The Limits of Theology in Addressing Sociological Issues
Can theology solve sociological problems? Dr. Ambedkar argues that it should, or else such a theology holds no real value. He discusses three primary reasons for the “slow growth” of Christianity in India: the first is the bad morals of the early European settlers in India, particularly Englishmen who were sent to India by the East India Company (pp. 8-13); the second impediment was “the struggle between the Catholic and Non-Catholic missions for supremacy in the field of proselytization” (pp. 13-18); and the third was “the wrong approach made by the Christian missionaries in charge of Christian propaganda” (pp. 18-25).
At the same time, he strongly endorses the right to propagate faith, particularly among Untouchables, by saying, “Whatever anybody may say, I have no doubt all the Untouchables, whether they are converts or not, will agree that Mr. Gandhi has been grossly unjust to Christian missions. For centuries, Christian missions have provided for them a shelter, if not a refuge” (p. 32).1
Then, writing elaborately about “Christianity and Social Service” (pp. 32-36) in the following pages, he addresses the key issue of the mission’s failure to remove caste and particularly untouchability both in Hinduism and in the church. But where Dr. Ambedkar failed to see is that theology cannot solve any sociological problem. This is because we must first recognize that society came before theology, which gave rise to sociology. Society created stories to address its felt needs, and these stories evolved into mythology. Mythology, in turn, gave birth to gods and, eventually, theology and philosophy to explain the nature and roles of these gods. But theology, coming at the end of this chain, struggles to address sociological problems that are largely unrelated to matters of faith or the divine.
Sociology, on the other hand, is a collective responsibility, whereas theology, particularly in many cases, stems from individual pursuits—whether philosophy or theology itself. As a result, a single person can never truly address sociological issues unless we expect theology to solve them. This expectation, however, is flawed because theology cannot provide answers to issues already present in society, issues that require collective responsibility and action.
In a broader context, Christianity as an organized religion originated from an unorganized society in the West, whereas in India, society itself is highly organized, not the religion. The missionaries, in attempting to impose their organized religion on an organized society, faced a mismatch that led to their failure in addressing the sociological issues inherent to our dharmic civilization. In this tradition, individuals have the right to follow their own path—what we call sadhana dharma—while also abiding by samajic dharma, the societal responsibilities based on the traditions and values of the community into which one is born and raised.
Without understanding and addressing this sociological issue, when missionaries tried to impose an organized religion on an organized society and tried to solve its sociological problems through theology, they failed in both—untouchability continued while their previous religious practices remained intact. Dr. Ambedkar himself questioned whether such conversions brought any meaningful change to the lives and attitudes of the Untouchables. He raised important questions:
While what has been accomplished by Christian Missionaries in the field of education and medical aid is very notable and praiseworthy, there still remains one question to be answered. What has Christianity achieved in the way of changing the mentality of the convert? Has the Untouchable convert risen to the status of the touchable? Have the touchable and untouchable converts discarded caste? Have they ceased to worship their old pagan gods and to adhere to their old pagan superstitions? These are far-reaching questions. They must be answered, and Christianity in India must stand or fall by the answers it can give to these questions.—p. 36
But Ambedkar blames Christian theology, which did not address the sociological issues in India. He elaborated:
…The Christian Church teaches that the fall of man is due to his Original Sin and the reason why one must become Christian is because in Christianity there is (p. 59) promise of forgiveness of sins. Whatever may be the theological and evangelistic basis of this doctrine, there is no doubt that from a sociological point of view it is a doctrine which is fraught with disaster. This Christian teaching is a direct challenge to sociology which holds that the fall of man is due to an unpropitious environment and not to the sins of man. There is no question that the sociological view is the correct view and the Christian dogma only misleads man. It sets him on a wrong trail. This is exactly what has happened with the Untouchable Christians. Instead of being taught that his fall is due to a wrong social and religious environment, he is told that his fall is due to his sin.—pp. 59–60
Does this imply that the Hindu doctrine that the atman is pure and sinless is correct, and that the issue lies only in the social structure that created varnashrama dharma, which enabled caste discrimination? Many scholars argue that the original varna system was based on work, not birth, but was later legitimized through theology that endorsed discrimination by birth, as seen in the Purusha Sukta and the Bhagavad Gita. In the Gita, Krishna declares that He created the varna system while also reassuring that even Shudras—and by extension, Untouchables—can attain salvation through their devotion to Him (Gita 4:13; 9: 32)
In conclusion, while theology and philosophy provide profound insights into existence and the divine, they often fail to address the deep-seated sociological issues rooted in societal realities. As Dr. Ambedkar highlighted, the persistence of untouchability within both the Church and Indian society exposes the limitations of theology in driving practical social change. Furthermore, the imposition of organized religion—like Christianity in India—on an organized society reveals the disconnect between doctrinal ideals and lived experiences in a diverse, dharmic civilization. Addressing sociological issues requires collective responsibility and a nuanced understanding of societal structures that transcend individual theological frameworks. Ultimately, progress lies in integrating the wisdom of theology and sociology, recognizing their distinct but complementary roles in navigating the complexities of human society.
