Do we carry our particular religious or communal identity on our sleeves when we interact with others? This is the question that came to mind when I read the closing lines of the paper Dialogue As Communion: C.F. Andrews and Munshi Ram, by Daniel O’Connor, in God’s Word Among Men (Gispert-Sauch, S.J., ed., Vidyajoti, 1973, pp. 73-83):
Theologically—and we have only lightly indicated the theological character of the encounter between Andrews and Munshi Ram, wishing to let the letters speak for themselves—this final letter (by Munshi Ram)1 could stand as a conclusive witness to the effectiveness and validity of the approach, in which witness to the Revelation in Christ is borne within a context of communion, of Christian solidarity with the non-Christian. —p. 83
Before I share my reflection on the question that arose in my mind, let me clarify a few things. The correspondence between C.F. Andrews (hereafter CFA) and Munshi Ram (later known as Swami Shraddhanand, hereafter MR) represents a dialogue between a committed missionary and a nationalist. Despite his deep connections with figures like Tagore, Gandhi, and Gokhale, CFA almost abandoned his missionary2 calling and fully immersed himself in the freedom struggle identifying with Indians3 and ‘believed that in embracing India he was embracing Christ’.4 However, reading about CFA’s later years reveals that, even as he became more deeply rooted in India, he never fully abandoned his Christian identity. In fact, CFA died in India and was buried in Calcutta.
When I read extracts from CFA’s letters to MR (which form the majority of the paper), I recognized the tension CFA must have felt—between remaining faithful to his missionary calling, or at least to his identity as a Christian, and his deep involvement in the freedom struggle.
I also found myself wondering why these correspondences were preserved—either as copies of the original letters or as originals collected by others. Was this to write a biography, or was it a personal effort to document life experiences?5 This is not a typical practice among common people, so how should we understand these preserved correspondences, particularly when they are later used to tell a person’s story or document their mission? I can understand missionaries keeping copies of reports or correspondence for their mission or church. But when such materials are later used to write about their life, as in the case of CFA, we must reflect on the deeper reasons behind this documentation.
Another significant point is that this paper by O’Connor was written for the Jesuits, by a Jesuit. Given that one of the major themes of the book is theology (with another being dialogue), O’Connor inevitably brings theology into the discussion of the encounter between CFA and MR. This means that the relationship between CFA and MR is framed as an example of “Christian solidarity with the non-Christian” and as an encounter with a theological dimension.
Reflections on the Encounter
Having said this, when I read the final paragraph, I found myself questioning, “How to understand such ‘theological encounters’ between two individuals, one a Christian and the other a Hindu, each with their own unique calling in life?”
If I ask this question—How to understand such relationships between human beings?—the answer will vary depending on the perspective of the person being asked.
For instance, a common Indian, regardless of being Hindu, Christian, or Muslim, typically does not wear their religious or communal identity on their sleeve in everyday interactions. As Kakar rightly said, “A Hindu is born only when the Muslim enters the scene,”6 but in other instances, a person would simply remain as a Hindu, possibly with their caste identity in mind. For example, an orthodox Hindu might not place their religious identity forefront when interacting with a non-Hindu, such as a Muslim, but they might not easily accept hospitality in the Muslim’s home. In contrast, they may accept light hospitality in a Christian home more easily, though this could also depend on various factors, such as the faith of the person extending the invitation.
In most cases, however, two people interacting will focus more on their shared humanity rather than their religious identities—at least in India. I cannot speak for other countries, especially in the West, where, at times, the dynamic is quite different.
When I read that CFA’s communion with MR is described as a “witness to the Revelation in Christ,” borne within the context of “Christian solidarity with the non-Christian,” I wonder how this would be viewed by an evangelical-minded Indian. This individual, while perhaps not openly, would subtly seek every opportunity to share the message of Christ, using phrases such as “Praise the Lord,” “I am praying,” or “The Lord is with me.” Similarly, a common Hindu might refer to “God” (typically “Bhagavan” as a generic term) but would rarely invoke specific deities in conversation.
If the question were asked of a devout Hindu (bhakta), caught between a rock and a hard place, she might navigate the conversation carefully, depending on her relationship with the other person. I’ve observed this myself, particularly in discussions where we balance our commitment to the Lord and our identity as Hindus.
Conclusion
This paper attempts to explore the delicate balance between personal religious identity and interpersonal relationships, particularly in the context of theological encounters. Through the lens of C.F. Andrews and Munshi Ram’s correspondence, it highlights the tension between living authentically within one’s faith tradition while engaging meaningfully with others who hold differing beliefs.
The analysis underscores the diversity in human interactions, showing how individuals from different backgrounds navigate their religious identities. Whether through explicit theological frameworks, as seen in Christian solidarity, or through the more implicit, nuanced engagements of everyday life, such encounters reveal the complexity of faith in action. This paper acknowledges the richness of these dynamics, especially in a pluralistic society like India, where religion often intersects with caste, culture, and history.
Yet, as we reflect on the theological and relational significance of these encounters, one overarching question persists: “How are we to understand this kind of paper? Theology?” While theology provides a structured framework to interpret such relationships, this question hints at a broader human reality—our shared capacity for solidarity and fellowship that transcends religious labels. However, the tendency of theological scholars to universalize their perspective in human encounters often overlooks the simple, unstructured nature of relationships that most people experience in their daily lives.
Perhaps the ultimate takeaway lies in recognizing that while theological constructs are valuable, they must not overshadow the simplicity and beauty of genuine human relationships. As noted in the paper, most individuals do not wear their religious identity “on their sleeve” but instead relate to others as fellow human beings. This insight reminds us that at the heart of all religious and cultural engagement lies the shared quest for understanding, compassion, and communion.
