Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Pope and his Empire

Pope and his Empire

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.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements