does the life of the
Hindus. There are Brahmin Christians and Non-Brahmin Christians. Among
Non-Brahmin Christians there are Maratha Christians, Mahar Christians, Mang
Christians and Bhangi Christians. Similarly in the South there are Pariah
Christians, Malla Christians and Madiga Christians. They would not intermarry,
they would not inter-dine. They are as much caste ridden as the Hindus are.
There is another thing which shows that
Christianity has not been effective in wiping paganism out of the converts.
Almost all the converts retain the Hindu forms of worship and believe in Hindu
superstition. A convert to Christianity will be found to worship his family
Gods and also the Hindu gods such as Rama, Krishna, Shankar, Vishnu, etc. A
convert to Christianity will be found to go on a pilgrimage to places which are
sacred to the Hindus. He will go to Pandharpur, and make offerings to Vithoba.
He will go to Jejuri and sacrifice a goat to the blood-thirsty god, Khandoba.
On the Ganesh Chaturthi he will refuse to see the moon, on a day of eclipse he
will go to the sea and bathe—superstitions observed by the Hindus. It is
notorious that the Christians observe the social practices of the Hindus in the
matter of births, deaths and marriages. I say nothing about the prevalence of
the Hindu social practices among the Christians. In as much as these social
practices have no religious significance it matters very little what they are.
But the same cannot be said of religious observances. They are incompatible
with Christian belief and Christian way of life. The question is why has
Christianity not been able to stamp them out?
The answer is that the Christian Missionaries
although they have been eager to convert persons to Christianity have never put
up a determined fight to uproot paganism from the Convert. Indeed they have
tolerated it.
The retention by the Converts to Christianity of
Paganism is primarily the legacy of the Jesuit Missions which were the earliest
to enter the field in modern times. The attitude of the Catholic mission
towards paganism has come down from the outlook and the ways and means adopted
by the Madura Mission. This Mission was founded by an Italian Jesuit Father
Robert de Nobili. He came to India in 1608. Having learned of the failure of
Francis Xavier he worked out a new plan. He decided to follow the footsteps of
the Apostle Paul who observed that he must bring all things to all men that he
might save some. Fortified with this belief he went to the Court of Ferumal
Naik King of Madura and founded the famous Madura Mission. The way he started
is graphically told by Dr. J. N. Ogilvie in his 'Apostles of India ' in the
following passage:
" Through Madura there ran one day a
striking piece of news. It was told how a strange ascetic from some far land
had arrived, drawn to the holy city by its great repute, and that he had taken
up his abode in the Brahman quarter of the city. Soon visitors flocked to the
house of the holy man to see what they should see, but only to find that the Brahman's servants would not permit their entrance. 'The master,' they said, 'is meditating upon God. He
may not be disturbed.' This merely helped to whet the people's desire and
increase the fame of the recluse. The privacy was relaxed, and daily audiences
were granted to a privileged few.
"Seated cross legged on a settee the Sanyasi
was found by his visitors, conforming in every thing to Brahman usage. Over his
shoulder hung the sacred cord of five threads, three of gold to symbolise the
Trinity, and two of silver representing the body and soul of our Lord, and from
the cord was suspended a small cross. Conversation revealed the Sanyasi's
learning, and observation and keen inquiry certified to this frugal and holy
life. One meal a day, consisting of a little rice and milk and acid vegetables,
was all his food. Soon not only ordinary Brahmins came to see him, but nobles
also; and a great bound in his reputation took place when, on being invited to
the palace by the King, the Sanyasi declined the invitation lest on going forth
the purity of his soul should be sullied by his eyes lighting upon a woman!
Never was a holier saint seen in Madura. Where the life bore such testimony to
his holiness, how could his teaching be other than true ! His statement that he
was a " Roman Brahman" of the highest caste was accepted, and to
remove any possible doubts that might linger, an ancient discoloured parchment
was produced, which showed how the "Brahmans of Rome" had sprung
direct from the god Brahma, and were the noblest born of all his issues. To the
genuineness of the document the Sanyasi solemnly swore, and with open minds the
people listened to his teaching.
" Book after book was written by the able
and daring writer, in which he grafted a modified Christian doctrine on the
Hindu stem. Most notable of all such efforts was the forging of a "Fifth
Veda" to complete and crown the four Vedas received by Brahmans as direct
revelations from heaven. It was an amazing piece of daring as bold and
hazardous as it would be for a Hindu to forge for Christian use a fifth Gospel.
Yet the forgery held its place for one hundred and fifty years."
" Brahman disciples were soon freely won;
baptisms became fairly numerous, though the identity of the rite with the
baptism administered by earlier European Missionaries was disguised; and so far
as outward tokens went, the new Missionary method was proving a success.
Without a doubt progress was greatly facilitated by the highly significant
concessions that were made to Hinduism,
especially in connection with Caste. According to de Nobili, caste had little signification. To him it
was in the main a social observance, and so regarding it he saw no reason for
compelling his converts to break with their caste fellowship or observances.
His converts retained the ' Shendi ' or tuft of hair which marked the caste
Hindu, they wore a sacred cord indistinguishable from that of their Hindu
neighbours, and they bore an oval caste mark on their brow, the paste composing
or being made of the ashes of sandalwood instead of as formerly of the ashes of
cow dung.
" For forty years de Nobili lived his life:
a life of daily hardship, sacrifice and voluntary humiliation, such as has
seldom been paralleled. On February 16, 1656, he died, having reached his
eightieth year. Nearly one hundred thousand converts have been attributed to
him, directly or indirectly, and allowing for much exaggeration their number
must have been very great.
"In 1673, John de Britto, belonging to one
of the noblest families of Portugal, sailed for India. He is now a saint in the
Roman Catholic Church. William Robinson of the London Missionary Society and
belonging to our own day said of him, '" His eminence as a disciple,
intrepid, selfless and enduring in all great qualities that add to the vigour
of the Christian life, is assured.
" He and the Christian converts, after the disruption
of the Kingdom of Madura and the establishment of petty Kingdoms, were
mercilessly persecuted.
