Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: The Free
Press Journal
Date: November 3, 2000
The Vajpayee Government
or call it the BJP-led government - has been one year and slightly longer
in office and, sadly, the secularist voice is stilled. Not quite,
but substantially. When it came to power there was talk about "secret
agendas", about Fascist tendencies etc, etc. Now, according to a
poll conducted in behalf of the BJP-hating "The Hindustan Times," at least
urban Indians think that Vajpayee's prime ministership is described as
good by 44 per cent and excellent by 25 per cent. Not even Jawaharlal
Nehru received that kind of certificate. But that has not prevented
the secular press from remaining in the 'hate Hinduism' mode, except that
attack is shifted from the Vajpayee government to the RSS.
The Statesman (23 oct.),
for example attacked the RSS for "suddenly" seeing Christianity as a threat
to the "affirmation of Hindu identity". It is clear that The Statesman
does not have a, complete file on the RSS or The Organiser, or, if it had,
its editorial writer has not had enough time to study the RSS approach
toward Christianity. But apart from that, had not the Pope made two
revolting statements dismissing non-Roman Catholic religions, as irrelevant,
the RSS probably would have let sleeping dogs lie. The provocation
came from the Vatican, the RSS has merely responded to it with dignity.
What's wrong with asking for a Swadeshi Christian Church? In what way is
that an expression of fascism? The Hindustan Times ran a debate (23 Oct.).
One Dominic Emmanuel who is Director, Communication/Info Bureau of the
Catholic Archdiocese of Delhi condemned the demand saying that a "Swadeshi
Church means a Hindutva Church" - and a more ridiculous point could not
have been raised. Tarun Vijay, editor of Panchjanya, official organ
of the RSS said that 'a national Church would profess the faith in an atmosphere
of mutual coexistence and respect' and that it would "not be a 'dollar-seeker'
Church but a Church for Bharat and Bharatiya people" which 'even Jesus
would not object." There is a queer belief that if Hindu NRIs can send
money to their fellow countrymen in India there is no reason why Christian
bodies abroad should not send monies to Christian bodies in India - a point
made by several newspapers. What is forgotten is that NRIs are not
sending monies to India to encourage efforts at conversion. If Indian
Christians send monies to their fellow Indian Christians, nobody could
possibly object. Hindu NRIs are sending monies to Hindu organisations
to help Hindus. Of all people, M.J. Akbar editor-in-chief of
The Asian Age made another silly point. He said he was an invitee
to a grihapravesh ceremony being observed in California home by Vijaya
Mallya; the brahmin priest from a nearby Hindu temple was the officiating
priest and he was apparently dressed as many brahmin priest would in India.
Why was he dressed like an Indian brahmin priest in the United States when
he could be wearing a proper suit in tune with American culture, Akbar
asked. Two points can immediately be made. In the first place
no Hindu pope lays down dress rules for all brahmin priests to follow everywhere.
There is in the first place no such thing as a Hindu Pope. Should
the California brahmin priest have worn American dress nobody would have
questioned him. The Ramakrishna Mission sadhus have their own dress
style. Besides, the California priest was attending to an Indian
Hindu. Should there be American or European Christians in India attending
a Church service nobody would insist that the attendant priest adopt "swadeshi"
dress. Akbar is just ridiculous.
All that the RSS chief
S. Sudarshan had asked was that Christians should integrate with
the culture of the land. Actually that has been in progress for decades
now. Christians are giving their children Sanskrit (not 'Hindu')
names. Many Roman Catholic descendants of converted Hindus are now
even using their ancestral surnames. The Hindu (17 Oct.) another
BJP-hating newspaper has deliberately misunderstood Sudarshan's plea calling
it "distributing aggressiveness". Wrote The Hindu: "the doggedness
with which the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief K.S.Sudarshan has pursued
the "swadeshi church" line that he has gratuitously and presumptuously
proposed to Indian Christians ..... is another disturbing indication
that the Sangh means business in its aggressive pushing of its fundamentalist
Hindutva ideology" The Hindu obviously does not know the meaning of the
word "fundamentalism".
