Does end justifies means?
His Star in the East
By Fr. A Sauliere SJ. Revised and Re-edited by Fr S Rajamanickam Sj
‘Does “End” justifies the “Means”,? always remains an un-resolved question in several areas of human life. Particularly in the area of sharing the gospel rather ‘planting’ the gospel, the question of ‘adapting’ and ‘adopting’ become a great debate for all those who ‘Trans-culturally’ sowing the seed in another cultural field. Particularly in the present context of preserving cultural and social identity, the question of ‘adoptaion’ by every outsider, just for the sake of ‘sharing’ or ‘Imposing’ their ideology become a great debate. Specifically in the emerging trend of National Resergency, while all the ‘adoptations’ by the outsiders is considered as a ‘crafty’ method by the missionaries, it was eqully promoted and praised as ‘sacrifice’ the by mission.
In India this controversy in the field of missionary activity is started by Fr. Robert de Nobili. He was the pioneer not only in contextualisation f the gospel but also in creating a controversial debate in this field, which is still going on. And this ‘objective’ historical research on Fr. Nobili ‘His Star in the East’ will remain a remarkable work in resolving this question in the days to come. To my dismay, most of the Christians in Protestant circle, even full time workers didn’t heard about him. What all they learnt about him is in their school studies where Nobili is also counted among the contributors for the development of Tamil language. Other students of Theology in Protestant circle might have heard and read about him, but no serious research is carried on Nobili, particularly related to his contribution towards contextualisation.
Fr. Robert de Nobili become some kind f a mythological figure in the history of mission in India around whom a lot of legends are circulating. Most of the writings which we either heard or read about him created somekind of confused picture about him that even to-day whenever de Nobili is discussed, he was most criticised for his ‘misguided zeal, wrong methods of adoptation (leading to the compromise of the gospel) and the utter failure of his life and mission at Madurai are best lessons for one ‘not to go too far’ in the name of contextualisation. But this biography on Nobili by Fr. Augustine Sauliere removes all kinds of clouds around his life and mission and putforths a very clear picture for us to learn from that champion of contextualisation.1 In the words of Fr. Augustine Sauliere, ‘My aim has been to write a biography based on well authenticated facts so as to do away with exaggerations and legends which have grown round the name of Fr. Robert de Nobili…I narrate the life story of the great Pioneer as it appears in contemporary documents letting, as much as possible, the actors of the drama speak for themselves. No attempt is made to raise him on a pedestal, nor to put forward claims to which he is not entitled. I have tried to write a life not a panegyric.” (back cover)
The famous legend that surrounds the life of Nobili is about the fifth Vedam, which he used (or by which he cheated) for the conversion of the Brahmins. As it is a serious issue, let us hear Fr. Sauliere’s own words:
‘According to them (writers who have built fantastic stories based on this point of fifth vedam [p.78]) Father Robert de Nobili forged a Veda containing a cunning mixture of Hindu and Christian doctrines which, he swore, he had received from his father Brahma. Being written on a dirty old parchment, it had such an air of antiquity that all the Madurai Brahmins were taken in, and they devoured that scroll with the result that thousands of them were convertd and came in endless queues to receive baptism. But he was soon found out. It was proved he was not the son of Brahma at all, but a mere European, and that his Veda was a fake, and those thousands of Brahmin converts hastened to re-enter the Brahmin fold, and the Madurai Mission suffered an ignominious collapse. We shall not insult our readers by rebutting the above allegations. A few remarks will suffice to dispose of this farrago of nonsense. The Veda in question has never been traced back to anything in Hindu or Christian literature; those wholesale conversions and apostasies of Brahmins are not mentioned in any missionary record.
Nobody had ever any trouble in finding out that Father Robert was a European; he said it himself. What he denied was that he was a Paranghi, in the sense the word was understood at Madurai in his time, and no one can deny him the right of doing so. But what makes the story ridiculous is that dirty old parchment. Anyone ever so little acquainted with India knows that in the days of Father Robert no Brahmin would have touched a parchment, even with a barge pole; whether it was old or fresh; it was a dead animal’s skin whose contact entailed pollution.
Our statement that Father Nobili’s Vedam has not been traced will probably be met by the query: “What about the spurious Veda discovered by Ellis at Pondicherry?” All we need say here is that Ellis himself does not accuse de Nobili of having forged it, and that such experts as M.J. Charpentier J. Vinson W. Caland, F. Maxmuller, and many others have exonerated Father Robert from any share in that piece of forgery. Moreover, a mere reading of the Ezur-Vedam makes it clear that neither Father Robert de Nobili nor any other missionary could have wasted his time in producing a work which could in no way advance the cause of Christianity.’—pp.79-80
To understand de Nobili, he must be studied in the context in which he served God. Living at the end of the 20th century, where Christianity is still considered as Europian Religion, one need not wonder the radical steps which Nobili was forced to take in presenting the gospel to the natives of India. If at all one wants to blame Nobili by saying that he has gone too far, should understand that he was driven and forced to go to that extreme level by the foolish pride of Europianism which was imposed by the Portuguese. Several times in our lives, we are forced to go to the extreme ends not because of our choice, but because of circumstances to counter balance of not going gar enough. Sometimes poison become an antidote to the poison, as we say ‘a diamond alone cut a diamond’.
On the arrival of Nobili to Madurai on November 15, 1606, Fr. Goncalo Fernandes was there—running a school, public hospital, yet without any success even making a single convert during the fourteen years of his service there. The main reason for such a deadlock in the words of the author is, ‘Father Goncalo being a poor psychologist could only give facts, he could not explain them. And the facts were very disconcerting. His semi-official position as the representative of the Portuguese authorities at Madurai, did not, as might have been expected, enhance his prestige or accredit his message. When he spoke about temporal affairs, such as the price of horses or saltpetre, the Naayak and his ministers listened to him with interest; but as soon as he tried to bring in religion, they just would not let him speak.’-p.37. All his zeal to preach the gospel was looked by the populac of Madurai as an effort to convert them as “Paranghis”. The following incident explains it more clearly:
‘…On another occasion an officer of the court warned the Father, that being a Paranghi, he should never speak of religion. Father Goncalo retorted that if he could not speak of religion and make converts he had better leave the town. His words were reported to the Naayak who was highly offended and sent word to the Father that if the object of his presence in Madurai was to turn his subjects into Paranghis, the sooner he retired to the Coast the better.’-p.38
‘But who were Paranghis? The word was the South-Indian version of Feringhee, a term by which, since the time of the Crusades, the Muslims described the Franks or Westerners. The Portuguese had naturally inherited that name, and whatever was connected with them, their manner of living, their character, their religion, their culture, was summed up in the name Paranghi.’ (p.43)2
Thus, ‘Anyone going about in trousers and wearing a coat and a hat, whether born on the banks of the Tagus, or on the backwaters of Travancore was a Paranghi. Paranghism became in the eyes of Hindus, the refuge of criminals who had fallen foul of the laws of their country, of social rebels who sought to shake off the discipline of caste and the Hindu rules of decenty.’ (43). But adding fuel to the fire, though ‘The Portuguese were well aware of the opprobrium attached to that name, but, far, from resenting it, they welcomed it as a means of swelling their ranks and strengthening their hold on their followers. They would not trust the sincerity of their converts unless it was guaranteed by a participation in their banquets, loss of caste, change of name and dress, and the adopting of Portuguese customs. Once a man had become a Paranghi he was irretrievably compromised in the eyes of his own people; he was looked upon as a traitor, ostracised and castaway; he had no choice but to cling to the Portuguese.’ (4)
Though we can neither blame the Portuguese for the wrong interpretation of their religion and culture by the local people nor the people for their lack of clear understanding of the cultural aspects separated from Faith, yet Fr. Goncalo’s own failure of promoting Paranghism at the cost of personal faith in Christ is the main reason for that deadlock.
