Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil sdb
Guwahati
It was a great honour for me to have been invited by St. Peter’s Pontifical Institute, Bangalore, to share a few thoughts with you when you are discussing the mission of the Church in India in the context of religious pluralism and the challenges of seminary formation in the country, on the occasion of your Jubilee celebrations. I have interrupted my pastoral work for two days during an extremely busy season to be with you for a short time before returning to the field again. You will excuse me if my approach is more pastoral and life-oriented than academic and documents-related. I am grateful to all those who were responsible for inviting me to participate in this symposium.
I would like to begin this sharing with those most powerful words of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “To be or not to be, that is the question”. The hero soliloquizes. There may come a time for every person and society to turn inward and pose a similar question, “Shall we continue to exist or shall we not. What are our chances of survival? Are the dangers that confront us too much for us? What are our resources? Is it possible for us to preserve our identity and our unique heritage or is it best that we merge with the majority and build our fortunes with the vast opportunities they offer?” These are questions that hundreds of thousands of our Christian ancestors on the great Asian continent asked themselves down the centuries when they were under pressure from majority communities to accommodate, adapt and yield. And many yielded, whether they were in the West and Central regions of Asia, North China, or Northwest India. And they cast their lots with the dominant communities and were absorbed into them.
There was also a tendency among small Christian groups to remain on as fossils, over-attached to the past, clinging to the symbols of prior glory, over-conscious of their hard-won privileges from unwilling rulers, incapable of a creative response to the processes of social change taking place in the larger society in which they lived, and having no innovative approach to contributing to the building up of a common future. These are not the types of responses that have anything to commend for themselves. The question that is important for us to ask ourselves today is: how can we remain true to our Christian identity and heritage, and, at the same time, be a proud part of a larger society, relevant to our times, and actively involved in shaping a shared destiny with others?
A Struggle for Identity
A struggle to preserve one’s identity is the driving force of history in our times. Under threat from the universalizing ideologies of the Right and Left; under pressure from the media that seek to standardize tastes, homogenize worldviews and lifestyles, break down independent patterns of thought and behaviour; bulldozed by dominant societies, people, especially minority communities in different countries, are beginning to claim in unmistakable terms ‘We are different. We have an identity and history of our own. Don’t compel us to be like you or somebody else ’. French Canadians feel they are different. Basques say they are special. Scots claim they are unique. Catalans, Welsh, Sicilians, Walloons, Azerbaijans, Hutus, Kurds, Nagas and Bodos…each community feels that it has an individual history and heritage of its own, and collective interests to be defended. Dalits are proud to be different from Brahmins; tribals to be distinct from Hindus; Dravidians to be apart from Aryans; Mongoloid communities of the North-East from both.
Tibetans are fiercely attached to their religion. Coptic, Maronite, Greek and Syrian Christian minorities cling to their faith with absolute determination. Every community has a right to exist, and becomes anxious under threat of extinction. No wonder that the usually soft-spoken Indian Christians are beginning to make their voices heard under threat of the imposition of a monolithic culture and a dominant religion on them.
The Rise of Cultural Nationalism in India
As with sub-national ethnic groups, so with religious minorities. The recent rise of cultural nationalism in India that threatens to establish a Hindu Rashtra by force is awe-inspiring. Not just Christians, but even Muslims, Buddhists and Sikhs have gone on the defensive. Christian loyalty to the country is specially suspect, it is claimed, because they have their Punyabhumi (holy land) outside the country. Such an argument is evidently unfair. Millions of Japanese and Chinese Buddhists have their Punyabhumi in India, but are evidently most loyal to their own countries. The same is equally true of our Hindu friends who have settled abroad. There is no legitimacy to setting geographical or ethnic boundaries to a universal religion. None of the religions that had their origin in India have done that. Nor any other.
It is little realized that repeatedly asking Christians to prove their bona fides, their Indian identity and their loyalty to the country, and accusing them again and again of being foreign, anti-national and West-worshippers is a sort of power-game that the dominant clique uses to blackmail and keep the minority community constantly under subjection, forcing them to run out of breath to perform, comply and toe its line in order to establish their honest credentials. It is humiliating for us to seek to oblige. It is much like the bully of an elder brother who comes home drunk every night, drags his younger brothers out of bed and asks them to prove their legitimacy. The only answer is a quick retort asking him to prove his own legitimacy as well.
A recent example of such bullying tactics during the India-Pakistan conflict was the way a sort of Kargil mania was driven into the subconscious of the nation, questioning why Christians were not forthcoming in generosity. Large fund collections from Christian institutions revealed that we were willing to oblige. We do not know where such collections ended up, but we know that even children were roused to warlike attitudes. The fact that such were the stratagems used by Hitler and Mussolini is not always remembered.
