Abstract
In the modern history of India, the term ‘mass movement’ has been used to refer to two entirely different things. One is the Gandhian nationalist movement from the second to the middle, and the other the Dalit (Hindu outcaste groups) conversion to Christianity en masse. This article traces Gandhi’s interaction with Indian Christianity, especially the Indian Dalit Christian movement, with an intention to gain a better understanding of the relation between Indian nationalist movement and Indian Christianity. The chapter shows that Gandhi’s aversion to interreligious conversion and his strong distrust of the Dalit people’s ability to make spiritual choice led to his strong and undue criticisms against Dalit conversion to Christianity. As peaceful a man as the Mahatma (the Great Soul) was, his clash with the Dalit Christian mass movement seems to have adversely affected the majority of Indian Christians from finding a welcoming home in India.
Keywords
To join the discussion on Christianity’s relation with the nationalist movement for freedom in India, we can begin with two observations. The first of these is on the fluctuation of Christian participation in the nationalist movement. It has been observed that while Christians appear to have participated enthusiastically in the early years of the Indian National Congress (the main political organization spearheading the nationalist movement), there was a dramatic decline, especially after the rise of the ‘extremism’ in the first decade of the 20th century. The relation between Christians and the nationalist movement changed for the better from the 1930s, which also impacted Christian conception of mission. Secondly, the greatest numerical growth of Christians in India came about at the same period when the nationalist movement for freedom was underway. While a number of historical analyses have been put forth on the first point, the second observation is much less conspicuous and has not received any significant attention of historians. Because the Indian nationalist movement was a mass-based movement for freedom from colonial subjugation especially after Mahatma Gandhi took the rein in 1919, it has often been named ‘mass movement.’ 1 Ironically, the most dramatic increase of Christians in number, which occurred for the most part in the period between 1880 and 1930, also came about under the name of ‘mass movement.’ These two entities, which shared the same name, have been treated in isolation from each other and in separate fields, and to my knowledge, have not been related with one another. I wish to relate the two in order to see what difference the connection has made in the historical development henceforth. The most suitable way to relate the two is to locate their historical connection, and none provides better connection, in my observation, than Mahatma Gandhi himself. Before we analyze the connection in Gandhi, it is appropriate to briefly describe mass movements as an explanation of a movement to Christianity in the history of India.
Mass Movements to Christianity
To describe the conversion movement to Christianity among the Dalit 2 (or ‘Depressed Class,’ who were formerly the ‘untouchables’ or ‘outcaste’ of Hindu society) and tribal communities in groups, or as some said ‘en masse’ or in many cases en bloc, 3 analysts and critics have used the phrase ‘mass movements’ or ‘mass conversion’ in India. Although such movements had occurred in earlier periods, what came to be associated with the name ‘mass movements’ were those which had taken place in various parts of India in the period between the 1870s and the 1930s. Statistics shows that Indian Christian population quadrupled in number during this period. Based on the Census report, it was determined that the Christian population grew from 1,246,288 in 1872 to 6,020,887 in 1932. 4 In some rough estimates, more than half of Catholic Christians and more than 70% of Protestant Christians in India traced their origin in one of these movements. In the late 1920s, the National Christian Council of India commissioned a study on the movements based on which the Chairman of the Commission, J. Waskom Pickett, wrote a book which remains to be the best empirically-researched work and most thorough discussion on these movements. 5 Based on the 10 regional expressions of movements selected and studied by the commission, Pickett defines the movements as those characterized by ‘a group decision favorable to Christianity,’ and propose to call each ‘a group movement.’ 6 Later studies, especially on mass movements in other regions, have revealed that this is too narrow a definition since all communities categorized under mass movements do not necessarily make such a ‘group decision’ for their conversion to Christianity. 7 Pickett’s work had remarkable impact on subsequent theories of mission. The best known mission theory which directly came out of Pickett’s work was Donald McGavran’s Church Growth theory. 8 While McGavran focused on what can be emulated from such movements to grow churches, recent historical studies on mass movements in India focused the attention on one of Pickett’s other points, namely how the movements helped to liberate oppressed Dalits and tribals from the age-old bondage of Hindu caste system.
Both within and without Christian circles, mass movements came to acquire strong negative reactions. Prejudices against the phenomena which influenced much of the theology, theological education, and the church in India until the late 1980s not only shelved the issue away for a period and thus thwarted serious deliberations on the issue, but also prevented educated Christians of mass-movement-origin from affirming their identity. Many educated Christians concealed their Dalit identity until recently. Describing the mood in the early 1930s, Pickett said, ‘the term mass movement’ meant different things to different people. For some, ‘it has stood for hasty baptism and loose administration. To others it has been synonymous with the reception into the Church of “outcastes” or “untouchables.”’ Among the remaining opinions were ‘few [who] conceived of it as representing the conversion of the whole populace to a strictly nominal confession of Christianity.’ 9 Behind all these distrustful opinions is the question of its spiritual legitimacy, and further behind, one senses the strong influence of caste mentality.
Not only did non-Christian Indians treat the movements (as well as the converts) with derision, but ‘large and influential sections of the missionary body [in India] and of the Indian Church have questioned their spiritual validity and have doubted whether they should be encouraged,’ 10 wrote Pickett. One may easily spot statements that discouraged and disowned mass movements by Indian Christian writings even in the subsequent period. Christian missions, which typically started among caste communities, were eventually drawn by such movements to work among Dalits. As John Webster stated, ‘It was primarily the foreign missionaries rather than the Indian Christians who responded most eagerly to the Dalit initiative,’ while Indian Christians of caste origins were ‘unenthusiastic and even antagonistic towards the mass movements.’ 11 Referring to the general Indian Christian community, Pickett also found that ‘large numbers of educated Indian Christians are severely critical of mass movements and assume aloof or even hostile attitudes towards them.’ 12 Thanks to the new initiative on historical studies of these movements since the 1970s, and the new effort since the 1980s to formulate liberation theologies based on the experience and identity of the oppressed Dalit and tribal communities, the new trend is to pride instead of deride the movements. Like liberation movements elsewhere such as those among Black people and women (feminist movement) in the West, many Dalit Christians now choose to identify themselves as Dalits with a sense of pride, and work for the liberation of their identity and its dignity.
Based on an empirical investigation in 10 locations in India, the commissioned study under Pickett had concluded that the largest number of mass movement converts (34.8%) did so for ‘Spiritual Motives.’ Almost an equal number (34.7%) of mass movement converts became Christian for what the study calls ‘Natal Influences.’ The response of only a small minority (8.1%) revealed ‘Secular Motives.’ 13 Although these findings help to authenticate the spiritual validity of the movement, there are other observations to be made. First, such a classification of life into ‘spiritual’ and ‘secular’ realms, especially in such a compartmental fashion, does not comply with a relatively wholistic traditional worldview of Indians in general and the subaltern people in particular. Dichotomy between temporal and spiritual life is foreign to the traditional worldview of many Dalit and most tribal people in India. It may not be necessary to engage in an argument for this case here, and suffice it to say that there is no reason to believe that the political, economic, or social good of a community is unspiritual in the conception of the people. In contrast, as some of the new studies have been showing, what is spiritually good is (and has to be) good economically, politically, or socially, especially for oppressed communities such as the Dalits, whose spiritual salvation is significantly rooted in their temporal liberation from the Caste Hindu oppressions. In Sathianathan Clarke’s observation of Dalit mass conversion movements, ‘religious conversion was also a conscious mobilization of disadvantaged communities. Religious conversion to Christianity was a community effort by the Dalits to denounce the symbolic worldview of conventional religion within which the legitimization of the all-encompassing caste-based social order works.’ 14 There is no denying that ‘the underlying motivation was the search for improved social status, for a greater sense of personal dignity and self-respect, for freedom from bondage to oppressive land owners.’ 15 Such a motivation in the context of the transformation to ‘God’s people’ from ‘no people’ is legitimately religious. One Dalit theological thinker and a spokesperson for Dalit communities, James Massey, proposed to reverse the attitude by calling the movements ‘Spirit Movements’ to emphasize their spirituality. 16
Secondly, like most missionaries of the time, Pickett had taken the question of motivation (what motivated the mass conversions?) as the key to understanding mass movements. Since pre-conceived (motivating) factors were utilized in the process of identifying the motivations, the approach is accompanied by considerable limitations and dangers. Other factors have been suggested by later studies. Duncan Forrester suggested the changed social condition and the accompanying ‘mood of unprecedented restlessness’ among the Dalits resulted by ‘the cumulative effect of the western impact on India’ as the key to explain the movements. 17 Since the phenomena encompassed regions and people not directly impacted by the changed conditions, this explanation does not always help. Recent historical studies on the movements have brought to our attention an important common feature which may serve as a key to analyze and understand the movements. The common feature is the role of early native converts in initiating and carrying the movements. Although Pickett did not emphasize this aspect, his brief historical description on the movements clearly highlighted this feature. The story of Vedamanickam of the Sambavar community in the Kaniyakumari district of Tamil Nadu, Ditt (converted as a result of the witness of another native converts Natu) of Chuhra community in Punjab, Yerraguntla Periah (also converted as a result of the witness of a native Christian Vongole Abraham) of the Madiga community and Vankayya of Mala community in today’s Andra Pradesh, are examples we can readily see in Pickett’s book. 18 John Webster looked for a common pattern in the mass movements among Dalits and identified individual native leadership as a common feature. He identified what he calls ‘leader stage’ in which the leadership of those among early converts helped ‘to lead the rest of their people to convert also.’ 19 As I have shown in my research on tribal movement to Christianity in Northeast India, most stories of tribal conversion in Northeast India are the result of the works of early ‘native’ converts. 