On
faith
By
Rajeev
Srinivasan
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/jan/10rajeev.htm
I
have written several things that irritated Indian Christians in my last few
columns -- and I have received quite a lot of mail from them in this context:
ranging from the disappointed to the peeved. I am sorry I have hurt some
feelings, but I think it is appropriate to consider Hindu outrage. I ask my
interlocutors -- where were you when everybody from Alan de Lastic to the
Southern Baptists heaped disdain on Hindus? Why did you not raise your voice
then? Why did no Indian Christian in the Indian media -- and there are many --
defend their fellow-Indians?
The papal visit to India was an excellent example of
the contempt with which some Christians -- Catholic or Protestant -- hold
Indians, in particular Hindus. The amount of calumny heaped upon Hinduism by
Christians in centuries past would fill entire volumes -- and a good
introduction to this can be found either in the superlative study The Raj
Syndrome by historian Suhash Chakravarthy (Penguin India) or in Missionaries
in India by Arun Shourie.
I don't happen to have either of these books with me at
the moment, but I shall be glad to quote some choice passages in future. It
surely is a great tribute to the Hindu's tolerance that even after all these
centuries of violent abuse, a Pope is welcomed in India -- note that China, Hong
Kong, Sri Lanka, etc refused him entry, not to mention all the Muslim nations of
Asia.
It
is a fact that the canards and the tirades and just plain lies of the
missionaries are unbelievable. Swami Vivekananda (or maybe it was Mahatma
Gandhi), was moved to suggest something to the effect that if all the mud at the
bottom of the Indian Ocean were thrown at the missionaries, it would not come
close to the blackening of Hinduism by them through lying.
Yet, the Pope wouldn't consider apologising to Hindus
-- as he has to others such as Native Americans who have been similarly ravaged.
Nor would he say anything that would appear to give Hinduism respect as a major
world religion -- the subtext of papal verbiage was always that Hindus were
merely following some silly ancient myths (the unkind word "pagan"
leaps to mind, or is it "heathen"?) and were Hindus only because they
hadn't seen the 'true light' of Christianity.
This kind of sanctimonious self-righteousness is -- in
a word -- nonsense. In fact, a case can be made that Hinduism is a more
enlightened and rational religion than any of the Semitic religions, with their
jealous Gods and Absolute Certainties. Not for nothing did 17th and 18th century
Europeans call it 'the Enlightenment' when they exchanged church dogma for
rationality.
I
personally would say that Buddhism is the 'best' religion, if such a thing made
sense -- for it has inherited the brilliance of Hinduism, while having cleansed
itself of the excrescence. There is no reason for a Christian to feel superior
to a Hindu or Buddhist based on their religions. Quite the contrary.
At bottom, a Hindu like me is simply tired of the
continuous defamation of Hinduism that seems to come so naturally to certain
Christians -- this is surely because Hindus are passive and do not push back. As
someone who has seen a lot of the seamy side of Christianity as it is practised,
I am appalled at the hypocrisy, nay the chutzpah, of fundamentalist Christians
assailing Hinduism when there is so much wrong in their own house -- physician,
heal thyself first.
For instance, why aren't they going out and offering
succour to their fellow-Christians in the ghettos of the Bronx? After all,
blacks in inner-city ghettos in the United States often have standards of living
and life expectancies worse than in sub-Saharan Africa. Because these blacks are
already Christian somehow they don't count in fundamentalist 'compassion'? Or
how about attempting to convert a few Muslims -- after all, they honour Jesus as
a prophet, too? Or some Chinese Communists?
Moreover, there is so much baloney in the way many
Americans practise Christianity that it is largely something that cannot be
taken seriously as a religion -- it is a series of bizarre and primitive cults.
I find much of it laughable and inane. But this is not something known to the
average Indian living in India, who, with his/her Macaulayite brainwashing,
surely ascribes nobility and sacredness to all Christian clergy.