Reflections on Ambedkar’s Critique of Missionary Work and Hinduism
Though this is the main topic of this article, a few other comments by Dr. Ambedkar are worth reflecting upon.
Ambedkar rightly criticized the failure of missionaries to reach Hindus from the top by converting the so-called high-caste people first and how their initial effort to do so through the education ministry failed (p. 25).2 However, it is a known fact that missionaries always experimented with various methods to achieve their goals, guided by a clear agenda. When they failed in one area, they naturally switched to another. Regarding the medical and education missions, the results were mixed, and it is challenging to attribute them to any single motive—whether as a bait to convert or as genuine service to the needy as demanded by the Gospel. Several scholarly studies have examined these efforts, shedding light on their successes and failures.3
Similarly, Ambedkar’s support for conversion to Christianity (p. 25) can be seen as a reaction to Gandhiji’s opposition, where he equated converts to Christianity to “cows.”4 Yet, Ambedkar’s prophecy about mass conversions failed in practice. Hindu nationalism has countered this by elevating Dalits to positions of power, such as Chief Ministers in several states, thereby keeping them within the Hindu fold. Even today, awakening among so-called backward classes has grown. They often seek services from Christian missions but resist converting. Those who convert frequently retain their Hindu identity in official documents to access benefits reserved for Hindus.
Much has changed since Ambedkar wrote his critiques. Both missionary approaches and the socio-political context in India have evolved. While Gandhiji was indeed wrong to equate Dalits to cows, the context reveals he was emphasizing their lack of understanding about conversion, rather than making a personal attack. Gandhiji acknowledged that individuals with proper understanding had the right to change their faith.5 The real issue was not their comprehension of conversion but the methods employed by missionaries to entice them.
In his critique of Gandhiji, Ambedkar overlooked certain nuances. For instance, while he knew much about Christian missions, he might not have fully considered that “service to suffering humanity is for Christians an essential requirement of their religion” (p. 31). While this is often presented as a by-product of faith, historical evidence suggests that colonial-era institutions like hospitals, schools, and orphanages were both tools of Christian propaganda and expressions of compassion. It was only later that such institutions gained recognition as genuine acts of love.
In Christianity, every kind of service to humanity was always a means to the end of conversion and never an end in itself. As we know well, “Christian charity was either to convert or to the convert.”6 This thought came much later, and even then, the religious obligation often remained central to such service. On the other hand, in Hinduism, such service is part of one’s dharma and is even considered a debt to fellow humans, known as Manushya Yajna.
This doesn’t mean that sincere and honest Christians never served others purely out of compassion. St. Teresa of Kolkata is a prime example. However, many such endeavors that began with the aim of serving others eventually ended up as commercial institutions—whether in education or medical missions. Of course, other faiths, including Hinduism, are not exempt from this phenomenon.
Ambedkar’s assertion that “service to humanity is quite foreign to Hinduism and to Hindus” (p. 33)7 seems contradictory to his vast knowledge. Hindu texts and traditions emphasize service as part of dharma, as seen in the saying, Naraki seva Narayan ki seva (service to humanity is service to God).
One reason for Dr. Ambedkar providing a long list of Christian charity work through their medical and educational missions in India (pp. 32–33) may have been to highlight a contrast. However, keeping a record of one’s charity work and boasting about it contradicts the basic tenets of Muktivedic teachings. As the Lord said, “Let not your right hand know what your left hand has given.” These records often serve more as audit trails to evaluate the returns on investment than as genuine expressions of charity.
In contrast, Hindus did not feel the need to document their acts of charity, though there are exceptions where kings and wealthy patrons left edicts not only to showcase their contributions but also to ensure that such charitable activities continued uninterrupted. Even when conquering other kingdoms, victorious rulers often maintained the charitable works of their predecessors. Thus, comparisons like these only cast Christian charity in a negative light rather than achieving Dr. Ambedkar’s intended goal. Charity is not the monopoly of Christianity, just as renunciation is not exclusive to Hinduism. Both values are universal and are upheld by most faiths and even by those without a specific religious affiliation, as they are part of manava dharma (human duty).
