And threats from America and sermons from Pakistan
By  S. Gurumurthy
http://www.prajna.org/Iss02202.html

The  Pope  is concerned about the "attacks on the Christians  in India."  The  Americans are even thinking of  sanctions  against India  for  "repression" of Christians.  A West German  minister says  that the anti-Christian incidents in India have  caused  a "dent in the image of India" as a tolerant nation.

The  Canadian  Government  is "concerned"  its  Ambassador  is "seeking  meetings"  with  the VHP  to  get  explanations.   The Christian nations are trying to get Kofi Annan, the chief of the United  Nations,  to  "intervene  to  stop  the  persecution  of Christians"  in India. Last, Pakistan is also "concerned"  about the "security" of the Christians in India.  It is as if India is Bosnia.

Yet,  not a word of protest from India or Indians - neither  the Indian Government nor the Indian polity nor the Indian press has taken   exception   to  such  blatant  intervention   by   these international   forces   in  a  matter   which   hardly   merits international attention. Granting that it does, see what a self-respecting country, which perceives such international attention as intervention in its affairs, reacts.

When the Americans murmured about action against China under the International  Freedom of Religion Law, saying  that  China  was repressing  the religious rights of Christians,  China  did  not merely  protest,  but  warned the Americans  not  to  meddle  in China's  internal affairs using the pretext of  religion.  This happened hardly a week back.  See the contrast in India.  India has not reacted to American interference.

Why  is  that the Gujarat incidents do not deserve international attention, and certainly not international comment or criticism? Because  the  Gujarat  incidents are at  best  a  clash  between converted and non-converted tribals.  It was not a case  of  the brute  Hindu  majority chasing a hapless minority of  Christians which  needs the attention of the Pope in Rome or the Americans in  Washington or of the distinguished Christian member  nations of the United Nations.

Even  if,  theoretically, the brute majority of Hindus from  all over  India descend on the Dangs and chase the Christians  away, India  would still be different from China, because,  in  India, there  is  a  functioning democracy and a  Constitution  with  a judiciary  which  has  expressly held that the  minorities  have special rights which even the majority don't have.

It  is  only  where  there  are no civil  liberties  or  a  free Constitution to safeguard the rights of minorities, as in China, that international criticism or comment is justified.

By  this  criteria, even though China deserves to  be  commented upon, it does not allow intervention by America.  The reason  is obvious.  No nation can allow, even remotely, an intervention by other nations in its internal affairs.

In the case of the Dangs incidents, there is absolutely no scope or  justification for intervention by any forces,  religious  or political, from abroad.  In fact, according to the statement  of Gandhians  on  oath, the clash was more due to  the  provocative conduct  of  the  Christian missionaries and a reaction  of  the uncoverted to the actions of the missionaries.  The fact remains that  not a drop of blood of either the Christians or other  was shed in the Gujarat incidents.  No mentionable property loss was reported.   And  yet  the  matter has  been  blown  out  of  all proportion.

There  are  two reasons for why a marginal issue like Dangs  has been blown out of all proportion.  First, the Church in India is still controlled by foreign countries.

Second, the Church in India wields influence disproportionate to the numerical strength of the Christian community in India.

Let  us take the first aspect.  In India, we have churches under the  domain of all countries except India itself.  There  is  no Indian  national  church.   The only effort  to  indigenise  the Indian  church  was  made  by  a  nationalist  Christian  leader Archbishop  Dr J S Williams.  He pleaded with Pandit Nehru  that the   church  buildings  and  the  land  owned  by  the  British Government in India should be handed over to an Indian  National Church.

But,  in  what was regarded as a secret deal at that  time,  the Government handed over all Government church property  and  land worth  several thousand crores today - to the Church of England. This was on April 1, 1948.

Till  now, there is no explanation as to why the Government  did that.   Williams  later  pleaded  with  Nehru's  successor,  Lal Bahadur  Shastri, who, in his short tenure, would  only  declare the  Indian  National Church as India's indigenous organisation. It's  a  pity  that a highly indigenised Christian community  in India  has  to be led by foreign churches which have  their  own agenda.

The  second  aspect  -  that the Church wields  disproportionate influence  - is admitted in a publication of the Church  itself. In  the  book  "Integral Mission Dynamics: An  Inter-disciplinary Study"  (published by Intercultural Publications, New Delhi)  the church  authorities  have  admitted  "the  indirect  impact   of Christianity on Indian society cannot be measured easily".

For  example,  there  an  29 civil districts  with  a  Christian population of 10 per cent or more.

Nearly  15  per  cent of the school children in India  study  in Christian  schools  and 10 per cent of the  university  students study in Christian colleges.

In  a  similar  way, 14 per cent of the health services  in  the country are under the Christian management.

Therefore, the numerical Christianity is not indicative  of  its real influence in Indian affairs.

One  can  understand  how with its foreign roots  the  Christian establishment can - and does - influence the course of events in India.

Again   thanks  to  the  mindless  policy  of  allowing  foreign missionaries, the church has virtually had a licence to carry on indiscriminate conversions in the most vulnerable  and  security risk  areas  of the country, something which it would never  have been allowed to do in another country.