" Yet in spite of all that enemies could do,
the worker went steadily on with his accepted duty, and wherever he journeyed
the same tale of success was told. To the power of the message was added the
charm of the messenger, and his converts were numbered by thousands. When by
his hands a prince of Marava, Tadia Tevar, was baptized, measures were quickly
taken to secure de Britto's death. He was mercilessly done to death on February
4, 1693.
" Father Joseph Beschi,
an Italian priest and successor to de Britto, reached India in 1707. Beschi
adhered to the policy of the " Roman Brahmans," but in his missionary
practice differed considerably from his predecessors. De Nobili, so long as it
had been possible, acted the part of a devout recluse, a holy Guru; de Britto
had been chiefly the wandering Sanyasi, the holy pilgrim and in their personal life both had practised the
greatest asceticism and simplicity. But Father Beschi followed a new line. If
Hinduism had its ascetics, it had also its high priests, who lived in luxurious
comfort, and whose outward surroundings were marked by pomp and circumstance.
This was the line chosen by Beschi by magnificence he would dazzle the people.
When he travelled it was a costly palanquin. In advance went an attendant
bearing an umbrella of purple silk, at each side ran servants with gorgeous
fans of peacock's feathers, and in the palanquin, upon a splendid tiger skin
and clad in rich and picturesque robes, reclined the mighty Guru! But Beschi
was no empty headed poseur. His method was adopted with a full understanding of
the people and with many it worked well. Nor does his fame rest on these
extravagances; it is based upon his wonderful scholarship. A born linguist he
attained so complete a mastery over Tamil that he became the ablest Tamil
scholar of his time. No native scholar was his equal. " High "' Tamil as well as "
Low ", the Tamil of the scholarly Brahman as well as the colloquial
language of the people, were equally familiar to Beschi. Dictionaries,
grammars, works of poetry and treatises in prose issued from his busy pen, and
they are read and valued to the present day. When first issued they delighted
the native world of Southern India. So charmed with his learning was Chanda
Sahib, the Nabob of Vellore, that he appointed him to high office in the State,
and for his support presented him with four villages in the Trichinopoly
district, which brought in a revenue of 12,000 rupees. All this fame and
material prosperity Beschi loyally used for the furtherance of the Mission. Its
palmiest days were in his time, and its rapid decline, leading to its ultimate
collapse, dates from about the period of Father Beschi's death, which occurred
in 1742." These Madura Missionaries, in their anxiety to present
Christianity to the convert free from any Western customs that might give
offence had tolerated among their converts several Hindu Customs as concessions
to the converts. Among these concessions were the retention of the sacred
thread and the mark on the forehead; the marrying of children before they
attained puberty; the refusal of the sacraments to females at certain times,
bathing as a ceremonial purification, and other
points; and the refusal to marry and dine outside caste. These were called the "Malbar Rites". They were abrogated on 12th September 1744, by the Bull Omnium sollicitudinum issued [f.34] By Pope Benedict XIV and since then
every Roman Catholic Missionary is required to take an oath to obey this Bull.
All the same the tradition remained that pagan ways and pagan beliefs were not
incompatible with Christian faith.
It is no doubt true that a great obstacle in the
way of the Missionaries in the 16th Century was not only the evil example shown
by bad Europeans but also the dislike with which European customs were viewed
by Hindus and Musalman alike. A wicked European of
course caused Scandal, but a devout European, who ate beef and drank spirits,
offended against Brahmanical and Mohammadan tenets and shocked native prejudices. Thus
Christianity was despised as the religion of the ' Feringis ' as Europeans
were contemptuously termed. To have cleansed the Christian Missionaries of
these impurities and infirmities was very necessary and not only justifiable
but commendable. But it was quite shameful and sinful for these Jesuit
Missionaries in their zeal for conversion to have gone to the length they did
namely, not to mind what the convert thought and did and how he lived so long
as he was ready to be baptized, acknowledge Jesus as his saviour and call
himself a Christian.
What was the attitude of the Luthern Mission which came into the field soon after
the Madura Mission to this great question. Swartz the greatest missionary in India who by his
piety became the peace maker between warring kings was not a protagonist of the
view adopted by the Madura Mission. But did he believe that Caste and
Christianity were two incompatible things and that a true Christian could not
believe in Caste much less could he make it a plan of his life ? Whatever was his view of the question he certainly
did not carry on a campaign in support of it.
What about the Protestant Missions? What attitude
did they take towards this question? They have first of all an excuse on their
side to plead if they wish to. That they came late on the scene. So far as
history goes there is truth behind the assertion that they were prevented from
joining the field until 1813. This is due entirely to the attitude taken by the
East India Company towards Mission work in their territories in India.
The attitude of all the European powers who went
to India were in the beginning of their career greatly fired with an enthusiasm
for the conversion of the Indians to the Christian Faith.
Speaking of the Portuguese they were of course
the most resolute in their propagation for Christianity and suppression of
paganism. Albuquerque suppressed Suti within
Portuguese India in 1510 and anticipated William Bentick
by fully three hundred years. As soon as Francis Xavier
called out in despair the aid of John III of Portugal for forcible conversion
it was given. In the Dutch East Indies the Dutch Government which was a protestant power, similar enthusiasm was displayed and
strong, if not drastic, measures were adopted. The principle of state aid for
Christian propaganda was accepted in Ceylon right from 1643 when the Dutch
occupied that island. The erection of temples and pagan pilgrimages were
forbidden, Government appointments were reserved for Christians and
non-attendance at religious schools treated as state offence. By 1685, 3,20,000
Cinhalese had yielded to these methods. The same
religious fervour was shown by the East India Company. In 1614, an young Indian
had been brought to London by the Captain of the Company's ship. The Company
educated him at its own expense 'to be an
instrument in converting some of his nation '. His
baptism was performed at Poplar. The Lord Mayor of London and the Directors of
the Company attended the baptism. King James I chose for him the name of Peter
and the priest who baptised him presented him to the Audience as ' the first fruit of India '. In 1617 there took place
in Surat the conversion of a Mahomedan. Thus the career of the Company began with
conversions at both ends. In 1657 the Directors applied to the Universities of
Cambridge and Oxford for a Chaplain 'the Company
having resolved to endeavour the advance and spreading of the Gospel in India'. In 1698 the Company very readily accepted a clause
in her Charter which required the Company's Chaplains 'should
apply themselves to learn the languages of the
countries, the better to enable them to instruct the Gentoos,
who should be the servants of the Company or their agents, in the Protestant
religion'.