The
sad truth is that a lot of them -- certainly among the Americans -- are
money-grubbing charlatans who wouldn't recognise spirituality if it were
presented to them on a plate with watercress around it. This reality ought to be
realised by Indians -- a Pat Robertson is not a holy man, for instance. He is a
businessman, 'harvesting' souls for profit.
There is another side to Christianity, I freely admit.
That which has the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas; the compassion of Francis of
Assisi; the devotion of Jeanne d'Arc; the genuine service-mindedness that has
sent many to far-off places to help those less fortunate than themselves. There
is also the everyday faith of people like my friends the Swansons, who live
upright, moral, godfearing and good lives.
I
saw this side of Christianity at my Jesuit-run boys' high school in India. I
remember with particular fondness the old headmaster, a wheezy, kindly old man,
who clearly did not enjoy his duty of whipping the students for various
transgressions. Many of the Jesuits were dedicated teachers. I remember what my
class teacher inscribed in my 'autograph book' -- "cultivate
compassion", said he, all those years ago.
Just as Christianity has a good side to it, so does
Hinduism -- it is, to a believer, an entirely satisfying and sufficient
religious model of the world. A knowledgeable Hindu finds the whole question of
conversion redundant -- there is nothing, philosophically speaking, that he
would gain from converting to another faith. Material blandishments may be
another matter.
I was once again reminded of the good side of
Christianity when I saw the just-released film, The End of the Affair,
based on my favourite among all of Graham Greene's novels. With Ralph Fiennes
excelling in the title role of the tortured, jealous and baffled narrator -- a
stand-in for Greene as it was a highly autobiographical, first-person novel --
it is a very good film. It is about a torrid romance in World War II London
between the narrator, Maurice Bendrix, and a married woman, Sarah Miles, played
luminously by Julianne Moore.
Bendrix is madly in love with Sarah, and she with him,
apparently; but she, quite mysteriously, breaks off the relationship. He is
violently angry, uncomprehending, and suspicious -- that she may have taken
another lover. Instead, what emerges is an astonishing tale of faith and what
the human heart will do for love -- Sarah's choice turns out to a truly
remarkable instance of the power of faith and belief. I could relate to that
because I, too, believe.
I
will mention in passing that Ralph Fiennes is a great actor in these tortured
roles -- I loved him in The English Patient and also in the more
understated role with overtones of moral ambiguity in Quiz Show (another
excellent but dark film that exposes the dark side of American society -- no
wonder it didn't do well at the box office). Greene would have been proud of the
character Fiennes plays here.
But going back to Greene, I have always been fascinated
by the fact that he became a Catholic as he felt his Anglican church was not
devout enough. And a major thread in many of his works, especially my other
favourites, The Heart of the Matter , The Power and the Glory ,
Brighton Rock, is the idea of decrepit faith -- with failed priests,
morally ambivalent anti-heroes and others who are touched by God in ambiguous
ways. 'Greeneland' is full of these.
Of course, Greene is using the Christian concept of
God's Grace even for sinners -- but I could just as well posit this in terms of
the Hindu concept of advaita or pantheistic monism. That there is no
difference between God and Creation, that God's Grace is inherent in all of us,
in every living being, and that it is a matter of discovering it. In other
words, I would argue that there is no underlying difference between the Hindu
and Christian ideas of Redemption.
But this is where the problem arises: fundamentalist
Christians cannot -- I think their religion explicitly prohibits them from doing
so -- concede that there are different paths to the same Truth. That one could
be an ardent theist with no resort to Christian dogma bewilders them. Isn't it
obvious that it is indeed possible to believe in God without Christianity?
People did do so before Christianity appeared on the scene.
There
is a collision between that unfortunate exclusivist Christian perspective and
the Hindu ethos that accepts that there are many ways to the Truth. A Hindu is
truly baffled that the religion of Jesus Christ -- whom he will readily accept
as a great soul, even as a divine person in a pinch -- should be so
narrow-minded as to insult his own deeply-held beliefs. That Christians could
earnestly believe that Christ is the only way to Heaven is totally puzzling to
the Hindu.
The early teachings of Christ (and there was some
recent news about a set of Dead Sea Scrolls from Kirbat Qumran that had been
suppressed by Benedictine monks, which demonstrated this fact) were remarkably
close to those of the Essenes (and perhaps to the Gnostics), who were later
burned at the stake as heretics after the Second Synod at Nicae. And the Essene
faith had many elements that were Indic, predominantly Buddhist.
The historic Christ himself would not have, I
conjecture, found it difficult to accept Hindu/Buddhist ideas of faith. There is
the controversial Holger Kirsten book Jesus in India that posits that
Christ spent several of his 'lost years' in Kashmir learning from Buddhist monks
and perfecting his yogic skills, whence his later miracles. A lot of Christian
practices, including the system of celibate monks and nuns, are clearly modelled
on earlier Buddhist practices.
I continue to believe that a great deal of good can
come of a genuine dialogue between Hindus and Christians. But until Christianity
accepts that Hinduism as an equal -- this has to be a dialogue among equals --
there is no way of proceeding. Hindus are willing to accept Christianity,
despite its many failings, as an equal. But at the beginning of 2000 CE,
Christians largely show no respect for the ancient Asian faiths.
This
is the crux of the matter. Hinduism has its merits: even the caste system, the
focus of most Christian criticism of Hinduism, is far less pernicious than
apartheid, slavery and anti-Jewish pogroms. Hindus demand respect, and deserve
it. If this is not given, then Christians cannot expect respect in return.
*****
Postscript: Several readers wrote that they did not
donate money to the Orissa cause because they were afraid the money would not go
to the really needy, but ''would be swallowed up by the government". Reader
Ragu from Papua New Guinea said he has earmarked money, but has had a hard time
finding a reputable agency. If anyone can help, please let me know -- I have
referred him to IDRF so far. My old schoolmate Shambhu S pointed out that more
money had been raised by IDRF in the US for Orissa than for Kargil. This was
news to me.
Readers including Uday from India agreed with what I
said about rediff.com's J&K series being against the national
interest. Others including reader Zaigham from Arizona disagreed. I need to
clarify what I meant: I think that a particular series was slanted in a way that
would make it prime material for Pakistani propaganda -- as I have seen them use
Praful Bidwai's writings in Frontline. God knows we don't need to
encourage Pakistan to send more terrorist/mercenary infiltrators.
I
am not advocating censorship -- in fact, I want such series written about
others: Sikhs, Dalits, Pandits, tribals, Naxalite victims, Narmada dam victims
-- with equal commitment and sympathy. Their stories need to be told, and I hope
such series will appear regularly on rediff.com
But I also honestly believe that the human rights of
terrorists and outlaws are not greater than the human rights of ordinary
citizens. The J&K series tended to portray the terrorist as somehow worthy
of greater sympathy than the victims of terror, of ethnic cleansing, of
barbarism. I object to that. For what I consider a balanced view of the events
in J&K, try Manoj Joshi's The Lost Rebellion: Kashmir in the '90s (Penguin
India).
Reader Vianni thought I was suggesting that Indian
Christians were anti-national. Hardly -- I cannot make such sweeping
generalisations about a large and diverse group. However, according to the Hindustan
Times , when Partition was under discussion, a group of Christian
missionaries did demand a 'Christianstan', to consist of parts of the Northeast,
Chhota Nagpur and Travancore. This is why secession led by missionaries is not
unthinkable at all.
****
Note:
Rajeev Srinivasan works in sales and marketing for a Silicon Valley
multinational. He has degrees from IIT Madras and the Stanford Business School.
He usually writes on cinema, religion, travel and diaspora Indian issues, and
sometimes on high technology and business.
|