Author: Parshuram Ray
Publication: Humanscape
Date: December 2000
T K Oommen, writer and
professor of sociology, whose study of The Christian Clergy in India has
just been published, discusses the thorny issue of conversion and points
out why the issue of indigenising Christians or the Christian church is
a contradiction in terms
Professor T K Oommen
is Professor of Sociology at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
He has published a dozen books and over 70 research papers. His books
include Charisma, Stability and Change; Doctors and Nurses; Social Transformation
in Rural India; From Mobilisation to Industrialisation; Protest and Change;
Alien Concepts and South Asian Reality; and Citizenship, Nationality and
Ethnicity. Professor Oommen has been associated with several academic
and administrative agencies including the Planning Commission, University
Grants Commission, Indian Council of Social Science Research, National
Law School of India University, UNESCO and FAO. A scholar of international
repute, Oommen is, at present, president of the Indian Sociological Society
and has recently written a new book titled The Christian Clergy in India.
Parshuram Ray spoke to him about his latest book and the issues it deals
with, including the origin of Christianity in India, the conversions debate
and fundamentalism.
Q.: What inspired you
to write this book?
A.: There were two sources
of inspiration. One was the interest I had in the study of modern
occupations and professions in this country, as a sociologist. The
second was that, as a person who grew up in Kerala and as a member of the
Christian community, the church had approached me, along with several others,
to do a study on theological education in India.
Q.: Can you tell us something
about the origin of Christianity in India?
A.: According to popular
belief amongst Indian Christians, particularly those in southern India,
Christianity came to our country in the first century AD when St Thomas,
one of the apostles of Jesus Christ, came to the Kerala coast and converted
some people there. These people were believed to be upper-caste Hindus,
so there was no pressure or resistance to converting. The story remains
by and large a belief, a myth, in the sense that there is no clinching
historical evidence to show that it really happened. By about the
third century AD, however, there were Christian settlements in Kerala.
So, one can always work backwards and say that if there were Christian
settlements by the third century AD, there ought to have been some before
that as well. One can, therefore, assume that Christianity arrived
in India in the first century itself; that is to say, it came to India
before it went to Europe.
Q.: How can you say that
Christianity came to India before it went to the West?
A.: Christianity went
to Europe between the fourth and fifth centuries AD. It came to India
in the first century AD -- it's historically recorded.
Q.: What are the other
misunderstandings about Christianity in India?
A.: The other misunderstanding
is that Christianity is a western religion. This is wrong.
Christianity is an eastern religion; like Judaism and Islam, Christianity
too has its roots in the Middle East. It's true, Christianity has
been hijacked by the West. And it spread to the rest of the world
from the West. That is because of the association of the church with
the state and with colonialism. But the reality is that Christianity
is an eastern religion.
Q.: Can you tell us how
Christians adopted the regional culture and local lifestyle of the people
here?
A.: There are different
layers of Christians in India. The Anglo Indians constitute a westernised
group that imitates people in the West, in terms of what they wear, what
and how they eat, etc. But the rest of the people who have been converted
from local communities, dalits, backward classes and tribals have rarely
adopted western lifestyles and culture.
One stereotype is that
Christians are heavy consumers of alcohol. That is absolutely wrong.
In a healthy Christian family, alcohol is never taken, except during occasions
like Christmas. So, to believe that Christians are necessarily consumers
of alcohol is wrong. I can give you a very interesting example from
Kerala. When a Christian boy marries he exchanges a ring, which is
a western custom. But he also ties a mangalsutra with a cross at
the end, called tali in Malayalam. This is a typical Indian custom;
it's a local custom. Instead of replacing the local custom, a synthesis
has taken place. We all eat the local food, not so-called `western'
food.
Q.: You have written
in your book that the socio-cultural source of defining Christians is based
on two fallacious doctrines. Can you explain what those two doctrines
are?
