As we have said that this is not a review on Mangalwad’s book, yet few points must be raise before we go into the main point of our article. The main purpose of Mangalwadi is to raise the question, ‘what transformed the character of the British rule, enabling it to bless India by (among other things) giving up a clean govt.?’ (p.429). In response to Shourie’s main ‘atacks on missions is that they were a part of the British conspiracy, to reinforce religiously, what had been doen imiitarily’ (p.431). And the major portion this book, his ten letters addressed to Shouri, to give ‘selective’ answers to the various issues raised by Shouri, which Mangalwadi thinks will get some kind of response from Shouri. Though Mangalwadi seems to be polite and humble in his response, yet one could understand the non-Christ (not Christian spirit) in attacking Souri, which he deserves. Yet while attacking the principle a person or society or system we should attack what he says not what he is. The same truth is applicable when we point out the corrupt practices of any religion or community.
Nowhere the Hindu scripture says that women must kiss the linga oa a Naga sanyasi while he walks on the street ringing (in order to call) the bell for that purpose as the bible no where says that the Pope can keep concubins or CSI pastor can rap his own daughter in law. Well let some other reviewer do the rest of the things and let us return back to our subject.
Thankfully, Magalwadi says that ‘I am neither endorsing everything that Macaulay says, nor am I laboring to prove (where as he labored very hard to beget this book to prove that the “colonial rule was blessing in disguise in the form of divine providence) that the colonial rule was not a conspiracy. My real concern is to help us understand one of the inevitable consequences of turning our backs on God’s light, politically, India will get back to the state in which Clive and Grant had found it….’ (p.430)
Sin corrupts everything, including every system. That is why the so called ‘blessing’ which brought the so called ‘liberation’ by the western missionaries in India couldn’t last long even after fifty years as their weaker system (called church) which also they have left along with such blessing in India.
Some one well said that the gospel started in Palastine as a relations with a perso and become an enterprise and came to India in the form of colonialism and left as western Imperialism eneing up at present as personalitic cult inside the church But such missionary enterprises made the gospel weak not only in India, but every where in the world.
While ‘selectively’ giving answer to the various issues raised by the Hindu Fundamentalists in India in order to defend the ‘blessing of western missionaries, why cannot the church in India couldn’t give proper answer to other embarrassing issue raised by them also?
No doubt in it that the western missionaries created a modern India, which cannot be reversed back, but left a weak church system that failed to become a leaven in the society. That system not only failed in India, but everywhere in the world now. If Renaisance is the product of reformation and industrial revolution is the product of both of them, the post-modern world view is the product of a corrupt church system which failed to cope with the stress of such reformation and revolution, particularly in the west.
When system become a substitute for the savior because of our inherent sin, then no system, started with any kind of good intension, can last long. And the natural result would be that the very system which started to bring blessing to people would become a ‘burden’ instead.
Take for example the ‘Brahminisation’ which is attacked (may be rightly0 by every corner of the present day society. No soberly thinking researcher would say that the so called brahminisation was cleverly imposed on the society to impose their caste supremacy by the Brahmins. In fact, both in the past and present this ‘brahminism’ is vigorously implimeted by the powerful non-brahminis in order to demonstrate and preserve their superiority (after paying the devil its due, viz., giving the so called ‘maryada’ alone to the Brahmins—not real power or politics) and careful nurtured and deligently passed generation after generation in our country.
Brahmins were never held neither the physical strength or numerial strength, all the time in our country. What all they exercised were the so called spiritual autoirity, which naturally earned their ‘maryada’ from others to them. While formed the varnashrama dharma, realizng the danger of it become a mis-guided weapon in the hands of human beings, the same Brahmins also kept check and balance on the very system by self criticism. Other wise in the scriptures, which is considered written by the cunning Brahmins (in a language in which common peole have no access) to impose their authority, they need not in the same tone about criticizing the very system which they have ‘inverted’ and ‘imposed’ on the society: (Take the notes n0. 387, p. 364, in vol. I, Part I, of History of Dhamasastra by P.V.Kane).
At the same time it must be recognized, the same scripture also praises in vain the superiority of the Brahmins however hopeless they may be (as fire is covered by the ash etc…) This I write not as a ‘brahmin’ to defend them or their castesystem. What I say is, though there was self-criticism in their own system, as there was not a savior to redeem it, naturally the very system degenerated.
In a sense the Hindus and almost all the non-Christians (excuse me for using this word) have an escuse that they didn’t have a savior to redeem, reform, regenerate and restore their system. But how we are going to justify slavery in Christiandom and racialism which still prevails in almost all the western Christian countries. The post-Weslian England which thankfully abolished slavery under their domain, kept silence against the racialism till recently in South Africa.
We can easily take refuge to defend our weakness by saying, ‘their dwells no goodness even in missionaries flesh as well the evil with in us, which is crucifying the same savior again and again.
In conclusion, while we thank Mangalwadi for his hard work to give a rationalistic response to few ‘issues’ to Shouri, we thank the same PROVIDENCE for raising few Shouries to challenge us to sit and think in depe with a spirit of self-criticism over other issues, which he has raised in his book.
It is easy to write to ‘reject’ along with Shouri Christiantiy but very difficult not to go to the very same church on Sunday to keep our identity with them. Though economically not profitable, yet both Shouries and Mangalwadies can involve in such intellectual entertainments called ‘dialouge’. But limiting ourselves to our own context as bhaktas of Christ what practical solutionand guidelines these intellectual onterpreners want to give us”
Fortunately, we need not ‘reject’ any Christianity at the same time need it to keep our identity with it. But our plight become double, when we are rejected both by the churchianity and by our own community, because of our loyalty to a savior, thankfully not to any corrupt system (though we can also be criticized by creating a ‘kichidi’ system by keeping both god and bad of both the societies)
Half truth destroyes (because it deliberately hide the other part of the truth by selectively presenting the half-truth out of context) but not telling the whole truth (or facing it) (not deliberately with an aim to hide it, but as it won’t serve the purpose in a given context viz., Mangalwadie’s letter Shouri) not only disappoints but also confuses in several ways.
Hopefully we too join with Mangalwadi in his prayer (p.432) but not desiring any more ‘missionary movement’ but raise up ‘Indwelling Christ bhaktas in every Indian community’ both as a witness to a savior (not to any system) as well as work along with him within the communities to bring regeneration in it’.
Sin System Savior.
Truth hurts, lie deceives, half-truth destroys and not telling the whole truth disappoints. While Shourie destroyed his own reputation (to his shame) as an author (also his cause) Mangalwadi disappoints by not telling the whole truth about ‘Christiantiy’ as a system, which he along with Shourie (and lot of others) have rejected.
One doubt which naturally arises in our mind is, while strongly believer in the biblical world view of restoration back to its original state of this corrupted creation, whcy Mangalwadi, in a despair has no such hope for the church (or Christianity) particularly not praying to send one more ‘blessed western mission’ movement, but surprisingly pray for an ‘indigenous missionary movement of heroic proportion’. From the same Christiantiy which he rightly rejected as those ‘blessed western missionaries only left a weak church behind them her ein India.
System corrupts as the poer. And any absolute system corrups absolutely. The only remedy and hope for it is not even a savior to save but healthy self-criticism and repentance. Any Pro-(dalit or brahminical) movement of any system should learn this one lesson from the pages of history (as history takes wider views and the best tribunal for great political (religious) cases is the tribunal which anticipates the verdict of history’—Macaulay on Clive, p. 492).
Mangalwadi, while remaining as a pro-dalit in his conviction (which thoug he not explicitly says, yet one can read his mind inbetween the lines, though he criticizes The Dalit Liberation Rhetoric (pp. 249-53), thankfully opposes the fundamentalism of every system. He keeps a balance in pointing out the positive contribution of the ‘brahminism’ (pp. 244-47) as well the rights of the dalits (a word which he rightly rejects with several of us, yet which is not acceptable to several pro-dalit fundamentalists. While I asked to read pp. 236-53 to such a pro-dalit clergy of CNI, though he agreed with me and Mangalwadi in principle on the dalit Liberation rhetoric, yet disagreed by saying, ‘he (us) do not rightly understand the ‘theology of dalit’ which hopefully no one can understand.
The purpose of this article is not to review the book, as Shourie has already wrote the review by refusing to respond to Mangalwadi’s letters which the latter expected with a hope to publish (as an economically un-rewarding) dialogue. The CBI, after its enquiry on the famous Astronotic scandle of Kerala in its final report said that the whole nation owes an apology to those affected (and persecuted) scienties. Like wise Shourie and his group owes an unconditional apology not only to the whole nation, but even to the whole humanity for ‘destroying’ the history itself by his efforts to deconstruct it, by telling only ‘half-truth’.
Mangalwadi’s response to Shourie being a personal letter, he took all the liberty to express his personal conviction in a sentimental way 9though he claims as a non-sentimental ‘being’ p. ). One excellent thing in this book is the ‘rationalistic approach’ to various issues (of both history and personal faith) which a ‘’post-modern’ man cannot use (and this naturally pre-supposes that such a post-modern man or mind cannot respond as he/it doesn’t believe in any TRUTH).
As already we said,by not telling the whole truth about the ‘mission’ Mangalwadi disappoints us. After reading his book one ‘rationalistc’ question that arises in ourmind is why the gospel has miserabley failed both in the post-Weslian England as well as every where in Europe and in the whole Christiandom? What message he wants to give to us—the Hindu bhaktas of Christ, struggling in every end to promote the righteousness of Lord Jesus Christ in our respective community to regenerate it?
It is easy to take refuge in the ‘evil nature’ in man, which while rejecting the gospel. Yet preserved he system which they have created based on the very same gospel. If this being the case, is there any hope in the post-modern world with any such system to bring hope to the spiritual dalits of (every kind) our communities.
Of course Mangalwadi points out several times the ‘imperialistic and post-modern missionaries (p.) who came to India, yet couldn’t share the whole truth about them. Why?
If it beond the scope of his letter to ‘confess’ as a part of such human system (church) in a personal letter to a post-modern who told half-truth. Then we can understand 9already it is a bulk book 524 pages, with economically unrewarding Rs. 450 only) task]. And we hope and eagerly wait for the second volume of the same book covering the whole truth about the ‘blessings of western missionary’ which has left a weak system called westernized church.
–This wrote as a brainstorm without revising it. So this is not good for publication.
Typed from old notes on August 1, 2009. at Gurukulam. Originally written in 1996.
@@@
As we have said that this is not a review on Mangalwad’s book, yet few points must be raise before we go into the main point of our article. The main purpose of Mangalwadi is to raise the question, ‘what transformed the character of the British rule, enabling it to bless India by (among other things) giving up a clean govt.?’ (p.429). In response to Shourie’s main ‘atacks on missions is that they were a part of the British conspiracy, to reinforce religiously, what had been doen imiitarily’ (p.431). And the major portion this book, his ten letters addressed to Shouri, to give ‘selective’ answers to the various issues raised by Shouri, which Mangalwadi thinks will get some kind of response from Shouri. Though Mangalwadi seems to be polite and humble in his response, yet one could understand the non-Christ (not Christian spirit) in attacking Souri, which he deserves. Yet while attacking the principle a person or society or system we should attack what he says not what he is. The same truth is applicable when we point out the corrupt practices of any religion or community.
Nowhere the Hindu scripture says that women must kiss the linga oa a Naga sanyasi while he walks on the street ringing (in order to call) the bell for that purpose as the bible no where says that the Pope can keep concubins or CSI pastor can rap his own daughter in law. Well let some other reviewer do the rest of the things and let us return back to our subject.
Thankfully, Magalwadi says that ‘I am neither endorsing everything that Macaulay says, nor am I laboring to prove (where as he labored very hard to beget this book to prove that the “colonial rule was blessing in disguise in the form of divine providence) that the colonial rule was not a conspiracy. My real concern is to help us understand one of the inevitable consequences of turning our backs on God’s light, politically, India will get back to the state in which Clive and Grant had found it….’ (p.430)
Sin corrupts everything, including every system. That is why the so called ‘blessing’ which brought the so called ‘liberation’ by the western missionaries in India couldn’t last long even after fifty years as their weaker system (called church) which also they have left along with such blessing in India.
Some one well said that the gospel started in Palastine as a relations with a perso and become an enterprise and came to India in the form of colonialism and left as western Imperialism eneing up at present as personalitic cult inside the church But such missionary enterprises made the gospel weak not only in India, but every where in the world.
While ‘selectively’ giving answer to the various issues raised by the Hindu Fundamentalists in India in order to defend the ‘blessing of western missionaries, why cannot the church in India couldn’t give proper answer to other embarrassing issue raised by them also?
No doubt in it that the western missionaries created a modern India, which cannot be reversed back, but left a weak church system that failed to become a leaven in the society. That system not only failed in India, but everywhere in the world now. If Renaisance is the product of reformation and industrial revolution is the product of both of them, the post-modern world view is the product of a corrupt church system which failed to cope with the stress of such reformation and revolution, particularly in the west.
When system become a substitute for the savior because of our inherent sin, then no system, started with any kind of good intension, can last long. And the natural result would be that the very system which started to bring blessing to people would become a ‘burden’ instead.
Take for example the ‘Brahminisation’ which is attacked (may be rightly0 by every corner of the present day society. No soberly thinking researcher would say that the so called brahminisation was cleverly imposed on the society to impose their caste supremacy by the Brahmins. In fact, both in the past and present this ‘brahminism’ is vigorously implimeted by the powerful non-brahminis in order to demonstrate and preserve their superiority (after paying the devil its due, viz., giving the so called ‘maryada’ alone to the Brahmins—not real power or politics) and careful nurtured and deligently passed generation after generation in our country.
Brahmins were never held neither the physical strength or numerial strength, all the time in our country. What all they exercised were the so called spiritual autoirity, which naturally earned their ‘maryada’ from others to them. While formed the varnashrama dharma, realizng the danger of it become a mis-guided weapon in the hands of human beings, the same Brahmins also kept check and balance on the very system by self criticism. Other wise in the scriptures, which is considered written by the cunning Brahmins (in a language in which common peole have no access) to impose their authority, they need not in the same tone about criticizing the very system which they have ‘inverted’ and ‘imposed’ on the society: (Take the notes n0. 387, p. 364, in vol. I, Part I, of History of Dhamasastra by P.V.Kane).
At the same time it must be recognized, the same scripture also praises in vain the superiority of the Brahmins however hopeless they may be (as fire is covered by the ash etc…) This I write not as a ‘brahmin’ to defend them or their castesystem. What I say is, though there was self-criticism in their own system, as there was not a savior to redeem it, naturally the very system degenerated.
In a sense the Hindus and almost all the non-Christians (excuse me for using this word) have an escuse that they didn’t have a savior to redeem, reform, regenerate and restore their system. But how we are going to justify slavery in Christiandom and racialism which still prevails in almost all the western Christian countries. The post-Weslian England which thankfully abolished slavery under their domain, kept silence against the racialism till recently in South Africa.
We can easily take refuge to defend our weakness by saying, ‘their dwells no goodness even in missionaries flesh as well the evil with in us, which is crucifying the same savior again and again.
In conclusion, while we thank Mangalwadi for his hard work to give a rationalistic response to few ‘issues’ to Shouri, we thank the same PROVIDENCE for raising few Shouries to challenge us to sit and think in depe with a spirit of self-criticism over other issues, which he has raised in his book.
It is easy to write to ‘reject’ along with Shouri Christiantiy but very difficult not to go to the very same church on Sunday to keep our identity with them. Though economically not profitable, yet both Shouries and Mangalwadies can involve in such intellectual entertainments called ‘dialouge’. But limiting ourselves to our own context as bhaktas of Christ what practical solutionand guidelines these intellectual onterpreners want to give us”
Fortunately, we need not ‘reject’ any Christianity at the same time need it to keep our identity with it. But our plight become double, when we are rejected both by the churchianity and by our own community, because of our loyalty to a savior, thankfully not to any corrupt system (though we can also be criticized by creating a ‘kichidi’ system by keeping both god and bad of both the societies)
Half truth destroyes (because it deliberately hide the other part of the truth by selectively presenting the half-truth out of context) but not telling the whole truth (or facing it) (not deliberately with an aim to hide it, but as it won’t serve the purpose in a given context viz., Mangalwadie’s letter Shouri) not only disappoints but also confuses in several ways.
Hopefully we too join with Mangalwadi in his prayer (p.432) but not desiring any more ‘missionary movement’ but raise up ‘Indwelling Christ bhaktas in every Indian community’ both as a witness to a savior (not to any system) as well as work along with him within the communities to bring regeneration in it’.
Sin System Savior.
Truth hurts, lie deceives, half-truth destroys and not telling the whole truth disappoints. While Shourie destroyed his own reputation (to his shame) as an author (also his cause) Mangalwadi disappoints by not telling the whole truth about ‘Christiantiy’ as a system, which he along with Shourie (and lot of others) have rejected.
One doubt which naturally arises in our mind is, while strongly believer in the biblical world view of restoration back to its original state of this corrupted creation, whcy Mangalwadi, in a despair has no such hope for the church (or Christianity) particularly not praying to send one more ‘blessed western mission’ movement, but surprisingly pray for an ‘indigenous missionary movement of heroic proportion’. From the same Christiantiy which he rightly rejected as those ‘blessed western missionaries only left a weak church behind them her ein India.
System corrupts as the poer. And any absolute system corrups absolutely. The only remedy and hope for it is not even a savior to save but healthy self-criticism and repentance. Any Pro-(dalit or brahminical) movement of any system should learn this one lesson from the pages of history (as history takes wider views and the best tribunal for great political (religious) cases is the tribunal which anticipates the verdict of history’—Macaulay on Clive, p. 492).
Mangalwadi, while remaining as a pro-dalit in his conviction (which thoug he not explicitly says, yet one can read his mind inbetween the lines, though he criticizes The Dalit Liberation Rhetoric (pp. 249-53), thankfully opposes the fundamentalism of every system. He keeps a balance in pointing out the positive contribution of the ‘brahminism’ (pp. 244-47) as well the rights of the dalits (a word which he rightly rejects with several of us, yet which is not acceptable to several pro-dalit fundamentalists. While I asked to read pp. 236-53 to such a pro-dalit clergy of CNI, though he agreed with me and Mangalwadi in principle on the dalit Liberation rhetoric, yet disagreed by saying, ‘he (us) do not rightly understand the ‘theology of dalit’ which hopefully no one can understand.
The purpose of this article is not to review the book, as Shourie has already wrote the review by refusing to respond to Mangalwadi’s letters which the latter expected with a hope to publish (as an economically un-rewarding) dialogue. The CBI, after its enquiry on the famous Astronotic scandle of Kerala in its final report said that the whole nation owes an apology to those affected (and persecuted) scienties. Like wise Shourie and his group owes an unconditional apology not only to the whole nation, but even to the whole humanity for ‘destroying’ the history itself by his efforts to deconstruct it, by telling only ‘half-truth’.
Mangalwadi’s response to Shourie being a personal letter, he took all the liberty to express his personal conviction in a sentimental way 9though he claims as a non-sentimental ‘being’ p. ). One excellent thing in this book is the ‘rationalistic approach’ to various issues (of both history and personal faith) which a ‘’post-modern’ man cannot use (and this naturally pre-supposes that such a post-modern man or mind cannot respond as he/it doesn’t believe in any TRUTH).
As already we said,by not telling the whole truth about the ‘mission’ Mangalwadi disappoints us. After reading his book one ‘rationalistc’ question that arises in ourmind is why the gospel has miserabley failed both in the post-Weslian England as well as every where in Europe and in the whole Christiandom? What message he wants to give to us—the Hindu bhaktas of Christ, struggling in every end to promote the righteousness of Lord Jesus Christ in our respective community to regenerate it?
It is easy to take refuge in the ‘evil nature’ in man, which while rejecting the gospel. Yet preserved he system which they have created based on the very same gospel. If this being the case, is there any hope in the post-modern world with any such system to bring hope to the spiritual dalits of (every kind) our communities.
Of course Mangalwadi points out several times the ‘imperialistic and post-modern missionaries (p.) who came to India, yet couldn’t share the whole truth about them. Why?
If it beond the scope of his letter to ‘confess’ as a part of such human system (church) in a personal letter to a post-modern who told half-truth. Then we can understand 9already it is a bulk book 524 pages, with economically unrewarding Rs. 450 only) task]. And we hope and eagerly wait for the second volume of the same book covering the whole truth about the ‘blessings of western missionary’ which has left a weak system called westernized church.
–This wrote as a brainstorm without revising it. So this is not good for publication.
Typed from old notes on August 1, 2009. at Gurukulam. Originally written in 1996.
@@@
I am sorry to find my picture in your web-site promoting any kind of ‘church’ planting among the so called High caste Hindus. What I am doing is not a means to enhance any kind of conversion project of any Christian Organization. Please remove my picture from it.
Thanks.
Swami Dayanand Bharati.
Hi brother,
Did you mean to send this to us. We have no pictures of you or your work on our Create International website. Perhaps you meant to send this to someone else.
blessings
Cal Conkey
Dear Brother in the Lord,
Shanti!
I don’t much about website, but when I was with Goutam he showed my picture in the website of YWAM promoting High Caste Hindu ministry and at the bottom I saw this address and sent my objection. I am sending again this copy to Goutam and he will see the website and give you the response. Thanks for taking your precious time to
write me back. God be with you.
Hi dear brother,
I think that I know what you are referring to and we have removed your image from the prayer e-newsletter that we sent out in September. We thought that the image was small enough that you would not be recognized. Sorry…
Blessings to you and your work,
Cal Conkey
From: admin@createinternational.com
@@@
To Hosur, May 3, 2001.
The Editor,
Dharma Deepika
7, Canal Bank Road
Flat 1-A
Raja Annmalaipuram
Chennai 600 028
This is not for publication but my personal letter to Rev. C.V. Mathew as my response to his review. Those who want to publish this should get my permission. Thank you.–Dayanand
Dayanand Bharati, Living Water and Indian Bowl, ISPCK, Delhi, 1997. Reviewed by C.V. Mathew, D.Th, Principal, Jubilee Memorial Bible College, Chennai, India, in Dharma Deepika, July-December 2000, pp. 97-98
The subtitled of the book explains its content and scope. The author makes an analysis of Christian failings in communicating Christ to the Hindus and suggests various means and ways to make improvements in this respect. The book is dedicated to “the Bhaktas of Christ in Hindu Society.”
The autobiographical allusions gleaned from many pages of the book indicate that the author belonged to an upper caste community in the Hindu society; some time in the past he became a ‘Christian’; but later found out that he could not remain a ‘Christian’ (a member of what is called ‘Churchianity’) and be a meaningful, relevant, sympathetic, helpful and effective communicating lover of Jesus Christ in the society at the same time. In due course he moved out of the bounds of ‘Churchianity’ and now wants to be identified and known as a ‘Hindu Yesu Bhakta’ or ‘Hindu Christ Bhakta’-culturally a Hindu and in devotion a person attached to Jesus Christ. He is a ‘devotee to Jesus Christ’ and a ‘Hindu culturally.’
The author speaks on behalf of many such Yesu Bhaktas and potential bhakts who could be found in the Hindu society. He attempts to analyse many of the shortfalls, some wilful and others due to ignorance and thoughtlesseness, that are there in the attitude and approach of the so-called ‘Christians’ and the ‘Church’ (better, ‘Churchianity’) in India. Bharati’s thesis is this that the Christians failed in understanding the Hindu mind and culture and this has caused and still causes immense damage to the cause of Jesus Christ. With reference to various dimensions of
Christian life and ministry such as communication of the Gospel, worship, language, theology, attitude and approach to Hindu scriptures and religious practices the Christian community failed miserably and that is the reason why the Hindus did not become ‘Yesu Bhaktas.’ In fact, the very premise of Christian mission has been on a wrong footing: missionaries want to make Hindus ‘Christians’ rather than ‘Yesu Bhaktas.’ Bharati also deals with the present relation between ‘Christians’ and the nation of India and suggests the ideal-what relation should there be between the nation and the Yesu Bhaktas.
The concern and preoccupation of the author merits the attention of those who follow Jesus Christ and want to make Jesus Christ ‘known’ in India among the caste Hindus. The specific guidelines the author proposes or suggests do not embrace in their scope people outside the frame of the caste structure-the millions who may be labelled as the outcastes (avarnas), Muslims, Jains Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsees, the tribal people etc. His concern is the Hindus, that is, the savarnas. As a savarna Yesu Bhakta he feels for his people and pleads for them. This is noteworthy.
Likewise, many an argument and many a conclusion of the author are also faulty. Unfortunately he betrays a number of misunderstandings. He failed to understand some of the people that he referred to. May be two examples. One a Hindu and another a ‘Christian.’ Bharati eulogises Swami Vivekananda’s attempt to teach his American disciples the ‘Vedantic message’ using ‘biblical terms’ (pp 4, 44). Even a casual student would know that this biblical concept of ‘Not I, but thou’ has nothing to do with the Vedanta that Vivekananda preached. In Vivekananda’s usage, this was neither biblical nor vedantic; it was simply an oratorical gimmick used, in his favour, to confuse the ‘gullible’ and both biblically and ‘vedantically’ illiterate westerners. Second, see page 64: Vishal Mangalwadi’s argument so crucially revolves around the distinction that he sees between ‘freedom’ and ‘independence’, and unfortunately Bharati missed the whole point and consequently misunderstood Mangalwadi.
The author’s well-intentioned attempt, as outlined and argued in the book, to solve one problem has, quite unwittingly, created many more confusion and problems for those who are interested in presenting the Gospel to their fellow countrymen and women and in making the church more at home in the Indian setting without losing its distinctive identity. He says that his is a ‘struggle for existence’ (112). Indeed it is! It is sad that he fails to understand that the ‘panance’ he proposes is bound to be a failure-because it is neither faithful to Hindu nor to Biblical ethos and essentials; he refuses to learn from many previous and present experiences-all of them were sadly failure-led by people like B. Upadhyay, M.C. Parekh, Subba Rao, and lately Fr. Staffner.
Many a reader may feel for the author and appreciate his deep concern, but not necessarily for what he says and the way he says it. The upper caste Hindus (the savarnas) shall not claim that the ‘Indian bowl’ must necessarily be a savarna bowl. The bowls of the avarnas and others in Inda are also ‘Indian bowls.’ The ‘Living Water’ knows no untouchability; it is ready to fill any bowl, provided it is not broken nor sealed.
My Response
Prejudice hinders vision. Particularly when someone is ‘irritated’ by ideas which not only oppose their values but also ‘challenge’ them by calling for radical change (which may threaten their secured identity in a particular system, here ‘Churchianity’), both ‘prejudice’ and ‘irritation’ often result. One can find only such prejudice and irritation in this review by Mathew.
I welcome criticism as it helps me to think and correct my mistakes, if my mistakes are pointed out properly and rationally in their given context. Criticism based on misunderstanding and prejudice can help in future communication, but mostly we are forced to ignore such criticism and press forward in the call which we feel God has given to us.
Some points that need to be clarified (all the page numbers in Living Water are from the Revised edition, 2001 and not from the first):
1. ‘The concern and preoccupation of the author merits the attention of those who follow Jesus Christ and want to make Jesus Christ “known” in India among the caste Hindus. The specific guidelines the author proposes or suggests do not embrace in their scope people outside the frame of the caste structure – the millions who may be labeled as the outcastes (avarnas), Muslims, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsees, the tribal people etc. His concern is the Hindus, that is, the savarnas. As a savarna Yesu Bhakta he feels for his people and pleads for them. This is noteworthy.’ -Mathew
In my Preface to the first edition I have clearly mentioned:
Most of the issues, which we are dealing with in this book, have a limited context of ‘sharing the gospel among the so called high caste and educated Indians’ and so are not applicable to all. We are not giving any uniform formulae but some basic principles which are needed yet must be contextualized according to the particular situation, keeping the fact in mind that thankfully the Bible never gives us a pattern to follow but principles to adopt. (p.xviii )
And in the book under the title ‘Community and communalism’ I also shared, ‘But a true Christ bhakta wants for the sake of gospel to keep his community identity so that he can share with his own people; but he will oppose the negative side of communalism which threatens our national integrity.’ (p.54 ). And specifically I have said in ‘Our Theology’ that ‘Whether biblical theology in India is for Dalits or Vedantins or OBC yet each group has its own Indian bowl to receive it. Are we willing to give the Living Water in their own bowl or will we insist on serving it only in western cups?’ (p.106) Now those who read these lines without any prejudice can come to their own rationalistic, logical conclusion whether my ‘concern is the Hindus, that is, the savarnas’ (Matthew, p.97) alone or included every other Indian? And what is wrong in ‘feeling’ and ‘pleading’ for my own people? Does not Paul also ‘feel’ and ‘plead’ for his people (Romans 10:1)?
There always remains a tension between ideology and reality. Though the ideology of Christianity is that there exists no more Greek or Roman, Jew or Gentile, yet in reality this difference always exists. Whatever may the Church ideology of ‘one community belonging to Christ’, at least in India the Christian community is definitely not a single homogenous Social Community, but several sociological communities within the (so called Hindu and evil) system of Indian (better Hindu) Social Communities. If the ‘specific guidelines’ which I ‘propose or suggest do not embrace in their scope people outside the frame of the caste structure’ in theory (because this is only a theory or ideology as I gave these proposals within the context of reaching the so called caste Hindus for the Lord), in practice the Church (better Churchianity) not merely proposes but strictly practices ‘specific guidelines’ under which it casts out the so called savarna communities and does ‘not embrace in her scope people outside the frame of the caste structure which she upholds.’
This needs a bit of explanation: in practice the Indian Church in general is ‘of the Dalit/Tribal/OBC for the Dalit/Tribal/OBC and by the Dalit/Tribal/OBC’. There is nothing wrong in it as far as my ideology of ‘witnessing for Christ within the respective communities, keeping the cultural and social identity.’ But what people like Mathew expect is that the so called savarnas, if they want to follow Christ, must also accept this caste-based Christianity (better Churchianity). Even with this in theory we have no problem, as we have the ability and compulsion to accept any kind of change the church imposes on us. But the truth and tragedy in it is that even if a so called savarna wants to become a ‘Christian’ in an Indian Church, viz., as a Dalit, Tribal or OBC, neither the constitution nor the Christian community will allow for us to do so. When the Christians are fighting for their right to have all kinds of reservations under the constitution which are reserved for the Dalits, Tribes and OBC, they have in practice cast out the savarna bhaktas from the Christian community. And because of his/her faith in Christ, once a savarna person becomes an Indian Christian he/she is ‘out casted’ by his savarna family/community as he/she becomes a Dalit or OBC (if not Tribal) in their eyes. Now ‘caste-out’ by the church and ‘out-casted’ by his family and community a savarna Christ bhakta becomes a real DALIT, not merely a suppressed person but become an ‘untouchable one’.
If Mathew can give several examples of how several savarnas in the past and present happily became ‘Indian Christians’ and lived happily within the frame work of ‘Christianity’ (better Churchianity), I can parade several savarna ‘converts’ ‘caste-out’ by the church and ‘out-casted’ by their family and community, not because of their faith in Christ but because of the avarna church. Of course there is a solution to this problem. The savarna ‘converts’ can follow their fellow ‘avarna’ Christians to fight for a separate ‘reservation’ for their rights within the church and also under the constitution to declare them also ‘avarna’ once they become Christian. Or the avarna church (better Churchianity) can demand a constitutional amendment to give the same community identity of the respective church which a savarna convert joins (at least in South India, particularly in Tamilnadu, few churches are based on cast). But Mathew knows that neither the church (Churchianity) nor the Constitution nor the Hindu communities are ready to give such identity to any savarna convert. So he has to tell us now what is the scope for ‘the millions who may not be labeled as the outcastes (avarnas)’, viz., Muslims, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsees and the so called savarna etc. to become ‘Christian’? As the Church’s concern is the avarnas, that is, the Dalits, Tribals and OBC?
Keeping this struggle in mind I am not proposing in my book suggestions to ‘convert’ the so called savarnas to Churchianity. For me contextualization is not a trick to trap the so called savarnas to convert them as ‘Christians’. Having a proper understanding of both the good and evil aspects of the Indian (Hindu) Social/Community structure, I consider it as a birth right for a savarna to keep his cultural and social rights while following Christ. I cannot understand the mindset of people like Mathew, who acknowledge the birth right of every Dalit, Tribal and OBC Christian to keep their cultural and social identity, even fighting for their job reservations. But why it is denied to us in the name of ‘conversion’? Conversion properly understood both in the Bible and church history is not ‘conversion’ from one community to another community. And Indian Christians (also any Christian anywhere under the sun) have to prove that their Christian community has transcended the evil of community system. What Manilal Parekh says in the Indian context is equally true everywhere: ‘the so-called “Indian Christian churches” form a community among other Indian communities and not a church transcending them’.(p.21) Let me quote one example which I have included in the revised edition of ‘Living Water’ (p.67):
…In the Caribbean they were used to worship in a Church where the clergy and leadership were English and white, and so anticipated nothing but acceptance and even welcome in churches in Britain with whose liturgy and worship they were thoroughly familiar. They were disappointed. The racism they encountered in society, which denied them adequate housing, jobs for which they were qualified, and reasonable services and credit facilities (see the Political and Economic Planning Report on Racial Discrimination, 1967) was also present in the Church. Clergy from the Caribbean returning to England on furlough or for retirement, were dismayed to find erstwhile faithful members of their flocks not in Anglican congregations but either reading their bibles at home or members of Immigrants’ house-churches which eventually became the predominantly black independent churches which have taken root and now play an important part in the life of our society. – Wilfred Creydon, Chairman, Committee on Black Anglican Concerns, in Foreword, Seed of Hope: Report of a Survey on combating RACISM in the
Dioceses of The Church of England, by The Committee on Black Anglican Concerns. The General Synod of the Church of England, Church House, Great Smith Street, London SWLP 3NZ, pp. v-vi
So, it is not our (the so called savarna) claim that the ‘Indian bowl’ must necessarily be a ‘savarna bowl.’ 1 But while we are ready to accept and acknowledge that the bowls of the avarnas and others in India are also ‘Indian bowls’, it is Indian Churchianity which makes the ‘Living Water’ untouchable for savarnas; it has not only sealed the ‘bowl’ but also attempts to break it so as to drink the ‘Living Water’ in her own separate (Dalit, Tribal and OBC) cups for the sake of earthly conveniences and benefits.
2. ‘However, the reader can easily understand that many a presupposition held by the author are wrong. Just one example, Bharati presupposes that if the Gospel is presented in “forms and ways that are easily understood” by the concerned people they will become “Yesu Bhaktas”; the reason why Hindus have not become Yesu bhaktas is precisely this-the Gospel was and is presented to them in “western ways”, and the “church” is awfully “western.” But alas, the West is NOT CHRISTIAN at all. So the core reason for the large-scale disinterest and negative attitude of savarnas to the Gospel is to be found elsewhere.”–Mathew
My Response
A new revelation from Mathew! Here it is in neat summary: ‘The West is NOT CHRISTIAN at all’, therefore the church(ianity) which it gave to India is not Western. It is like a logical see saw. We may jokingly say: God is love; love is blind; therefore God is blind. This is logically impeccable. So we have to thank Mathew for this new logic which he proposes to prove that the church in India is not Western, because the West is NOT CHRISTIAN. But in reality we know that neither God nor love is blind, and nor is the church in India is purely Indian church. People like Mathew may not accept that the church in India is Western. But several Western missionaries and sincere Indian Christians themselves have agreed that that the church is a western church. I need not prove this by quoting from many sources over many centuries, although that could easily be done. Whether Mathew accepts it or not, truth cannot be changed. And ‘if the core reason for the large-scale disinterest and negative attitude of savarnas to the Gospel is to be found elsewhere’, at least he has to spell some of what the true reasons are. Forget the savarnsa, now even educated avarnas and tribals are now disinterested in the Gospel for various reasons, and one among them is definitely the western form in which it is presented. On the National Geographic Channel I have seen several programmes in which native Indians in Latin American countries are now opposing not only the present western church but also blame her for destroying their culture and civilization. As all this is well known, I need not waste many more words to prove the point. The west is not Christian but many missionaries who came to India in earlier days were westerners and I hope Mathew won’t deny this. Even church history addresses them not as mere ‘Christian missionaries from West’ but also ‘Western Missionaries.’
3. ‘Likewise, many an argument and many a conclusion of the author are also faulty. Unfortunately he betrays a number of misunderstandings. He failed to understand some of the people that he referred to. May be two examples. One a Hindu and another a “Christian.” Bharati eulogises Swami Vivekananda’s attempt to teach his American disciples the “Vedantic message” using “biblical terms” (pp 4, 44). Even a casual student would know that this biblical concept of “Not I, but thou”; has nothing to do with the Vedanta that Vivekananda preached. In Vivekananda’s usage, this was neither biblical nor vedantic; it was simply an oratorical gimmick used, in his favour, to confuse the “gullible” and both biblically and “vedantically” illiterate westerners. Second, see page 64[The right page number is 96; Dharma Deepika strikes again with a foolish error! as per its “Dharma”] Vishal Mangalwadi’s argument so crucially revolves around the distinction that he sees between “freedom” and “independence”, and unfortunately Bharati missed the whole point and consequently misunderstood Mangalwadi.’-Mathew
Response:
Regarding my example of Vivekananda, my ‘misunderstandings’ is not betrayed but rather Mathew’s failure to understand what I was saying in that context. Nowhere did I eulogise Swami Vivekananda’s neo-Vedantic message which he ‘used to confuse the gullible’ illiterate westerners. If Mathew understood the context, he would see that I clearly stated about Swamiji’s concern to ‘communicate’ his message using the worldview of the people to whom he is speaking. 2 I never agreed with Vivekananda’s Vedantic message which does not even remain true to Vedantic scriptures; my point was on adaptation in communication not on faithfulness in exegesis. But perhaps I should have commented on the exegesis, and in fact in the revised second edition of this book, in the footnotes I have added this following point [This was done even before Mathew wrote his review; I started the revision in 1998-99]:
This ‘Neo-Vedanta’, though claimed by several Hindu scholars like Dr. Radhakrishnan as another form of Sankara’s Vedanta, is in fact very different from the orthodox Vedantic school. Rambachan in his excellent book clearly demonstrates this:
[Sankara has] a radically different understanding of the nature and function of the sruti in relation to the gain of liberating knowledge. This understanding centered around Sankara’s treatment of sruti as sabda-pramaana, a source of valid knowledge (pramaana) composed of words (sabda). This view of the scripture, with all its implications, was in thorough and remarkable contrast to the status and function assigned to sruti in Vivekananda’s representation of Advaita. The sabda-pramaana approach offered a very different rationale for the necessity of the scripture. — Anantanand Rambachan, The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas, Sri Satguru Publications A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi, 1995, pp. 2-3
In my forthcoming book ‘Understanding Hinduism’ I clearly point out how Vivekananda’s Neo-vedantic teaching is different from the Orthodox Vedantic teaching.
Regarding Mangalwadi, only Christians like Mathew who wants to take refuge in writings like those of Mangalwadi alone understand and appreciate him. If ‘Vishal’s Freedom’ means that the gospel can give or gives real ‘freedom’ but not ‘independence’, then I have to confess to my lack of knowledge of the English language (I do not have proper English knowledge and I am never ashamed about this). But we common people always talk about ‘Freedom movement’ of India and ‘Independence that we got’ in the same way. However, instead of taking refuge at Mangalwadi and finding solace in his writings, people like Mathew should also read reviews on Mangalwadi’s work, such as by R. Prasannan in The Week, Vol. 15 No. 35, Aug. 17, 1997 or even from Dharma Deepika itself in Robert Frykenberg’s letter (1999 No. 1, pg.) and by H.L.Richard appeared in TAMAT (‘A Review Dialogue’ is in 7:1, Apr. `97; ‘Letters’, by Dayanand Bharati and Johnson, were in 7:2, Aug. `97). 3
Since I could not understand the comment about the distinction between freedom and independence in the writing of Magalwadi, I asked a friend who looked into the matter and made the following comments:
Frykenberg, a scholar at the university of Wisconsin in US, wrote this: ‘If only Vishal had paused long enough to get some pukka and rigorously disciplined training before launching on such a grand scheme, he could have been far more persuasive and far less ludicrous. Journalistic writing has virtues, but dangers need also to be understood.’
Mangalwadi supposedly replies to Frykenberg but spends all his time on a review in the journal by a Hindu. He says this ‘Mr. Basu has questioned my distinction between “Freedom” and “independence” and my central thesis that India owes her freedom to the gospel, on the grounds that India has known independence and freedom before the modern era. I would love to be enlightened; when in Indian history, was a Brahmin free to eat with a sweeper? When was a sweeper free to become a professor or a ruler? When was a woman free to study the Vedas? When was an unarmed subject, a “citizen”, with rights to challenge the king in the press, or in court, or ion the streets via satyagraha?’
So he is talking about freedom meaning human rights and independence meaning political freedom; not entirely illegitimate but definitely his own narrow rather than standard dictionary meanings. But he also says this ‘Grant struggled for India’s freedom, but not for her independence. In his day independence would have meant only one thing – hand over Bengal to the Moghuls. The next generation of Christians – led by Trevelyan and Macauley – saw it as their goal to prepare India both for Freedom and Independence.’ Vishal certainly sees BOTH independence and freedom coming from the gospel, so it seems to me your point about him is entirely appropriate and it is Mathew that missed the point by making a distinction does not apply that to what you wrote.
Now take it for granted that the gospel gave ‘freedom’ to India and political ‘independence’ we got because of our Freedom Fighters. Does Mangalwadi want to prove that because of this ‘freedom’ which the gospel gave, now Brahmins are free to eat with sweepers! A sweeper became a professor or a ruler? Woman began to study Veda, and a Citizen is challenging the king etc.!
This is not the place for me to confront Mangalwadi. I wish before writing like this Mangalwadi could spend some meaningful time to read Indian History properly and some of our religious books. I can give reference where at least in theory a Brahmin can accept the food from a Sudhra (if not from sweeper), a low caste man can become a ruler and even women read Veda. But as it seems clear that he has decided not to read or listen from Indian sources, there is no point of quoting all the references here. However one from Nirad C. Chaudhuri is enough to prove my point:
The caste system has by no means so great an effect in obstructing the enterprise of individuals as European writers are apt to suppose. There is, indeed, scarcely any part of the world where changes of condition are so sudden and so striking as in India. The last Peshwa had, at different times, two prime ministers; one of them had been either an officiating priest or a singer in a temple (both degrading employments), and the other was a Sudra, and originally a running footman. The Raja of Jeypur’s prime minister was a barber. The founder of the reigning family of Holcar was a goatherd; and that of Sindia a menial servant; both were Sudras….
…It was always so in the whole history of the caste system. That it suppresses talent is a figment of the shallow egalitarian imagination.
The social immobility for which the caste system was made a scapegoat was really the product of the stagnation which was created in the social life of the Hindus by the Pax Britannica, and the suppression of talent laid at its door was almost wholly due to British rule. As the English military historian Kaye said in connexion with the military profession: ‘It was the inevitable tendency of our increasing power in India to oust the native functionary from his seat, or lift him out of his saddle so that the White man might fix himself there.’ This happened in most fields, and, above all, in public life, and the caste system was ready at hand to bear the blame.
If the system suppressed anything it was only ambition unrelated to ability… (‘The Deposits of Time’, in The Continent of CIRCE, An Essay on the Peoples of India, Mumbai, (1966), Twelfth Jaico Impression, 1999, Jaico Publishing House, p.57)
Now in practice, this ‘freedom’ which Mangalwadi claims that the gospel gave to India is not in practice. Still in India sweepers in the village cannot eat with Brahmins, of course the sweeper can become a professor not because of the Gospel but because of the job reservation and their personal education. Of course Vishal will say that as the corrupt Indian society, due to Brahminical system cannot ‘maintain’ the ‘freedom’ which the Gospel gave and that is why all the expected progress is not happening in India. 4And that is why he wants to bring ‘Reform’, as the Indian worldview lacks a Cross to correct all the corruption. 5I want to raise these questions not to Mangalwadi, but to Christians like Mathew who want to take refuge in the writings of Mangalwadi. People like Mathew instead of taking consolation in Mangalwadi’s writing should be careful. Mangalwadi as a freelance writer and I as untrained lay man can write anything as brainstorm, but Mathew, as the Principal of a Theological college and as the editor of Dharma Deepika, does not have this luxury.
But Hindus have one excuse for all the failure in their society and nation, because according to the Evangelicals, ‘they don’t know the God and the Gospel’. And Hindus want to know why in the Western Countries (which of course are not Christian countries, but hope Mathew won’t deny the fact that Gospel alone changed their life considerably) the same Gospel (better Christianity), which gave all kinds of freedom to them, could not remove the racial discrimination existing not only in the society, but also in the Church. Why was Apartheid very strong in South Africa till recent time? Why cannot a Negro become the President of America? Why do all the evil systems and practices still prevail in Western countries from which the Gospel cannot give true freedom to them? The ethnic fight between Tursi and Hutus in Rewanda and Burundi, both of them Christians and the fight between Kukis and Nagas, both Christian Tribes in North East India to control the drug trafficking from Mianmar also shows that ‘Christianity’ only changed the tip of the ice burg and rest of the old world view still remain untouched. This is not only true in Africa and India but a reality in everywhere in the world. Wherever Gospel went and Christ is introduced, He brought a Regeneration in that community and society. Whereas wherever ‘Christianity’ went it only brought some ‘Reformation’, superficially changing the outward evils for a time being, left the inner man untouched. In stead of taking Christ seriously, if people take Christianity (better Churchianity) seriously, such result is inevitable. So before try to remove the ‘speck of sawdust’ from others eye, Christians like Vishal and Mathew should address to the problem of the ‘plank’ in their own eyes.
4. ‘He says that his is a “struggle for existence” (112). Indeed it is! It is sad that he fails to understand that the “panacea” he proposes is bound to be a failure-because it is neither faithful to Hindu nor to Biblical ethos and essentials; he refuses to learn from many previous and present experiences-all of them were sadly failure-led by people like B. Upadhyay, M.C. Parekh, Subba Rao, and lately Fr. Staffner.’-Mathew
Response: Whether the ‘panacea’ which I propose is faithful to Hindu and Biblical ethos can be proved not by a Christian belonging to Western Churchianity, as they never understand (or refuse to understand) both Hindus and the Biblical ethos. Like Pharisees they have a system, which they give based on their own interpretation of the Bible (like Pharisees) and expect everyone to follow their Churchianity. If any one challenges their interpretation, seeing a threat to their security and identity in their unbiblical system, they throw stones at them.
This is what happened to prophets like Upadhyay, Parekh, etc. We need not agree with all that they said. But one thing is sure that they ought to have failed as they attempted to change a Western system called ‘Churchianity’, and so naturally they failed.
No prophet is respected or accepted in his own time. But no one can eternally suppress their voice as they speak of God’s mind and His concern for people. Even if people like Upadhyay have failed, at least the Church in India cannot ignore their voice, however they may be wrong in their approach. Though we cannot agree with his Vedantic theological categories, yet Upadhyay is recognized by many leading theologians as the father of Indian Christian Theology. For his convenience’ sake Mathew refers only to ‘B. Upadhyay, M.C. Parekh, Subba Rao, and lately Fr. Staffner’ (Staffner though an Austrian missionary lived in India for more than forty years). But note that Churchianity brought about the failure not only of these (Upadhyay etc.) but even people like Stanley Jones, Roland Allen and other sincere prophets who have all failed in their approach. For example Paul Martin in his book on Stanley Jones, analysing ‘Jones’ Distinction between Christ and Christianity’ (pp.77-115) says ‘Jones was convinced that the figure of Jesus taken straight from the Gospels was enough to draw Indians to Christ. What we needed was to prevent Christ from being obscured by the West, by the Church, or by Christianity itself’ [Martin, Paul, Missionary of the Indian Road: The Theology of Stanley Jones, Theological Book Trust, Bangalore, 1996, pp. 83-84.] Note further on this same point: ‘E. P. Rice and Edwin Greaves, both from the same missionary society as Farquhar, argued that Christ should be clearly distinguished from the Church in the missionary message….Greaves maintained that the antipathy towards Christianity as a Western religion could only be overcome by encouraging Indians to accept Christ, who was neither Western nor Eastern, without insisting on their joining a church’ (p. 82).
I am not sure whether Mathew has ever read or heard about Roland Allen and his books. This I say because in Indian evangelical circles Allen is not welcomed. When I studied in B.B.I and also in UBS (just for three months and the same Rev. C.V. Mathew was also my teacher then) I never heard about Allen. Even after nearly 20 years as a Christ bhakta, I neither heard about Allen and not even my best friend(s) who always recommended several books to read ever told me anything about Allen. But when two years ago I (I thank Ralph for giving a copy for me to read) read Allen I was shocked at the way he was neglected by the Indian Church. Of course, prophetically Allen himself told that in near future his words would not be accepted by the church. But I want to know whether Mathew as the Principal of a Bible College ever recommends Allen’s book for his students to read.
