[This article was completely edited by Chat GBT, though I wrote the original one]
Most of us are now familiar with this term. While some branches of the Right-Wing Movement have used it to ‘reconvert’ those who left Hinduism for other faiths, our approach is entirely different. Personally, I believe there is no need to focus on bringing traditional Christians back into the Hindu fold. Many of these individuals, or their ancestors, converted due to naivety or were misled by those who propagated their faith aggressively, rather than allowing individuals to make an informed decision. Whatever the socio-economic conditions may have been at the time, once politics enters the picture, such programs are typically carried out with an agenda, not good intentions. Even for those who have returned to their social roots, their social and economic problems often remain unresolved. Both sides tend to use these groups for religious or political agendas instead of addressing their real issues.
Now, caught between a rock and a hard place, some Christian converts—especially those who made an informed and careful decision—find themselves wanting to reconnect with their cultural and social roots while retaining the spiritual insights they’ve gained in Muktinath. However, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for this. Just as they made a personal decision to change their religion and community, their return (ghar vapasi) should also be done on their terms. This is not akin to a formal initiation like Jal Deeksha (commonly known as baptism). I believe I’ve written before about the difference between a ‘samskara’ and ‘deeksha,’ so I won’t elaborate further here.
In principle, I suggest this return be done in the presence of family members whose sentiments were hurt by the initial conversion. It doesn’t need to be an elaborate ceremony, and each person can perform it according to their preferences, ideally with the guidance of someone willing to assist. But what if someone hesitates to take this step because it highlights their past decisions and embarrasses them further? In such cases, I recommend performing certain samskaras (rituals) for their children, which they may not be able to do if they continue to be seen as Christian converts in the eyes of their family.
For example, a Brahmin could arrange the thread ceremony (janup or yajopavitam) for his son, requesting the family elders to organize it and reinstate him during the ritual. This has already happened with several Hindus. Those who had discarded their thread for any reason can reinstate it with a simple ceremony, symbolizing their reintegration into their family and community. By doing so, these individuals send a clear message that they have returned to their social and cultural roots. Those who don’t have sons but only daughters could instead arrange their daughter’s marriage in the traditional Hindu way, perhaps engaging the family priest for the ceremony.
What about those with mixed parentage—where one parent is Hindu and the other is Christian—and who were raised as Christians but now wish to embrace Hinduism while retaining their spiritual connection to the Lord? In such cases, I don’t think any formal samskara is required to return to the Hindu fold. If their documents list them as Christian, they can apply for a change through the government gazette. As laws in these matters frequently change, it’s best to consult a lawyer. If their documents already list them as Hindu, no further steps are necessary.
The following case studies show how individuals can handle their return according to their specific circumstances.
In the first case, both the boy and girl had converted to Christianity. When they approached me to officiate their wedding, there was pressure from both sides—Christians insisting on a church wedding and their parents urging for a traditional Hindu ceremony. I advised them to marry according to their family’s traditions, demonstrating that they could remain devotees of the Lord while still maintaining their family and community identity. Although their Christian mentors and church members were disappointed, those mature enough understood the need to balance faith with familial and cultural obligations, as per the principles of the Muktiveda on such matters as marriage, birth, and death rituals.
In the next case, a son who had married a Christian woman accepted my suggestion and arranged a small prayaschitta (atonement) ceremony in front of his family. Later, he hosted a separate farewell event for his former church members, explaining his decision and receiving their understanding before leaving both their church and community. I encourage all such converts to approach their Christian mentors and pastors and express their gratitude for the spiritual guidance they received and their introduction to the Lord. However, they should also explain their desire to rejoin their family, both socially and culturally, and declare their intention to return to their Hindu roots with the blessing of both their family and church. While this approach may not always succeed, depending on the maturity of the Christian mentors and community members, it offers a respectful way to handle the transition.
Similarly, in a few other cases, individuals have completed the process in front of their family members. One individual, an NRI without family in India, carried out the ritual in the presence of his Hindu friends and fellow devotees of the Lord.
There is no uniform method for this return, though the principle remains the same: to maintain one’s birth identity both socially and culturally. The process should be tailored to the individual, but it must be guided by a clear understanding of what the Muktiveda teaches about following the Lord without changing one’s birth identity.