A.: One is that religion
should be the basis of constructing a nation-state. The other is
that religion should be the centre of forming a lifestyle. My argument
is that since the explorations of the 16th century, there has been an enormous
amount of migration from one part of the world to another. Therefore,
earlier identification of religious communities and particular territories
is no longer in existence. When we talk of a nation, the first thing
we assume is territory. If there is no co-terminality between religion,
you cannot think in real terms of nation and religion. That is the
first difficulty. The second difficulty is that the lifestyles of
people are associated with their religion. There are certain things
that are very specific to Christians, like lifecycle rituals, or theologically
speaking canonical rituals of birth, baptism, marriage or death ceremonies.
But look at other celebrations. In Kerala, for example, each one
of us celebrates the festival of Onam, irrespective of whether one is a
Hindu or a Christian. Onam is like the national festival of Kerala.
So there are two types of ritual celebrations -- one specific to religion,
the other social rituals in which everyone is involved. If we make
a systematic comparison, say between the Kerala Christians and the Maharashtrian
Christians, we will find that there is much less common between them, as
compared to a Kerala Christian and a Kerala Hindu, a Maharashtrian Christian
and a Maharashtrian Hindu. This is not clearly understood.
What people normally do is use one identity as a primary identity; in fact
this identity is used as a total identity. Methodologically speaking,
that identity is used as a mistaken part for the whole. I have several
identities: my identity as a Christian is one small part. I have
an Indian citizenship identity. I have a Malayalee identity, and
I have the identity of a professor and a sociologist. Why are all
these identities relegated to the background while you zero in, and over-emphasise,
only one of my identities -- my Christian identity? If you study my time
expenditure for a week, maybe a month, I spend nearly 90 per cent of my
time as a sociologist, roughly five to seven per cent as a family man,
and maybe only one per cent as a Christian. Yet, you reduce me to
that one percentage.
Q.: You mention in your
book that the plea for indigenisation of Indian Christians is a contradiction
in terms. Why?
A.: Because there is
hardly any alien element in Indian Christians. In the case of the
Muslims, you have the distinction between the ashrafs and the ajalafs.
The ashrafs are the nobility supposed to have come to India from outside
and settled down here. There is no comparable category among Christians.
Almost 100 per cent of Christians in this country are local converts.
So they are Indians. Only their religion is supposedly alien, non-Indian.
And if the theory that the Aryans came to India from outside is correct,
and if the adivasis, dalits, backward classes and Dravidians in general
were the pre-Aryan people who occupied India before the Aryans came, then
the Christians are more indigenous than the upper-caste Hindus. Because
they were adivasi converts who were already here. They were dalit
converts who, also, were already here. They were converts from the
backward classes -- they too were already here. Therefore, to talk
about indigenising them is a contradiction in terms. They are certainly
very, very indigenous.
Q.: What is the basic
difference between eastern Christianity and western Christianity?
A.: Apart from the geographic
divide, there are many basic differences. For example, western Christianity
has a very fundamental power in Rome -- the Pope. The Russian Orthodox
and Greek Orthodox churches do not accept the Pope. These are separate
loci of power. There are variations in the rites and rituals of Christianity
practised in the west and in the east. In the western church, the
Pope is the ultimate power; in eastern Christianity he is not. Both
are distinct in terms of power, authority, customs, rituals and practices.
Q.: You have written
in your book that theological education, in India, is inadequate.
Why do you think so?
A.: There is a widespread
belief among the Christians of this country that the clergy is not adequate
to the needs and aspirations of the people. The clergy has to be
trained properly. The problem arises when the clergy belongs to an
upper caste and the church is being used mainly by people from a lower
caste. Then, there is difficulty in handling them. Only in
some churches can people from lower-caste backgrounds become members of
the clergy. At the moment the situation is in favour of an upper-caste
clergy.
For example, look at
the church leaders, bishops, etc. A majority of them are from the
upper caste. The Christian clergy should represent all aspects of
the community.
Q.: To what extent has
the caste system influenced Christianity?