Having said this we can look at the entire issue from another angle. There has recently been an awakening of all Asian civilizations that had been put to hard straits during the Western expansion of the last half a millennium. The Islamic, Buddhist, Confucianist, Shintoist and Hindu civilizations are searching for larger space and a respected place in the new order of things. To the extent that the Hindu civilization is seeking to assert itself and safeguard its interests, such a movement is most legitimate. To the extent that it wishes to recapture its ancient glory and make its contribution to world heritage we are fully with it. But to the extent it seeks to suppress minorities, strengthen the dominant group’s grip over weaker communities, wipe out ethnic and religious identities and individual group traits, assail regional and tribal loyalties, to meddle in the internal working and reflection of spiritual fraternities and religious groups, to interfere with people’s personal options in the field of religion, to despise or provoke people of other civilizations, we find its thrusts totally unacceptable.
When, in addition, it sets about mobilizing the religious and cultural energies of the Indian masses to further the political and economic interests of the privileged classes, we definitively part ways with them. When it manifests its misdirected zeal in violent activities, we know that it has crossed all legitimate limits.
Dialogue is Mutual Education
We are willing to dialogue with everyone. Dialogue means first of all, to understand. We know that memories of historic injuries can keep hurting. The Hindu civilization has experienced humiliation for a thousand years. Such historic memories hurt. And we understand. We sympathize. In fact, we are not outside observers. We are immersed in such a sort of collective self-consciousness, ourselves.
Dialogue also means mutual education. We learn from each other. One learning most important for us in India today is the need to forgive. We really need to learn it. We need to teach it. Yes, we need to forgive those who have hurt us, not forgetting that we ourselves have hurt others. Every nation and community in the world has inflicted some injury or the other on others, and has suffered injuries in turn. Historic injustices have not all been in one direction. Only when we start forgiving, can we say we have to come to terms with our past. Only if we do that shall we be fully healed and restored. Coming to terms with the past means accepting the realities of history without embarrassment. Only then will we truly become ourselves. Only then will our creative energies reveal their potentialities.
Let me bring the same message to our theological reflection as well. Until we shed our post-colonial complexes and heal ourselves of collective grudges and grievances, our creativity will not blossom. Indian talent will not open out to its full possibilities. Groveling in self-pity for past injuries would be pathological. We should bring a measure of serenity and composure to our intellectual exercises in order to enable the Indian genius to reveal itself.
V.S. Naipaul was one of those who believed that India had not come to terms with its past. The Ayodhya ardour and Babur-complex are enough evidences. Naipaul thought that the Indian civilization has remained a wounded civilization, and wished to remain so. Self-pity is always easier than taking responsibility.
We have to accept the realities of history in order to heal ourselves. The mosque-temple contest is the relic of the unpleasant encounter between the Hindu and Islamic civilizations. The sub-conscious anti-Westernism in the Indian mind is the left-over of the painful encounter between the Indian and Western civilizations. But these cannot be allowed to set our agenda forever. If we allow them to do so, we shall remain diminutives. We Christians have a role to play in helping the healing of such wounded historic memories. We have a contribution to make towards ensuring that the encounter of civilizations are mutually beneficial, not mutually destructive.
Dialogue Means Growing Mutual Respect
Dialogue does not begin with a demand for apology. It begins with mutual admiration. It progresses with growing respect for each other. It engages the parties in mutually beneficial activities. It draws from the common heritage of humanity and contributes to it in turn. Each partner is eager to remain true to his/her identity, and each comes to understand better his/her own tradition while searching into the treasures of the other. For example a respectful study of other religions has enabled Christians to understand Christianity itself better. Each finds a reflection of himself/herself in the sincerity and earnestness of the other. A religious search is always God-oriented. Both parties join together in prayer, “It is your face, O Lord, that we seek. Let your face shine on us”.
A Recent Setback for Dialogue in India
We know that a dialogue can turn into a debate, then a duel, and finally into a disaster. Inter-religious dialogue has suffered a great deal in India during the last few years. Attacks on Christians from Hindutva activists came like a surprise, first verbal, then physical. There were protests from the Christian side, and demonstrations; charges and counter-charges; accusations and retorts. Walls have come up, prejudices have grown, and distances widened.
In India, what had always been going on, we must honestly admit, was an unequal dialogue: the majority dictating terms, the minority seeking to please and appease. This is true at least to a large extent. The Christian community had never been provocative. To act so would be against its convictions. Further, it could never afford to do so. It is too small to offer a provocation. But it has a right to speak up. It has a right to make its voice heard. It has a right to invoke the law.
