'The
Church has harmed many Hindu families and communities and is still willing to do so'
Interview with Dr. David Frawley
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/nov/04pope1.htm
Dr. David Frawley, director
of the American Institute of Vedic Studies, believes Christians should accept and
understand religious pluralism. The former Catholic maintains he has nothing against
Christ or Christians, but agrees with the VHP's demand for an apology from the Pope over
the historical excesses against Hindus. In an e-mailed interview, the Vedic scholar spoke
his mind to Archana Masih.
Could you explain your stance on Pope John Paul II's visit to
India? Since there is a convergence many a time on his role as the religious head of the
Catholic Church and the symbolic leader of the Vatican, in your view, in what capacity is
he really coming to India?
China, Taiwan and Sri Lanka refused the Pope's request to visit
and launch his new activities that aim at the evangelisation of Asia. Hindu majority
India, though not a Christian country, has allowed him to do so. Therefore the Pope should
feel grateful to the tolerant people of India. Clearly no Western country would give a
state welcome to a Hindu religious leader seeking to promote Hindu conversion activities
in the West.
India is one of the few countries that recognises the
Pope as a head of state. The United States and most Western countries recognise the Pope
only as a religious leader. Clearly the Pope is not coming to India as the political
leader of a secular state but as a religious leader. He is conducting a religious mass in
Delhi, not organising a trade mission.
The Catholic Church has a long and self-proclaimed policy of
evangelisation or conversion and a special Asia synod to convert Asia. The Pope is coming
to India to promote the cause of Catholicism, which means the conversion of Hindus.
Naturally he will be friendly in this capacity, but his purpose has an obvious ulterior
motive. He is not coming here because he wants to make a pilgrimage to honour the great
Yogis and swamis of India or to visit her great temples and tirthas.
Today the Catholic Church is losing power in the West. Most
Catholics are only nominal in their beliefs. For example, most American Catholics practise
birth control that the Church does not approve of and don't attend church on a regular
basis. The average age of priests and nuns is nearing the age of sixty and few younger
people are coming in. The Church can still get a fair amount of money from rich Western
economies but is clearly an institution in decline. Without replenishing its population
base it is facing a severe crisis. India offers perhaps the best possibility for doing
this with a large population with a history of religious devotion and monastic activity
that could readily become priests and nuns.
Why do you believe it is important for him to apologise to the
Hindus for the forced conversions in India?
The bloody history of the Church in America, Africa and
Asia is an open book and well known. The Native Americans where I live in the United
States still tell stories about how the feet of their people were cut off for refusing to
walk to church or their tongues cut off for refusing to recite prayers. The church has
claimed that its intolerance is a thing of the past. Yet even if one accepts that it has
stopped today, which is debatable, it certainly went on well into this century. That the
church was prominent in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and never really opposed Hitler or
Mussolini, should not be forgotten.
The point is that if you don't apologise how can other groups
believe that you have really given up the attitudes that caused such behaviour? Such
conversion efforts are hurtful to the communities they target, even if no overt violence
is involved. The Church has harmed many Hindu families and communities and is still
willing to do so, by turning people against their native beliefs and customs.
Christians have made some apologies to the Native Americans and
the black Africans for their oppression of them. Why don't Hindus count in this? Aren't
they also human beings?
There have been many deeds in history and at present that have
gone by without apologies and accountability. Is it worthwhile to resurrect such issues in
the present context? What purpose does this serve?
The problem is that the same attitudes and behaviour that
resulted in such violence in the past still go on today. The official policy of the
Catholic Church today is still that Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and other Indian
religions are not valid or true. This promotes division, misunderstanding and can still
lead to violence.
Today we have given up the
doctrine of racial superiority that the White Europeans used to justify their colonial
rule. But the attitude of religious superiority -- that only Christianity is true and the
other religions are false -- still goes on. Such religious exclusivism like racism is
backward and prejudicial. If I believe, as the Church teaches, that my non-Catholic
neighbours will go to hell, it doesn't do much for communal harmony. And new converts take
these beliefs much more seriously.
