07-12-2007, 11:57 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The wages of calumny </b>
The British colonial regime helped the missionaries in converting tribals. They thought the Christian hillmen would be a valuable prop to the state in time of nationalist uprising, writes BB Kumar
Changing Gods: Rethinking Conversion in India, Rudolf C Heredia, Penguin, Rs 350
Changing Gods: Rethinking Conversion in India is written by Rudolf C Heredia, "a committed Christian believer and a professional social scientist", as the author claims to be. Proselytisation is a part of the Christian's ordained duty and the author, himself a Jesuit priest, takes a stand as expected.
The book begins with a threatening note about the existing controversy centred around conversion by comparing it with the nuclear war situation of the Cold War era, wherein the protagonists achieved the balance of terror with their nuclear policy of 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD), thus rejecting saner option of a mutually agreed disarmament under the then existing realpolitik framework and living in the dangerous possibility of a 'nuclear winter' due to any mishap or miscalculated brinkmanship.
Drawing a parallel, Heredia notes: "Today religious extremism and fundamentalism is whipping another wave of terror that seems unbalanced and uncontrollable." He believes that a "parallel to the MAD approach is grossly inadequate", and suggests: "Rather, we need to step back from the brink with a determined religious disarmament, not to dismiss or negate religion but to disarm and discard the aggression and violence of those who indulge in, and those who seek to contain this religion-inspired madness."
Who are the extremists in the author's view? Islamists? No. He even objects the jihadis being labelled as Muslim extremists. Christian terrorists of the North-East? NSCN militants, who have issued decree to Hindu, Buddhist and pagan villagers of Changlang and Tirap districts of Arunachal Pradesh "to convert to Christianity or face capital punishment"? Christian terrorists who are terrorising and forcibly converting Hindu tribals - Tripuris, Reangs and others? Not at all. Then, who are targeted? They are those who are opposing conversion to Christianity, even indulging in re-conversion, ghar-wapasi.
Heredia writes about the "central paradox of Hindu tolerance", "orthodox social practice contradicting it", "the egalitarian possibilities in the Hindu theory of tolerance" being overwritten by the "hierarchical realities of caste" and Hindu tolerance being a "reconstruct of renaissance". On the other hand, he writes about "liberal Islam" and the "social liberation theory of Islam". He has a romantic view of Islamic tolerance, countering what DS Margoliouth and Sir William Muir wrote in Prophet Mohammed's biographies.
The massacre of Bengali Hindus in Tripura during the TNV movement was a "national uprising" for Rieveh Cunvilleh, an American Church leader and director of the Bible Society of India. He hoped that such political upheavals would make the tribals more receptive to the Gospel. He hailed tribal assertion for rights and freedom in Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya and elsewhere.
Christianity is accepted as a major factor by some Naga intellectuals in their struggle for 'sovereignty'. Heredia neither mentions this aspect of the promotion of terror in the name of conversion, nor about the Church's asking for foreign intervention in India. Instead, he prefers to talk about "religious phobia that the hate-mongers have created".
These words and the value-loaded phrases, such as "conversion as freedom/ conversion is freedom", "conversion as liberation", "conversion as tolerance" become meaningless as the Church indulges in caging in by terrorising and luring, rather than allowing freedom.
According to Mills, the reasons behind rapid conversion of Ao Nagas into Christianity were (i) the expectation of the miraculous results and (ii) the fear of hell-fire. The missionaries promised miracles, and appealed to baser sentiments of greed and fear.
A threatened Chang Naga once said: "Who knows what they (missionaries) say is really true? No one has come back from the dead to tell them what the next world is like. Even if their words are true, am I a coward that I should fear to join my parents and suffer whatever torments they may be suffering? If they can bear, cannot I?" The threat, however, worked and people converted even in old age.
Conversion creates acute 'two world' situation, social divide and tension among the converts till the number of traditional religion is drastically reduced. It destroys social egalitarian ethos, the belief system, cultural heritage and the traditional wisdom. The missionaries destroyed excellent tribal institutions and crafts such as Naga Morungs and Phom woodcraft. The vast diversity of pagan religion and culture perished under the steamroller of Christianity. And yet Heredia has the temerity to plead for conversion in the name of "multi-cultural and pluri-religious richness".
David Scot, Johnstone, Dalton and other British colonial functionaries helped the Church's conversion work in the North-East, Jharkhand and elsewhere. The Christian hillmen "would be a valuable prop to the state" in time of nationalist uprising, they believed.
Heredia pleads for conversion "to relieve them from the oppression of caste/Brahminic hierarchy and oppression and to provide them egalitarian alternative to the same". Yet another claim is "conversion as a gateway to self-respect". These tall claims should be judged in the light of what the missionaries as collaborators of colonial powers have done globally, in Asia, Africa, America, and to converted Dalits in India. Moreover, the recent St Stephen's College controversy relating to reservations for 'Dalit Christians' exposes the 'egalitarian' claims of the Church.
While pleading for conversion, Heredia parades colonial myths and misinterpretations fabricated by the colonialists, missionaries, Marxists 'liberals' and brain-washed Indian intellectuals. Besides, the book promotes the racist interpretation of Indian society, myths of core-fringe conflict, isolation, exploitation, oppression and hegemony, thereby promoting social divide theories. Heredia also writes about Dalit marginalisation and tribal isolation, ignoring the caste-tribe continuum under the sanatan framework.
The British colonial regime and the missionaries evolved strategies to win India for Christ. Education was definitely one of the most important tools. Thankfully, Alexander Duff's prediction - "education would be the time bomb ticking at the roots of Hinduism and would blow it to bits" - didn't materialise, and the Indic religion survived the missionary onslaught. The battle, however, is not yet over.