Suddenly after 1698 the attitude of the Company
seems to have undergone a significant though gradual change. While the Portugal
and the Dutch Governments were going on with top speed the East India Company
was slowing down. In the very year the Company seems to have been of two minds
on this question. While it accepted an obligation to train its chaplains in
vernaculars of India so as to make them potent instruments of propaganda it
allowed a prayer to be drawn up for the Company which said 'that, we adorning the Gospel of our Saviour in all
things, these Indian natives among whom we dwell, beholding our good works, may
be won over '. This prayer continued to be offered, certainly till 1750. A close scrutiny of the wording of the prayer
suggests if it does not avow the complete
abandonment of the original idea of active proselytising. This attitude of the
Company soon became a matter of controversy. Friends of conversion were waiting
for an opportunity to force the Company to give up this attitude. The
Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt's East India Act
had put an end to a ‘State disguised as a Merchant ' and brought the Company
the chartered agent of Parliament to carry on the Government of the Indian
Territories. It was provided under the Act that the charter of the Company
should be only for 20 years and should be renewed thereafter. The year 1793 was
of immense importance since the revision of the charter of the Company was to
fall due in that year.
To those who favoured the diffusion of Christian
knowledge the task seemed quite easy. Wilberforce, who was in charge of the matter had
secured the support of important persons in Parliament. He had obtained
Archbishop Moore's blessing, and still more
important he had won a promise of support from the minister in charge of the
East India Company's Charter Bill. As a preliminary to the passing of this Bill
matters to be incorporated in the charter were put in the form of resolutions
to be passed by the House of Commons. One of the resolutions passed ran as
follows:
"That it was the peculiar and bounden duty of the British Legislature to promote, by
all just and prudent means, the interest and happiness of the inhabitants of
the British Dominions in India; and that for these ends such measures ought to
be adopted as may generally tend to their advancement in useful knowledge and
to their religious and more improvement."
" Be it therefore further enacted, that
the said Court of Directors shall be and are hereby
empowered and required to appoint and send out, from time to time, a sufficient number of fit and proper persons for carrying
into effect the purposes aforesaid, by acting as
schoolmasters, missionaries, or otherwise every such person, before he is so
appointed or sent out, having produced to the said Court of I Directors, a satisfactory
testimonial or certificate from the Archbishop of
Canterbury, or the Bishop of London for the time being, or from the Society in
London for the promotion of Christian Knowledge, or from the Society in
Scotland for propagating Christian Knowledge, of his sufficiency for these purposes.
And be it further enacted, that the said Court of
Directors are hereby empowered and required to give directions to the
governments of the respective presidencies in India, to settle the destination and to provide for the necessary
and decent maintenance of the persons to be sent out as aforesaid; and also to
direct the said governments to consider of and adopt such other measures
according to their discretion, as may appear to them most conducive to the ends
aforesaid. “ I It was largely due to the support of Dundas
that the House accepted the resolution without demur. Wilberforce was deeply
moved. 'The hand of Providence', he wrote
in his journal, 'was never more visible than in his
East Indian Affair,' This confidence was premature.
Because, on the third reading of the Bill, the clause was struck out with the
consent of Dundas. Wilberforce wrote his friend Gisborne
" My clauses thrown out..... Dundas most false and double....."
This change of front was brought about by the
Directors of the East India Company. The East India
trade was a monopoly of the Company and no Englishman
could enter the territories of the East India
Company in India without license from the Directors of the Company and any
Englishman found in the territories of the Company without a license was liable
to be deported. The Company did not take long to realize what the effect of the
new clause would be. It knew that the clause would require them to open the
gates of India to the flood of the Missionaries and
their propaganda. Should the Missionaries be
allowed a free hand, was the question of the hour. As was natural this became a
subject of a most interesting, instructive and bitter controversy and those who
care to know it in its details may usefully refer to the pages of the Edinborough Review and the. .
. . . . . of the day.
There were three parties to this controversy.
There were the Directors of the East India Company whose primary interest was
to protect its shareholders who were clamouring for
dividends. The second party to the controversy was the English Middle Class
which was living on the East India trade and whose sons were finding new
avenues for lucrative careers in the territories. Thirdly there was the Church
Missionary Society formed in the year. ...... for the purpose of spreading the
Christian faith. The interests of the first two coincided. They were for the
maintenance of the Empire and therefore wanted peace and tranquility. The third did care for peace but was keen
on the substitution of Indian superstition by the Christian faith. The first
made a powerful combination and obliged all the forces against the third. The
result was that they triumphed and the Church
Missionary Society lost.
The arguments advanced by the
controversialist on the triumphant side are of course the most important and
the most instructive part of the controversy.
To the argument that the propaganda in favour of
the Christian faith should begin at once, that it was wrong to hold that the truth though sacred should be doled out in such a
way and in such bits as to avoid all risk, the
reply given by Sydney Smith was a stunning reply. This is what he said:
"'When we consider for how many
centuries after Christ, Providence allowed the greater part of mankind to live
and die without any possibility of their attaining to the knowledge of the
sacred truths by any human exertion, we must be satisfied that the rapid and
speedy conversion of the whole world forms no part of the scheme of its Almighty Governor, and that it can give no offence in His eyes if we do
not desert our domestic duties and expose the lives and worldly happiness of
multitudes of our fellow country men
to hazard in our attempt to their
conversion."
