‘Vāde vāde jāyate tattvabodhah’ (Every debate brings forth
understanding of principles), says a Sanskrit subhashita. In their long
history, Hindus as a people have been fond of discussing matters of religion,
philosophy and spirituality, among themselves and with others. In spite of what
Islam and its votaries had done to Hindus and their civilization, Brahmins
participated in discussions organized by some Muslim rulers between scholars of
different faiths. When a German missionary Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg (1682-1719)
sent in 1712 a large number of letters to a selection of Hindus inviting
answers to a number of questions, he received no fewer than 104 responses.
Christianity, on the other hand, has traditionally preferred
monologue i.e. it alone talked and others were made to listen. It was ensured
in advance that the monologue was not disturbed by arguments from the other
side. Convinced that it had the monopoly of Absolute Truth which others had to
accept from it in all humility, it saw no need for holding any dialogue with
any kind of paganism.
But times have changed. The collapse of Christianity in the
West and the retreat of Western imperialism have forced the Church to change
its methods. Buyers of its stale and discredited merchandise are becoming increasingly
scarce. Gone are the days when the Church spoke and others had to listen. It
can no longer use the might of the state (once described as secular arm of the
church) to crush the adversaries. So, now the church is not just prepared to
enter into a dialogue with heathens, it is actually organizing it.
But the Church is uncomfortable with the new environment. It
knows, from its experience in the West, what reason and open inquiry can do to
its dogma. At the same time, the closed and arrogant mindset, fashioned by
centuries of dominance, has not changed. Short-term tactics have changed, but
the long-term goal remains unaltered. There is a change in the language, but
not in the ideology. These show a striking continuity over the centuries.
For instance, annals of the mission record one instance of a
public debate in sixteenth century Goa, when
Jesuits, aided by a convert, deputed with pundits. After a while, forty pundits
were banished from the debate for ‘proving obstinate.’ No more dialogues were
held in Portuguese possessions thereafter.
Writing four hundred years later, Richard Fox Young, who
records this incident in his Resistant Hinduism (Vienna, 1981, pp. 20-21),
concludes that Hindu tolerance towards other religions is a myth because
Hinduism resisted Christianity instead of accommodating it! The author sees
nothing wrong with the wanton Christian onslaught of which he himself provides
prolific proof.
In our own day, the ex-communication is practiced in a more
sophisticated way. Fr. Francis Xavier Clooney, professor at Harvard Divinity
School, says that in the past Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Swami Vivekanand had
attempted a critical look at the West from a Hindu perspective, but
post-colonial authors like Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel had politicized the
Hindu-Christian relationship. In other words, even the adversaries of the
Church need a character certificate from it before their contributions are
recognized. And the grant of that certificate depends on the degree of
accommodation shown by the Hindu scholar to Christianity, especially to
conversions.
Fr. Clooney would have been within his rights as well as
bounds of a healthy dialogue if he had pointed out where these authors had
misquoted a source, or quoted it out of context, and how the context altered
the apparent meaning, or used logic which was not straight, or passed a value
judgment which was not valid. But that is not on his agenda. The Church has no
use for authentic scholars like Ram Swarup ji or Sita Ram ji precisely because
their critique is too comprehensive, too accurate and too fundamental for its
comfort.
As to the closed mind, one example would suffice.
Ziegenbalg, who worked in south India,
travelled around and held conversations with Brahmins. He recorded these conversations
in some detail and passed them on to Halle (Germany) which
published them from 1715 onwards. Only thirty-four of these conversations were
translated and published in English in 1719. The preface to the book
“Thirty-Four Conferences Between the Danish Missionaries and Malabarian
Brahmans (or Heathen Priests) in the East Indies” (London, 1719), sums up the Brahmana’s “Divine
Law sent from Heaven” in the following eight Precepts:
“I. Thou shalt not kill any living creature whatsoever it
be, having life in the same: For thou art a creature of mine and so is it: Thou
art endued with soul and it is endued with the same. Thou shalt not therefore spill the blood of
anything that is mine.
II. Thou shalt make a covenant with all thy five
senses. First, with thy eyes, that they
behold not things that be evil. Secondly, with thy ears, that they hear not
things that be evil. Thirdly, with thy tongue, that it speaks not things that
be evil. Fourthly, with thy palate, that it takes nothing that be evil; as wine,
or the flesh of living creatures. Fifthly, with thy hands, that they touch not
things defiled.
III. Thou shalt duly observe the times of devotion, thy
washings, worshippings and prayers to the Lord thy God, with a pure and upright
heart.
IV. Thou shalt not tell false tales, or utter things untrue,
by which thou mightest defraud thy brother in dealings, bargains or contracts;
by this consenage to work thy own peculiar advantage.
V. Thou shalt be charitable to the poor and administer to
his need, meat, drink, and money, as his necessity requires, and thine own
ability enableth thee to give.
VI. Thou shalt not oppress, injure or do violence to the
poor, using thy power unjustly to the ruin and overthrow of thy brother.
VII. Thou shalt celebrate certain festivals; yet not
pampering thy body with excess of anything; but shalt observe certain seasons
for fasting, and break off some hours by watching, that thou may’st be fitter
for devotion and holiness.
VIII. Thou shalt not steal from thy brother anything,
however little it be, of things committed to thy trust in thy profession or
calling; but content thyself with that which he shall give thee as thine hire;
considering that thou hath not right to that which another man calleth his.”
