Author: Bharat Jhunjhunwala
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: October 29, 2003
There is no doubt that modern India
owes much to the efforts of Christian missionaries. I studied in a Christian
school till standard V and also received my graduate degree from a Christian
college. But the question is, why did India fail to establish similar colleges
itself? Why did we have to depend on missionaries to provide these services?
Might there be a link between the prevalence of poverty in India and the
grandeur of the Christian religious order? It is acknowledged by historians
that India was a prosperous country before the British conquest. Christian
Britain first created poverty in India. Then Christian missionaries worked
to alleviate it. The question is, why did the missionaries not prevent
the creation of poverty itself?
Christ was a living embodiment of
love. His message was for the rich to love the poor. He came to the world
to give full and abundant life to one and all without exception. If the
rich were told to love the poor, the poor were told to love the rich and
reform them through love. "Love" was to reform the tyrant. Many Christian
missionaries have sacrificed their lives to serve the poor. They have built
big institutions like hospitals and colleges for this purpose. These institutions
then developed their own logic of existence. They had to take donations
from the rich to survive. These are the same rich, like the owners of the
East India Company, who have caused poverty in the first place. A Christian
Bill Gates first exploits India by selling Windows software at 10 times
its cost. He then provides millions to alleviate the poverty he has created.
Thus, Christianity has often become an instrument of oppression.
A tyrant could plunder people and
expiate his sins by submission to the Church. He could give a share of
his loot to the Church. A tyrannical Christian ruler and a wealthy Church
could go hand in hand. Christian missionaries built hospitals so that those
suffering from illiteracy and malnutrition could be provided immediate
relief. Undoubtedly, this was a great contribution. But the creation of
poverty was itself abetted by the Church's mistaken connivance with Christian
tyrants.
The reason India could not establish
its own colleges was because its blood had been drawn out by the same tyrants
who were giving money to the Church. Nearly the same ideology is held,
equally mistakenly, by many Jains. Jain scholar Mr Gopi Lal Amar, formerly
of Bharatiya Jnanapith, explains that ahimsa is not possible fully. Even
the air that we breathe contains bacteria that are killed. The wheat that
we eat also contains life which has to be killed. The true teaching of
Jainism is to reduce this violence to bare minimum. Three types of violence
are permitted to the householder in his daily routine, such as in breathing
and eating, and that inflicted for breadwinning and in self-defence. Only
intentional violence is prohibited to the householder. The path to salvation
is to continually reduce this violence in daily life so that it becomes
absolutely minimum. Practically, however, this principle of inevitability
of violence has been misunderstood. There is no escape from sin. Only its
ill-effects can be reduced by penance.
This penance can be undertaken by
giving charity to religious organisations. It follows in this erroneous
discourse that the greater the sin, the greater the penance. A person has
two choices - he may sin a lot and give a lot in charity to the religious
order; or he may sin less and give less charity. There is, therefore, no
incentive to sin less. Jain sadhus who are surrounded by a lot of money
are venerated by society because they ignore the sin by which the worshipper
makes the money that he donates generously. Thus we find that Jains who
preach the gospel of non-possession amass ostentatious wealth.
Hindus are not any different. Lord
Krishna says in the Bhagvad Gita that the caste system is based on the
qualities and occupation of a person. The purpose was to provide every
human being an opportunity to fulfill his desires. The Brahmin who sought
God-realisation was asked to live frugally under the trees and have minimal
possessions. The Kshatriya who sought power was advised to undertake politics
or serve in the army. The Vaisya who wanted money was told to undertake
agriculture and industry. And the Shudra who wanted physical pleasures
without risk and turmoil was advised to serve his master faithfully so
that his paycheck was secure.
Theoretically ,there is no restriction
against a person changing his caste. But he was required to adhere to the
code of the caste that he adopted. One could not proclaim himself a Brahmin
and undertake business. This system of quality and occupation-based classification
was perverted by corrupt Brahmins. They proclaimed that birth, not quality,
was the determinant of one's caste. Truly, the qualities of the parents
left a decisive imprint on the qualities of the child, but they were not
the final determinant of the same. Yet the Brahmins said that birth was
the prime determinant. The result was that a butcher who pursued God-realisation
was decried; and the pandits who amassed wealth were venerated.
The caste system was designed to
guide every person in following the rules that would help him fulfill his
desires. It became exactly its opposite. It was used by corrupt Brahmins
to prevent the poor from fulfilling their higher desires of moneymaking,
power and God-realisation. In practice, if not in theory, Christian, Jain
and Hindu thinking has been perverted to abet poverty of the people and
grandeur of the religious orders in different ways. The perverted version
of these religions suits the sinful politicians and businessmen for they
can keep on to their exploitative ways. It also suits the religious order.
They get money from the sinful as penance and also get a playing field
of impoverished and poor people whose suffering they can alleviate and
bring them into their area of religious influence.
It is time that all religious orders
think of the huge misery caused by their donors to the poor people. Christians
should put on the top of their agenda the need to love people. Jains should
focus on direct reduction of violence rather than their removal by penance.
Hindus should provide freedom to each individual to select his caste.
Thus reformed, these great religions
will become source of strength to the poor. There will be less need to
undertake charitable relief because less poverty will not be created in
the first place. Christian missionaries, in particular, should examine
their persisting role in taking money from the exploiters and becoming
party to India's impoverishment. The relief that they are providing only
amounts to putting bandages on the wounds that their co-religionists have
themselves inflicted.