* *
*
"The Directors would be doing their duty
neither to the shareholders nor the British Nation if they allowed 'itinerant tinkers to preach the natives into insurrection..... The natives must be taught a better religion at
a time and in a manner that will not inspire them with a passion for political
change.'. .... Our
duties to our families and country are set before us by God Himself. We are not
at liberty to desert them in order to give a remote chance of conferring
greater benefits on strangers at a distance." It is arguments such as
those which prevailed with Parliament and led to the rejection of the Clause in
1793. Wilberforce twitted
members of Parliament by reminding them with, their Christianity was not a
religion of convenience but it was a religion established by law. But as has
been well pointed out, "for the major portion of those 'counted ' .in the
eighteenth century the religion accepted by the State and Society as a
convenience was something to be used with fact and discretion at home. There
was no need to diffuse it recklessly abroad. The general atmosphere, as has
often been pointed out, was remarkably like that of Augustan Rome. To the
statesman, thinking imperially, all religions were equally useful, each in its
proper place.' [f.35]
The attempt to open the door to the Missionaries
failed and the Missionary was shut out from India till 1813. Not only was he
shut out but the Company's Government kept a strict vigil upon the activities
of such stray missionaries who contrived to go to India without their license.
In 1793 Dr. Carey
went as an interloper without license. As he was not allowed to enter Calcutta
being without license, he made Serampore, 14 miles
away from Calcutta as his base of operation. Serampore
was a Danish settlement and the Danes had placed no restrictions on
missionaries or mission propaganda. On the contrary the Governor of Serampore
actively helped them. Carey and his Mission was always suspect in the eyes of
the Company's Government. lo 1798 the Serampore Mission decided to engage four
missionaries who arrived in the year 1800. They went to reside in the Danish
settlement of Serampore. As a matter of fact the Governor General had nothing
to do with them. But the unconcealed residence of those unlicensed enthusiasts
was too much for the Company's Governor General and Lord Wellesley wrote to the Governor of Serampore, "Would His Excellency see to the expulsion of
these interlopers who might at any
moment violate the territories of the British East India Company ", to which the Danish Governor replied that he
would do nothing of the kind [f.36]
. Similar
action was taken in 1806 when Captain Wickes
brought two more Missionaries in the ' Crieterion " which anchored off Calcutta. Sir
George Barlow was then the Governor General. He took a most extra-ordinary
action to prevent the landing of these two missionaries. He ordered that the
Captain be not given his clearance papers unless he agreed to take back the two
missionaries. Although they had gone to live in Serampore
and were in fact under the
protection of the Danish Crown. This was not only a more unreasonable attitude
towards missionaries but it was also an attitude which could not but be
regarded as hostile [f.37].
The Vellore Mutiny
among Indian Soldiers which took place in 1806 was quite erroneously attributed
to missionary propaganda and Sir George Barlow in a panicky condition proceeded
to put the following restrictions on the activities of the Serampore
Missionaries:
1. The Missionaries remain at Serampore.
2. They must not preach openly in the bazar.
3. Native converts might preach provided they are
not sent forth as emissaries from Serampore. The vehemence with which the
Government of Bengal came down upon the Serampore Mission in 1807 for issuing a
tract on Islam in which quite inadvertently the
prophet Mahomed was called an imposter also furnishes further evidence of the
attitude of hostility which Government of the Company bore towards the
Missionaries.
The Government of Bengal refused to be satisfied
with the apologies of Dr. Carey and insisted upon
the transfer of the Press from Serampore to Calcutta in order that Government
may be in a better position to control the literature issued therefrom. The
news caused dismay for it meant the disruption of the mission. As usual, the
Governor of the Danish settlement came to their rescue and told the frightened
Serampore Missionaries that he would fight their battle if the Government of
Bengal forcibly removed the Press to Calcutta. Subsequently matters were
settled and the order was withdrawn3. But the fact remains that the Government
of the Company was not a friend of the Missionaries.
So much for the excuse which they can
legitimately plead. But what attitude did they take when they were allowed
after 1813 to operate in the field ? Did they take
the line that caste must go from the thought and life of the Convert? The
earliest pronouncement of a Protestant Missionary does not warrant an
affirmative answer.
Missionaries intolerating caste : Dr. Heyne in 1814 wrote: Missionaries, in many instances, have fallen into a mistake
of a very injurious nature to their rapid or even ultimate success. In
converting a Hindu to Christianity, they oblige him to adopt a line of conduct
by which he loses his caste; this, in India is considered such a disgrace. that
it must present a powerful obstacle to conversion. But the political division
of the Hindus is no part of their religious tenets, though it has been so
mistaken by the most enlightened. In giving to the Hindus the Christian
religion, allow them to retain their caste, and they could be found to embrace
it without reluctance, and in considerable numbers."
[f.38]
But I do not wish to judge the attitude of the
Protestant Missions to so important a question from so stray a pronouncement of a solitary individual. There is evidence to
show that the Protestant Missions were once early in their career called upon
to make up their mind on this important issue so that it can be said that the
view maintained by the Protestant Mission is a considered view. The time when
this issue was discussed seriously was the time when Rev. Heber was appointed the Bishop of Calcutta. He assumed
his duties in the year 1823. During his episcopate he toured
extensively in the whole of India and in Ceylon. In the course of his tour, he
became aware of the sharp conflict of opinion among Protestant Missionaries to
the question of toleration of caste among converts.
He decided to resolve this difference. How he went about the business is told
in the words of Mr. Kaye who has succintantly narrated it:
"There was strife, therefore, among the
missionaries, which Heber was anxious to allay. The question had been brought
before him, before he quitted Bengal. He had there
sought to arm himself with ail the information that he could obtain, respecting
not only the practice of the earlier Protestant missionaries, but the true
nature of the institution of Caste. There was then in Bishop's College a
Christian convert, known as Christian David. He had been a pupil of Schwartz; and was truly a remarkable man. No less
distinguished for his intelligence than for his
piety, he was regarded by the good Bishop as the one of all others to whom he
might most expediency refer for the solution of his
doubts. Heber drew up, therefore, a series of questions, which he submitted to
the native Christian, and received from him a series of replies, stated not
only in excellent English, but with a force and precision which could not be
easily surpassed.