Indian Christians, shaped by their Western counterparts and influenced by past mission activities, often attempt to emulate Western values. This has led to a hybrid identity, where they remain part of Indian Dharmic civilization, particularly in terms of social identity, but superimpose Western individualism onto Muktivedic teachings. However, Muktivedic teachings do not promote such individualism. Instead, they emphasize collective identity—remaining connected to family, community, society, and the mandali (congregation). This disconnect makes it difficult for Indian Christians to understand the Hindu mindset when guiding new converts or bhaktas of the Lord.
Ashok Kakar offers valuable insights into the Indian mindset, which helps explain this cultural gap.1 He highlights that, unlike Western-Christian traditions that are rooted in universalization—such as the golden rule of the New Testament—Indian thought recognizes that different groups have their own laws and ethics, which cannot be universally applied. This context-sensitivity is central to traditional Indian moral law and extends into many areas of contemporary Indian life.
Kakar references Ramanujan2, who points out how this can be baffling for those from a Western-Christian background. He notes that while Americans tend to characterize people using abstract, generic terms like “good” or “nice,” Indians describe people in more concrete, situational terms. For example, instead of calling someone “good,” an Indian might say, “he helps me,” or “he brings sweets.” Indian descriptions focus on behavior and relationships, considering the context of actions—where, how, and with whom something was done—rather than abstract labels.
Conclusion
In examining the complexities of identity for Indian Christians, particularly those who wish to return to their cultural roots while retaining their newfound spiritual beliefs, we find that there is no single, uniform approach. Each individual’s journey, whether through personal decisions or socio-religious pressures, must be respected and addressed with sensitivity. The process of “coming back” to one’s Hindu roots should be guided by an understanding of both the individual’s spiritual needs and the cultural framework they are re-entering. It is essential to balance respect for tradition with the flexibility needed to accommodate each person’s unique circumstances.
On a broader level, the cultural clash between Western individualism and the collective identity inherent in Indian Dharmic traditions further complicates this process. Western-influenced Indian Christians, shaped by their historical experiences, often struggle to reconcile the teachings of Muktiveda with the deep, relational nature of Hindu society. Understanding this divide is crucial for those who seek to bridge the gap between personal spiritual transformation and the desire to remain part of a broader cultural and familial heritage.
Ultimately, the goal is not to impose a rigid framework on those seeking to reconnect with their roots but to offer a path that honors both their individual journey and their collective identity. By approaching this with maturity, sensitivity, and a clear understanding of Muktivedic teachings, individuals can navigate the challenges of maintaining their spiritual beliefs while reintegrating into their cultural heritage.
Dayanand Bharati
11-9-2024
Gurukulam
Notes
1 Though bit long, the what Kakar says about such Indian mind is worth reading as it is than me presenting his views in my own words. I have also included a hilarious illustration that he used to help us to understand this mind set in the Appendix [see: Birds of the same feather flock together: The Story of a Mouse]. Sudhir Kakar & Katharina Kakar ,Indians Portrait of a People, New Delhi, Penguin Books, [2007], 2009
2…Ramanujan remarks that for a Western-Christian tradition, which is based on the premise of universalization-the golden rule of the New Testament-such a view that each class of men has its own laws, its own proper ethics, which cannot be universalized must be baffling and, ultimately, a producer of denigration
Context-sensitivity@ is not just a feature of traditional moral law but extends to many areas of contemporary Indian life and thought…..—p. 189 [A.K Ramanujan, ‘Is There an Indian Way of Thinking?’, in M. Marriott, ed., India through Hindu Categories, Newbury, California: Sage, 1990, pp. 41-58]
@…Americans characterize a person with abstract, generic words like ‘good’, ‘nice’, while the Oriyas use more concrete, contextual descriptions like ‘he helps me’, ‘brings sweets’, etc. The descriptions provided by the Indians were more situation- specific and more relational than those of Americans. Indian descriptions focus on behaviour. They describe what was done, where it was done, and to whom or with whom it was done…. [Richard Shweder and E.J. Bourne, ‘Does the Concept of the Person vary Cross-Culturally?’ in R. Shweder and R. LeVine, eds., Culture Theory, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 158-99.]— Sudhir Kakar & Katharina Kakar ,Indians Portrait of a People, New Delhi, Penguin Books, [2007], 2009, p. 190
Appendix
The high cultural value placed on connection is, of course, most evident in the individual’s relationships with others. The yearning for relationships, for the confirming presence of loved ones and the psychological oxygen they provide, is the dominant modality of social relations in India, especially within the family. Individuality and independence are not values that are cherished….