20 In many cases, missions had very little or nothing to do with the conversion of these leaders, and in other cases unlikely convert-employees of mission also served as the instruments. The focus of missions had mainly been on the high caste people. After the ‘leader stage’ of the movement, Webster said, came the mission or missionary stage when ‘the Mission realized that a movement was afoot and decided to deploy its own resources both to spread and to shape it.’ 21 Cyril Firth’s earlier observation concurs with this point when he said, ‘it has been the converts who sought out the missionaries rather than the missionaries who sought out the converts.’ 22 The initiative taken by ‘native’ (Dalit or tribal) converts is an important key in understanding the nature of the movements. From such a viewpoint, John Webster concluded his analysis of Dalit mass movements by saying, ‘the mass movements [among Dalits] were Dalit movements initiated by Dalits and sustained by Dalit heroism in the face of persecution.’ 23 Viewed as depressed communities’ quest for salvation, the role of native converts in the movements has an added significance.
Indian Nationalist ‘Mass Movement’ and its Impact on Christian Movements
Why then, did such deep misconceptions and mistrust develop against mass movements? Why have the Indian mainline Churches and theological education in the 20th century (that is, until the emergence of Dalit consciousness and theology from the 1980s) showed distrust on and trivialized the role of mass movements in its history? In line with the Church Growth concern of Donald McGavran, F. Hrangkhuma raised the question: what factors contributed to the arrest of mass movements towards Christianity in India? His list of factors may be divided into external causes, which consist of historical condition and social factors, and internal factors, which include erroneous or unsuitable missionary methods and various religious and spiritual factors. 24 His interest lies in finding out how such movements may be revived. As a historical study, my concern here relates to the strong mistrust of and misgivings on the movements shown by both elite Christians and non-Christians. My basic assumption is that it had a lot to do with the unfavorable attitude of the national-majority in general and the nationalist leaders in particular. As I have suggested above, the best example may be Mahatma Gandhi, and we will use him to analyze the issue. We will look at Gandhi’s impressions on and interaction with Christianity as represented by modern missionaries in his time, and his reaction to the issue of conversion. Within this analysis, we will locate his anti-mass conversion of Dalits to Christianity. The influence of the spirit of nationalism as well as the perpetuation of caste mentality in the church resulted in the strong contempt for mass movements and an internal split of the Christian community into Christians of caste origins and Christians of outcaste (and non-caste tribal) origins. I will presume a basic knowledge of who Mohandas Gandhi (who later assumed the coveted title ‘Mahatma’ or ‘the great soul’) is and what he has achieved, and will not relate the heroic story of this great ‘father of Indian nation.’
Mahatma Gandhi and Christianity
Studies on Gandhi continue to multiply, and in recent years a few have come out on Gandhi and Christianity. Most of the studies on Gandhi’s relation with and views on Christianity are based on analysis of his utterances, speeches and writings on or related to Christianity as presented to him in his time. These have been collected and published in several forms with some repetitions. Among the collections of Gandhi’s writings and statements on or related to Christianity, Christian Missions: Their Place in India is perhaps the most comprehensive collection, and we will rely mainly on this collection. One recent publication of the collection, edited by Robert Ellsberg and entitled Gandhi on Christianity, 25 helpfully places Gandhi’s in the context of the ongoing discussion on religious pluralism. Between the contention that he was a secret Christian and the fact that he became the spokesperson against conversion to Christianity, Gandhi’s many statements made him appear quite ambiguous. He is, perhaps, the most-quoted figure in the anti-conversion campaign of militant Hindu communalists in recent years. 26 As Sudhir Chandra has rightly pointed out, those who oppose conversion today in India ‘exploited the ease with which his numerous contradictory utterances on the subject can be selectively cited either way.’ 27 Rameshwar Shukla ‘Pankaj’ and Kusumlata Kediya, for instance, declared, ‘Resurgent Hindutva would force Christianity to be restrained and religious. Gandhiji is our guide in this matter.’ 28
Most of the collections of his statements on and interactions with Christianity begin with a narrative of his childhood encounter with Christian mission as accounted in his autobiography. While recounting how mutual tolerance among different ‘branches of Hinduism and sister religions’ characterized his home in Rajkot, he said, Only Christianity was at the time an exception. I develop a sort of dislike for it. And for a reason. In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the High School and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this…. About the same time, I heard of a well-known Hindu having been converted to Christianity. It was the talk of the town that, when he was baptized, he had to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes, and that henceforth he began to go about in European costume including a hat.