The RSS is not dictating
to Indian Christians. Anything but; it is merely encouraging a trend
that has been going on for a long time, and which has caused the Vatican
to react virulently. There was a Catholic priest called Anthony D'Mello
who was advocating a return to Indian not 'Hindu' values - such as yoga,
meditating in a sitting posture etc. He had written some excellent
books which became very popular. Frightened that this process may
undercut Vatican imperialism, the Church went to the extent of prescribing
his books books, incidentally, that had been published by the official
Catholic press in India. He went to New York on some mission and
the very next day he 'died', reportedly of a heart attack. No comments
are called for.
What is a "swadeshi church"?
Writing in the Indian Express (24 October) S. Gurumurthy recommended
that everyone concerned read the history of Christianity in Europe.
As he pointed out, 'the idea of national churches independent of Roman
Catholic control was the product of the reformist movement' the Protestant
Reform movement and the consequent birth of nation states in Europe.
He said: "The Reformation which began in 1517 set off a serious erosion
in the authority of the Pope who was originally the Bishop of Rome.
The transnational Papacy was a later evolution". The first national
church was established in England in 1533. In Europe there are several
Churches in Europe, independent of the Vatican and are purely nationalistic.
To the best of one's knowledge there has never been RSS shakhas in Europe
in the last four hundred years.
The Observer (17 Oct.)
wrote that 'Sudarshan is right in debunking the self-righteous claim of
the Catholic Church that their religion is the only means of salvation
though it went to say that 'the prescription he laid down from this valid
critique - that Christians in this country should Indianise their churches
- is problematic". The paper said that "the allusions to China and
Britain, though historic benchmarks in themselves, are not very apposite
in the Indian context". The BJP-hating The Asian Age (17 Oct.) said
that all in all Sudarshan has acted true to type, followed the well laid
out line and shown that he has brought no new thinking or insights into
the RSS which remains full steam ahead on the anti-minority track".
The Mumbai morninger tabloid The Daily wrote: "Sudarshan's call should
not be taken as a threat. It is a sensible suggestion ... as
such one is surprised at the hatred shown to the majority community by
the minorities. There is nothing anti-secular in asking the minorities
to look to their roots. Unity in diversity can be strengthened if
all people of this country, irrespective of their divergent faiths, look
to our soil for inspiration ... let faiths differ. But we should
not forget the culture and, philosophy handed down to us by our forefathers:.
Incidentally, every paper
has ignored an interview given by K.S.Sudarshan to Organiser (22 oct.).
He was asked: "You have referred to the need of setting up a swadeshi church
in India. What kind of concept do you propose? He replied: "The demand
for a swadeshi or national church is not a new one. Already an Indian
National Church was established in the sixties and His Eminence Mar Athanasius
Joel S. Williams of Mumbai was its archbishop. He had demanded
an immediate end to the affairs of the foreign-controlled, foreign-financed
and foreign-influenced churches and endowments in India and their entrustment
to India's own indigenous church, the Indian National Church".
It is an extensive interview
in which Sudarshan has answered every, question put to him honestly.
The trouble with our
secular press is that having decided that the RSS is fascist, it has no
time to read and reflect. Saffron is a dirty word and phrases like
"saffronisation" are recklessly used as words of abuse. It is pathetic.
How many people know that The Times of India brings out a bilingual Sandhya
Times from Delhi? Of its 16 tabloid pages, the first twelve starting from
front are in Hindi. The next four pages are in English.
So full of hatred is
our secular press toward the RSS that when Dr. R.A. Mashelkar,
CSIR Director General attended the recently concluded RSS meet in Agra,
he came under its attack.
Dr Mashelkar had been
asked to speak to the RSS assembly on the subject of Property Rights and
the RSS organisers had honoured him for winning the country's battle "for
haldi, basmati and need patents". Wrote the BJP-bashing Hindustan
Times "His presence at the (RSS) meet has upset a lot of bureaucrats and
scientists in the apex institute". Why don't they come out and say
so publicly? What are they ashamed or afraid of?