The  Christian population in Nagaland which was 46 per  cent  in 1951  increased to 88 per cent in 1991 in Meghalaya in increased from 35 per cent to 67 per cent; in Manipur from 12 per cent  to 34 per cent: in Mizoram from 46 per cent to 88 per cent and from nothing to 11 per cent in Arunachal Pradesh.

The  same  book,  Integral Mission Dynamics, explains  how  this happened.   It says, "Independence of India was a  boon  to  the Roman Catholic Church in Assam."

"New,  areas  like Manipur, Nagaland and Mizoram were  gradually thrown  open to the Catholic missionaries ...... the  1960s  and the  1970s witnessed a phenomenal growth of the church in North-east  India,  and  the  region ceased to  be  purely  a  mission territory  that  had been entrusted to a Salesian  congregation, but became to full-fledged ecclesiastical province".

(Ecclesiastical is a derivative of the Greek term Ecclasia which means political assembly).

Pregnant world indeed.  In simple language, what it says is that the conversions have reached a scale where the region remains no more  a  place  for  social service, it has become  a  political assembly of Christians. This is what is meant by the term ecclestiatical province.

It   is  with  the  rise  of  the  ecclesiastical  province the  large scale  -   insurgency   and terrorism arose in the North-east.

In their memorandum to the Prime Minister, they stated, "The more disturbing  fact  is  that  conversions breed  extra-territorial loyalties.  It is sad to see the people of this country  looking to  other  countries  for warmth, security and  protection.   It creates a sort of crevice in the emotional and real integrity of India."

What the Gandhians have said about Dangs district, which is  not in any border  area, applies with million times the force in the North-east. Is  it  not intriguing that no church leader of consequence  has ever condemned the insurgency in the North-east? Even  different  political parties and their  leaders  dare  not speak  against  the activities of the church in  the  North-east because of the extra-numerical influence of the church. Even  the  Press  has  equated secularism  with  not  protesting against the activities of the missionaries in the north-east.

Such  Christian separatist movements in the North-east have gone so  obviously unprotested by the mainline polity and  the  Press that it has infected and encouraged even the unconverted tribals to choose insurgency.

It  is  an  open  secret  that  the  missionaries  are  actively assisting Bodo militancy. But  contrary  to  its equivocal position  even  in  matters  of insurgency,  the foreign-funded church positions  itself  as  an institution promoting peace.

In the context of the Dangs issue, an Archbishop has said, "Even though  they  are attacked, the Christians will not react;  they will pray even for those who attack them."

What appears utterly noble is sheer duplicity.

First,  he  suppresses  the fact that the converted  tribals  in Dangs have attacked the non-converts which led to reaction  from the latter. Second, he has portrayed all Christian missionaries in Indian as non-violent as if they are in the tradition of Jesus  who  asked Christians to show the other cheek, if they are slapped on one.

Here,  the  Archbishop completely sweeps under  the  carpet  the violence with guns unleashed by the different Christian  outfits in  the North-east, not only against non-Christian tribals,  but also against each other.

How  does  turning  the  other cheek  match  with  the  guns  in Nagaland? Why  does the Christians establishment in India maintain such  a deafening silence about the violence in the North-east where the Christian majority ranges from 67 per cent to 88 per cent  which area has been declared by the church itself as an ecclesiastical province?  It is not just a matter between the tribals.  Because the  largest number of missionaries operating in the  north-east are from Kerala.

When  the  Indian Press does not report the truth,  when  Indian politicians  tell  lies  and the church  in  India  deliberately creates  a fear psychosis among its adherents, why will the  Pope not think that his followers are not safe in India, and why will the  Americans not think of putting some more pressure on India? And  this  is precisely what emboldens even a bigoted  Pakistan, which  has  invoked  blasphemy laws against Christians  in  that country  and  recently witnessed half a dozen  Christians  being axed   and  beheaded,  to  sermonise  to  us  on  how  to  treat minorities.

Again, look at how the Indian Embassy in Washington has to plead before the American people  "We are not slaughtering Christians, believe  us." Why will they believe the Indian Embassy when  the Press  and  politicians  and the church in  India  have  already virtually  pronounced that Christians are subject to a  communal pogrom.

Will  the  church in India ever tell the Americans  to  mind  its business and to shut up saying that this is a matter between two brother  communities in India.  No, why?  Because  its precedes the  US only as a fellow Christians country, and because the  US too  acts as only a Christian nation.  Contrast it with how  the US  merely  shed  crocodile tears for Bosnian Muslims  who  were being  butchered in the thousands by Christians.  Not a drop  of Christian  blood has been shed in Gujarat and the  US  talks  of sanctions.

Results:  Threats from American and sermons from Pakistan  in  a matter  in  which more lies than truth have been uttered.   Will the   responsible  leaders  of  the  Christian  community like Archbishop Williams think?

Will  the  politicians limit their pursuit of votes  within  the boundaries  of  India, and not let down the country  before  the world?  Will the media do its duty fairly so that as a nation we can hold our head high?

(Courtesy The Observer, January 19, 1999)

Copyright © 2001 - All Rights Reserved.

a r t i c l e s    o n    c o n v e r s i o n