29
After the autobiography was first published, the authenticity of what Gandhi related here as what the missionaries used to do was challenged by Rev. H. R. Scott, the only missionary in Rajkot at the time. Scott denied ever-preaching ‘in a corner near the High School and pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods’ and any knowledge of a convert who ‘had to eat beef and drink liquor.’ 30 Gandhi could not defend his statement and accepted Scott’s repudiation, but said that what he had ‘heard and read since has but confirmed that first impression.’ 31 Whether Gandhi made up the details of the story or not, this account reflects one strong dimension of Gandhi’s opinion on Christianity, namely his disliking of Christianity especially the form represented by missionaries and British colonial rulers.
Gandhi’s interaction with Christianity may be laid out in three or four stages. His early impression on Christianity and Christian missions in India; his close personal interactions with Christians in London and South Africa during which time he even considered becoming a Christian; his interaction with Christians especially missionaries and some converts in India during his nationalist involvements. As we will see, Gandhi’s attitude toward Christian missions, especially in connection with conversion, changed gradually and significantly from the first phase of his political movement (1919–1929) to the second (1929–1947). The first impression, though modified and matured in his own way, had a strong influence throughout his life. This early stage, which he later called ‘beef and beer-bottle Christianity,’
32
found many resonances in his criticisms of missions, missionaries, and Christian Indians in the later stage.
33
In his own estimation, the most important point in the development of his religious thought was when he came to realize that all religions are equal. He said he came to the conclusion that ‘all religions were right but every one of them was imperfect’ after studying the Scriptures of the great religions of the world.
34
He expounded this by saying, If we are imperfect ourselves, religion as conceived by us must also be imperfect. We have not realized religion in its perfection, even as we have not realized God…. And if all faiths outlined by men are imperfect, the question of comparative merit does not arise. All faiths constitute a revelation of Truth, but all are imperfect, and liable to error.
35
Based on this relativistic viewpoint, Gandhi then went on to gather what is good in any religion and discard which he considers to err in any. What criteria did he use to determine what is right and what is wrong? In one place, he identified truth, non-violence, and reason as the ‘fundamental maxims’ by which he makes his determination. 36 In one of his interviews with a Christian thinker, he said, ‘I exercise my judgment about every scripture, including the Gita. I cannot let a scriptural text supersede my reason.’ 37 What he considered to be the heart of his religion is moral law, and he called it the ‘Law of Truth.’ It was on this moral basis that he constructed his greatest political weapon called satyagraha (truth-force). Gandhi often came in conflict with others, even with close allies such as Rabindranath Tagore and Jawaharlal Nehru, 38 in what he considered to be right and acceptable. He was often inconsiderate in taking opposing viewpoints.
It is true that Gandhi, at one point, seriously considered embracing Christianity and claimed to have studied the Bible well. In a number of places he narrated his ‘final deliberate striving to realize Christianity’ when he met well-known and reputed Indian Christian Kali Charan Banerjee in 1901. This meeting led him to state, as a conclusion to his striving to realize Christianity, that ‘Hinduism, as I know it, entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being. . . .’
39
Contrasting his own statement against comparative merits among religions quoted earlier, Gandhi did make comparison between religions and chose what satisfied him, an activity, as we will show, he could not allow others to make. Well-known is his liking of the Sermon on the Mount, which he compared to and somehow tried to unify with Baghavad Gita. In the end, he said, ‘I find a solace in Bhagavadgita and Upanishad that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount.’
40
As a reformed Hindu (often called ‘Neo-Hindu’) who is at well with plurality of religious conceptions and views under the guise of ‘toleration’ that characterized Hinduism itself, Gandhi had no difficulty in drawing from the teachings of Christianity or any other religion and to claim himself to be a follower of Jesus or Muhammad. In addressing missionaries, he in fact challenged them by saying, If I have read the Bible correctly, I know many men who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ or even rejected the official interpretation of Christianity will, probably, if Jesus came in our midst today in the flesh, be owned by him more than many of us.