Conclusion
Dr. Ambedkar’s critiques of missionary methods and Hindu practices reveal his profound engagement with both the sociological and theological dimensions of these subjects. His observations about the failure of missionaries to engage the upper castes and his support for conversion were, at their core, sociological responses to systemic inequalities and Gandhiji’s contrasting vision for upliftment. However, they also reflect Ambedkar’s tendency to frame social transformation within a theological narrative, sometimes overlooking the complexities and contradictions inherent in his arguments.
From a theological perspective, Ambedkar’s appreciation of Christian charity highlights the transformative potential of faith-based service. Yet, his sweeping assertion that Hinduism lacks a concept of service to humanity ignores the nuanced relationship between dharma and seva deeply embedded in Hindu traditions. By juxtaposing the documented nature of Christian charity with the understated acts of Hindu service, Ambedkar inadvertently undercut the universality of manava dharma—a value transcending all faiths.
Sociologically, Ambedkar’s critique of Christian missions underscores the tension between genuine service and ulterior motives. The shift in missionary strategies from education to medical work reflected a pragmatic adaptation rather than a purely altruistic impulse. Similarly, his reaction to Gandhiji’s stance on conversion, while understandable, appeared to overstate the allure of missionary efforts, neglecting the enduring socio-cultural bonds that keep marginalized communities tied to Hinduism.
Ambedkar’s work reminds us that social transformation requires a careful balance between religious ideals and practical realities. His insights invite deeper reflection on how faith-based service and inclusive social policies can work together to address systemic inequities without undermining the dignity and agency of those they aim to uplift. By critiquing both Christianity and Hinduism, he pushed for an honest appraisal of their contributions and failures, urging us to move beyond divisive comparisons toward a shared commitment to justice and compassion.
23-1-2025
Gurukulam
Notes
1This attitude of Mr. Gandhi [against conversion} need not deter either the missionaries or the Untouchables. Christianity has come to stay in India and, unless the Hindus in their zeal for nationalism misuse their political, social and economic power to suppress it, will live and grow in numbers and influence for good.—B R Ambedkar, Christianising the Untouchables, New Delhi, Critical Quest, 2014, (p. 32)
2 …Applying this analysis of the working of the human mind, it is clear that the Brahmin and the higher classes could never be receptive to the Christian doctrine. It preaches brotherhood of man and when applied leads to equality of man. Now the interests of the Brahmin and the higher classes is to maintain the system of Chaturvarna-which is a system based upon inequality and which in the scale gives them a higher rank, greater opportunity to dominate and exploit the others. How can they be expected to accept Christianity? It means a surrender of their power and prestige….If they had not realized this error and started to win over the lower classes, there would have been no Christians in India at all. Even today hundreds and thousands of high caste Hindus take advantage of Christian schools, Christian colleges and Christian hospitals. How many of those who reap these benefits become Christian? Every one of them takes the benefit and runs away and does not even stop to consider what must be the merits of a religion which renders so much service to humanity.—ibid. p. 25
3 A. Mathew, Christian Missions, Education and Nationalism: from Dominance to Compromise, 1870-1930, Delhi, Anamika Prakashan, 1988, and Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History, New York, Orbis Books, [1996], Tenth Printing 2005,
4….That Untouchables are no better than a cow is a statement which only an ignoramus, or an arrogant person, can venture to make. It is arrant nonsense. Mr. Gandhi dares to make it because he has come to regard himself as so great a man that the ignorant masses will not question his declarations and the dishonest intelligentsia will uphold him in whatever he says…..’—Ambedkar, op. cit. p. 31
5 ‘…Cases of real honest conversion are quite possible. If some people for their inward satisfaction and growth change their religion, let them do so….’ [The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, New Delhi, 1969, Vol.35, p.462]….In this context, Gandhi acknowledges the possibility of genuine conversions motivated by personal spiritual growth. However, he also expressed concerns about proselytizing methods that lacked sincerity or were driven by ulterior motives. For instance, he stated, “I am, then, not against conversion. But I am against the modern methods of it. Conversion nowadays has become a matter of business, like any other.”[Young India, 23-4-1931]
6 As Paul Sudhakar wrote, ‘Hospitals, schools, and orphanages as institutions of service in Christ’s name were begun during the colonial era, and these were also centers of Christian propaganda. It was only later that these institutions were seen as Christian expressions of love and compassion for all humans.’ –Wilhelmina Sudhakar, Chosen to Serve: The Life and Writings of Paul Sudhakar, 200, p. 169
7…Historically speaking, service to humanity is quite foreign to Hinduism and to Hindus. The Hindu religion consists primarily, of rituals and observances. It is a religion of temples. Love of man has no place in it. And without love of man how can service to man be inspired? This is well reflected in the purposes and objects for which Hindu charities are given. Very few people, even in India, know the extent to which caste determines the scope and objects of charities provided by the Hindus…..— Ambedkar, op. cit. p. 33
Leave a Reply