Dialogue Means Being Truthful
As we said, we have every right to claim official protection under the Law and the Constitution, enlist the assistance of the media and respond strongly to baseless allegations. All that is legitimate. But in our own interest, let us look at the entire issue dispassionately for a moment. In our response to harassment, was there too much of emotion and rhetoric, and too little of analysis and interpretation of the local situation that caused the troubles. Was there excessive linking up of things that were unrelated?
Let us defend ourselves by all means; but in the spirit of Dialogue, we say, there should be balance and proportion, fairness and truth in everything. What is not communal should not be presented as communal. A disciplinary problem in a school should be handled as a disciplinary problem. We should be sure of things before linking up events. If it has been a failure on our side that provoked the situation, it should be recognized. Facts should be verified before going public. What is best handled locally need not be held up for national attention. Tension defusing mechanisms should be developed locally to suit each situation.
And more, our protests should be in proportion. Did some of our early reactions at minor provocations left us helpless and confused when Church personnel were being killed? After all, there is a measure beyond which we cannot go. Only when we are sure we are at a fair battle, can we bring our entire determination into the endeavour.
Truth will always ultimately prevail; we are certain of that. It is in our own interest that we say we need to be fair. That contributes to everyone else’s interest as well. We do not encounter unfairness with unfairness, nor might with might; but senseless might with intelligence, partisan intelligence with wisdom. Thus we move back step by step to a situation of dialogue and collaboration. It is easier to say this than do it. I know that it is going to be a long way to the goal.
Dialogue Does Not Mean Renouncing One’s Identity
It is impossible for me to accept that the spirit of Dialogue expects us to revise our basic beliefs in order to accommodate to the passing moods of politically motivated religious groups. What is expected is not that we hold all our convictions in suspense when we are about to begin a dialogue. If we do that, we have nothing to offer. The belief in the uniqueness of Christ, for example, is too central to Christianity to hold it in abeyance until the political storm passes. That would be the denial of our very identity. That would be too humiliating. Our religiously minded Hindu brethren have always recognized our right to stand by our faith. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “I have no desire whatsoever to dislodge you from the exclusive homage you pay to Jesus” (My dear Child, pg.86, as quoted in ‘Gandhi on Christianity’, ed. By Robert Ellsberg). Many secular-minded friends have reaffirmed the same sentiment in our own days. Partners in Dialogue, while they should remain open to new ideas, will have something to offer only if they keep themselves true to their identity and to their basic convictions.
Christianity without Christ has very little to offer. The Kingdom without the King is weak. Kingdom values and spiritual services find their ultimate source in Him.
The distinction that some seem to make between Semitic and non-Semitic religions, legitimate as it is, is not without some peril. It presages a mild form anti-Semitism. Intolerance becomes mutual. Dialogue and shared shaping of common destinies is the only alternative to mutual intolerance.
Dialogue with the Masses, not with the Elite only
The Christian community is gradually becoming aware that too much of its Dialogue had been with the top layer of the Indian society, and too much of its inculturation had been related to the Sanskritized culture of the dominant castes that had kept dalit, tribal and regional cultures marginalized for centuries. This newly gained insight is bound to make a revolutionary change in the entire Christian effort in the area of Dialogue and Inculturation. Instead of playing to the intellectual pride and over-sensitivity of the Upper castes, what seems important is to be attentive to the religious urges and social needs of the humbler communities that form 85% of the Indian society. In this we may have failed.
Only history will reveal whether we did a service to the cause of the Gospel and the varied cultures of India in heavily Sanskritizing our religious vocabulary, adopting cultural forms and thoughts from the Aryan (Sanskrit) wisdom and traditions, ignoring largely the Dravidian culture, totally bypassing the tribal, Austrolesian, Tibeto-Burman, Mon-Khmer, Shan…and Mongoloid cultures in general. Surely, the Church’s mission is not to Sanskritize the minority ethnic and cultural groups in the name of Indianisation!
The Christian community is also awakening to the fact that they had been limiting their inter-religious Dialogue to their Hindu friends only. In actual fact, in Christian mind there had long been a tacit acceptance of the present VHP claim that India has just one, solid, monolithic culture, and that all the rest are subsidiary and regional variations of the same. The names we adopt, the dances we perform, the symbols we use, the forms of inculturation we encourage...seem to say that there is one and only one way of being Indian. Our understanding of Indian history, of Independence struggle, Partition and tensions with neighbouring countries…has been conditioned by the Hindu perception of these events and realities. We act as though millions of Muslims didn’t exist in this country. And yet India has one of biggest Muslim populations in the world. We are totally unaware of their reading of Indian history, and are insensitive to their hurt feelings over many issues.
Nor do we seem to spare a thought, in our theological reflection and Dialogue, for the Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, people of tribal religions and persons who believe in no religion at all. Curiously, during troubles, it is precisely these groups that stand by us, along with our open-minded Hindu friends.
Ironically, in a world that is becoming increasingly secularized, we Christians are more at home dialoguing with agnostics, atheists and non-believers than with people who take their religion seriously. This has happened because much of our theological reflection is a feeble imitation of the Western reflection in a secularized context. Ours on the contrary is a religious society. We should not forget that faith in God is a great value in itself!
Dialogue with Human Beings, not merely with Ideas, Texts and Treatises
We have dialogued a lot with religious texts, not sufficiently with the Indian masses. We have juggled with Sanskrit vocabulary and High Caste concerns and categories, too little with the religiously motivated toiling classes and castes. We have bent backwards to satisfy the urban elite about their conversion-fears, but not responded to the call of the village God-seekers. We have moved in teams to organize the oppressed for liberation, but not answered to their spiritual urges. One thing we should become increasingly convinced is that the Indian masses are incurably religious. Religiosity is deeply rooted in their psyche.
As students of Indian culture, we know one thing: culture is to be studied and interpreted in life contexts. The Kumbha Mela celebrations show that the primary concern of the Indian masses is religion. Salvation is what they are after. They leave no room for doubt about that. Land reforms and economic redistribution are important. But no such programmes have a future in India unless they are religion-inspired. Mahatma Gandhi was successful in his political revolution because he was able to tap the religious energies of India’s mute millions. The subsequent Socialist attempt at an economic revolution for the redistribution of wealth failed because it was led by people and movements that had no use of God. Those movements never made any sense to the Indian masses. Unless the Christian activist studies the religious psychology of his compatriots, he is not likely to make much headway in his/her work of conscientization and social action. Evangelization is not a dispensable appendix to our work; it is the introduction and central content of the entire story.
Social scientists the world over are in agreement that India is likely to remain a deeply religious country always, no matter how many other changes may come upon this land. The Indian family will remain strong. Indian social patterns may be modified but not totally replaced. The social evolution of the Indian people will not necessarily follow the path that the West has taken.
We don’t need the rest the world to tell us what we have known for years. Is it possible that we discovered the beauty of Indian girls only when they won recognition in commerce-oriented beauty contests? Is it possible that we discovered the sharpness of the Indian brains only after software markets started hunting after Indian talent? Is it possible that we found out that the Indian people were after God-realization only on someone pointing it out to us? Why is it that the first item on the national agenda for a big section of our people for years has been a temple-building venture in Ayodhya? Why are passions aroused over such a pacific programme? It is only because a religious edifice means so much to the Indian people.
When Nehru wanted to place mighty projects like Hirakud dam and thermal plants most powerfully in the Indian public consciousness, he called them temples of modern India. Vajpayee did the same later in Bangalore referring to Institutes of Information technology. Temples are mushrooming all over the country, especially in tribal areas. Though this is a part of the cultural aggression planned by the VHP, it has become possible only because of the openness of the Indian public to religious symbolism. I remember Cardinal Pignedoli telling me in the 1970’s that he found Indians a God-intoxicated people. They surrender to anyone who can give them a God-experience.
In spite of all this, possibly, we need to discover for ourselves from experience the measure of openness of our people to Christ and his message. No theories will suffice. Being for and against conversion are idle discussions. The true value of a spiritual pilgrimage to Christ with a seeker can be gauged only from experience. It is lesson and reward at the same time.
Contrary to what many Christian intellectuals think, perceptive Hindu leaders are more worried about invading materialism closely associated with the so-called modern way of life than the spread of Christianity. What they fear is not a ‘Western religion’, but the Western secularizing influence, for which certain of our religious groups serve as unconscious vehicles. Such a secularizing trend creates a sense of insecurity in the religiously minded Hindu society. That explains the Hindu nationalists’ supreme effort to revive various forms of religious expressions, including increased drive for outdated fads, astrologies, archaisms and myths. What has resulted has been the birth of a form of Fundamentalism and the strengthening of obscurantism in our country. Something similar is happening in Islamic countries too.
Some have said that the present anti-Christian drive in India has been partly provoked by Christian Fundamentalism. It may be so. If it is true, we may also add that the present phenomenon of Fundamentalism in all religions is provoked by the universal secularizing trends in a fast globalizing world. Man does not live on bread alone.
The Christian activist stands in danger of falling between two stools. He is unfortunately too afraid to tap the resources of his own religion on the one hand, and too unskilled to mobilize the energies of the beneficiaries’ religion. He finds no place for himself on either side. But if he brings his own religion into the deal, Dialogue begins, which opens the way to all possibilities.
Don’t allow the Cultural Nationalists to dictate Dogmas to you
Join hands with them in helping to preserve genuinely Indian values
Another point still. It may not be true to say that the adherents of a non-dogmatic religion like Hinduism are over-worried about Christian dogma-related statements, as some seem to argue. If a few of the politically motivated spokespersons for that religion have criticized some of the recent Christian documents, they have borrowed ideas from our own internal discussions, as they have been of late using our internal self-criticisms against us. There is nothing in Hinduism itself that justifies such a stand. That great religion allows wide space for dogmatic pluralism. It is broad enough to hold within its fold even agnostics and atheists. It can embrace a host of sects and religious brotherhoods that hold even contrary views. It can tolerate any set of beliefs as long as its unequal System itself is not challenged. The problem arises only when one starts criticizing certain aspects of the Caste System that are dehumanizing. Then begins the trouble. Then comes the ‘sudden discovery’ that Christians are anti-national, foreign and unpatriotic.
But in the true spirit of Dialogue we should admit that the Hindu Nationalists’ interpretation of the Indian genius has something to offer. Their grasp of the strength of religion, their respect for elders, deference to tradition, sense of the sacred, understanding of mystery, ability to appreciate the religious significance of ceremonies and rituals, openness to the transcendent, esteem for family values, serious view of life, emphasis on social cohesion and moral uprightness, resistance to licentiousness, etc. gives us matter for thought. India will have something to offer to the world if we can help preserve such fast eroding values for humanity.
Bringing the Gospel into Our Society
But we must go further. For the young seminarian, the study of theology is not just a course in Ethics or in Comparative religion. One learns theology on one’s knees. The young student is wrestling with the contents of his faith to which he relates personally. The Gospel is not merely an inspiring myth for him. It is the Law of Life. It is a treasure of inestimable value. It is an extraordinary gift to be shared. The question we may want to ask today is how far the young seminarian is helped to personalize his learnings and place his convictions on unshakable foundations; how far he is prepared to share his faith with the God-seekers of India; how well he is equipped to offer the Gospel to a God-oriented people and tap their religious resources for social transformation; how far he has become skilled in relating Kingdom values to the King.
We are living through troubled times. On universal admission, violence and corruption have become entrenched in our society. When entire systems collapse, it looks inadequate to limit ourselves to protesting, petitioning the Prime Minister and presenting memorandums to the President. Such ways are a colonial left-over. They were good enough for the times of condescending Maharajahs and patronizing Viceroys. Merely counting on official intervention presumes the existence of a responsible and committed leadership. We take for granted that a law and order machinery is operating, that the judiciary is impartial, that the various organs of a democratic government are functioning. That is more than what we can tell at the moment. Rajiv had promised a Government that worked. But he was not able to fulfill his promise. All the institutions of democracy are in place, but are they serving their purposes? If elections are the sole sign democracy, we are the most democratic nation in the world. We hold elections every ten months. But are the elections fair? Or are they manipulated, rigged, forced? Are we electing democratic representatives, or gang leaders who will stand with us in our crimes? Anyone who scans the papers in India today will notice a mounting sense of frustration, pessimism, defeat, cynicism, helplessness…corruption, inefficiency, official apathy, increasing poverty, growing inequality, empty rhetoric, mounting violence.
Everyone admits that there has been a general collapse of moral values. When the fence begins to eat the grass, we know that something is radically wrong with the situation. When law-makers become law-breakers, when anti-corruption vigilance cells become more corrupt than the officers they are hunting for, when impartial committees show themselves to be most partial, when security forces threaten the security of fellow citizens, when the police begin to train and equip local muscle-men, when the provisions of the Constitutions and legal systems are thwarted in letter and spirit, we begin to ask ultimate questions. What is right and what is wrong? What is ethical and what is not; and what is the difference? How do we distinguish between Dharma and Adharma? Why are moral norms binding at all? What is the ultimate authority? Where does this authority derive from? In my view, it is to these questions that the young seminarian must search for an answer. May be, the Gospel has something to tell us, and tell the world! Evangelization is not passing on a few well-phrased religious statements to someone else. It is confronting the problems of life with determination and the power of God’s Word.