I know that the Evangelical Christians in India won’t recommend such books as they challenge their security and identity within their own system and Christian community. Even if they read, instead of understanding such writing which challenge their call and mission, they will superficially criticise, that too pointing out those areas which, if neglected in the given context (like this Review of Mathew’s) can prove their point why and how those prophets are wrong.
I never claim myself as a prophet for Churchianity. I have nothing to do with Churchianity and I am happy to be a Hindu Christ Bhakta. As I have said in the preface to the book, The Living Water was a collection of several of my brainstorms which I wrote when I had to struggle with Churchianity and the Biblical principles which Christians refused to understand and implement. Out of an inner compulsion and to give answers to my own questions I wrote them and finally because of the compulsion of some of my friends, I published it as a book. The book was written not mainly to awaken the Christians in India (though that also is included), but mainly to warn those Hindu Christ Bhaktas about the danger of merging with the Christian communities (not one community) into Churchianity. And at least some Hindu Christ Bhaktas who read the book were really benefited and thanked me for awakening them to reality, and are now happily living within their own respective communities as witnesses for Christ. And among those Christ Bhaktas there are a few Dalits and they too have decided not to become Christians but remain as Dalit Christ Bhaktas in their community. Equally there are several sincere Christians who thanked me for writing this book as it helped them to see their limitations in sharing the gospel with their Hindu neighbours and friends. And if this book ‘Living Water’ is of some help to these people in a small level, then it has served its purpose for giving a proper ‘Indian Bowl’ to the Christ Bhaktas in India, in whichever community they may live, including Christian Communities.
Thus the ‘Living Water’ knows no untouchability; it is ready to fill any bowl, provided it is not broken by Churchianity nor sealed within Indian Christian Communities.
Hosur, March 7, 2001.
Notes
1. ‘As you are a Brahmin you want to change everything according to your Brahminical tradition’, is the common complaint raised by several Christians against me. Even one CNI pastor said to me, ‘Indianisation means Sanskritisation, Sanskritisation means Brahminisation, which is nothing but “Hindu Imperialism” and that is why we oppose it, as Brahmins again want to impose their cultural and religious tradition on us by back door ways’. A missionary similarly commented that ‘this is the one area which you Brahmins have left so far. Now you all started to get converted and try to dominate the church and mission as you are dominating the Hindu society up to this day. But this ignores the fact that I am not imposing my ideas on others and I never expect others to follow blindly. My intention is not to give a uniform formula to be applied everywhere. (pp 94-95. )
2. Leaving the secular world, where people mainly have concern to communicate to promote their products and get customers for them, in the religious world we can see an example of this concern in the teachings of Swami Vivekananda. While he was in America teaching about monks (sanyasis) to his American disciples he said: ‘…If they (sanyasis) should eat of the tree of knowledge, they would become egoists and all the good they do would fly away…. Get rid of this puny “I”; kill this diabolism in us. “Not I, but thou” – say it, feel it, live it’.
See how he uses the words ‘tree of knowledge’ and ‘not I, but thou’ which his Christian disciples easily would understand. As Swamiji had concern for his disciples he went down to their level to communicate his Neo-Vedantic ideas to them. But Christians in India have yet to show the same kind of practical concern in communicating the gospel.—pp.5-6
3. Turning to Vishal Mangalwadi’s musings on India and her heritage one enters another world. This is not scholarly writing with careful documentation, and sadly this must be pointed out as some reviews of Mangalwadi state otherwise (cf. Dharma Deepika 1:1, June 1997, p. 86). The thesis of India: the Grand Experiment is that it was Christian leaven that infiltrated Indian hearts and minds and resulted in India’s political freedom from British rule; further, that this leaven was intentionally planted by British Christians with a view to liberating India.
This thesis is presented in such a way that only those fully disposed to believe it could possibly be convinced. Even those like the present reviewer who see (and hope for) a significant element of truth in it come away from the book unconvinced. There is no wrestling with documented works like the two reviewed above. And so we get statements like ‘Education was not brought to India to seduce Indians into the Church’ (p. 147); something that many wish were true but in fact is simply false as indeed the goal of Christian higher education was conversion and the destruction of Hinduism. There is no reckoning with the necessary historical blindness of late 18th and early 19th century British evangelicals. Hinduism is misrepresented and blanket condemnations of Indian culture and history appear with irritating frequency.*
One can only hope that Indian Christians will read serious and documented studies of history whether written from Christian, secular or Hindu presuppositions, such as the first two titles above. Books of value and importance are available but will not be found in Christian book stores. Special pleading for the Christian cause and its influence in Indian and world history can hardly be expected to win favour when the dark side of Christianity is all too well known by all educated Indians. Dare anyone hope for a higher and truer level of Christian literature and apologetic to arise?
*One example: ‘For over two thousand years it [Brahminism] did not allow any significant reform movement to arise from within its internal premise, in spite of brutal oppression of the lower castes and women, in spite of the splintering of Hindu society that enabled all adventurers to march in and plunder, if not enslave’ (p. 152). What the ‘internal premise’ of ‘Brahminism’ is supposed to be is unimaginable; as a summary of actual history this statement is irreparably skewed (consider Virasaivism for just one example of a significant Hindu reform movement); but here we see what works in the author’s mind and why his book will offend rather than convince modern secular and Hindu Indians.—This is a part of book review by H.L.Richard in TAMAT, Vol. 7 No.3,December 1997 on Religions in Conflict: Ideology, Cultural Contact and Conversion in Late Colonial India (by Anthony Copley, Oxford University Press, 1997) Socio Religious Reform Movements in British India (by Kenneth W. Jones, Cambridge University Press, 1994) India: The Grand Experiment (by Vishal Mangalwadi, Pippa Rann Books, Surrey, 1997).
4. Failure of the political system is not our problem. It is the sickness of our soul. Before the elections Swami Agnivesh and the Arya Samaj tried to launch a national campaign to identify and defeat the ten most corrupt politicians. And yet we have made politicians such as Sukh Ram, Laloo and Jayalalitha, key players in our political life. Our real problem is that our religious philosophy has taught us to pursue power, not meekness. We worship power, not righteousness. Democracy is a political system that assumes a structure of moral absolutes. Our religious philosophy, in contrast, denies the existence of moral absolutes. Shankara’s Non-dualism (Adwaita), for example, teaches us that dualism of good and evil is an illusion (Maya). Varnashram Dharma (four castes and four stages of life) teaches us that morality is relative to one’s caste, to one’s station in life, to the power one has. Renunciation is indeed a religious value in India. Our gurus do talk a great deal about “self-transcendence”. What they mean by it, however, is “self-absorption”. For they insist that our “self” is the Ultimate Reality. Therefore, even our renunciation is not in public interest, but in our self-interest. Our politicians are not able to put national interest above self-interest, because our culture has nothing like a cross, which would give us a philosophy of self-sacrifice for others. It is this sickness of our soul that is driving India to a point where we have to choose either to get rid of the democratic system, or to start looking for a healing for our souls. Our healing in this context would mean transforming our culture by a reformation of our worldview. –Vishal Mangalwadi, INDIAN ELECTION ANALYSIS – Written for ‘The International Indian’, Dubai, UAE (1998?)
5. ‘They [Dayanand and Richard] seem to think that a rotten church is all that the western missions have produced. My argument is that the western missionary spirit produced our “rotten democracy” too – that is, it produced all that is still good in modern India. The Indian culture is obviously unable to sustain both the “Western” Church and the “Western” democracy. It seems to me that their response is: let us discard this useless Church and begin afresh. My feeling is that the useless Church isn’t the only issue. What are you going to do with our useless democracy, and the educational system, and the health system, and the sanitation system et cetera, et cetera? Can the Gospel transform Indian culture to make India a great nation? Will the cultural resources that we need come from the Bible or from the Hindu tradition? The only way I can get interested in their work is if they can show me that the Hindu tradition can provide (has provided) what India needs to become a great nation.
