Author: N.S. Rajaram
Publication: Organiser
Date: July 13, 2003
Christianity is bankrupt in Europe,
but the Pope and his agents in India are still trying to pursue an imperial
agenda.
Pope and Bin Laden
Christian leaders in India are kicking
up a row over the bill banning conversions by fraud or allurement passed
by the Jayalalithaa Government in Tamil Nadu. The Pope, who has no more
locus standi in India than the Shakaracharyas have in the Vatican, told
church officials to ignore the law and continue their conversion activities.
In other words, the Pope is advising the officials of his Church in India
to disobey the law of the land. This is subversion for which he was properly
criticized by the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa. It is no different
from Osama bin Laden telling Indian Muslims to carry on a Jihad in India,
which of course he has done. What is extraordinary is the reaction of some
Christian 'leaders' and the secularists: they have denounced Smt Jayalalithaa
for criticizing the Pope, but not the Pope for his subversive message.
Why? Because the Pope supposedly is a 'holy man,' though engaged in the
unholy activity of conversion by fraud.
Let us try to understand what this
means. The Pope in effect is telling the people of India, Christians in
particular, that he represents a higher authority that stands above the
law of the land, in which his flock live and of which they are citizens.
The Pope, though regarded as a holy man by his followers, is also the head
of the theocratic State of Vatican. This is the light in which non-Catholics
see him. This is also the light in which the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister
voiced her criticism of the Pope- the head of a foreign state telling the
citizens to disobey the law and follow him. This is no different from Osama
bin Laden's call to believers to engage in Jihad against their government.
And those criticizing Smt Jayalalithaa essentially agree that the Pope
should be conceded such imperial powers that override the law of the countries
in which they live.
Imperial dreams
Let there be no doubt about this
point: the Pope and the Catholic Church still see the world through imperial
glasses. Christopher Columbus, the founder of European colonialism clearly
saw Christianity as a tool of the Empire. In his letter dated October 18,
1498 to "Their Christian Majesties" Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, Columbus
wrote: "Your Highnesses have another world here by which our holy faith
can be so greatly advanced and from which such great wealth can be drawn."
So 'holy faith' was to be the means through which 'great wealth' could
be drawn.
Columbus did not stop there: he
wanted the benefits of the Spanish empire he founded to go only to Catholics.
In a letter written even earlier (November 27, 1497) he had advised Their
Christian Majesties: "And I say that Your Highnesses ought not to consent
that any foreigner does business or sets foot here [in America], except
Christian Catholics, since this was the end and the beginning of the enterprise,
that it should be for the enhancement and glory of Christian religion,."
So imperial expansion was to be done through the Christian religion. This
might have been written more than five hundred years ago, but the Pope
and his henchmen in India still think along those terms.
It is natural for the Pope to still
think in those terms- he is after all the inheritor of the imperial legacy,
but why should Indian Church leaders blindly follow him? To understand
this, it helps to look at another imperial theocratic institution, the
Islamic Jihad. Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as: "A religious war with
those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad [the Prophet]. It
is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the Traditions
[i.e., the Hadits or the 'Acts of Muhammad'] as a divine institution, and
enjoined especially for the purpose of advancing Islam..." According to
both Islam and Christianity, it is a "religious" duty to advance the imperial
cause.
Christianity therefore, like Islam,
makes imperial demands on its followers. As V.S. Naipaul put it in his
book Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursion Among Converted Peoples: "Islam is
in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is
a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief.
It makes imperial demands. A convert's world view alters. His holy places
are in Arab lands;. His idea of history alters."
Every word of this applies to converted
Christians with 'Arab' replaced by 'European'. But here is the irony: Christianity
is not a European religion; it originated in Jerusalem. The second irony
is that Europe is no longer Christian, where it has all but collapsed just
like the European imperialism that sustained it. But the converted Christian
has to show himself more loyal than the king. In other words, the goal
of conversion is to turn the subject's loyalty from the land of one's birth
to Mecca or Rome or whatever. This was brought home to me during my recent
trip to England.
The collapse in Britain
A striking feature in Britain today
is the collapse of Christianity. This is part of a similar trend in Europe.
This has led to an interesting situation: there is wide divergence in the
attitude and behavior of the British and the Indian Christians living in
England. British officials of the Church of England have reached out to
the Hindu community and to organizations like the VHP to express joint
statements of friendship and mutual goodwill and cooperation. Lurking in
the background, though unstated in public is the common fear of Islamic
militancy and strengthening the bridge between India and Britain in the
fight against terrorism. But Indian Christians, many of who hold jobs in
Church institutions, still want to think that India should be treated as
a British colony where missionaries have a free hand!
To unravel this attitude, we need
to recognize that the Church of England is part of the British establishment
having the British monarch as its head. During the period of the British
Empire, the Church and its officials had imperial responsibilities, which
mainly involved conversion in the colonies to make them loyal subjects
of the British Crown. The Church no longer has any imperial responsibility.
But Indian Christians, at least those working for the Church seem still
to believe that India should be treated as a colony in which missionary
activity should go on as before, while they themselves are treated as privileged
subjects of the Crown.
This has led to an unfortunate situation:
while the Church of England seeks to have cordial relations with the Hindus
and India, some of its Indian members seem still to be harboring imperial
delusions. Some Hindu leaders told me that the extreme servility displayed
by Indian Christians towards their British counterparts has caused them
a good deal of embarrassment, even shame. In contrast to the aggressive
if not arrogant behavior of Christian leaders in India, in Britain their
behavior is often like that of a servant towards one's master. They seem
preoccupied with their own narrow concerns as servants of the Church (and
the British), while pursuing a goal and a vision that disappeared with
the British Empire.
Here then is the core of the problem
for the Pope and his followers. For centuries, Christendom meant Europe.
Today, Christianity is spiritually and temporally bankrupt in its home.
But the Pope and his minions are trying to keep alive the illusion of imperial
Christianity through their conversion campaign in India. My suggestion:
to revive Christianity, they should leave India alone and take their campaign
to Europe where pagan gods and goddesses and flying witches are back in
the public imagination, to go by the craze over the Harry Potter books.