What are the atrocities perpetrated against Hindus by the
Christians that you would like to see the Pope apologise about? Can you name some of these
crimes?
The Goa Inquisition was probably the worst and involved torture
and murder of thousands of Hindus and the destruction of many Hindu temples over a period
of several decades. It was done by the same groups that promoted the genocide of Native
Americans. But Church policy all along has been that Hinduism is bad and unless Hindus
convert they cannot be saved. This easily gives rise to excesses. After all if I believe
that if you don't join my religion you will suffer in eternal hell, for your benefit I
must do everything possible, which easily leads to excesses.
What are the reasons for the sudden anger against the Christians?
The anger is not so much sudden as that today we have a more
aware Hindu populace and a larger media forum for airing such grievances. Oppressed
religious and social groups of all types are now making such protests. Christians will
more quickly protest against Hindus if they feel that Hindus are not treating them fairly.
Hindus have actually protested a lot less than other groups, though they have more
commonly been the target of denigration. Such a Hindu awakening was inevitable. The real
question is why it took so long.
Another issue is that the Hindu reconversion movement has
started, which Christians find threatening and which highlights this issue.
Why have Christians replaced Muslims as the hate objects for
Hindus? Is it true that the VHP's campaign is driven because Sonia Gandhi is a Christian?
I don't think that Hindus hate Christians. They are not targeting
Christians for conversion or calling them devil worshippers as the Southern Baptists, the
largest Protestant sect in America to which both Bill Clinton and Al Gore belong, are
calling Hindus. Rather Hindus are challenging Christian prejudices against Hindus that
cause mistrust and hatred of Hindus by Christians. You will find a picture of Christ in
many Hindu homes, but you won't find any picture of Krishna in any Christian homes.
Nor do Hindus hate Muslims. It is the general Muslim view that
Hindus are idolators, polytheists and kafirs and doomed in the eyes of Allah. Hindus have
no such doctrines about Islam. Hindu dislike of Christianity and Islam is largely a
backlash against the centuries long efforts to convert them which are still going on.
I don't think the VHP campaign would stop if Sonia Gandhi left
politics either. That Sonia Gandhi is a Christian may be a matter of concern for Hindus
because of the Christian seeking to convert Hindus. Clearly most Christians in America
would not be happy if a Hindu became the head of a major American political party,
particularly if Hindus were actively trying to convert Christians in America.
The greater issue is caused by the increasing Christian
evangelisation activities in India. Look throughout the country, particularly in the South
and you will find them expanding almost everywhere.
Why should there be an evangelisation of Asia at all? Don't we
live in a global society in which we must recognise pluralism in religion just as we do in
culture or language? Are not the great religions of Asia good enough and a great legacy
for the entire world? Why do Westerners come to India? It is mainly to find spiritual
teachings that they didn't find in their own Western Christian backgrounds.
Others argue that since only about three per cent of India has become
Christian why should one care? But the areas that have become Christian, like the
northeast, are getting progressively alienated from the rest of India and seeking to
secede from the country. And the possibility of dramatically more conversions in the
future cannot be ruled out. That someone has fired a gun against you and missed is no
reason not to take it seriously, particularly if he is loading a better gun for further
shots. The point is that it is unkind to begin with.
As a former Catholic, why are you suspicious of the Pope's
campaign? What is it about Pope John Paul II that makes you suspicious of him?
As a former Catholic, I am well aware that most Catholics have no
real respect for Hinduism. My uncle became a missionary to convert Native Americans and
save them from hell, and Hindus are placed in the same category. The current Pope is a
well-known conservative promoting evangelical activity throughout the world, but he covers
his actions with a veneer of social liberalism.
Today no major Catholic leaders in the West are saying that
Hinduism is a great and spiritual religion that is worthy of respect like Christianity.
Should they succeed in converting Hindu India to Catholicism they would happily put an end
to the great Yogic and Vedantic traditions that are perhaps the soul of this country,
which would be a great loss to humanity. We have enough Christian countries in the world
today, but there is only one India and it is not Christianity which has made the
civilisation of India unique and great.