" First, with regard to .the nature of Caste, it was declared by Christian
David, that it was, among the natives of Southern India, "purely a worldly
idea"-- "not connected in their minds
with any notion of true or false religion," that the native converts,
drawn from the higher castes, were disinclined to intercourse with low-caste
proselytes, not on religious or superstitious grounds, but simply for social
reasons; that there were certain distinctions between high-caste and low-caste
persons not by any means ideal, and that these distinctions were not to be gilded over merely by the
acquisition of worldly wealth. He specially set forth that low-caste people
indulged habitually in an unseemly mode of speech—frequently using coarse or
indecent expressions very revolting to the feelings of high-caste men; and that
they were altogether less decorous and self respectful in their way of life.
Learning, he said, might elevate them; and if a Pariah became learned he was
called a pundit, and respected by the Church; and then his brother converts
would associate with him, but still they would not " from worldly fear or pride " eat with him from the same dish. From the days
of Ziegenbalg downwards they had been wont to sit
at Church in two separate divisions, and had communicated separately at the
Lord's table, drinking out of the same cup, but the high-caste converts
drinking first. As a proof, however, that these were regarded as merely worldly
distinctions, Christian David said that high-caste and low-caste, among the
Christian congregations of the South, were buried in a common burial ground,
and took part promiscuously in the funeral ceremonies, "as
if with the consciousness, contrary to the heathen nations, that death levelled
all distinctions."
" Rather by mild remonstrance and
persuasion than by the enactment of any stringent rules, which might have
proved great obstructions to Christianity, the elder missionaries had sought to
mitigate the evil; and Christian David declared
that under the ministration of Schwartz the evil
had considerably diminished. But Mr. Rhenius, of the
Church Missionary Society, a truly conscientious and devout Christian, had
taken other views of the duties of Christian teachers, and had gained over to
his opinions the younger missionaries in the South; so that they agreed, as I
have said, among themselves, to make the total repudiation of Caste, even in
its mere social aspect, an essential condition of admittance to the Christian
Church; and they had, moreover, spoken and preached against the elder
missionaries—even the most venerated of their predecessors—denouncing them as " corrupters of the
Gospel " for having permitted such things to
soil the purity of Christianity.
Of all this Christian David spoke with profound
regret. His own opinions were naturally inclined towards the doctrine and the
practice of his old master Christian Schwartz. The
mild interference and affectionate advice of the Bishop might, he thought,
dispose the hearts of the younger missionaries towards greater toleration and
forbearance.
" Very earnestly and very
conscientiously did Heber revolve this important
subject in his mind. It is in accordance with all that we know of the character
of the man, that he should have inclined towards the more conciliatory
practices of the elder missionaries. But he deferred any final decision, until
the opportunity should arrive for the collection of further information and the
delivery of a sounder and fuller judgment on the spot. When, therefore, he
visited the Southern Presidency, he wrote letters of inquiry to some of the
principal missionaries and instituted a select committee of the Christian
Knowledge Society for the purpose of making further investigation into the
subject. From one letter written to the Rev. D. Schrievogel, though little more than a series of
questions, the bent of his opinions may be derived. It appeared to him, after
much deliberate consideration, that Caste, as represented to exist among the
Christian converts on the Coast was in reality an institution differing little
in its essential features from the social exclusiveness prevailing in Christian
countries. Is there no such thing, he asked himself, as Caste in Europe? Is
there no such thing as Caste in America? Do not the high and the low sit apart
in our English churches ? Do not our well-dressed
high-caste folks go up first to the altar to
communicate? Do high and low sit down to meat together—do their children attend
the same schools? Are there no Pariahs amongst us? In other civilized
countries, is there not a prevailing sense of Caste, apart from all
associations of worldly distinction? Does not the
Spanish hidalgo wear his Caste bravely beneath his
threadbare cloak? Is the wealthiest mulatto fit companion for the poorest
white? It may be called blood, or anything else in another; but in its
essential features the one thing differs but little from the other. It is an
intelligible and appreciable Christian principle that all men in the sight of
God are equal. But it is equally certain that all are not equal in the sight of
Man; and it is a fair presumption that God never intended them to be equal.
Social distinctions exist every where; and if, argued the Bishop, the
distinctions which exist among the converts on the Southern coast are merely
social distinctions, why should we endanger the success of our efforts by
endeavouring to enforce a law of equality, which is maintained among no other
classes of men?
" In this wise thought Bishop Heber. He had said from the first, that if he could be
of any service to the Christian cause in India, it would be as a moderator—that
by a conciliatory course, smoothing down the asperities of the over-zealship, he might hope to do much good as the
chief missionary; and now he believed that it was his duty to cast in the
weight of his authority upon the side of those who had resolved not to pour too
much of new wine into the old bottles."
This view was more forcefully expressed by
another Protestant Missionary Rev. Robert Noble who came out to India in 1841
and was in charge of the Church of England Mission Work in Masulipatam made it a rule to exclude Pariahs, leather
workers and scavengers from his school. Defending himself against the charge of
introducing caste in the Christian fold he defended himself in the following
terms: " The
humblest and most pious Christian parents in England would not allow their
sons, much less their daughters, to be educated with their footmen, with their
cooks and their scullery maids. Perhaps I was punished oftener
by my pious father for stealing away to play with the boys of the village than
on any other account; while in the best ordered Christian family I have ever
seen, the children were not allowed to converse with the servants or to descend
the second step of the stairs into the kitchen. My father would not have
allowed us to mix with the cook's or stable boy's children; nor can I see it
right to require of Brahmins that before we will teach them the Gospel, they
must sit down on the same form with the pariah and the sweeper. The requirement
is to me unreasonable and unchristian."
It is true that many wise and devout Christians
since Heber's time believed that he was altogether
wrong; and that Bishop Wilson at a later period
reversed his decision emphatically pronouncing against all toleration for the
inequities of caste on the ground that it was an ingrained part of Hindu
religion. But the fact remained not only the official but also the general view
of the Protest Missions [f.39]
in India regarding the place of caste in Indian Christianity.