The high value placed on connection does not mean that an Indian is incapable of functioning when he is by himself or that he does not have a sense of his own agency. What it does imply is his greater need for ongoing mentorship, guidance and help from others in getting through life and a greater vulnerability to feelings of helplessness when these ties are strained.
The yearning for relationships, for the confirming presence of loved ones and the distress aroused by their unavailability in time of need, are more hidden in Western societies. There the dominant value system prizes autonomy, privacy and self-actualization, and holds that individual independence and initiative are ‘better than mutual dependence and community. But it depends, of course, on the culture’s vision of a ‘good society’ and ‘individual merit’ whether a person’s behaviour on the scale between fusion and isolation is nearer the pole of merger and fusion with others or the pole of complete isolation.—p. 197
…In India, as compared to modern European and North American cultures, the optimum position entails the acceptance of more pain in order to get greater warmth.—p. 198
…The Indian body image, then, stresses an unremitting interchange taking place with the environment, simultaneously accompanied by a ceaseless change within the body. Moreover, in the Indian view, there is no essential difference between body and mind. The body is merely the gross form of matter (sthulasharira), just as the mind is a more subtle form of the same matter (sukshmasharira); both are different forms of the same body-mind matter-sharira.
In contrast, the Western image is of a clearly etched body, sharply differentiated from the rest of the objects in the universe….—p. 198
Birds of the same feather flock together: The Story of a Mouse
On the bank of the Ganga, there once lived a holy man called Yajnavalkya together with his wife. One day, as he was meditating, he felt something small and soft fall into the nest of his hands. He opened his eyes and saw that it was a small female mouse which must have fallen down from the claws of an eagle circling above. The holy man took pity on the mouse, and using his occult powers, transformed it into a small girl and took her home. The girl grew up as the daughter of the house, and when she reached marriageable age, Yajnavalkya’s wife reproached him one day, saying, ‘Don’t you see your (p.194) daughter is mature now and needs a husband? Yajnavalkya answered, ‘You are right. I have decided that she should have the best possible husband in all the worlds.’ He then called the sun-god and when he appeared Yajnavalkya said, ‘I have chosen you as my son-in-law. He then turned to the girl and asked her, “Would you like the light of three worlds as your husband?’ But she answered, ‘Ah father, he is much too plump and red-faced. Find me another husband. The holy man smiled and asked the sun whether he knew of anyone who was better than him. The sun answered, ‘O, holy man! The cloud is even stronger than I am, for it can cover me. Yajnavalkya called the god of clouds, but once again when he asked his daughter’s consent she replied, “Oh, father, he looks much too morose. Find me a better husband. Yajnavalkya asked the cloud whether there was someone in the world better than he. The cloud answered, “The mountain is certainly better, for it can stop me.’ The holy man called the mountain god, but the moment he appeared the girl cried out, ‘Oh, Father, he is too massive and clumsy! Find me a better husband.’ Yajnavalkya’s patience was nearly exhausted, but since he loved his daughter, he asked the mountain whether he knew of someone who was even better. The mountain answered, ‘The mouse can bore as many holes in me as it wants to. Considering that, it must be stronger than I am.’ Yajnavalkya called the mouse, and as soon as the girl saw him, she exclaimed, ‘Father! This is the only husband I can be happy with. Ah, can’t you change me into a mouse?’ The holy man fulfilled her wish. And as the two mice disappeared into the bushes, he walked back home, smiling to himself and saying, ‘Although the sun, the cloud and the mountain stood before her as suitors, the mouse-girl needed to become a mouse again. Her innate nature could not be denied.’—pp. 194-195
Leave a Reply