There is much to unpack in these reflections, and they indeed warrant further exploration in a subsequent paper. For now, this work stands as an invitation to think deeply about how theology, history, and human connection converge in the complex tapestry of inter-religious and interpersonal relationships.
Gurukulam, 10-12-2024
Notes
1 See Appendix of this only letter that is mentioned in this paper by Munshi Ram for the readers to understand any ‘Revelation of Christ’ in it. It is interesting to note that though CFA whom mentioned MR as ‘Mahatmaji munshi Ram in the article that he published in Modern Review in the end of January 1993 and later calling MR as ‘dearest Rama’ however MR in his letter dt. 25-4-1913 still addressed CFA as My, dear Mr. Andrews. Does CFA somehow tried to romanticised his relationship with Indians whereas people like MR never easily budged to such impulsion?
2 …IN the late 1920s he wrote that the missionary movement “appeared to me to be out of keeping with the character of Christ Himself and be unworthy of His name.”{ Charles Freer Andrews, The Testimony of C. F. Andrews, Edited by Daniel O’Connor. Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1974, 227} But in the 1930s his disagreements with Gandhi over conversion provided an opportunity to outline an explicit vision of a legitimate missionary role in India, one that was entirely consistent with his pre-1914 arguments. Andrews drew a sharp line between bearing public witness to one’s faith on the one hand and direct persuasion, or proselytism, on the other. He believed that Christians should bear witness to their faith through service to others, and look for opportunities to explain the Christian motivation for that service while engaging in respectful dialogue with men and women of other faiths. Like Stokes and Sundar Singh, he had a vision of Christ, but discerned the presence of Christ already in India: “There is an experience which has happened to me so frequently in India that I have no longer come to look upon it as strange or unusual. It is this. Continually, when I come into new surroundings and meet new faces, the consciousness of the presence of Christ among those I meet is borne in upon me. If one may dare to express what happens in words, it is as if I saw Christ in their faces and knew that He was present. They reveal Christ to me. This is, I am aware, mystical language, but I can express the reality in no other adequate manner.”{ibid. 222} In his own distinctive way, Andrews believed that in embracing India he was embracing Christ.— Jeffrey Cox, Imperial Fault Lines, California, Stanford University Press, 2002, p. 249
3 Shall I tell you what is becoming more and more the longing of my life and the goal I am dimly striving towards? You must have guessed it already, but now I can express, it more clearly; and I have been thinking it out up here with your spirit me It is to relate the figure of the meek and gentle Christ…I can see how India has preserved this ideal, wonderfully preserved it for mankind; and that it can be quickened again in these new ages of the world. And in the union of spirit which is contained in this unity of teaching, East and West may become truly one…. And this has come about by my drawing nearer to Hindu India in its ideals, wherever I see them truly exhibited. It is this which gave me an immediate attraction to you, dearest Rama, which deepened into deepest love… [Correspondence 28 October 1913]
4. See Notes 2 above
5 ‘Some 180 letters, mostly written by Andrews to Munshi Ram, were recently given to the National Archives of India by Shri Benarsidas haturvedi, who was, with Miss Marjorie Sykes, Andrews’ principal biographer’….—p. 75
6 It is interesting to note that generally a Hindu’s self-identification as a Hindu occurs only when he talks of the Muslim; otherwise the conversations on his affiliation are more in terms of caste. A Hindu is born only when the Muslim enters the scene. Hindus cannot think of themselves as such without a simultaneous awareness of the Muslim’s presence. This is not so for Muslims, who do not need Hindus for self-awareness. The presence of the Hindu may increase the Muslim’s sense of his religious identity but does not constitute it’.—Sudhir Kakar & Katharina Kakar ,Indians Portrait of a People, New Delhi, Penguin Books, [2007], 2009, p. 157
Appendix
My dear Mr. Andrews,
Your letter of the 21st instant has made me feel what I have not felt for the last 28 years. I had been an atheist for some 9 years when the vision came to me, which poured a balm into my lacerated soul. I had laid my doubts before the great Dayananda thrice and had been silenced in discussion, but I was not convinced. When I repeated this a third time, the great Yogi said, “You asked questions, and I have replied to them. I never had the presumption to say that I would convince you. It is He alone who can convince you of His reality.” And the time came, and I was not only convinced but felt the Presence and a calm which I cannot describe. Then I had to struggle, and struggle, and struggle in the Arya Samaj. Ah! The Divine Mother alone knows how many times this heart of mine has been hit hard during the last 28 years. But the balm has come again. As I read your account of the unsophisticated, pure young heart’s true conversion, all the wounds which I have received were healed at once, and I again had a taste of the pure joy after 28 years. I thanked the Divine Mother for this new blessing, for I felt that I had not lived in vain.
As regards your trouble with those who cannot see things with your eyes, I thank Our Divine Mother for having given you the strength to act with true Aryan (in other words, Christ-like) patience. You think that portion of your letter has made it rather gloomy.
Oh! My dear friend, believe me, when I assure you that it has filled me with hope and faith in the Love of God instead. With the Divine Mother’s blessings and under her guidance, I and you, sinners as we are, will in the end be able to convince our brethren that the Mother belongs specially to no country or sect and that Her loving arms were open for all her children, irrespective of color and creed at all times.
I cannot write more. It is difficult for me to pour forth my whole heart to you in writing, for I am master of no single civilized language. But I am convinced that my heart has already found a response in your own. I believe that the Loving Mother has herself joined our hearts, which no human instruments will be able to rend asunder. There is no time of day when I do not think of you.
Believe me, my dearest friend,
Yours ever affectionate,
Munshi Ram
[Correspondence, 25 April 1913], D. O. Connor, pp. 82-83
Leave a Reply