Author: Sandeep B.
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 04, 2008
Benedict's interpretation of Gandhi's message
of non-violence is false. Gandhi's non-violence doesn't stand for a cowardly
acceptance of injustice and unprovoked violence. Gandhi viewed proselytisation
as cultural invasion and a hindrance to peace
On October 26 this year, Pope Benedict invoked
Mahatma Gandhi's name in an appeal to end "violence against Christians"
in Orissa. It would have been ridiculous if only it had not been so ironical.
This reminds us of a proverb about pinching the baby and pacifying it.
Reiterating a few facts would be in order.
The Pope has chosen wisely when he chose to invoke Gandhi's name. While Gandhi's
relevance and legacy in contemporary India is debatable, he is still much
revered by millions of people. Equally, he is deeply respected in Christian
countries because he comes close to the Christ-like figure that those countries
are intimately familiar with. Gandhi's life, and writings and speeches show
him to be a moralist in the Christian mould: An overt emphasis on suffering,
heartfelt compassion for the poor, and a non-violent fighter against oppression.
Yet, he was a self-proclaimed, "proud staunch Sanatani Hindu." Whatever
his understanding of core Hindu philosophical tenets, Gandhi's attachment
to Hinduism was so steadfast that it is touching at different levels. He unequivocally
upheld his opposition to all attempts at destabilising Sanatana Dharma. In
the August 1925 issue of Young India, he wrote:
"I am unable to identify with orthodox
Christianity. I must tell you in all humility that Hinduism, as I know it,
entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being, and I find solace in the
Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount...
I must confess to you that when doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare
me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon I turn
to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin
to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of external
tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me,
I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita.
A more assertive proclamation of Gandhi's
firm Hindu moorings is not required. Gandhi rightly recognised proselytisation
as a problem and condemned it as fiercely as he upheld Hinduism. He discerned
that the psychology that drives conversion is innately flawed and dangerous.
We only need to look at a few samples from Gandhi's copious writings to learn
his stance vis a vis conversions:
"Why should a Christian want to convert
a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a
good or godly man?' (Harijan, January 30, 1937)
"I hold that proselytisation under the
cloak of humanitarian work is unhealthy to say the least." (Young India:
April 23, 1931)
"If I had power and could legislate,
I should certainly stop all proselytising. It is the cause of much avoidable
conflict between classes and unnecessary heart-burning among missionaries."
And here the Pope invokes Gandhi's name in
utter ignorance of the Mahatma's stand on Christian proselytisation. Pope
Benedict's message is addressed to all Hindus on the occasion of Diwali (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20081028_diwali_en.html).
We are immediately struck with wonder at the sheer presumptuousness of this
singular Diwali greeting: The subtle subtext seems to reprimand the Hindus
for attacking Christians while completely omitting any mention of the root
cause for the communal/social unrest! More fundamentally, the Pope has no
authority to interfere in what is exclusively an Indian social problem. In
this context, is he prepared to admit that the remote control for missionary
activities in India lies in his hands?
The Pope's message confirms the fact that
selective quoting is not merely restricted to media and mischievous rhetoricians.
While it self-righteously assumes these attributes to itself, it doesn't come
clean on its own record. Pope Benedict's predecessor's triumphant announcement
during his 1999 India visit is a good instance. Till date, not one soul in
the entire Christendom has condemned his intent to "harvest souls".
One wonders what gives these religious leaders the right to arrogate to themselves
such licence. Are non-Christians - in the Indian context, this primarily means
Hindus - a harvest waiting to be reaped? It is precisely against this form
of mischief that Gandhi raised his voice.
The Pope's interpretation of Gandhi's message
of non-violence is false. Non-violence in the Gandhian doctrine does not stand
for a cowardly acceptance of injustice and unprovoked violence. In that light,
Gandhi's call to oppose proselytisation is - like his freedom struggle mantra
- but opposition to any form of oppression. He viewed proselytisation as not
just a form of cultural invasion but a hindrance to world peace. At the microcosmic
level, he observed how a Hindu family is disrupted if just one member converts
to Christianity.
"In Hindu households the advent of a
missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change
of dress, manners, language, food and drink. (Harijan, November 5, 1935)
"It is impossible for me to reconcile
myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and
elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to
the world's progress toward peace." (Harijan, January 30, 1937)
If we observe the social conditions of mostly-poor
nations that have been weaned away from their native traditions, Gandhi's
remark becomes clearer. Angola is a Christian-majority country now, but was
torn by civil strife for over 27 years.
Religious tensions exist till date between
the native Bantu tribal traditions and the 'Christian network' of villages.
Numerous African countries are torn by strife, thanks to missionary activity.
Philippines, the Christian-majority state has mostly lost its native traditions
thanks to centuries-long Spanish colonisation followed by aggressive evangelism.
Papua New Guinea's former Chief Justice, an outspoken Pentecostal, urged legislative
and other bridles on the activities of Muslims in the country. Although it
is home to some very diverse cultures and faiths, 96 per cent of its population
is Christian. Its native, animist tradition is all but lost.
The clashes between Christians and followers
of native traditions in South Korea still make headlines. Evangelist leaders
openly call for political activity against North Korea by accelerating the
spread of Christianity. This is not dissimilar to evangelists-backed secessionist
movementd in India's North-East States.
This list is just a sample but is sufficient
evidence to show the truth in Gandhi's astute observation more than 70 years
ago that evangelical activity poses a threat to peace.
If the present Pope wanted to spread the Mahatma's
words, he should have presented the whole story instead of just a twisted
interpretation. Besides, we do not need to take lessons about Gandhi from
the Pope. Not at least when the lesson is fraught with frivolity.