A.: The reality in India
is that the caste phenomenon is very much part of everyday life, and so
it also influences life within the Christian church. You cannot honestly
say that the problem of caste has been eradicated from the church.
In Kerala, when people from lower castes began to be converted, they had
their own separate church. There was one for the upper castes and
another for the lower castes. Those churches that did accommodate
lower-caste Christians asked them to sit separately. Even during
Holy Communion, the upper castes were served first and then the lower castes.
Now this has all disappeared. The same process has taken place with
Indian secular education also. The untouchable child was admitted
to school. He was allowed to enter the classroom and sit in a corner;
then he was allowed to mix with the others. It is very wrong to say
that the caste factor has disappeared from the Indian church. When
it comes to marriage, Christians too very cleverly find out the caste background
of the boy or the girl.
Q.: In your book you
talk about the different varieties of communalism. Can you tell us
which variety is most dangerous to our society?
A.: Actually, two types
of communalism will pose the biggest threat to Indian society and the polity.
The first is secessionist communalism. By secessionist communalism
I mean the tendency on the part of a religious community to claim a certain
territory as a sovereign state. The second variety, also capable
of great threat, is assimilationist communalism. What I have in mind
is the Hindutva brand of communalism -- one nation, one people, and one
culture. India is not one nation, one people, and one culture.
It is a multiplicity of people living together in one political hope.
The most important characteristic of the Indian situation is pluralism.
Q.: What is your opinion
about the conversion controversy?
A.: The Constitution
is very clear. I am not saying that the Christians should convert.
My point is that all religions should have the right to believe, to preach
and to convert human beings. Convert, in the sense that you say this
is your belief. Someone else, who is convinced, could change his
religion. But there is no form of either inducement or force.
If I am convinced, who are you to stop me from changing my religion? It
is like saying, I am in the Janata Party and I realise that what's going
on in the Janata Party is not good for me, so I change over to the Jan
Sangh. If I can change my political party, there is no reason why
I can't change my religion. It is a matter of conviction as an adult,
a free citizen of this country.
Q.: But there have been
accusations about Christians using inducements for conversion. What
do you say to this?
A.: When we come down
to the question of inducements, I do not have any personal story to illustrate
the fact that anybody has used force or fraud for conversion. But
it is quite possible that gradually an atmosphere is created where you
are probably given the benefit of the doubt that a change of religion may
be better. Better in a material as well as spiritual sense.
The issue of conversion is an old problem with Hinduism, because Hinduism
doesn't believe in conversion, as do Islam or Christianity or Buddhism.
Buddhism is a proselytising religion; Hinduism gradually absorbs.
In the case of both Christianity and Islam the process goes on -- one fine
morning you are baptised. You had a previous life, now you have a
new life. Hinduism converts, but gradually, slowly -- it penetrates
in a peaceful way.
Therefore, you cannot
say Hinduism doesn't convert.
Q.: Do you think that
Christians in India have any reason to worry about their identity and religious
freedom?
A.: I think the feeling
among Christians, right up to the time the BJP acquired power, was a sense
of peace and tranquillity. But now there is a great sense of fear.
There are a few people who come and tell me their stories regarding this.
The moment the BJP came to power, the whole situation changed. So
many people, who looked at the BJP and the Sangh Parivar with suspicion,
are now convinced. It is the political party that decides.
The state is helpless; it has nothing to do with the communal and secular
divide. When the present government was formed, thanks to allies
like George Fernandes, Mamta Banerjee, Naidu and so on, it could not be
termed communal, by any stretch of the imagination. But when it came
down to the issue of Christians, I did not find any of these allies --
Mamta, George or Naidu -- putting pressure on the government and telling
them that what they were doing was wrong and simply unacceptable.
(The Transforming Word)
(Parshuram Ray is an
environmental activist, researcher and writer based in Delhi. He
is currently Associate Director, Seeds of Hope, Lokayan.)