Yet, according to the same Preface “there is not, perhaps, a
more wicked race of men treading upon God’s earth (than the Brahmanas).” “The
Brahmanas”, it continues, “are the greatest impostors in the world; their
talent lies in inventing new fables every day, and making them pass for
incomprehensible mysteries among the vulgar.” Brahimins of today would readily
underscore the above summary of the precepts of their faith. Does the Church
today have any different opinion of those who disagree with its dogma and
resist its incursions?
“The purpose of this correspondence (of the letters referred
to above),” writes Dr. H. Grafe, “as stated by Ziegenbalg, is three-fold:
1. To make for increased publicity of the missionaries’
work,
2. To reach people whom they are not able to meet
personally
3. To get better informed about Hinduism and particularly
about Hindu objections to Christian Faith.” (‘Hindu Apologetics at the
Beginning of the Protestant Mission Era in India’,
by H. Grafe in Indian
Church History Review,
June, 1972, p. 48.)
Is the purpose any different today? Like a multinational
corporation marketing a dubious product, what the Church craves above all is
attention tampered with indulgence. Hindu scholars and Sanyasins are making a
big mistake if they harbour the illusion that they are educating the Church in
principles of Sanatan Dharma. The Church has no use for those principles. It
wants Hindu intellectuals and Sanyasis for their brand value (such as it is)
within the Hindu society - to market its own product. Their erudition, their
carefully constructed caveats, provisos and arguments will be lost upon
ordinary Hindus who will only remember that these worthies have something to do
with what the Church is saying.
By participating in high-profile well-publicised dialogues
with spokesmen of Christianity, modern day Hindu scholars and Sanyasins may be
making the same mistake that Gandhi ji did. As Sita Ram Goel observes, “Mahatma
Gandhi’s meeting the Christian missionaries again and again and wasting so much
breath in talking to them on the same point, namely, the uniqueness of Jesus
and their right to convert in his name, made them respectable in the eyes of
Hindus at large. Till the Mahatma started advertising the Christian missionaries
in his widely read weeklies, Hindus had looked down upon them as an unavoidable
nuisance deserving only contempt and ridicule. The Mahatma invested them with
unprecedented prestige and made them loom large on the Indian scene.”
In any case, the Church has studied Hinduism and Hindu
society in far greater detail than Hindu scholars have studied Christianity.
Missionaries have studied Hindu scriptures not as Mumukshus, but like army
generals mapping out the enemy territory before attacking it.
Hindus are committing a great mistake in regarding the
encounter between Hinduism and Christianity as a dialogue between two
traditions of Dharma. Christianity has never been a Dharma; it has always been
a predatory imperialism par excellence. The encounter, therefore, should be
viewed as a battle between two totally opposed and mutually exclusive ways of
thought and behaviour.
“But can we not sort out differences in perceptions,
attitudes and approaches through an amicable dialogue? What is the harm in
talking?” one may ask. The harm is that the dialogue is intended to be a
distraction from the merciless and incessant attacks of the Church on the roots
of Hindu Dharma. The whole purpose of the interfaith dialogue is to wear down
Hindu resistance to conversions, first among the elite and then, hopefully,
among the laity.
As Sita Ram ji points out, Hindus from seventeenth century
Pandits of Tamil Nadu (who conversed with Ziegenbalg) to Arun Shourie have
expended tremendous amounts of ink and breath to demolish the dogma of
Christianity. But it has hardly made any difference to the arrogance of
Christian theologians and missionaries. That is because dogma was never meant
for discussion. It is meant for propagation, by any and every means permitted by
times and circumstances.
The Church knows more than any Hindu that its dogma cannot
stand any discussion. It is an axiom of logic that that which cannot be proved
need not be disproved. And who can ever prove that the nondescript Jew (if at
all he existed) who was crucified by a Roman governor of Judea in 33 AD had
atoned for the sins of mankind for all time to come? Who can ever prove that
those who accept that Jew as the only Saviour will ascend to a heaven of
everlasting bliss and those who do not will burn for ever in the blazing fire
of hell?
Glorified by high-sounding theological bunkum, the dogma is
no more than a subterfuge for forging and wielding an organizational weapon for
aggression against other people. It is high time for Hindus to dismiss the
dogma of Christianity with the contempt it deserves, and pay attention to the
Christian missionary apparatus planted in their midst. The sole aim of this
apparatus is to ruin Hindu society and culture, and take over the Hindu
homeland.
The Church inviting Hindus for an interfaith dialogue while
going ahead with converting weaker sections of Hindu society through force,
fraud and allurements, is like a pickpocket preaching virtues of renunciation
to a man while relieving him of his purse. Hindu scholars and Sanyasins must
make stoppage of conversions by Church in theory and practice as a
pre-condition to their participation in any interfaith dialogue. They should
not fall prey to the sweet language that is designed to deceive them and other
Hindus. For, Ko vā durjanvāgurāsu patitaĥ kshemeñ yātaĥ pumān? (Who has ever
escaped unscathed after falling in the trap of words of a wicked man?)
Acknowledgment
History of Hindu-Christian Encounters Ad 304 to 1996 by Sita
Ram Goel, Voice of India, New Delhi, 1996
The author is Executive Editor, Corporate India, and lives
in Mumbai