Before such monumental evils, getting lost in trivial justice issues is like winning many a battle and losing the War; like developing too many confrontational skills and too few reconciling and promotive abilities. Such men are not set to become peace-makers, bridge-builders, dialogue-initiators. They are inadequately equipped for such activities.
St. Paul said, I have perfect confidence in the power of the Gospel. It is this confidence that seems to be shaken today. And yet, apart from the Gospel we are nothing. We have no message, no life, no energy, no stamina, no direction, no goal, no identity.
S.S.Gill in his ‘The Pathology of Corruption’ presenting the case of England in the eighteenth century says, “Rigging, violence and bribery in elections were as much a part of the electoral scene in the eighteenth century England as they are in Bihar today”. He proceeds on to show how widely spread corruption was in England in every sphere of public life. He concludes by referring to three factors that brought about a change: the first, mass literacy; the second, the growth of the press; the third, reform movements prompted by an evangelical revival (S.S.Gill, The pathology of Corruption, HarperCollins publishers India, New Delhi, 1998, pg. 226-29). Little does Gill realize that the first two without the third would have led that society nowhere. Evangelical revival played a crucial role in the moral renewal of England that today’s secularized historians would be unwilling to admit. Closeness to the Gospel can be a turning point in history.
Communicating across Cultures
During troubles, we became suddenly aware of one great reality: so many of us are working across cultures. Our training had not adequately prepared us for communicating across cultures or sufficiently equipped us for serving people of other ethnic groups. Many doctors, engineers, civil servants, businessmen and social activists are working among other communities than their own. To the extent they have the ability to relate, communicate and collaborate across cultures they are successful. Some have developed the needed skills from instinct; others through reflection, self-criticism and constant adaptation; others through hard lessons in actual life. Still others never learnt any lesson at all.
A priest’s work touches people’s lives more intimately than the services of any other person. He has, therefore, greater possibility of helping and healing, but also of hurting. Many hurts are unconsciously inflicted, more due to cultural blindness than to anger or arrogance.
In recent years, there has been a great deal of discussion and reflection on socio-economic issues. Socio-cultural issues have not received the same attention in proportion. One without the other is incomplete, and even dangerous. Every society rejects a culturally alien force that is challenging its traditional ways of functioning. If it is a benevolent force, it may be tolerated for a while. But when the line of tolerance is crossed, there is bound to be a reaction. Even if the challenge were to arise from within the society’s own cultural world, it might still be resisted; but if it comes in as a cultural intrusion, the reaction is likely to be much stronger. The chances of trouble are even greater, when the instigator of the challenge is too sure of himself and of his ideas; when his entire strategy is based on rigid ideological dogmas; when his professional preparation or experience makes him over-confident; when he is blind to cultural red-signals and resistant to counsel.
It is more important to communicate than to confront. It is more important to persuade than to provoke. It is more important to win allies than to create enemies. It is more important to heal and reconcile than hurt and alienate.
The tragic death of Sanjay Ghose while working for the social uplift of the people of Majuli Island (Assam) is a typical case of a gifted and well-meaning person going too fast with justice issues, with too little cultural insertion and inadequate understanding of the local realities.
A cultural alien need not necessarily be a regional-outsider. There are cultural distances between different castes. There are cultural distances between different tribes, ethnic groups, linguistic groups and religious communities. And what is most interesting to note is, that there are distances between culturally uprooted individuals and their own communities of origin. Salman Rushdie may be an Indian by origin. But by reason of his education, profession and Western association, his worldview has changed; he is unable to come on the wavelength of the Indian masses; his writings may look intelligent to his western readers; but they look cynical and provocative to a large number of his countrymen. He can, of course, communicate with those of his own kind. That is why most Indian intellectuals limit themselves to talking to each other only, and not to the Indian people.
V.S. Naipaul may be of Indian ancestry. But cultural distances have grown between his perceptions of reality, of society, polity, priority, and those of the people of his great grand father’s land. Amartya Sen is an Indian in a far truer sense, but his message of equality and fairness cannot easily penetrate the Indian heartland where it is needed most. But it looks as though Sen may find it easier to help as a bridge-builder between two different cultures than many others of his brotherhood.
A good missionary is expected to be an efficient bridge-builder between cultures, communities, ideologies and interests. A missionary is a universal brother/sister. Manmohan Singh may be one of the best men we have in the country. But he lost an election, because he could not get his ideas across to the average man. On the contrary, Laloo Prasad may be one of the most maverick politicians in India today. But he communicates, he convinces, he carries the crowd with him. He is at the wavelength of the masses. Most of us belong to one of these categories, or stand half-way between. If our training has uprooted us from our own cultural world, we need to re-insert ourselves into our communities and communicate with the masses, in order to persuade and get things done.