Catholicism has a long history of co-opting other beliefs. It is willing
to give an apparent honour and regard to something, as long as it is placed under the
supremacy of Christianity. For example, the church subordinated the old pagan Greek
philosophies of Aristotle and Plato, which it made the basis of Christian theology. It
hopes to do the same thing with Hindu and Buddhist philosophies, which it hopes to fashion
as a prelude to the message of Christ.
In South India Catholic priests dress up like Hindu swamis and
call their organisations ashrams but are still actively engaged in conversion. Their Hindu
dress is not don to honour Hindu traditions but to make Christianity more acceptable to
the local population, like McDonalds offering vegetarian burgers in India for Hindus who
won't eat the usual hamburger.
Similarly, the Pope will probably speak of the greatness of India
and the need for brotherhood and human rights but he will certainly not say that Hindus
don't need to convert to Christianity. He will portray Christianity as a religion of
compassion, equality and democracy to appeal to the poor in India, though historically
Christianity has commonly been aligned with monarchies, colonial armies, fascist states
and ruling juntas.
Hindus may confuse such statements of general human regard with
real religious tolerance or even with an acceptance of Hinduism. They may confuse a
co-opting of their religion with a real regard for it. The new Catholic strategy is that
Hinduism is all right as far as it goes but will only reach its real fulfilment when it
accepts Christ. This is the same old conversion ploy, only done in a more covert way. The
American Protestants, who still portray Hinduism as a religion of the devil, are at least
more honest about their views and their intentions.
The Pope is a State guest, invited by the Government of India, so
won't the stance of the VHP undermine India's secular tradition and embarrass A B Vajpayee
-- even his alliance partners do not agree with such protests.
Not at all. In America visits of foreign heads of states are often marked
by protests. When the Chinese president was here recently many Americans mainly of Chinese
ancestry protested the visit, including some who were Democrats. Such protests are part of
democracy. Islamic groups in America have protested the visit of Israeli leaders as well.
The Pope cannot be made immune to such protests. They are part of secular traditions which
don't require the people in any country to bow down to a foreign leader, whether he is a
religious figure or not.
If in spite of the pressure applied for the apology, and the Pope
does not apologise, will it be a loss of face for the VHP and other organisations
demanding for the same?
I don't think anyone expects the current Pope to make such an
apology, though a future Pope might do so. But the case has to be brought out anyway for
the sake of truth and for posterity. The fact that it is coming out is beneficial for
Hindus. Hindus have long been too quiet about the attacks against them. Hindus tend to bow
down to any religious leader as a holy man, even one who does not respect their traditions
or honour their gods and sages. It is actually more important that Hindus change than that
the pope changes.
The Pope doesn't want to apologise to Hindus because he doesn't
want to recognise Hinduism as a valid religion. He won't even mention the word Hinduism.
He will call Diwali an Indian cultural festival, not a Hindu religious event.
What impact do you think the Pope's visit is going to have on the
socio-religious culture of India?
Hopefully it will make Hindus more savvy about what is going on
in the world. Current missionary plans to convert India, both by Catholics and
Protestants, are the greatest in history in terms of financial backing, media manipulation
and manpower support. An entire new attack is being launched. China is also emerging as a
new target. Religious tolerance is not a one way street. We cannot ask Hindus to honour
Christianity when Christians, starting with the pope, don't honour Hinduism, however much
they may talk of God, humanity or peace.
Why can't the Pope say that Christianity is not the only way and that
Hinduism by itself can be enough? That would be an expression of tolerance and
open-mindedness. Why are Hindus who accept the validity of many paths called
"hardliners" while a Pope who refuses to do so is honoured as a holy man? Is not
pluralism a sign of tolerance and exclusivism the hallmark of intolerance?
Catholicism today is not a pluralistic tradition honouring
different religious and spiritual paths as valid. It is an exclusivist tradition dominated
by a leader who will not accept a Buddha, Krishna, Rama or Guru Nanak as a Son of God but
only Jesus. What does that say about how he views India and the kinds of plans he intends
to promote here?
Hopefully the Pope's visit will get people to really think about
these matters.
|