To really critique me they have to come to terms with my book “Truth and Social Reform”. That is my basic thesis and it covers everything else, including my attitude to the Gurus and the New Age. It defines my understanding of evangelism and it describes the India I grew-up in and feel called to serve. I didn’t grow-up in Dayanand’s India and have little motivation to relate to it.
My interest is in “Rebuilding A Ruined Republic” – which is the title of the forthcoming book. Obviously, I am not saying that they ought to adopt my agenda. They have to be true to their calling. But, in as much as I have become one of their main targets, I want to listen to them.’
–This personal letter was written to me through a common friend of Vishal and me. This is his response to our [Richard and Dayanand] critique in TAMAT of his book in response to Arun Shourie’s book appeared in TAMAT Vol. 7, No. 1, April 1997 and Vol. 7 No. 2, August 1997. I wrote a very long response to Vishal, but our common friend (between Vishal and me) called for a cease fire, and hence I didn’t send it to Vishal. But those who are interested can ask for it, provided if they don’t mind about my English and manner of writing, as it remains un-edited.—Dayanand]
@@@
Ideology vs. Reality
(Yet to be edited. Only for private circulation.)
On 12th February 2003, at Madhu’s house Muthu Ganesan again contacted me through phone nearly after four years. Muthu and I studied together at Vrudhachalam in our Highschool days and we know each other from 8th standard to 11th (since 1966 onwards). Then after several years I met him in Chennai when I was working in FMPB. That time he was married and with two children and become a ‘Christian’. After several ups and down and one more girl, he lost his job and struggled a lot to survive. Dr.Ebinezer Sundar Raj and Prakash Yesuvadian helped his family in several ways. Seli, Muthu’s wife become more Christian than Muthu and regularly attended church(es, as she often changed her church).
When I began to contact Muthu after 1993-4, I began to impart our vision of ‘Hindu Christ bhaktas’. But because of his personality and limitations (he is not a reader, he won’t write letters but talks a lot), I couldn’t influence him much. I requested Shanmugam to meet him. And Shanmugam also met him one or two times, but couldn’t make much progress. Mean while as my school day friend and seeing his struggle I helped him in a very small way whenever I visited him. But I know that is dangerous. However his first son Ebi (named after Ebinezer Sundarraj) become closely attached with me. And whenever I visit his house, he will spend much time with me asking so may questions. He became a good believer also involved in Youth ministry in the school itself. He also was much impressed by my work and talk. However as I couldn’t make much progress, I slowly stopped my contact with him.
This also points out my own selfishness and acting exactly like an evangelical Christian—give up if no immediate result. One more reason for me to stop going to Muthu’s house was that he began to stay in home without doing any job. He talked a lot of doing some acting in T.V. programmes etc. And all my persuasion to him to earn properly to look after his family didn’t succeed. Mean while Selvi struggled a lot to run the family. Muthu several time survived with his mother’s pension. She always complained to me about Muthu as she too knew me from our school days. Though she loved her grandchildren very much, some times she went and stayed with Muthu’s younger brother Sigamani. Except Muthu’s family all his relatives are Hindus from Pillai caste. However Muthu’s children are very good in studies. And I think that in this difficult time both Dr. Ebinizer and Prakash Yesuvadian helped them to survive in their faith. I also remember talking with Prakash Yesuvadian in Ghorakpur (meeting where he came to talk to us in FMPB)or some other place about Muthu and praying with him for his whole family.
So whatever may be the reasons and limitation from my end, I stopped contacting Muthu nearly four years. I also persuaded few times to join with us in Kodai meeting but he couldn’t make it. Mean while Ebi become an Engineering student and studied in the same college in which Madhu was working. But Madhu didn’t show much interest because of his ‘Christian’ name. But one day in his talk Ebi told that his father is a ‘Hindu convert’ and then Madhu began to talk to him. In that talk Ebi told about one uncle who is his father’s close school day friend, who often visited their home etc. As all his description about that uncle fitted with me, Madhu asked about that uncle’s name. When he told my name as ‘Kumar’ only in that name my school day friends and others family members know me and also mentioned about some ‘Dayanand’, then Madhu told that I am that uncle and visiting his home on 12th. Then Ebi was exited and called Roshni with a request to talk to me. So on 12th night before I leave Chennai I talked with Muthu, Selvi and Ebi. In my talk with Ebi, he quoted lot of bible verses and answered exactly like an evangelical. Muthu answered as usual. Selvi expressed her desire to see me again.
Now Muthu’s whole family become strong ‘Christians’. Without proper job, Muthu now work as a consultant to some Christian Mission in part time. Financial needs and concerns also drive several converts to seek refuge with Christian church and mission. Can we appreciate the church and Mission for helping and supporting such new converts with all possible ways? Or have we to blame the Church and mission not motivating or even helping them to make their own living in some secular situation? For example instead of giving some job in the Mission or Church they can even help the new converts to get some job through recommendations in some Companies, Institutions (like school etc.). Particularly the situation like Muthu (now over 50 years old and also with some health problem), Gopu with three children, their education need etc. it become a challenge for them to survive. Mere ‘principle’ ‘ideologies’ or ‘theories’ won’t help them. Like wise helping them temporarily by some means also won’t solve their problem.
They need some permanent and proper means to survive in this world as well as in their faith. In such sinario both the Church and Mission can only think in traditional way: either make them as full time workers and provide some scholarship for their children. But unless they wake up to realize that the best way to help every new convert is to witness for their own family and community is helping them to earn their living only in a secular situation. Every convert—particularly those with their own family to look after, would rather cling to those who help them to survive first than to persuade some ‘ideology’.
As a digression here I would like to bring the case study of Gokul Parmanik from West Bengal. He again wrote a letter to me seeking some financial help. O.M. asked him to become self-supported. O.M. keeps all the full time workers from Christian background and encourages all those came from Hindu/Muslim background to leave O.M. (here also they are very selective. They prefer to keep those converted full time workers who are very useful for them like Sadrudin Sulfi). Though it is an encouraging thing, some like Gopu and Gokul with a family, struggle a lot. Unlike a full time worker from Christian background, most of the converts cannot easily find another job both in the mission and church without getting either a reference or clearance from the previous Mission. Every full time worker from a Christian background has both a church and family to take care of him till he finds some other work with some other Organization or church. But rarely a convert finds such a support back in his home or in church. Particularly in most of the churches every convert is a father in their cap to parade about their ‘conversion’ projects. After that the convert is good for nothing to them. Only a convert with good education, reputation, talent and good financial background alone can survive and swim against all the current in the church. But those converts who because of over enthuciasm and misguided zeal become full time workers, even at the cost of their own education and opportunity to equip themselves to stabilize themselves in any secular situation is more vulnerable. Those converts who managed to get some Theological education and managed to establish themselves in church or mission work (added to this with a wife from a Christian background, as now he will have at least one in-laws family to support him in time of trouble) alone managed to survive in their life.
The tragedy in it is, like Gokul, even several converts were doing some kind of good secular job before becoming a full time worker. And some Missions like O.M. while recrutting such converts never advised them not to leave their secular job. On the other hand, they were even challenged to work for the Kingdom of God and not for the world and persuade them to join the Mission. Now after few years, for whatever reasons-either personal or policy, now such full time workers or converts who left the mission or church face the challenges to survive in this world. Those who so far worked for the Kingdom of God and left the world are now thrown away from the Kingdom of church and mission and struggle in this real world. In such a situation I feel that every such ‘convert’ is DESERTED by the church and mission after USING THEM FOR A WHILE.
So what is the solution for these kinds of converts? The first think to help every convert is to be a witness for their own family and community. And for this they should be motivated to earn their bred only through some secular job. A Mission won’t understand this. A church may have some understanding but may lack motivation or time to think in this direction. Because every church has so much work both in the church and for the church. So the real solution is to educate every ‘convert’ to understand this.
But with a sad reality we should recognize the fact that in several cases because of various reasons a new convert may not understand this and we cannot expect a new baby in Christ to understand all our principles, programmes, policies and ideologies at an early time. So the burden to shape the life of every convert lies primarily rest with them those who convert them. And this they could do at least with recognizing that by helping a new convert to be a witness to his/her home, family and community ultimately only help the mission or the church to help many more to hear the Gospel at least. And instead of working for their own kingdoms, if the church and mission come forward to work for the Kingdom of God, they can learn this.
Dayanand Bharati, Mathigiri, February 16, 2003.
Leave a Reply