The reviewer is editor, Dialogue
-- The writer is editor, Dialogue
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The British colonial regime helped the missionaries in converting tribals. They thought the Christian hillmen would be a valuable prop to the state in time of nationalist uprising, writes BB Kumar
Changing Gods: Rethinking Conversion in India, Rudolf C Heredia, Penguin, Rs 350
Changing Gods: Rethinking Conversion in India is written by Rudolf C Heredia, "a committed Christian believer and a professional social scientist", as the author claims to be. Proselytisation is a part of the Christian's ordained duty and the author, himself a Jesuit priest, takes a stand as expected.
The book begins with a threatening note about the existing controversy centred around conversion by comparing it with the nuclear war situation of the Cold War era, wherein the protagonists achieved the balance of terror with their nuclear policy of 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD), thus rejecting saner option of a mutually agreed disarmament under the then existing realpolitik framework and living in the dangerous possibility of a 'nuclear winter' due to any mishap or miscalculated brinkmanship.
Drawing a parallel, Heredia notes: "Today religious extremism and fundamentalism is whipping another wave of terror that seems unbalanced and uncontrollable." He believes that a "parallel to the MAD approach is grossly inadequate", and suggests: "Rather, we need to step back from the brink with a determined religious disarmament, not to dismiss or negate religion but to disarm and discard the aggression and violence of those who indulge in, and those who seek to contain this religion-inspired madness."
Who are the extremists in the author's view? Islamists? No. He even objects the jihadis being labelled as Muslim extremists. Christian terrorists of the North-East? NSCN militants, who have issued decree to Hindu, Buddhist and pagan villagers of Changlang and Tirap districts of Arunachal Pradesh "to convert to Christianity or face capital punishment"? Christian terrorists who are terrorising and forcibly converting Hindu tribals - Tripuris, Reangs and others? Not at all. Then, who are targeted? They are those who are opposing conversion to Christianity, even indulging in re-conversion, ghar-wapasi.
Heredia writes about the "central paradox of Hindu tolerance", "orthodox social practice contradicting it", "the egalitarian possibilities in the Hindu theory of tolerance" being overwritten by the "hierarchical realities of caste" and Hindu tolerance being a "reconstruct of renaissance". On the other hand, he writes about "liberal Islam" and the "social liberation theory of Islam". He has a romantic view of Islamic tolerance, countering what DS Margoliouth and Sir William Muir wrote in Prophet Mohammed's biographies.
The massacre of Bengali Hindus in Tripura during the TNV movement was a "national uprising" for Rieveh Cunvilleh, an American Church leader and director of the Bible Society of India. He hoped that such political upheavals would make the tribals more receptive to the Gospel. He hailed tribal assertion for rights and freedom in Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya and elsewhere.
Christianity is accepted as a major factor by some Naga intellectuals in their struggle for 'sovereignty'. Heredia neither mentions this aspect of the promotion of terror in the name of conversion, nor about the Church's asking for foreign intervention in India. Instead, he prefers to talk about "religious phobia that the hate-mongers have created".
These words and the value-loaded phrases, such as "conversion as freedom/ conversion is freedom", "conversion as liberation", "conversion as tolerance" become meaningless as the Church indulges in caging in by terrorising and luring, rather than allowing freedom.
According to Mills, the reasons behind rapid conversion of Ao Nagas into Christianity were (i) the expectation of the miraculous results and (ii) the fear of hell-fire. The missionaries promised miracles, and appealed to baser sentiments of greed and fear.
A threatened Chang Naga once said: "Who knows what they (missionaries) say is really true? No one has come back from the dead to tell them what the next world is like. Even if their words are true, am I a coward that I should fear to join my parents and suffer whatever torments they may be suffering? If they can bear, cannot I?" The threat, however, worked and people converted even in old age.
Conversion creates acute 'two world' situation, social divide and tension among the converts till the number of traditional religion is drastically reduced. It destroys social egalitarian ethos, the belief system, cultural heritage and the traditional wisdom. The missionaries destroyed excellent tribal institutions and crafts such as Naga Morungs and Phom woodcraft. The vast diversity of pagan religion and culture perished under the steamroller of Christianity. And yet Heredia has the temerity to plead for conversion in the name of "multi-cultural and pluri-religious richness".
David Scot, Johnstone, Dalton and other British colonial functionaries helped the Church's conversion work in the North-East, Jharkhand and elsewhere. The Christian hillmen "would be a valuable prop to the state" in time of nationalist uprising, they believed.
Heredia pleads for conversion "to relieve them from the oppression of caste/Brahminic hierarchy and oppression and to provide them egalitarian alternative to the same". Yet another claim is "conversion as a gateway to self-respect". These tall claims should be judged in the light of what the missionaries as collaborators of colonial powers have done globally, in Asia, Africa, America, and to converted Dalits in India. Moreover, the recent St Stephen's College controversy relating to reservations for 'Dalit Christians' exposes the 'egalitarian' claims of the Church.
While pleading for conversion, Heredia parades colonial myths and misinterpretations fabricated by the colonialists, missionaries, Marxists 'liberals' and brain-washed Indian intellectuals. Besides, the book promotes the racist interpretation of Indian society, myths of core-fringe conflict, isolation, exploitation, oppression and hegemony, thereby promoting social divide theories. Heredia also writes about Dalit marginalisation and tribal isolation, ignoring the caste-tribe continuum under the sanatan framework.
The British colonial regime and the missionaries evolved strategies to win India for Christ. Education was definitely one of the most important tools. Thankfully, Alexander Duff's prediction - "education would be the time bomb ticking at the roots of Hinduism and would blow it to bits" - didn't materialise, and the Indic religion survived the missionary onslaught. The battle, however, is not yet over.
The reviewer is editor, Dialogue
-- The writer is editor, Dialogue
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->