Thus all Missionaries agreed that Christianity
should be made easy in order that it may spread among India. On this point
there seems to be difference of kind among Catholics, Lutherners
or Protestants. Such difference as exists is one of degree. If there exists
Caste and other forms among Christian converts it is the result of this policy
— policy of making Christianity easy. In adopting this policy the Missionaries
never thought that some day, somebody would ask them 'What
good is Christianity for a Hindu if it does not do away with his Caste'. They
misunderstood their mission and thought that making
a person Christian was the same thing as making him a follower of Christ.
Let us take the second part of the question. Has Christianity
been able to save the convert from the sufferings and the ignominy which is the
misfortune of every one who is born an untouchable? Can an untouchable after
his conversion to Christianity take water from a public well ? Are his children admitted to a public school ? Can he enter a hotel or tavern which was not open to
him? Can he enter a shop and buy things from inside? Will a barber shave him?
Will a washerman wash his clothes? Can he travel in a bus? Will he be admitted in Public offices without compunction
? Will he be allowed to live in the touchable quarters of the village? Will the Hindus
take water from him ? Will they dine with him ? Will not the Hindu take a bath if he touches him? I
am sure the answer to every one of these questions must be in the negative. In
other words conversion has not brought about any change in the social status of
the untouchable convert. To the general mass of the Hindus the untouchable
remains an untouchable even though he beomes a
Christian.
The question is, why
has Christianity not succeeded in raising the status of the untouchable
convert? What are the reasons for this failure? I am not sure that my reasons
will be accepted by all those who are interested in the problem. But I will
state them for what they are worth. To understand and appreciate what I am
going to say I must begin by pointing out that a change in the social status of
the convert can be the result of a two-fold change. There must be a change in
the attitude of the Hindus. Secondly there must be a change in the mentality of
the convert. Status is a dual matter, a matter inter se between two persons and unless both move from their old
position there can be no change. What has been done by those who are in charge
of Christian endeavour to make the parties move on? A consideration of this
question will enable us to understand why Christianity has failed to raise the
status of the untouchable convert.
Let us consider the question in parts. What has
Christianity done to make the Hindus move on? I find they have done nothing.
They seem to be depending upon an idea doing the miracle. The faith in an idea
doing the work has been well expressed by the late Duke of Argyle when he said:
" There is no method of reform so
powerful as this. If alongside any false or corrupt
belief, or any vicious or cruel system, we place one incompatible idea,—then without any noise
of controversy or clash of battle, those beliefs
and customs will wave an idea. It was thus that Christianity, without one
single word of direct attack, killed off one of the greatest and most universal curses of the pagan world,—the
ever deepening curse of slavery." [f.40]
Whatever may be the importance of an idea, I am
sure, history does not bear out the conclusion of the Duke of Argyle. It is
debatable question whether the end of slavery in the Roman Empire was due to
the influence of Christianity. It is beyond doubt that serfdom continued in
Europe although Christianity was an established
institution for several hundred years. It is an incontrovertible fact that
Christianity was not enough to end the slavery of
the Negroes in the United States. A civil war was
necessary to give the Negro the freedom which was denied to him by the
Christians.
The dependence of those in charge of Christian
endeavour upon planting of an idea and leaving it to work a miracle is
therefore one of the reasons why the untouchable has remained an untouchable
notwithstanding his Christian faith.
Let me take the other part of the question. Does
Christianity inspire the untouchable to move on? I am constrained to say that
(it)does not. So far as I am able to see, Christian preaching to the untouchable is less centered on 'practical' reforms and more centered around the development of
Christian social attitudes. Christians who desire the conversion of the
untouchables insist on regarding Christianity as
purely " spiritual
". To teach that Christians have an obligation
to love others is no doubt very valuable. But to stop there and argue that
spiritual life expressed in a social attitude is quite unrelated to material life and Christians can have nothing to do with it, is
in my judgment to preach an empty doctrine. What is the use of a daily
exhortation to a wrong doer to be good and just if the exhortation is not
followed by action to make the wrong doer just and good. The Christian
Missionaries have never thought that it was their duty to act and get the injustice that pursues the untouchables even after
his conversion to Christianity removed. That Missions should be so inactive in
the matter of the social emancipation of the
untouchable is of course a very sad thing. But far more painful is the inaction
of the untouchable Who becomes a convert to Christianity. It is the saddest
thing. He continues to suffer from the Hindus the same disabilities which were
his lot before conversion. It is an extraordinary thing that the movement for
the redress of wrongs is carried on by the untouchables who have not become
converts to Christianity. I have never noticed the untouchable Christians
meeting in Conferences for the redress of their social wrongs. That they have
grievances is beyond question. That there are many who are educated enough to
lead them in their struggle is also well known. Why is it then there has been
no movement for the redress of their wrongs?
I see three reasons why the Christian
untouchables have failed to raise a movement.
The first reason is to be found in the complete
absence of desire on the part of the educated among the Christians to take up
the cause of the community and fight for it. This is due in my judgment to the
fact that within the Christian Community the educated class and the mass has no
kinship. The Christian Community is a composite community. In some places it is
divided into touchables and untouchables. In all
places it is divided into high class and low class. The educated class is
largely drawn from the touchable or the higher
class. This educated class being detached from the lower or the untouchable
class of Christians is not charged with the wants, the pains, cravings,
desires, aspirations of the latter and does not care for their interest. The
untouchable Christians are therefore leaderless and therefore unable to
mobilize for the redress of their wrongs.
The second reason why there is no movement among
the untouchable Christians is due to certain faults in the mental make-up of
the convert. The mental make-up of the untouchable Christian is characterized
by a complete absence of any urge to break his bonds. What is the reason for
this absence of any urge in the untouchable Christian ?
