Christian Missionaries in India by Arun Shourie (part2/2)
M. Jagadesh Kumar
Missionaries in India, Continuities, Changes and Dilemmas(2/2)
By Arun Shouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
(The following review of the above book is by M. V. Kamath)
There is a popular myth that the British Government stayed away from
conversions and that the Christian missionaries stayes away from politics.
Shourie has questioned that. As he says: The work of the Church was not done by
the missionaries alone; religiously neutral administrators did a good bit of
it. Correspondingly, the work of the Empire was not done by the administrators
alone, the missionaries did a good bit of it. And that contribution was
acknowledged by the ruler and the ruled." Lord Palmerston, the then Prime
Minister is quoted as sayinng, "It is not only our duty but in our own interest
to promote the diffusion of Christianity as far as possible throughout the
length and breadth of India," And Lord Halifax when he was Secretary of State
wrote: "Every additional Christian is an additional bond of uninon with this
couuntry and an additional source of strngth to the Empire." The Englishman
expected every Christian to be a traitor to his own country. Fortunately for
us, thousands of Christianns disappointed our British rulers.
It was not just the odd British PM or the general run of the mssionary that had
contempt for Hinduism. Max muller who is greatly admired for his translation of
Snskrit works was also to add his tuppence-worth of thoughts on the subject of
Hindu philosophy. He once wrote: "A large number of Vedic hymns are chilidish
in the extreme, tedious, low and commonplace." When Duke of Argyll was
appointed Secretary of State for India in DEcember 1868, Max Muller wrote to
him: "India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again and that
second conquest should be a conquest by education." He added: "The ancient
religion is doomed and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it
be ?"
Such were the calumnies uttered against Hinduism. Now there is a change among
Christian missionaries, says Shourie who, however, questions some of the
presumptions of the new set of missionaries who now grudgingly conceded that
salvatiuon is possible in each religion. He also questions certain Chrisitna
assumptions. He asks: Is it all right to worship the idol of Mary but not that
of the idol of Vishnu? To clutch the CRoss but not to turn beads? To demand
reservations to be extended to Christians who are schedukled castes but not to
accept the notion of caste? Christians he concedes are changing but he adds
that we will know if they have truly shifted, from some tests:
* First we will know that the Church has truly changed
when it undertakes and disseminates an honest accounting
of the calumnies it heaped on India and Hindusim.
* The second thing to look for would be the extent to which
the Church acquaints Christians in India as well as groups
it is aiming at with the results of the scholarly work
on the two central claims of the Church, that the Bible
is the revealed word of God, that it is wholly free from
error and that the Church, in particular, the Pope is
infallible. The scholarly work has blown craters in
these claims.
* In view of the fact, now proclaimed by the Church, that
salvation is possible in each religion, what is the ground
for conversion of people to Chrisitianity, in particular
by the sorts of means which we saw are in use in the
North-EAst today?
Arun Shourie's book should be studied in great detail by all policy makers in
government as it should be studied by the missionaries and the entire body of
the Church - Catholic and Protestant. The book raises many embarassing
questions that should be boldly faced. It explains as few books in recent
times, of the anguish of many Hindus as well as their angst. Perhaps Shourie
should write a book on Islam and Hindus as well so that the minories will know
why the majority often behaves and feels as it does at crucial moments. Therein
lies our joint salvation.
__
Courtesy: The Organiser, May 22, 1994.
--
Sridhar Venkataraman
Unfortunately a previous posting ended in SCI only. This one should
supersede that one hopefully. The References header points to the
article in SCT.
ku...@caddac1.uwaterloo.ca (M. Jagadesh Kumar) writes:
| Missionaries in India, Continuities, Changes and Dilemmas(2/2)
| By Arun Shouri
| -------------------------------------------------------------
|
| (The following review of the above book is by M. V. Kamath)
While not going into the specifics of the posting, what do others feel
about such type of postings which are not specifically related to
Tamilnadu but ofcourse the case can be made out that it is related to
India as a whole and TN is part of it and is appropriate in sct. But
then where do we draw the line on postings to individual groups.
Such articles are _not_ crossposted and even if they are, I don't see
the persons posting to every indian related group and if it is
crossposted what is the purpose of individual groups? If you have
strong opinions on such postings, please POST and don't mail me.
For the record, I am not censoring the postings. I am only
suggesting that they are appropriate in soc.culture.indian in the
general case, soc.religion.eastern if the poster feels thatit
threatens the religious fabric in India, soc.religion.christian if the
poster feels a need to tell the christian community and nowhere else.
Before posting any responses, please peruse the newuser documents
about Usenet (if you haven't) because I am speaking from a Usenet
perspective and not as a biased poster or whatever.
I can understand what a clueless newbie can do with crossposting but
for this poster who has decided to ignore my mail, I have to conclude
that either he is clueless about Usenet (which is not true) or he
blatantly disregards opinions. Has anyone else tried emailing him?
Sridhar.