Most Western-educated people communicate with each other through the medium of what is
today called ‘Modern Culture’. It is an imperfect but useful instrument. Non-Western persons who are making use of this culture do not mean to reject their own culture, nor recommend the new one, but are merely using it as a temporary tool. We in India keep using an Indian adaptation of this form ‘Modern Culture’, with indefinite number of regional variations. It is incorrect to call it Indian; it is inappropriate to call it Western. When some element in it annoys us, we call it Western. That is unfair. When something in it pleases us, we call it Indian. That is inaccurate. It is both, and it is neither.
For the absence of a better term, let me call it a ‘Compromise Culture’. Normally we communicate across cultures in India through this Compromise Culture. But it is an inadequate tool, because it is an uprooted product. It directly belongs to no community. It is merely an instrument of uprooted individuals who wish to communicate with each other. It is an inadequate instrument for communicating with the masses. That is why our message hardly ever gets across. That is why Christian thinkers and many missionaries, like the rest of Indian intellectuals, keep talking to each other only and not to the masses. That is why the Gospel never reaches the destination.
But the Compromise Culture has one advantage. It is neutral. It is non-threatening. It does not claim any privileged position over local cultures. It does not threaten to demote and supplant regional identities and variations. In fact, it respects them. But the Brahminic upper caste culture which is currently presented as the ‘Indian culture’, and which is expected to mediate the Gospel across cultures, is not neutral. The dalits, tribals, regional and minority groups perceive it as life-threatening! No doubt, it is of immense value to the communities to which it belongs. No doubt, it has served generation after generation of the Indian elite for centuries. It has helped the larger society too in some manner. But it has also enslaved weaker communities. It still holds the formula for keeping them from progress. It is red signal to the suppressed classes. Hence the resistance to its presentation as the sole model of Indian culture.
This is not to deny the possibility of a dialogue of cultures. But it should be a dialogue of equals, if it has to take off.
Indian cultures make abundant use of symbolism. Our Hindutva friends have shown themselves to be wizards in the use of symbolisms, e.g., Rath Yathra, Ayodhya temple project, Bharat darshan, Vajpayee’s Lahore trip. On the contrary, our own intellectual, theological, dogmatic, cold and dry approach to life and teaching leaves people unstirred.
I know that these thoughts on culture are too brief and hurried to make sense in a satisfactory manner. May be, there is even now a cultural gap between the present speaker and the audience. For the time being I would limit myself to inviting a more comprehensive reflection on the entire phenomenon of culture and its relationship with the Church’s mission of Evangelization.
Becoming Culture-translators
When some important document comes out from Rome we can respond to it in one of the following ways. We can echo the views of the people of another cultural world. We can reproduce a summary of the secular evaluation of the document in question. We can voice the criticism of persons who live by other values than our own. And lastly, we can study the text, personalize the message, and creatively present it to a wider audience in order to make it intelligible, acceptable and attractive. In other words, we can become bridge-builders across cultures bringing the message home to its destination. I need not tell you which of these courses of action I would recommend to you. For me that is clear. Paying respectful attention to religious leaders is part of our civilizational heritage, of which we are rightly proud. It does not reduce us a wee bit in our stature. Acting differently, on the contrary, is not being true to our Asian genes.
It was amazing that it was a section of the secular press in India that took the trouble some time ago to defend the right of the Supreme Head of the Catholic Church to take a definitive stand on a matter central to its faith in Dominus Jesus. Much of the Catholic press merely kept quoting each other. The matter under discussion was nothing less than the uniqueness of Christ and the obligation to share the faith.
I may add, with due apologies, that most Church-related documents emanating from India’s intellectual centres are not any less in need of being introduced and creatively presented to the rural masses and marginal communities in order that they may be intelligible, relevant, acceptable and useful. Very many of our scattered Christian communities and peripheral groups are at another wavelength than the writers, and are wrestling with other problems than those of which the drafting committee is aware. Not rarely do they resent the dogmatic tones of such document-makers and their unconcern for and (what they think) misrepresentation of what humbler groups consider central and vital. Such writings escape criticism only because they are rarely read! They are lost between cultures! Yes, all cross-cultural interactions call for culture-translators, not merely language-translators. And culture-translators are required not only for transoceanic transmissions, but also for any trans-cultural communication. The world would benefit a great deal from a few more cross-cultural bridge-builders and a tiny bit fewer uncommitted critiques!
Indeed, we have to work much harder towards a deeper understanding of culture before we can make any headway in the field of Inculturation. We should not lose patience. An indigenous system of theology is not developed overnight. We should not pretend as though we had been working at it for centuries. It is not as though our creativity itself has no limits except those placed by some external authority. Genuine creativity is always serene. When it crosses the boundaries of serenity, it begins to reveal hidden flaws.
