Missionaries and Orientalists

I was reading a comparison between the missionaries and Orientalists (Thomas R. Trautmann, The Clash of Chronologies: Ancient India in the Modern World, New Delhi, Yoda Press, 2002, ‘The Missionary and the Orientalist’, pp. 189-207). The following points from him forced me to rethink my own understanding of Indian tradition, culture, and worldview:

The sharp opposition between the type of the missionary and the type of the Orientalist has a history. I have already invoked the growing force of Evangelicalism in Britain and its unsympathetic gaze upon Hinduism and the Indian past.  No one put it more forcefully than Charles Grant, who declared the Indians “a people exceedingly depraved”, and prescribed the light of European civilization and Christianity the cure of the darkness in which they lived (Grant 1796@).  This was at the same time an attack upon the Orientalist ideology of sympathetic engagement with Hinduism. (p.199)

Yes unlike the Missionaries there were several other Orientalists had a “generous estimation of the value of Indian literature and society” (p. 198). But they were “virtually called a non-Christian” as Rev. William Taylor accused about F. W. Ellis.  “In his Catalogue raisonne of the College library manuscripts he says, of Ellis’ edition and translation of the Tirukkural,

Mr. Ellis was a learned, and laborious editor. But not a fit editor; as allowing his own prepossessions, and prejudices to appear prominent on almost every page.  Apparently, his views were not based on the alone foundation of true morality [i.e. Christianity] (Taylor 1862 3: 19)” (p. 198)

Though some Orientalists had a “generous estimation of the value of Indian literature and society” still Trautmann concludes that:

Thus the Orientalist and the missionary persist in the minds of contemporaries as distinct and opposed types even when there is plenty of evidence that the two types were not watertight compartments and that some missionaries were also Orientalists and some Orientalists contributed to the missionary project….(p.206) But throughout British rule we cannot truly draw a sharp distinction in knowledge production of the missionary and the Orientalist in British India, because they were much the same, certainly so in the matter of grammars and dictionaries, but also to a degree in the production of knowledge about religion, manners and customs, in spite of a felt distance between the missionary and the Orientalist in those days, above all on the part of the missionaries and the Orientalists themselves. (pp. 206-07)

After closing this reading, I began to reflect on my approach as a bhakta of the Lord regarding India and Hinduism. In many ways, I thank God that I was born as a Hindu, as an Indian, and particularly as a Tamilian, to know one of the richest languages in the world (Tamil). All the beautiful gifts of God to me in our Indian civilization help me to celebrate my bhakti in Him in a more personal and natural way. Unfortunately, many Indian Christians, particularly many “converts,” fail to enjoy such a wonderful civilization and opt to follow an alien (Western) culture and tradition in the name of guarding their doctrine and maintaining uniformity in expressing their faith in the Lord.

In the name of guarding their particular doctrine of the (denominational church), they not only produced uniform doctrinal statements but also uniform expressions of faith—singing hymns, celebrating maha Prasad (communion), etc. This happened not only within the denominational churches but also in a few para-church (missionary) organizations that followed the same in their church planting ministry. I still remember one such incident in which a particular organization insisted on using only ‘(North Indian) rotti and extract from the dry grape.’ When I questioned and challenged those in Orissa and Bengal to change to accommodate local expressions, like using puffed rice (mudi in Hindi) instead of (Hindi belt) rotti and black tea instead of dry grape juice, which some of the local people used in their normal life, they refused to accept and insisted on following the instructions given by the (South Indian) leaders (from Hyderabad) to keep uniformity and not create any confusion in the minds of the ‘converts.’ To defend their point, they pointed out that instead of using the wafer and wine as used in the traditional churches, they contextualized by introducing rotti and dry grape juice. As there was no point in helping them to come out from such slavery (to the South Indian ideology and agenda), I gave up my view. That is why I always opposed all such so-called ‘contextualization’ by the Western and Westernized Indian Christians, which never allowed spontaneous expression of bhakti.

For me, there is a place for order and discipline in (public) life. Otherwise, there will be chaos and confusion—like traffic rules, civil and criminal law, building houses, etc. But when it comes to personal sadhana, if we begin to impose uniformity in the name of order and discipline, it will deprive us not only of growth and spontaneous expression of our bhakti in the Lord but also of becoming mental slaves to outsiders’ ideology and agenda.

In a sense, Indian Christianity (of every form and expression) unfortunately inherited the spirit of British order and uniformity in their church life and activity. It is like a botanical garden (or Mogul garden), whereas Hinduism is like a natural forest which accommodates various expressions. Maintenance of any artificial garden is very expensive and time-consuming. Above all, it won’t allow space for spontaneity. Whereas a natural forest, though it looks wild from a distance, still needs zero maintenance (as it manages its own way) and also accommodates spontaneity. This reminds me of what Cohn says about the ‘contrast between the layouts of the European and the Indian camps’ (p. 666) in the Delhi Assemblage by Viceroy Lord Lytton on 23 December 1876 held for the reading of the actual proclamation of Victoria’s ascension to the imperial throne on 1 January 1877’ (p. 671):

There was a marked contrast between the layouts of the European and the Indian camps. The European camps were well ordered, with straight streets and neat rows of tents on each side. Grass and flowers were laid out to impart the touch of England which the British carried with them all over India. The plants were supplied by the Botanical Gardens at Saharanpur and Delhi. In the Indian camps, spaces were provided for each ruler who was then left to arrange his camp in his own fashion. To the European eye the Indian camps were cluttered and disorganized, with cooking fires seemingly placed at random, and with a jumble of people, animals and carts impending easy movement. Nonetheless, most European observers commented on how vibrant and colourful the Indian camps were. {J. Talboys Wheeler, The History of the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi (London, 1877), p. 47}– Bernard S. Cohn, ‘Representing Authority in Victorian India’, Pp. 632-682 in An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays, New Delhi, (1987), 2012, p. 666

Then to thank the Lord for the wonderful gift of various culture and traditional values for me in India I wrote this song.

Notes

@ Charles Grant: Observations on the state of society among the Asiatic subjects of Great Britain, particularly with respect to morals; and on the means of improving it, written chiefly in the year 1792.  Printed as appendix 1 in Report from the Select Committee on the Affairs of the East India Company 1831-32, 3-92.  Facsimile rep., Irish University Press Series of British Parliamentary Papers, Vol. 5: Colonies: East India. Shanon: Irish University Press, 1970.

Revised 5-7-2024