It seems to me that there are two reasons which account for this. One reason is
to be found in the antecedent of the untouchable who becomes a Christian. An
untouchable becomes a Christian for some advantage or he becomes a Christian
because he likes the teaching of the
Bible. But the case is very rare of an untouchable
becoming a Christian because of a positive discontent or dislike of the Hindu
religious teachings. The result is that Christianity becomes only an addendum
to his old faith. It does not become a substitute for his old faith. He
cherishes both and observes them on occasions appropriate to each.
The second reason for the absence of any urge is
due I am afraid to the teachings of the Christian Church. The Christian Church
teaches that the fall of man is due to his original Sin and the reason why one
must become Christian is because in Christianity there is promise of
forgiveness of sins. Whatever may be the theological and evangelistic basis of this doctrine there is no doubt
that from a sociological point of view it is a
doctrine which is fraught with disaster. This Christian teaching is a direct
challenge to sociology which holds that the fall of man is due to an unpropitious
environment and not to the sins of man. There is no question that the
sociological view is the correct view and the Christian dogma only misleads
man. It sets him on a wrong trail. This is exactly what has happened with the
untouchable Christians. Instead of being taught that his fall is due to a wrong
social and religious environment and that for his improvement he must attack
that environment he is told that his fall is due to his sin.
The consequence is that the untouchable convert
instead of being energized to conquer his environment contents himself with the
belief that there is no use struggling, for the simple reason that his fall is
due to the sin committed not by him but by some remote ancestor of his called
Adam. When he was a Hindu his fall was due to his Karma.
When he becomes a Christian he learns that his fall is due to the sins of his
ancestor. In either case there is no escape for him. One may well ask whether
conversion is a birth of a new life and a condemnation to the old.
Does the Indian Christian Community count in
India? What importance, what influence does it have in settling the affairs of
the country. It ought to have importance and influence both in the country and
society. It is undoubtedly the most educated and enlightened community in
India. Not only the percentage of literacy among Indian Christians is
relatively larger than in many other communities in India but the University
Graduate, Doctors, lawyers are far in excess than can be found in communities
which are vastly superior to them in number. Not only the men are educated but
also women are educated. With all this light and learning the Christians as a
community, it must be said, counts for very little—if at all—-in the affairs of
India. There may be difference of opinion on this. But this is the conclusion I
have arrived at after as close and as impartial a study as I have been able to
make. My opponent might say that I am mistaken or that I am misrepresenting.
But I take comfort in the fact that there are some Indian Christians who share
my view and also my regret. Here are two letters which I take from Young India.
'The first is from an Indian Christian
to Mr. Gandhi and published in the Young India,
August 25, 1921. This is what he says:
" I am
sorry to say that you do not take us Indian Christians as the people of India, as I have seen many times Young India mentioning Mussalmans, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., but omitting the
Christians.
" I should like you to believe that we Indian
Christians are also people of India, and take much interest in India's own affairs." The following is the comment made by Mr. Gandhi on this
letter. He says:
" I assure the correspondent and other
Indian Christians that noncooperation is no respecter
of creeds or races. It invites and admits all to is
fold. Many Indian Christians have contributed to the Tilak
Swaraj Fund. There are some noted Indian Christians as non-cooperators in
the front rank. There is constant mention of Musalmans
and Hindus, as they have hitherto regarded one
another as enemies. Similarly there always has been
some cause when any race has been specially mentioned in these columns."' Apart from the question whether it is true
that many Indian Christians have contributed to the
Tilak Swaraj Fund and whether it is true or not that noted
Christians were front rank non-cooperators, the answer given by Mr. Gandhi to
the main question of the correspondent is incorrect if not misleading. If
Musalmans are mentioned only because they regard the Hindus as their enemies
why were Sikhs mentioned? Surely they did not regard the Hindus as their
enemies. Why were they mentioned? The Sikhs were not only mentioned but were
treated as an important party without whose active cooperation it was felt that
the struggle for Swaraj could not be carried on. And be it remembered that the
cooperation given by the Sikhs was not given unconditionally. As is well known
the Sikhs had put down two conditions in return for their cooperation [f.41]. One condition was that in designing a national
flag for India the Sikh colour which they said was black should find a place in
it. Their second demand was that they should be guaranteed
by the Congress representation in the legislature. It is thus clear that Sikhs were
not mentioned but placated. But the Christians were not even mentioned. Now
there are only two explanations
for not mentioning the Indian
Christians. Either they were with the Congress in the struggle for Swaraj or
that they were not worth mentioning as being too insignificant. That they were
not with the Congress in this struggle for Swaraj cannot be gainsaid. The following letter
written by an Indian Christian written to the Editor of the Indian Social Reformer and reproduced in
the Young India expresses
the attitude of the Indian Christians to Swaraj:
" We have positive evidence to show
that as early as the second century of Christian era there were Christian
settlements in India. Such being the case, Christians in India can claim to have existed in India some centuries earlier than the very birth of Islam. How
comes it then that the Indian Christian born and bred on the soil of India and of ancestry purely Indian, has not learnt to cherish the ancient history
of this country, its culture and to look upon its
people, however different in their religious persuations, as his bone and of
his flesh ? Whence is it that unlike him Hindu or Mahomedan
fellow citizen he has not watched for, aspired to and eagerly
welcomed every stage that adds a cubit to the cultural, social or political
statute of his motherland. Why is it that Vande Mataram is a national outpouring of the Hindus and Mahomedans only
and till now ignored by the Indian Christian?
Again how comes it that both Hindus and
Mahomedans regard the Indian Christian sentiment
towards their aspirations as lukeworm if not
positively hostile and conversely why is it that
the ever-growing height of the national spirit in
India makes the Indian Christian feel dwarfed and helpless and suspicious of his security
in the future." [f.42]
Notwithstanding Mr. George Joseph, K. T. Paul, and Dr. S. K. Datta there is no
doubt that the Indian Christian Community far from
taking active part in the struggle for Swaraj was
really afraid of it and that this letter depicts truly the prevailing attitude
of the Indian Christians. The reason why the Indian Christians were not mentioned along with the Musalmans
and the Sikhs is therefore clear. "The omission to mention them is certainly not due to their being friends of Swaraj. The
only conclusion that one can draw for such a
omission is that they did not count. It is a sad
thing that so enlightened a community should have no importance and no
influence in the affairs of the country.