‘…Father Concalo Fernandez was perfectly certain that no name was more glorious than that of Paranghi and he used it, without the least qualm of conscience, to describe his religion. He would, in his most ingratiating way, invite high caste Hindus to adopt the Paranghi religion, and, when his invitations were met with contempt, he could find no other explanation than the ignorance of those poor people who could not appreciate what was good for them. Indian customs and Indian ways were to him nothing but a bundle of superstitions which were to be carefully avoided. To suggest that they could go very well with a sincere profession of Christianity sounded blasphemous to him. The more his disciples discarded their ancestral customs and the closer they adhered to Portuguese ways, the better Christians they would be. Paranghism, to him, meant Christianity, and he held that none could enter the latter unless he bore the authentic hallmark of the former. It never occurred to him that what his hearers rejected was not Christianity but the hated Paranghi customs with which it was identified; that he never realized this was his life’s great tragedy. As a pioneer of the faith among the Badagas he had proved an unqualified failure.’ (44)
Thus realising the fact, because of his clear vision and call of ‘Aperire Portam’ (to open that door, p.39), Fr. Nobili was quick to study the situation under which he has to work. ‘He had not come to India to recruit subjects for the King of Portugal but to win souls for Christ’ (44). And ‘Being convinced that the deadlock was due to the identification of Christianity with Paranghism, he proposed to reject that identification with Paranghism and repudiate that name which applied neither to himself nor to his religion. Nor was this repudiation to be merely verbal, he would show it was genuine by eschewing all European habits and conforming strictly to the manners and customs of high class Indians….As to his prospective converts he would not try to change or suppress their social customs, but try to Christianize them.’ (45)
Thus began a new era of mission in India. Before considering all the problems, challenges, opposition, support, success, failures and our evaluation, it would be relevant to discuss the point of ‘End justifies the means’.
In his objective historical research, though Sauliere remains faithful to all the historical documents about Nobili, yet he leaves behind him an impression that all Nobili did was right. Though it would be irrelavent to analyse Nobili removing from his mission context, yet raising above the historical situation (as obstract principles are trans-historical), if one has to come to an ‘objective’ evaluation of Nobili’s work, then he cannot avoid the controversy of end justifies the means.
‘No detailed plan of a way of life could be made without previous knowledge of local conditions, of social, political, religious and cultural facts which had to be learned on the spot, and interpreted in their proper setting. Thus we find him making changes as necessity or obedience dictates them. Now he grows a beard, now he shaves; one picture shows him with ear-rings, another without them; on one occasion, he rides in a palanquin, on another he tramps on foot the 150 miles which separate Madurai from Quilon; now he wears the caste thread, now he discards it. There is only one thing which he will never change, that is, his determination to open a door for the Gospel into the interior of India. The rest are means which he never used for their own sake, but only (tantum quantum) in so far as they helped him, and put aside as soon as they ceased to serve his purpose.’ (112) Thus, in order to reach Brahmins of Madurai, Nobili who ‘at the beginning declared himself to be a Raja i.e. one of Royal caste and then a Raja Sanyaasi i.e. as a Raja who has renounced the world, now he and Fr Vico call themselves Brahmin Sanyaasis i.e. Brahmins who have renounced the world’ (113). As Brahmins are the teachers to other people, in order to have the same identity, Nobili took that drastic step, of course ‘not by birth but only by profession’. And we are further told that:
‘…They knew that even children born to Brahmins strictly became Brahmins only after their second birth by the imposition of the sacred thread during the Upanayanam ceremony. Hence Nobili wore the thread. When his opponent Buccerio found fault with this, Nobili answeres in a learned treatise, where he proved that Brahmins as a race are wise men and not priests and that a wise man or Doctor in the West may call himself a Brahmin particularly when the word Brahmin means a Doctor. Further he remarks “a carpenter, fuller or barber of our country can call himself carpenter etc. without the ridiculous distinction ‘I am a fuller or a barber, but not by heredity’. In the same way Doctors among us can use the term Brahmin without that distinction (I am a Brahmin only by profession and not by birth). Among the Hebrews the swacerdotal office belonged t the tribe of Levi. We who possess the priestly office by profession and not by heredity are true Levites and are called by that name” (Nobili’s answer to Buccerio dated Dec.29, 1615) (113)
Before further proceeding on this subject of end justifies the means, we should remember that as an outsiders, whatever may be Nobili’s or Sauliere’s interpretation and explanation for the adoptation of ‘caste’ and ‘religious’ symbols of Hindus, yet they forgot the point that certain sociological principles like ‘janmanaa jaayate Suudrah, Karmanaa jaayate dvijah—by birth a man is born a Sudra; Upanayanam ceremony makes him twice born or a high caste born.’ 3 are kept by the Hindus in THEORY to set moral perfection and not to bring social hormony in PRACTICE.4 Even in Mahabharata we read ‘…Truthfulness, charity, freedom from hatred and wickdness, humility, kindness and tapas,–where these are seen, he is known as braahmana. If these characteristics are found in a sudra and these do not exist in a twice-born person then the Sudra is not a Suudra and the so-called braahmana is not a braahmana’5. This is an ideal set for to achieve but not applicable in practice. Though Sauliere in the footnotes says that ‘This was accepted law in Nobilie’s time’, yet he forgot to mention that it never practised in real life in India.
That is why at present the educated Hindus oppose such adoptation of Hindu cultural and religious symbols by outsiders, particularly when they are used as a means to achieve their ends.
To continue in the case of Nobili, who adopted Hindu symbols only as a means to an end is endorsed by the Archbishop Ros who wrote , ‘At the beginning of this Mission, I wrote to Dom Frey Alexis (Menezes), Archbishop primate, about the dress and the thread then worn by Father Robert, for he discarded it long ago out of contempt for the world, when he found it was a mere badge of rank, honour, and social standing. He (the Primate) was exceedingly moved by my account and replied to me that he would himself wear any number of threads if by that means he could win a single soul to Christ, and he would rejoice, if father Robert had in his enterprise, more imitators and fewer detractors…'(pp.223-24). But if we carefully read the church history of (India), particularly that of Roman Catholic, those Hindu cultural, social and religious symbols which either they adopted or allowed their converts to keep is not only to win them by any means to Christ or not to burden them on secondary issues which has nothing to do with faith, but also as ‘Functional substitutes’. As none can live in vaccum, until the converts are confirmed to ‘their’ image in following church tradition, several times those Hindu symbols were tolerated as a concession because of human weakness. This is endorsed by these words of Archbishop Ros, ‘Indeed the first thing to be done is to plant the faith of Christ and root out idolatry, as the Apostles did, and then, little by little, introduce the other customs of the Church.’ (p.244)
What are the customs of the Church any way? Does the bible or Apostolic tradition itself leaves any specific church tradition to be introduced uniformly to the Converts? Thus, in this sense, the means are used only to achieve their already ‘set’ ends. That is why we read several records of extra biblical Catholic Traditions were gradually imposed on those converts like Reverence to Saints (pp. 191, 192, 385), substituting sayings of beads and saying of Holy Rosarry (p.339) and the climax in it was that ‘Among the pious practices which the new converts resorted to were the use of holy water and of the oil of the sanctuary lamp. A third one which was common to Christians and Hindus consisted in procuring from the Fathers sentences of Holy Writ engraved on plates of silver or gold which they carried about their person. It is remarked that Periathambi Naayak, the king’s high treasurer applied to Father Robrt for such a text, and later on for a prayer written in Sanskrit on a palm leaf promising to get himself instructed in our religion’ (328-29).
However, in the case of Nobili, considering his role as a Pioneer in this area of contextualisation, we have to agree that in his case he used the Hindu symbols more in the spirit of becoming all things to all men, rather than mere means to an end. That is why till the end of his life, he strictly kept the vow to lead a Sanyasi life. We even read that ‘The life of Brahmin Sanyaasis, the idea of which is enough to make nature shudder no less than the austerities practised by the anchorites of the desert, that life which Fr de Nobili had been practising for about 45 years, was no longer enough for his mortification. In discarding all delicacies it yet allowed the use of rice, butter and milk. Already he had given up their use in a spirit of poverty and penance but once in Mylapore he absolutely forewent them, reducing his food to one meal of boiled bitter herbs seasoned utmost with some salt and spices. In his last illness suspecting that a certain broth served to him might contain some extract of meat, he quietly threw it away without making any remark.’ (441) This is enough to the spirit with which Nobili become a Hindu to Hinuds both to the letter and spirit and remain TRUE to it till the end of his life.
What motivated Nobili is not mere conversion of Hindus to Christian faith, but rather in one sense he fought for the convert’s birth right to keep their social and cultural identity. And this become very serious and crucial issue, considering the context in which he served (as we saw above). ‘Throughout that controversy on adaptation Father Robert never lost sight of the great issue that was at stake. For him it was not merely a question whether the Indian could dress in this or that way, or whether he could follow this or that custom but whether the Indians as a nation should be given all legitimate facilities to accept the Christian fold. It was clear to him that a noble and proud race was, notwithstanding its appreciation of Christ’s teaching, being kept out of the fold by obstacles raised by men, not by conditions laid down by God. He belonged to the lineage of Saint Augustine of Canterbury, of Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius. What those Great Apostles had done for the English and the Slavs, he meant to do for the Indians.
He wished that they should be treated with that kindness and patience which the Church has always bestowed on young Christian communities. He was grieved at the harshness and pettifogging of those who exacted from an infant church a perfection after which Christian Europe had been striving for centuries and did not yet fully possess. He had studied his Church History, noted the growth of Christian nations, and he wondered what would have happened if Saint Remigius and Saint Augustine had begun their Apostolate by inveighing against the way the Franks and the Angles wore their hair or trimmed their beards.’ (267) And if such a spirit of recognizing their own limitation on the one hand and the birth right of the converts, the present day missionaries could achieve more results. But the sad fact is that till, like Pharisees they always set high standards for the new believers which they themselves could never achieve (both in their personal lives or church activities).
But for Nobili the door for the Gospel would have remained closed for the (Catholic) church in the in lands, however successful they might be on the costal areas under Portuguese flag. While Xavier had travelled along the coasts under the shadow of the Portuguese flag collecting converts by the thousands, Nobili was left at the mercy of pagans, battling with their prejudices to plant the church among them. His was a slow, painful, and thankless task, but on the stone he gathered so laboriously the Indian church was built”‘. (456)6. But the greatest achievements of Nobili was delievering his converts from the Portuguese captivity of the Roman church. In the words of Fr Sauliere, ‘If the Christians of Sough India have not been torn away from their own people, if they still live the same social life as their Hindu brethren, following the same customs, wearing the same dress sharing their joys and sorrows, their hopes and aspirations; if in a word, no one can with justice point at them the finger of scorn and question their loyalty to the land of their birth, it is largely due to Father Robert de Nobili.’ (457)
So to the question, ‘Does end justifies the means’, at least in the case of Nobili, an objective scholar and student would say that the means which he used to achieve his ends were more with a spirit of becoming all things to all men and not with the spirit of conversion by any means. And the life of Nobili is a potrait to demonstrate the conviction with which he happily surrendered before that vision and remained loyal to it till his death.
Of courses every sensible Hindu will oppose when his religious, cultural and social symbols are used ONLY as a means without any real commitment on the part of those who adopt it. Without real conviction and commitment, when any symbol is used only as a means to achieve our purpose, then we won’t respect the sentiments of the followers of those symbol in our encounter with them. This dis-respect in our attitude and spirit will soon surface and recognized by the people. Whereas Nobili’s conviction and commitments made even his opponents to respect him as his carried those means with same spirit of his end.
What made Nobili as an inspiring and challenging pioneer of contextualisation is not only the correct use of the means to achieve his end, but the attitude and spirit with which he approached them. ‘Once he had fitted himself into Indian society, the world around him looked quite different. India was no longer the country of his voluntary exile, Madurai was his own town, and he took a patriotic pride in its “beauty, wealth, and large population”. Tamil was his language and he regarded it as “very copious, very elegant and most beautiful”….(54)
This patriotic partiality was sometimes put to severe test; but instead of dwelling on the dark side of things, he would point out to whatever was admirable in them. Even in the Suttie which took place after the death of Muttu Krishnappa Naayak in December, 1606 what struck him was the courage of those ladies who showed their conjugal fidelity by ascending the funeral pyre; theirs might be a mistaken ideal, but their courage in striving after it was none the less magnificent. Should he ever succeed in inspiring them with his own christian ideal, they would become real martyrs’ (55)
Similar was his possitive appraoch in sharing the gospel with Hindus. In his own words, ‘As to the method to be followed in the conversion of Hindus experience has shown to us that the one we have adopted is the best calculated to bring about a change in their prejudiced minds. It is certainly better than to begin by attacking their gods and errors, for then they become hardened, and if they admit the truth, it is rather to blaspheme than to follow it. Moreover, according to Baronius, it is the method recommended by God Himself, when He says:”Thou shalt not speak against the gods” (Exod.22:28). “Do not be surprised” he writes “if the Apostles, at ehe beginning of their preacing, did not inveigh against the gods of the gentiles. The usually accepted interpretation of that saying of Exodus is that they should not speak against the gods of the gentiles”, because invectives, instead of helping, prevent conversions.’ (359). To illustrate such approach Nobili shares the following incidents:
‘This young man being a devout Vaishnavite wore all the marks of his ssect, for example, a figure on the forehead made with white earth like plaster which is called Naamam and is the characteristic sign of that sect. There are other emblems attached to the arm which means something else. So our catechumen came one day and told me” “But I cannot go on wearing these marks” and he proceeded at once to rub off all those signs to which he had been as much atached as to Vishnu himself. He confessed to me that if, when I began explaining to him the catechism, I had found fault with all those signs he would certainly have gone away, and never have come back to listen to my instructions. When the course was over I baptized him, which was a great consolation for both of us.’ (pp.360-61).
Thus limiting to our present mission context of 20th century, following the example of Nobili, allowing the new believers to keep their cultural, social identity, with a possitive approach to their struggles in assimilating their faith in their situation, can bring great success in the ministry. Regarding the question of Nobili’s model of adopting Hindu symbols, by the outsiders of Hindu community, if they have the spirit of Nobili with commitment and conviction, then it serve as a best means to achieve the end. Other wise it will hurt the sentiments of Hindus and will close their hearts and minds to the gospel.
However, religious fundamentalists with their own prejudices, will oppose however we have real commitment and respect in our means, as we find in the case of Nobili. Following the foot prints of our Lord and His apostles, Nobili also tred the path of firce opposition mostly from his own mission and church. No doubt in it that pharisees and Judaizers are the product of our own religious fundamentalism.
The most interesting subject that run throughout the book is the controversy of his method of adoption and approach to reach the Hindus. One’s heart moves when we read the way Nobili has to fight hard under odd circumstances. Though the vow of Holi obedience several times crippled his hands and forced him to retreat, yet the moral courage with which he withstood for his conviction and commitment made him a GREAT in the annals of the church history.
Two drastic steps which created such controvercy and opposition are (1) ‘eschewing all Europea habits and conforming strictly to the manners and customs of high class of India (p.45) and (2) allowing his converts to keep their social and cultural identities (p.45). To materialise this Nobili first moved away from the old house and built a separate ‘house and a church at a distance from those frequented by the Paranghi and Parava Christians in this city and not allow his neophytes a too ready and indiscriminate social intercourse with the Paranghis and Paravas that are here, nor any sharing of the Church in common'(48). Second he became a ‘Brahmin Sanyasi with ear-ring, babboo staff, tuft, wooden clogn, sandal paste on his fore head, jenuive (thread) on his shoulders (pp.66-67) and a saffron dress of a sanyasi. Though there was some tolerance regarding his idea of some ‘proposed changes’ they were some concession but ‘except to the one concerning the dress. This took their breath away. The vision of one of their brethren going about clad as a Hindu Sanyaasi was more than they could stand. “Let Father Robert call himself as he pleases, choose any diet he likes, frequent whomsoever he fancies but, for heaven’s sake, let him not dress as a Hindu Sanyasi”‘(47)
The present church and Missions, after seeing the life of Brahmabandab Upadyaya, Sadhu Sunder singh and scores of others, still not ready to digest the dress of a Indian Sanyasi with in its fold, we could naturally understand the stiff resistance which Nobili received some four hundred years before.
As usual with most cases, his trouble also first started from his co-worker Fr. Goncalo (p.64), who along with ‘the Fathers of the Pescaria (Pearl Fishery Coast of South India), who lived in European style and did not bother about adaptation, agreed with him that Father Robert de Nobili’s method was simply scandalous. They too thought that it was time the Provincial put a stop to it'(64). While Nobili has to fight with his mission on ‘Principle’ for his methods, he had to fac practical problem in such opposition from his co-workers who are with him at Madurai. ‘Unfortunately Father Goncalo Fernandez, encouraged by the attitude of Father Pimenta, had now come ut into the open. He told anybody who cared to hear him that Christian and Paranghi were one and the same thing, and this made it very difficult for the converts to justify their position.’ (170). It is very difficult to bring rest of the opposition which Nobili had to encounter from his Mission (Church). ‘Condemned by the Visitor, snubbed by the Provincial, blamd by the General, abandoned by his old friend Cardinal Bellarmine, he would be soon compelled to leave Madurai'(251) in brief explains his life long struggle towards his conviction and commitment.
But to understand his struggle let us see some points:
Nobili’s Visitor Fr. Nicolas Pimenta, who (by all accounts, a man no less remarkable for his administrative talents than for religious virtues [120]) ‘annoyed to think, that down there (Madurai) things did not shape according to his ideas. It was inconceivable that a young Italian missionary should have been allowed to cut himself away from his brethren, repudiate the Portuguese connection, and pander to the superstitions of the gentiles. That absurd mission of Madurai was a scandal, an ugly excrescence which disfigured the Malabar Province. The scandal must be stopped, and the poisonous growth amputated'(121).
Already we mentioned Fr. Goncalo’s attitude towards his co-worker. As his initial objections remain un-heard by the Archbishop Ros, encouraged by Fr. Pimenta’s hostile attitude towards Madurai Mission, he wrote ‘a letter of four closely written pages'(122). The summary of that letter by the author ‘gives us a fair idea of his grievances'(122). And it is worth to quote them all:
(1) Father Robert repudiates the name of Paranghi; he dresses like a Hindu Guru, and wears the Brahmin thread. 2. He no longer sits at table, nor takes his meals with me, but employs Brahmins to prepare and serve them and none but Brahmins may be present when he takes his food. 3. H has built for himself a separate house and chapel, access to which is forbidden to the Portuguese and to myself as well as to the Paravas and other Christians, even my servants. 4. When the Christians Brahmins lose their thread, he blesses another for them and hangs to it a medal, with a cross, like that of the Order of Aviz, bearing in Latin Characters, I believe, the word: Jesus. 5. He never says Mass before taking his bath, and before the Sunday Mass he blesses sandal paste to be distributed to the congregation. 6. He is called Aiyer, while his Christians, and even the Fathers who come to stay with him are called disciples of the Aiyer. 7. Although his Superiors warned him not to conduct himself as a pagan, he goes on as before. 8. He has changed the words of the Sacred Liturgy in use among the Christians. 9. He does not allow his Christians to attend my Mass and when in his absence there is no Sunday Mass in his Church, his Christians will attend neither my Mass nor my Sermon. 10. He does all this to make people believe that he belongs to a different nation and that he is of a royal race. According to him, the preachers of the Gospel should all be of princely lineage and have no dealings with Paranghis. 11. He tries to induce a belief that his religion is different from mine, etc.’ (pp. 122-23)
Among all these points ‘The Thread, the Baths, the changes of names denoting Sacred things, and Father Robert’s separation from Father Fernandea'(154) become serious issues in the on going controversy.
Mean while the difference of opinion and controversy and ‘the affairs of the Madurai Mission had now become a public property. They were discussed by the clergy of the Fishery and Travancore Coasts and by the friars of the various Orders who crowded the streets of Cochin.'(210). Adding to this ‘That was the time when a quarrel regarding the extent of their respective jurisdiction had set the Bishop of Cochin and the Archbishop of Cranganore at loggerheads. The latter being for Father de Nobili, the former with his followers was naturally against him. Both cases, that of the bishops and that of the Madurai missionaries became inextricably mixed up and both sides wrote to their friends in Europe according to and both sides wrote to their friends in Europe according to their prejudices'(210). Thus:
‘The European literary market was soon flooded with reports, memoris, pamphlets, and letters describing the apostasy of father Robert de Nobili, S.J.. It was a tremendous scandal. Those who had known him in Italy were greatly distressed by the infamous rumours circulated about him. We read of one Princess of Besignono who nearly died of grief when she was told that Padre Roberto’s faith had suffered an ignominious shipwreck…”(211)
Now back in India, following the footsteps of the Visitor, the Provincial of Malabar Fr. Pro Francisco, in the name of ‘preactising blind obedience without fear of making mistakes, since to err out of obedience is to act wisely'(215) wrote Nobili,’Our Father (Fr.Aquaviva, General of the Society of Jesus) wants also….industry'(219) and ‘In conclusion Father Pero Francisco for bids the two Fathers (Nobili and Vico) to administer any baptism unless they accepted his interpretation of the General’s letter'(219)
Of course, in all this Nobili and Vico had the support of the well wishers of the Mission like Archbishop Dom Francisco Ros, who was one of the most ardent defenders of Nobili. He, in response to the letter of the Provincial (Fr. Pero) wrote to the General a letter on 19th of November 1613 from which we learn the extent of damage caused by the Provincial against the Mission:
‘But as he (the Provincial) wanted’ says Bishop Ros, ‘and still wants to ruin that Mission he imposes on it impossible things; he condemns as superstitious purely civil customs and suppresses everything. Not satisfied with forbidding the Fathers to baptize any more Brahmins, he has given orders that these converts should not be employed in our house, and that the Fathers should have clothes washed by low caste people. he has forbidden Brahmin converts the use of glass rosaries, sandal paste, as well as the thread and the kudumi. He wanted that a big Cross should be erected before the Church of Father Robert, and such like things, and ridiculous in the opinion of those of us who have lived among the Hindus. These measures of his have no other justification than a pious and well-intentioned ignorance'(245)
Prejudice reduces the Vision. Once made up their mind, a prejudiced person never allows even his reason to see the things as it is. In case of Nobili, his opponents were irritated on seeing the conviction and commitment of Nobili to his vision, inspite of the damage done to his Mission due to his holy obedience. Thus a prejudiced Fr. Pero, even before visiting Madurai,’which he had not seen since 1612′(248), again inorder to do favour to Fr. Goncalo, ‘wrote first and made inquiries afterwards'(248) wrote to the General ‘Regarding the new Residence of Fathers Robert de Nobili and Antony Vico, I have informed your Paternity, during these last years, of whatever has taken place there. I must say that, in spite of the orders I gave them, next to nothing has been done to carry out your instructions. It is always the same mode of life, the same dissimulation which your Paternity condemned so strongly and ordered to alter. These good Fathers, and with them, Father Alberto Laerzio, are of opinion that the system adopted by them comes from God, and no other is possible. This is why they keep it up in spite of your Paternity’s orders to the contrary. They base themselves on a double principles(249) and concludes,’….It seems to me that these words at the close of a letter so earnestly written, should suffice to make us practice blind obedience, even at the risk of being mistaken, and put aside all reasonings and treatises, which prove nothing, and serve only to cause disunion and weaken the bonds of charity, etc…etc. For my part, I say that this mode of life and this dissimulation must be stopped as soon as possible, for it is better that this Residence should be destroyed rather than that the system adopted by those good Fathers should continue. They are in evident danger of rousing against themselves the Inquisition for practising and permitting their Christians to practise so many rites and ceremonies condemned as pagan in the Provincial Councils of India, not to speak of the Prelates, the religious, and the common opinion of the country'(250).
Now the opposition which started at Madurai, moving to Provcincial reached Goa. But it is worth to note the situation at Goa, which exercised a tramendous influence on the rest of the Catholic Mission in India in much dominatd by ‘political or social ordinances which had nothing to do with religion'(265). Thus we read that the then Primate of Goa Dom Christovoa ‘Thought that the keeping of the laws made for the Christians of Goa must be insisted upon all over India as a condition for receiving baptism. Had all those laws dealt with the essentials of Christianity no objection could have been raised against the Primate’s contention, but many of them were purely political or social ordinances which had nothing to do with religion. To make the observance of these ordinances a condition “sine qua non” for the reception of baptism by the subjects of Hindu rulers made conversions, if not altogether impossible, t least extremely difficult. For it put them unnecessarily in oppositin to their rulers and their own people, and branded them as traitors to their country.'(268).
No doubt in it that when such a person Presided over the Council of Goa get offended when Nobili, bound himself by a vow to the austere life of a Sanyasi, insted of sharing the meals of his brotthren at Goa, took food prepared by the Brahmins he brought with him(322). This act of Nobili, according to Christovao de Sa become a scandal at Goa and wrote to Fr. Vitelleschi, the then General of the Society of Jesus, ‘”Your Paternity, armed with a great zeal, should put down the scandal”. And this scandal became greater when he heard that after the meeting Father Robert returned to his superstitions and impiety etc. The Primate concludes with a Latin text coined for the purpose: “Clamat Christus de Cruce se hac inventione non indigere” (Christ cries out from his Cross that He needs no such invention)”‘ (p.322)
One can understand the struggles which Nobili undergone in is endeavour to share the Living Water in an Indian bowl. We are not surprised when we read that the enemies of Nobili went any extent to damage his Mission as we see in the case of Fr. Dom Frei Cristovao de Sa,’ a bitter enemy of Nobili, who presided over the Council of Goa and preached against Nobili on the following day. We have letters from him written against Nobili. He swore that he would resign his See if Rome decided in favour of Nobili, but died a year before the Papal approval came’ (p.514)
Of course in all his struggles, Nobili never stood alone. Already we saw about the Archbishop Ros as one of the most ardent defenders of Nobili. Like wise his co-worker Fr. Antony Vico who joined Nobili at Madurai in 1610 wrote several letters and treatises in defending their position. On the December 3, 1617 in his letter to Fr.M.Vitelleschi, the newly elected General pleads for the thread and tuft and in conclusion he writes, ‘And even if the contrary were certain, if the thread and top-knot were superstitious, it would still be well worth while for our holy Mother the Church and the Sovereign Pontiff to make use of full power to enact a new law in opposition to the heathen law, and replace the evil meaning by a good one, and tolerate it, just as in olden times the church turned many other superstitious actions into good ones by giving them a new meaning….'(279)
As the issue of Madurai Mission become a public debate, though several people supported on the basis of principles like Fr. Joao Almedia, the second Inquisitor of Goa, Fr. Clande Aquavive, the General of the Society of Jesus (1581-1615, though he reprimanded Nobili on hearing false reports, he supported him later-p.507), Fr. Nicolau Godinno (Professor of Theology in the Roman college who defended Nobili’s method, p.510), Pope Gregory XV approved Nobili’s method by the Bull ‘Romanae Sedis Antistes’ dated January 31, 1623 (p.510), Fr. Peter Lombard (1622 wrote the Votum defending Nobili’s method. His opinion paved the way for the Bull ‘Romanae Sedis Antistes’ (p.511), Simon Martins (He praises Nobili’s works and declares that he used them for 16 years, p.511), Archbishop Alexis Menezes of Goa (had a very sympathetic attitude towards Nobili’s Mission, p.512), Fr. Andrew Palmiro (Visitor of Malabar and of Goa 1619. At the Council of Goa he stood by Fr. De Nobili in 1619). Yet all the personal sufferings of Nobili moves our heart.
Apart from the opposition from his Mission, Nobili also faced several opposition from the populace of Madurai on several grounds, which are quite common. But it is worth to note that though his adoptation of Brahmin Sanyasi opened the door for the gospel, yet was not left unchallenged by Brahmins and Sanyasis of Madurai (pp. 80-81; 89ff; 116ff; 172ff).
