Indianisation of Christianity: Whom are we fooling? (Part 2 of 3 Part Series)

Mr. Sudarshan, what is your gameplan? For decades now, the RSS has been imparting an education that confuses perceptions of the real and the contrived. It has taught that patriotism is vengeance, that the nation is Hindu, that struggles for human rights and equality and social justice are alien to our culture, they are divisive and they are the fruits of Macaulay's poison tree. In the BJP–run States, school textbooks have sections glorifying the Pokhran tests. The RSS has insisted that we only look for knowledge that is home–grown, however offensive or exploitative that might be to Dalits, to women, to democracy.

As important as what it teaches is what it silences and renders non–issue. It suppresses knowledge about what lies behind Indian poverty, it displaces discussions on what is welfare and social justice and how to attain them. Fortunately, the present government, that boasts of its secular roots, has woken up to the dangers posed by “saffronisation” of education by the previous Hindu nationalist government and is now working overtime to detoxify the educational system.

As for the authenticity of Pune Papal Seminary that had mooted the idea of “Indianisation” of Christianity by indoctrinating Hindu religious practices, I have my reservations. Have they gone insane by trying to “Indianise” themselves and attempting to become less dependant on the Vatican authority? What are the seminary priests and bishops up to? Are they trying to appease Hindu sentiments or more specifically the sentiments of Hindu right–wing ideologists? Incidentally, the “pure” intentions of the seminary has not gone down well with Hindus (and here I am speaking of moderate Hindus). Many feel that Church is using public sentiment and customs, changing its way of functioning just to appease more people to “convert” to Christianity. Why else would the church go to an extent where it loses its own authenticity and identity? Would its identity be left only with praying in churches and baptizing people? What about Christian traditions and customs? Are they lost forever in India?

Let us get one thing clear at the outset. “Indianisation” and “Brahminical Hinduisation” or “Brahminisation” of Christianity are entirely separate and distinct concepts.

According to Fr. Tony Charangat, editor, The Examiner, the proposal of the seminary is not a call for performing Hindu puja (worship) during Mass. “We’re only for the use of rituals, myth and culture as the best means of communicating the message of Christianity in the Indian context,” he told the national daily, The Statesman. He added that this process of inculturation was important because through it “we will be able to understand our own experience and our own culture better.”

Who are we fooling? Have we become so blind that we cannot see how the concept of the true meaning of Indianisation has become diluted over the ages in the context of the social milieu?

Till Independence, practices of Indian Christianity were decidedly western. However, post–Independence, particularly during the epochal Vatican Council II (1962–65), Rome shed its triumphal bearing and embraced ecumenism, inter–faith dialogue, inculturation and religious liberty.

This allowed the use of local languages (in place of Latin) and customs in Church services all over the world. It also gave a licence for a creative and radical reinterpretation of the Gospels, which in turn was responsible for the genesis of liberation theology in Latin America.

And, these days, “Indianisation” of the Church run so deep that some new–age churches are modeled after popular temples. Are we trying to confuse or tempt our Hindu brothers and sister into stepping into our churches?

“Indian rite mass” (conceived by Cardinal Parecattil of the Syro–Malabar Church and the Jesuit Dr. Amalorpavadas of the Latin Church, “masterminds” behind the inculturation movement in India) incorporates (Brahminical) Hindu rituals such as the chanting of Vedic and Upanishadic mantras.

Prayers begin with “OM”, readings are taken from the Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagvad Gita, tilak is applied to foreheads of the clergy and the laity, priests wear a saffron shawl instead of a cassock and sit on the ground at a table surrounded by small lamps rather than stand at the traditional altar.

In addition, Indian music is played at Church services, the entrance procession for the Mass has girls dancing the Bharatnatyam, kirtans and bhajans are sung at Communion. Priests and nuns are encouraged to adopt Indian religious values and customs in their religious practices and participate actively in Hindu festivals such as Ganesh–visarjan (immersion) and Raas Lila.

Many priests and nuns have anyway renounced their Western names and taken on Indian ones and many Church institutions now bear Indian names such as Jnana–Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune (Pontifical Institute of Philosophy and Religion), Sadhana meditation centre, Lonavla, Satchitananda Ashram, Trichy and so on. Priests and nuns are besides encouraged to live in ashrams and experience divinity through the practice of disciplines such as yoga, vipasana, transcendental meditation, reiki, pranic healing, blah, blah and blah.

Of course, diehard conservatives in the clergy have been appalled by the changes and one searing critic has described this process as a “scandalous ecumenism with Hinduism.”

Such attempts have also not gone down well with all sections of the laity. “The leadership wants to inculturate and have been contextualising theology to suit the Indian milieu but lay people are not willing to change,” Fr. Allwyn D’Silva, director, Documentation, Research & Training Centre at the St Pius College, Mumbai, said.

He felt this was the “main block” faced by the Church in several regions, especially in a city like Mumbai where the population is cosmopolitan.

But this is not the only problem. Another stumbling block is the question of what is Indian and whether Brahminical Hinduisation should be the dominant theological and liturgical trend in the Church.

There has, in fact, been stiff opposition to the advance of “Hinduisation” from radical Dalit theologians such as the late Rev. Arvind Nirmal, the Rev. M. Azariah and the Rev. James Massey, who have accused the high caste–dominated Church leadership of “Brahminising” Christianity in the name of “Indianising” the church.

“The current or traditional Indian Christian theology, which is based upon the Brahmanic traditions of Hindu religions did not/does not address itself to or reflect the issues which the majority of Christians faced either before or after they became Christians. It is because this expression of theology is based upon the religious traditions of the minority even among the Hindus, because Brahmins (priestly caste) represent only about 5 percent of the total population of India,” Rev. Massey has argued.

It appears that the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI) are now at crossroads. Do they accept “Brahminical Hinduisation” in the name of “Indianisation”? Or do they stick to their roots, their liturgy and traditions? Perhaps they will take the safer road – leaving the issue unresolved to regional bishops to decide what is appropriate “Indianisation.”

This brings to my mind a Supreme Court decision wherein the judiciary interpreted the meaning of 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism' as a "synonym of “Indianisation” i.e. development of uniform culture by obliterating the differences between all all cultures co–existing in the country." However, with all due respect to India’s highest judiciary, I beg to differ. What are we trying to achieve here? Indianisation of various faith and beliefs or Hinduisation of India?

Again, many will cry foul and will say that since Hindus constitute the majority community, their religious idiom ought to provide the uniformity and unity for a diversified people. Of course it is true that Hindus constitute the majority of the population and their views cannot be ignored.

But, at the same time, to ignore the minority communities and say that 20 per cent of the population does not form part of the national mainstream, particularly when they have been integral to the national life for a long time, will be paradoxical. They are part of the military, bureaucracy, business, and generally every aspect of Indian society. And their achievements in the service of the nation are also commendable. To isolate them and to tell them to “Indianise” is an insult to the nation.

Moreover, the assumption that India is a Hindu nation is historically invalid and politically false. For 2,000 years, various religions and caste groups have been part of the social fabric of India. Only a blind fanatic can overlook the contribution of the minorities to the national life – political, social and cultural.

(To be concluded on Friday, December 9)