What can be the reasons for such a position? The most obvious reason is of course the smallness of its numbers. The weight of its numbers
is too small to make its existence felt as a force in public life as can be the
case with the Musalmans or with the Depressed Classes. But this cannot wholly
account for their insignificance. There must be other factors to account for
this. I see two.
One is this. The Indian Christians are living in
sheltered waters. They are, at any rate, a large majority of them are living in the laps of the missionaries. For their
education, lor their medical
care, for religious ministration and for most of their petty needs they do not
look to Government. They look to the Missions. if they were dependent upon Government they
would be required to mobilize, to agitate, educate, and organize their masses
for effective political action. For without such organization
no Government would care to attend to their needs
and their requirements. They are not in the current
and not being in the current they care not for public
life, and therefore no recognized place in the public.
The second reason is that the Indian Christian is
a disjointed—it is a better word than the word disunited—Community. All that it
has in common is a common source of inspiration. Barring this one thing which
they have in common everything else tends to keep them apart. Indian Christians
like all other Indians are divided by race, by language and by caste. Their
religion has not been a sufficiently strong unifying force as to make
difference of language, race and caste as though they were mere distinctions.
On the contrary their religion which is their only cement is infected with denominational differences. The result is that the
Indian Christians are too disjointed to have a common aim, to have a common
mind and to put a common endeavour. To an Indian Christian from Tamil, a Hindu
from Tamil is much nearer than an Indian Christian from the Punjab; An Indian
Christian from U.P. feels greater kinship for a
Hindu from U.P. than he does for an Indian
Christian from say Maharashtra. In short, the term
Indian Christian is just a statistical phrase. There is no community feeling
behind this phrase. Indian Christians are not bound together by what is
consciousness of kind which is the test of the existence of a community.
I do not know what Indian Christians will think
of what I have said of the weaknesses which infect their life. One thing I can
say. It is this--I am deeply interested in Indian Christians because a large
majority of them are drawn from the untouchable classes. My comments are those
of a friend. They are not the strictures of an adversary. I have drawn
attention to their weaknesses because I want them to be strong and I want them
to be strong because I see great dangers for them ahead. They have to reckon with
the scarcely veiled hostility of Mr. Gandhi to
Christianity taking its roots in the Indian Social structure. But they have
also to reckon with militant Hinduism masquerading as Indian Nationalism. What
this militant Hinduism will do to Christians and Christianity can be seen from
what happened at Brindaban very recently. If
newspaper reports are true [f.43] a crowd of mild Hinduism quietly went
and burned down the Mission buildings in Brindaban and warned the missionary
that if he rebuilt it they would come and burn it down again?! This may be the solitary instance of misguided
patriots or this may be just a piece of what the Hindus are planning to get rid
of Christians and Christianity. If it is the shadow of events to come then
Indian Christians must be prepared to meet them. How can they do that except by
removing the weaknesses I have referred to? Let all Indian Christians ponder.
[f1]The whole script consists of 64 pages.—Ed.
[f2]The Sea of Rome, pp. 143-45.
[f3]Quoted by Crowley. 'Tree of life', p. 5.
[f4]The Religion of the Semites, p.
[f6]"The Religious Reconstruction", pp.
39-40
[f7]Ibid., pp. 45-46.
[f8]The
Religious Reconstruction ", pp. 42-43.
[f9]"Society
in its Psychological aspects" (1913), pp. 356-57.
[f10]" Religion of the Semites ". p. 273.
[f11]"
Introduction to Social Psychology ", p.
[f12]The
Religion of the Semites. Lecture II. Prof. Smith makes this distinction as
though it was a distinction between ancient society and modern society. It is
of wider importance. In reality, it is a distinction which marks off a
community from a society.
[f13]On this subject see Smith, The Religion of the Semites,
pp. 270-71.
[f14]Ibid., pp. 271-72.
[f15]The
Reconstruction of Religion, pp. 40-41.
[f.16]" Quoted
by Kaye, Christianity in India, p. 106.
[f.17]Kaye. Christianity
in India, p. 106.
[f.18]lbid..
p. 44.
[f.19]Census of India, 1901 Vol. XVI. N. W. Pandbudh, Report Part I, p. 98.
[f.20]Rambles and Recollections Vol. 1. Ch. 53, p. 407.
[f.21]Psychology, Vol. 1.
[f.22]"The
Basis of Inter-Religious Fellowship" by C. F. Andrews in "The Young
Men of India, Burma and Ceylon." June 1928. Vol. XI, No. 6.
[f.23]Harijan.
1936. p. 330.
[f.24]Harijan,
1936, p. 353.
[f.25]Harijan,
April 1937, p. 86.
[f.26]Harijan
for 1937, p. 137.
[f.27]Harijan.
18th July 1936. p. 178.
[f.28]Harijan
for 1936. pp. 140-41.
[f.29]Harijan
for 1936, p. 360.
[f.30]Harijan,
8th February 1936, p. 415.
[f.31]Harijan, August 8, 1936.
[f.32]In India, Burma and Ceylon.
[f.33]In India.
[f.34]Krishna
District Manual, p. 282.
[f.35]Mayhew—Christianity
and the Government of India.p. 51.
[f.36]J. C. Marshman. Life & Times of Carey, Marshman
and word. Vol. 1. p.
[f.37]Ibid., p. 307.
[f.38]Krishna
District Manual, p. 282.
[f.39]An exception must however be made in favour of
the Protestant Missionaries of America. In July 1847 the American Missionaries
passed the following resolution regarding this question—
"That
the Mission regards caste as an essential pan of heathenism, and its full and
practical renunciation, after instruction, as essential to satisfactory
evidence of piety: and that renunciation of caste implies at least readiness to
eat. under proper circumstances, with Christians of any caste."
[f.40]Quoted
by C. F. Andrews. Christ and Labour, p. 25.
[f.41]Young
India, Aug. 4. 1921.
[f.43]Indian
witness