Like wise we often read about the story of backslidening, betrayal of Nobili’s converts. But it is interesting to note that when one of the Parishioners of Fr. Fernandez’s confused the converts of Nobili that ‘when he baptized them, and put salt in their mouths he had made them lose their caste and introduced them into that of the Paranghis, in which all who received baptism were, by that very act, incorporated. He dressed up his lies in such plausible words that they created a great commotion among Father Robert’s converts…(114)
‘informed of their defection, Father robert sent for them in the hope of disabusing them; but when they reached the outer gate, they held back without daring to set foot in the church enclosure. They cried out that they were glad they had embraced the faith of Our Lord, because they knew very well that it was the only way to salvation; “but” said they, “as to becoming Paranghis, we will never do that, the very thought of it is unbearable to us, we prefer to die.”‘ (pp.114-15)
But, ‘Some of those neophytes seem to have lost their heads completely; for, though terribly upset by the mere thought of Father Robert being a Paranghi, they nevertheless applied to Father Fernandez, the avowed Paranghi, for admission into his congregation.'(115-16). However they all repented and later followed Nobili. Similarly we read about the betrayal of Nobili’s converts and Neophytes join hand with his opponents for some time and turned against him and finally returned to his fold.(251ff)
However like his well wishers and supporters in the Mission, several of Nobili’s converts without any prejudice supported his cause. Particularly when The Inquiry Commission was formed on September 12, 1610 to be conducted by Fr. Goncalo and Fr Andre Buccerio, a team of witnesses were selected for this purpose among Novili’s converts. In answering all the fifteen questions, some of which are ‘perhaps purposely intricate so as to involve the witness into contradiction'(140), they all vindicate their Guru. It is worth reading the summary of their answer:
‘1. a) Following the custom of this country, according to which men call themselves disciples of a particular Guru, we called ourselves disciples of the Aiyer. But we were not ordered to do so by our Guru who, on the contrary, told us that since we were, like him, disciples of Jesus Christ, we should call ourselves Christians or disciples of Jesus Christ, and so we do; but we do not call ourselves Paranghis. b) We confess the Holy Name of Jesus Christ, by saying ‘Praise be to JesusChrist’, when we meet one another, we pray in the same words when rising in the morning and before going to slep, or before beginning our work, etc.
2. The people of Madurai look upon Father Robert as a man of great learning, of irreporachable habits and hold him in great esteem.
3. They think that the Spiritual Law (Gnana Vedam) which he teaches is very good, but some who lack judgement, seing that he does not worship their gods, nor admit transmigration, call him an Atheist. He never said, r caused to be said, or hinted in any way, that the religion he preaches is different from that of Father Goncalo Fernandez, or of the Portuguese; on the contrary, he said it was the same.
4. The difference between him and Father Goncalo is not one of religion or religious ceremonies, but of caste, as the Hindus themselves admit.
5. The Aiyer never forbade us to attend the Mass or hear the sermons of Father Goncalo, nor did he ever forbid us to make our confession to him, or threaten us with exclusion from the church of Jesus if we did so.
6. We know that he goes to the house of Father Goncalo to make his Confession, and we would do the same if the Aiyer were absent.
7. We are aware that our Aiyer has changed some words in the Catechism ussed on the Coast, but we do not, on that account, believe that our religion is different from that of Father Goncalo. We know that by making those changes Father Robert expressed certain things more accurately and elegantly. We call the Holy Trinity: Pidaa, Suden, Ispiritu Saantu, three Persons in one God.
8. Our Aiyer never told us that we were obliged to bathe or put on sandal paste. We do not always bathe before Mass; when we do so, it is for the sake of cleanliness, not as a religious ceremony.
9. No Hindu law prescribes the use of sandal as a religious rite. It is used simply as an ornament for the body. We do not believe there is any religious merit in it. it is not the emblem of any sect. The sandal worn by the Aiyer is the mark of a teacher of the law. No one else is allowed to wear it in the same way.
10. It is not necessary that Missionaries be of princely race; but it is not good that they should have contact with low caste people, not that such contact is sinful, or that there is a difference of religion between them and us, but because of the laws of the caste. It is about nine or ten months ago tht the Aiyer ceased to wear the thread.
11. There is no need of the Aiyer or any one else to say that the law he preaches is different from that of the Paranghis, nor did the Aiyer ever say such a thing.
12. The trouble caused by the Paravas, was not due to the fact that they told us the Aiyer had made us Christians, but that he had made us Paranghis by using arrak (wine) at Mass, and putting salt in our mouth
13. the ceremonies used by the Aiyer, either inside or outside the church, and his ways of dealing with the people, are altogether different from those of the Hindus.
14. In these parts people understand by paranghis vile individuals of low caste whom they hold in horror. After baptism we have not the same horror for them because the Aiyer told us that they follow the same law and worship the same God as ourselves. Therefore when we meet them we treat them with greater honour than we did before.
15. We know who is the Pope and we recognize him as head of the Universal Church. We also recognize the Archbishop of Serra as our Spiritual head. Some of us went to receive Confirmation from him and others intend doing likewise. At baptism we received neither money nor clothes, nor the promise of any temporal advantage; we became Christians because we wanted to save our souls and for no other motive’ (pp. 140-42)
No doubt in it that, in all these trails, Nobili emerged as Gold from the furnace. “Amidst those trials, Father Robert bore his cross with admirable patience and humility. Always calm and serene, he left his cause in God’s hands. He who fought so valiantly when the future of his Mission and Neophytes was at stake, refused to lift his finger in his own defence.'(254)
Adding to this mental and spiritual struggle, the poor financial condition under which his Mission was left breaks one’s heart. In a letter to his married sister Clarice Cioli, Nobili writes,’It would be a great charity if your Excellency came to my help. By so doing you would have a share in the merits of this good work, and your money would be better employed than it is in superfluities. My need is such that at times I cannot even afford to buy some rice though it is very cheap'(305). And we also read from the pen of Fr Vico in his letter,’ And please explain to Father General that we lack the means of subsistence required for two men'(286) and ‘we have not enough for half our needs'(275). Also we read that Vico was left at Madurai under starvation (p.????)
What makes this book worth reading is that most of the characters speak for themselves. This helps one to feel the characters themselves. However the author sometimes has to speak to narrate the incidents as well as to bring the historical backgrounds. This book is the result of Single minded devotion on the objective historical research on Nobili by the author for over fifty years, deciphoring, translating numerous documents from Portuguese, Italian, French and Latin, which form about 100 typed volumes of manuscripts now kept at Shembaganur Archives (back cover). Now writing this one volume out of that ocean is a Himalayan task, which he has achieved with great skill.
Though this book removes several legendary mythology surrounding the life of Robert de Nobili, yet some times it seems that the author takes extra pain to prove that Nobili is right all through his life and Mission. Though we come accros the human side of Nobili in some of his letters to his friends and relatives back in home, yet we rarely come accross any mistakes or weakness on his part, which naturally led to the question of the authors evaluation about Nobili. Similarly the dominating PICTURE of controvercy, which almost runs throughout the book in some way, overshadows the pioneering endeavours of Nobili in his mission. Though they are the explicit points of controvercy (like tuft, thread, dress, caste distinction etc), yet when one finish reading of this book, what remains in his mind is the discussions, debates and correspondances on Nobili, the hard ships he faced and not the methods which he followed. So what all we can learn from the endeavours of Nobili in contextualisation of the gospel is pushed back. This is true, when considering the fact, that after Nobili, while the church and mission pondered over the controvercy on Nobili, didn’t show any interest to follow his methods.
Now, in this background what we can learn from Nobili?