True creativity is confident, but realistic. When we are restless at the slowness in the indigenization of theological concepts, we may ask ourselves to what extent universally accepted concepts like democracy, freedom of the individual, dignity of the human person, human rights, rule of law, basic equality of all people, etc, have been grafted onto our native concepts. Discussing such matters, have we done anything more than merely quoting from the findings and experiences of another civilization, or have we discovered corresponding concepts and value-systems rooted in the Indian soil and in indigenous traditions, which we can keep consulting when we flounder? It is true, the Hindutva movement is making a heroic effort to place modernity on India’s ancient foundations, but with no conspicuous success.
How many of our political institutions, structures of the state, machinery of information etc., have taken on indigenized forms and identities? How many of them relate organically and in any real sense to native institutions and can be sustained further only on native inspiration? Yes, civilizations are in Dialogue. It takes time before the genius of one stimulates the corresponding genius of the other. Those who assist the Dialogue have an arduous task. They can do with a bit of time and patience. It is impossible to indigenize in the theological field alone without simultaneous progress in indigenization in other fields as well, such as political, cultural. Life and culture are organic wholes, living realities. They cannot be reshaped like pieces of furniture, in bits and pieces. Society has to move together. That only tells us to work harder.
One only needs to watch the Republic day parade and listen to the bagpipes and kettle drums to understand how much we have indigenized our national celebrations. Why do the State Bank of India officers need to wear the necktie in a hot afternoon? Why do our legal fraternity need to wear the black gown and headgear in sultry summer? What does Indian democracy have anything to do with those gadgets and garbs, with those titles and tails? Similar instances can be multiplied. It is very humbling to think that we are so blind to such glaring anachronisms. What is more humbling is to hear loud complaints from those who are blind to such archaic shapes and forms, about slow ecclesiastical indigenization.
For Me to Live is Christ
Communicating Christ is a challenging task. But it is at the same time an exhilarating experience. Bringing meaning and direction into the lives of individuals and communities is a reward in itself. Bringing peace and joy into human hearts and harried societies is unsurpassable delight.
The uniqueness of Christ is not a notion to be discussed, but a mystery to be lived… and shared. Who is Jesus to us? To you? Moses? Elijah? Or one of the Prophets? Or is He the Christ, the Son of the Living God? Are you certain of it, truly and experientially? Christ-experience, in the way we mean here, is not some sort of mystic trance or ecstatic illusion, some subjective state, but that inner power and quality that make your faith real, operative, concrete, visible, tangible, and fruitful. I know I am using words that are totally inadequate to express a reality too sublime for words. But unless you relate with Christ in a personal manner, you have no experiences to share, no message to give.
Being for and against conversion are idle discussions. They can be misleading. It all depends on what you mean by conversion. But being a believer or not, that is the challenge. “To be, or not to be; that is the question.” It is a struggle for identity again. St. Paul said, for me to live is Christ!
The struggle to preserve one’s identity as a Christian believer is as real in the West as in the East. A Lutheran pastor in Finland wrote after he attended a meeting of his Catechism Board. “I was surprised to learn that the other members of the panel were agnostics who did not believe that the God the Catechism talks about really exists. In their opinion Jesus was just a religious leader whose declaration ‘I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me’, was a narrow-minded, arrogant claim and whose command ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creatures’ was a power-hungry statement. “They talked about faith as a psychological and sociological phenomenon, but its object did not exist for them. Faith was only a bunch of beliefs or a vertical emotional dimension.
“I made a choice to be a childlike follower of Jesus although it felt like committing intellectual suicide. … I thought a lot about how we Europeans are still captivated by Immanuel Kant’s definition of the limits of knowledge. Theologians have accepted them to be the limits to theology, too. As a consequence, the libraries are full of books, which try to interpret matters of faith without assuming the existence of God….
“Life and truth include things that do not fit into the scientific method: love, creativity, art, emotions, values, beliefs, God, beauty, suffering, etc. They can be researched as phenomena, but research has not created them. Astronomy has not created the stars, but the stars have created astronomy. Faith has not created God, but God has created faith. There is somebody behind faith!”
I end this sharing with the following prayer of the God-seeker,
“It is your face, O Lord, that I seek. Hide not your face from me”.
Would that we keep seeking. Would that we find. Would that His face shines on us, and on millions of our people.
(Talk at the Golden Jubilee Celebrations—St.Peter’s Pontifical Institute, Bangalore)