First of all we should recognize that both the life and mission of Nobili was a complete success, achieving his purpose of ‘Aperire Portam’ (to open that door) for the gospel. Till his arrival, in Nobili’s own words,’it may rightly be said that the Christian religion can be found only where Portuguese arms are respected'(301). But Nobili broke that stigma and by treding new path, he opened the inside countries for the gospel. ‘There is no doubt, that for ordinary people, the only criterion to judge of a missionary’s success, is the number of baptisms he administers. Fr Robert cannot be judged by the criterion of the number of conversions; he did not set out on his career to make a show, but to do a work; to open for his followers a door which had so far been closed to the Gospel. He not only opened that door and introduced his companions into a new field, but he broke the ground for them, sowed the seed and equipped the reapers with instruments to gather the harvest'(pp.427-28)
Secondly, the later expansion of Roman Catholic Church, particularly among the low caste people is not because of the failure of Nobili’s mission among the high caste people, but only because of his initial success among them. ‘The notion that Father Robert specialized exclusively in the conversion of Brahmins is not borne out by facts; its origin may be explained as follows. When he came to madurai he found a society in which the Brahmins, by their religious status, their learning and age-long traditions, held a position of undisputed influence over all the other castes. He saw at once that he could not make any headway with the people unless he Indianized or if we may say so, he Brahminized himself. But his Indianizing activities had a larger purpose than the conversion of a few Brahmins; he had an all India-wide objective. He aimed at nothing less than winning the whole country to Christ.
As a matter of fact he had little to do with Brahmins; it was only between the years 1607 to 1612 that he can be said to have been specially interested in them. From 1612 to 1624, when the Bull of Gregory XV arrived in India, he was strictly forbidden to have anything to do with them, and after that date we have no indication that he gave them any special attention. If he studied so sedulously their religion, their language and their customs, it was not for their sake only, but to win over to Christ the highly Brahminized Indian population of Southern India. By putting the emphasis on the word Brahmin, instead of Indian, the impression was created that his only ambition was to convert that caste. This conception is still so strong that in spite of the poor harvest he gathered in the field of Brahminism, his admirers have persisted in calling him the “Apostle of the Brahmins”. The title is certainly picturesque, but it lacks historical foundation, and it does scant justice to Father Robert. He was really the Apostle of the Indians who lived in the interior of the country, particularly the middle classes, who form the bulk of its population. His constant preoccupation was to plant the church only truly Indian soil not on the shifting sands of particularism or colonial politics'(pp.421-22). The fact is endorsed by Father Martins,’whose devotion to the lower castes could not be questioned now took his pen and explained the real situation. He pointed out that Father Balthazar’s mission was not a new one, but the continuation and development of the old one; it had been built on the foundation laid by his predecessors; its fruits came from the tree planted and watered by Father Robert. Father Balthazar’s success was due to the influence exercised by the Brahmin Sanyaasis and their high caste converts. If the low castes now come in large numbers to the fold it was becuse the high castes had shown them the way. The Pandaaraswamis might convert a few high castes, but one Brahmin Sanyaasi converted three or four times as many. Rome understood the situation perfectly well, but Cochin was slow in shedding its old prejudices'(417)
But the social implication of Christianity as the religion of Parangis and low caste left a permanent impression in the minds of almost every Indian, including the low caste and tribals themselves.
By the grace of God when the doors are opened among the dalits, a new kind of order called ‘Pandaaraswamis’ was created by the Catholic Mission to do ministry among them, while the so called Brahmin sanyasis of Nobili Order concentrating among the so called high caste and Sudras. But again one more controvercy broke ‘during the dispute regarding the so-called Malabar rites; half a century after the death of Father Robert, some of their opponents pretended to be terribly scandalized because the Pandaaraswamis never entered the houses of their low caste Neophytes’ (398). But what was the result of such a move:
‘Anyhow in consequence of the above complaints a new class of Pandaaraswamis, was created exclusively for the low castes. They were to visit them in their houses and live with them in their Paracherries, and have no contact with the high castes. At the call of the Superiors, many Portuguese Fathers of the Malabar Province and ll the French Fathers of the Carnatic Mission volunteered for that heroic task. Unfortunately, their sacrifice was thrown away. Despised by the high castes, they were most unwelcome by the lowest who were ashamed to see their priests sunk to the same level of degradation as themselves. Instead of the social uplift which their former Pandaarams had brought them, the new ones could only make their degradation permanent. Luckily owing to political changes in South India in the second half of the XVIII century, caste laws ceased to be enforced by the state, and the Pandaaraswamis of Father Robert de Nobili were able to minister to all the Christians in the Mission. The creation of the second calss of Pandaaraswamis proved a false step; it had only slackened the tempo of conversions among high castes, without promoting that of the depressed brethren.'(398-99)
However, forgetting the overall purpose and vision of Nobili’s ‘Aperire Portam’, generally there remains an opinion among the evangelicas, particularly that the mission of Nobili among the Brahmins failed bacause of syncretism on his part. But always in the church history, those who are blamed as syncritistic (and even as heretic) always remind as best evangelicals taking the gospel in unknown areas and communities. Several time their opponents have proved in their analysis of such workers efforts of contextualisation while they lived as wrong. But the later generation, evaluating objectively their ministry found it that it was too late to give recognition to their efforts, though it found their work is genuine, as their movement was either supressed or died a natural death, leaving an insignificant impact in the society and history, (as we found in the case of Nobili’s endeavours among the Brahmins particularly).
The same is the case with Nobili’s ministry among the High caste, particularly that of the Brahmins. The main reason for the gradual natural death for the Brahmin mission was that ‘the tempo of conversions among Brahmins was not maintained is evident. The chief cause was, whatever may have been said to the contrary, the controversy regarding the “Kudumi” etc, during which Father Robert was forbidden to baptize Brahmins. Another was Father da Costa’s noisy and tactless propaganda among the low castes, and his disregard of caste distinctions, which compromised the progress of Christianity among the higher castes and brought it to a stop among Brahmins'(421)
But the natural question that arises is, what happened to those Brahmin converts of Nobili? Why they didn’t carryout their ministry on their own, at least among their community, as we naturally find what happened among Dalits and tribes else where? The answer in the words of the author is:
‘We have seen that he had done his utmost to keep his neophytes socially united with their own caste people. He succeeded to such an extent that in some castes, they went on intermarrying with their Hindu relations as they had done in the past, till the Christians were numerous enough to make those mixed marriages unnecessary.
With the Brahmin converts, the separation from their Hindu relations was too complete and too profound to allow of intermarriages with them, and their Christian community was too small, to allow many of them to mary within that group. Therefore they had either to live single, or to marry outside their caste and lose their brahminhood, or to return to the Hindu fold and lose their faith. That some of them sacrificed their faith totheir caste is likely, though we have no proof of such an apostasy. Some, however, seem to have joined the Christians onthe Coast, and give up their caste to preserve their faith.
Those among them who were already married when they received baptism, or who could marry with Christian converts, founded families which survived till the suppression of the Society in 1773. They never succeeded in forming a strong community with a fair chanc of perpetuating themselves. Trained for the service of the temples or the courts of petty princes they could not, after baptism, continue in a profession which was incompatible with their new faith. It was extremely difficult for them to find a suitable occupation. They were employed by the Missidon as Catechists, school masters, writers, sacristans, etc., but those employments were few, unremunerative and without any prospects. They had to be helped by the Mission, and their conversion soon came to be looked upon as an expensive luxury. No wonder then if that community did not prosper, and ultimately disappeared almost completely.’ (422-23)
But the life and Mission of Nobili should be analysed not on the basis of counting the number of his (Brahmin) converts or on the churches established among the caste, and Dalit Indians. Even the so called success of later missionaries among the Dalits is not very impressive considering the percentage of Christianity among them. But what we can learn from that Pioneer of contextualisation to our present situation of expanding the kingdom of God among various communities in India should be the crucial question that should come out from the book.
Does end justifies the means? Yes is the answer every way, provided the means is also carried out with the same spirit of the end. If promoting the Righteousness of Jesus Christ is our END, it can never be achieved with a crooked MEANS to which one need not commit himself/herself, but can USE according to one’s own convenience without any conviction.
Now at the end of this 20th centuary, with a resergency of Nationalism, even with a demand for a Communal based Identity, the cultural, religious and social symbols of one community or society cannot be adopted by any outsider, without become a part of that community and society. This principle is directly applicable, particularly both for the traditional Christians or converted Christians for whom conversion includes a change of alliagence from their native community/society to Christian (sub) community/society within the broad Indian community
The so called ‘Hindu-Christian’ and ‘Catholic-Hindus’ etc. are mere play of words as one cannot be true to two communities at the same time. For example, a group of full time workers, serving among the Muslims, in the name of Indiginisation and contextualisation, just observe certain cultural and social symbols of the Muslims in their live and ministry among them. But in their personal commitment, they are members of their own Christian community as well as members of one church. In the government records they remain as Christians, and in their social relationship they feel at home with Christians than with Muslims. To say in other words as they are mere kabadi evangelicals, they use the cultural and social symbol of Muslims just for their own convinence without having any commitment on their part with a personal conviction, as we find in the case of Nobili.
‘But what is your answer for our desire and zeal to serve for the Lord among them. Can we become a Muslim (or Brahmins) and hide our identity. Do we not see that Nobili never hide his identity in his adoptation of Hindu Brahmin Sanyasi.? may be some of the genuine question from them.
Well, I have no ready made answer for all the questions which I ask even for myself. However we cannot diverse the historic and mission context of Nobili from his principles.
Now in our context, I would rather say, ‘become all things to all men’ in your relationship and commitment to develop a new believer in his faith. To help a Muslim/Brahmin believers to remain a living witness for his own community/society, you become a Muslim/Brahmin in your PERSONAL relationship with him/her, so that he/she can grow in the lord without loosing his /her original identity. At the same time in your relationship with their communities/societies you remain as a sympathetic witness for the Lord RESPECTING his/her social, cultural, religious even communal values, which give his/her identity. Such a sympathy added with empathy will help you to respect their values/symbols without any compromise to your conviction. This will help you to see how means also justifies the end. Otherwise, all your means without personal commitment will judge your end!
As this is not a book review, here we need not say much about the book. By just reading from the above verbatim quots from the book itself speaks clearly about the value of this objective historical research on Nobili. I never read much on Nobili. But what all I heard are mere legendary mythological stories, may be traditionally coming after Nobili. But this book shatters all such legends and gives a clear historical picture on Nobili. Even after this book, if the evangelical circle still go on following its own tradition of preaching the gospel, even Christ or Paul come again to preach, the evangelical will remain the same without learning even from them.
Father Robert de Nobili emerge as a Saint from the furnace of those trails in his mission. Not only ‘in the history of the Society of Jesus, and the (R.C.) Church’ but at least in the Indian church history, ‘do we find such a combination of intellectual brilliance with sanctity of life, as we found in the life of Swami Robert de Nobili. Now joining with the author we too have to ask:
‘Who has qualified better to be raised to the altar as a canonised saint than Rbert de Nobili? If his cause is ever taken up, the Devil’s Advocate, will have a hard job of it, playing his role. There is no need to look for miracles in his case to atest his heroic virtue. The whole life of Nobili was a miracle. He demonstrated in his life the heroism of one who wholly and without reserve accepted and carried daily, the Cross of Christ in all its complex reality.
Is it too much to hope in our time the Church would rise to the occasion and officially declare Robert de Nobili a saint? This will strengthen the whole policy and movement, in the post-Vatican world of what we now call “inculturation” as one of the most important aspects of today’s evangelisation.
Even if this does not happen no one has a better claim to be called a saint than Robert de Nobili, the Tattuva Podagar the “Brahmin Sanyaasi”, the Wise and Holy man from the West, above all “his Star in the East”, which led thousands of Indians to Jesus, the Saviour and ‘the expectation of the nations.'(p.459)
Erode, October 7-8, 1997.
Notes
1. ‘After the death of Father Robert the progress of the Madurai Mission was so rapid that it excited a good deal of envy among people who, convinced that no success could honestly be obtained except through their own methods, concluded that Father Robert’s must be dishonest. To prove their point they relied largely on their imagination and the ignorance of their European readers.’ -pp.78-79
2. ‘The name Paranghi given to the Portuguese does not mean Christian. The Saint Thomas Christians are not called Paranghis but Nazaranis, and the new converts are called Maargakaarer or men of the law, the Armenian Christians are known by the same name. Paranghi means, both here and in Madurai, a barbarous and beastly individual without any education….Therefore any Portuguese can deny in all truth that he is a Paranghi, a fortiori we, who are not Portuguese, can deny it on oath. The reason why that name creates such difficulties, among certain Fathers is that they do not know what it really means.’ (Archbishop Ros to Aquaviva the General of the Society of Jesus from Cochin on November 28, 1612) p.213
3. As a foot notes after quoting this, the author says “This was accepted law in Nobili’s time’.(p.113) First of all in this Sanskrit verse it is said ‘Karmanaa jaayate dvijah’ and ‘Karmanaa’ is not definitely ‘Upanayanam. And as we pointed further in our discussion, in several places of Mahabharata and other Scriptures it is repeatedly said that ‘character’, ‘work’ etc alone makes one a Brahmin and not mere Upanayanam.
4. Now Vishva Hindu Parishad perform this Upanayanam ceremony to several tribals and as sudhi for those Christians re-converted as Hindus. But they are not called as Brahmins and those tribals also don’t want to be called as Brahmins, as it will deprive several of their previleges given by the govertnment to them.
5. (P.V.Kane, History of Dharmasastras, Vol.I, Part I, ch.32, The Two Epics. F.n.387, p. 364. Also see: ‘truthfulness, self-restraint, tapas, charity, ahimsaa, constant adherence to dharma, these are the means (of higher life) among men, not caste nor family’ (Vanaparva, 181.42-43); ‘There is no difference among the (four) varnas; this world is Braahma (belongs to Brahmaa), because it was formerly was created by Brahmaa and was (later) reduced to different varnas by their (diverse) actions’ (Shantiparva 188.10);
6. ‘Here we give an extract from a letter of Fr Sauliere addressed to Cronin dated December 24, 1956: “I think that the real achievement of Father Nobili was the introduction of Christianity into India’s hinterland; the rest, Sanskrit Scholarship, social and literary adaptations, etc. were the means he used. But for him, Christianity would have remained confined to the European settlements on the coast, without any chance of penetrating into the interior. While Xavier had travelled along the coasts under the shadow of the Portuguese flag collecting converts by the thousands, Nobili was left at the mercy of pagans, battling with their prejudices to plant the church among them. His was a slow, painful, and thankless task, but on the stone he gathered so laboriously the Indian church was built”‘. (456)
Leave a Reply