41
But he did not regard Jesus as anything more than a great teacher, and vehemently opposed the orthodox Christian claim of moral superiority and its dogmatic basis. To quote his words, ‘I regard Jesus Christ as one of the greatest teachers of mankind, but I do not consider him to be the “only son of God.”’ 42 In another place, he said, ‘I rebel against orthodox Christianity,’ because ‘it has distorted the message of Jesus Christ.’ 43 And with this orthodox Christianity is its teaching about Jesus that he rejected. Like one of his great predecessors of Reformed Hinduism, Raja Ram Mohun Roy, he had no difficulty to acclaim Jesus publicly. But he would not affirm Jesus more than one of the greatest teachers. He did not believe that Jesus performed miracles as recorded in the Gospels nor the teaching that Jesus atoned the sins of the world. There is no doubt that Jesus was ‘the only begotten son of God’ for ‘the devotees of his generation,’ wrote Gandhi. ‘Their belief need not be mine. He affects my life no less because I regard him as one among the many begotten sons of God.’ 44 Gandhi drew on Hindu pluralism as a basic strength and challenged any claim of superiority against Hinduism.
In a meticulous historical analysis of Gandhi’s dialogical interaction with Christians during his political movement in India (1919–1939), John Webster laid out dominant themes chronologically. 45 In the period between 1919 and 1929, Webster identified three themes, all of which came from Gandhi’s own agenda. The first of these was Gandhi’s criticism of missionary attitude toward India. Though this theme is dominant during the period, one can see that the theme persisted throughout the 1930s. Side by side with this theme is the next one, namely ‘Europeanization of Indian converts to Christianity.’ Denationalization of converts is the other side of the same coin which colored Gandhi’s opinion on Indian converts. The third theme, which steered much of Gandhi’s speeches and writings on Christianity throughout his life, and which inspired Hindu fanatics in the years to come, is his objection to religious change or conversion. During the civil disobedient movement (1932) under Gandhi’s leadership, Indian Christians’ relation with nationalist movement greatly improved, but Gandhi’s criticism of missionaries and their ‘proselytizing’ work, caused great damage to the relation. In the period following Gandhi’s fast-unto-death campaign against the granting of separate electorates to untouchables (Dalits) from 20 September 1932, Gandhi’s dialogue with Christians in India was dominated by issues surrounding Dalit conversions (mass movements). Webster’s study as well as most other studies on Gandhi’s relation with Christianity indicates that the issues surrounding conversion or religious change is the most prevalent motif. We now turn our attention to the issue of conversion and mass conversion in connection with Dalits/Harijans.
Gandhi on Religious ‘Conversion’
Responding to the question whether missionaries would be welcomed in the free (independent) India, Gandhi was quoted by a number of press correspondents to have said: If they [missionaries] confine themselves to social and economic uplift they would be [welcome], but if they did as they are now doing, namely using hospitals and schools for the purpose of proselytizing then I should certainly ask them to withdraw. One nation’s religion is as good as another nation’s. Certainly India’s religions are not inadequate for her needs. India needs no spiritual conversion.
46
The statement, made at the prime of his political career, that is, the early part of 1931, clearly revealed his repugnance to the missionary works on conversion and drew sharp criticisms from Christian leaders, even his close Christian friends. Gandhi later explained that the quotation was ‘a travesty’ and a ‘distorted version of my views.’ He then offered a revised statement which is not very different from what were reported originally. He said, Every nation considers its own faith to be as good as that of any other. Certainly the great faiths held by the people of India are adequate for her people. India stands in no need of conversion from one faith to another.
47
Reacting sharply against Gandhi’s view expressed in the statement, one of his closest Christian friends, E. Stanley Jones, distinguishes proselytism from conversion and said he also oppose the former. He said: But while I oppose proselytizing I think it is an entirely different thing for me to share my faith with others, and if that sharing leads to moral and spiritual conversion, I believe that person so inwardly converted has a moral right to declare outwardly what he has experienced inwardly and to join any group where that new life might be cultivated.
48
A simple analysis of Gandhi’s statement reveals several controversial issues. Such issues include treating conversion and proselytism as synonyms, every nation owning its faith or religion, and to shut Indian citizens from the freedom to choose one’s own religion or faith. All these do not conform to the secular commitment of the independent India Gandhi had fierily fought for. It is not surprising that most intellectual writings by Hindu communal nationalists today utilize Gandhi as a basis for their anti-conversion writings. Gandhi’s dislike of religious change or proselytism is unambiguous, but the meanings of his statements are often vague and sometimes they appear to be inconsistent.
One of the difficulties in understanding Gandhi on conversion is his ambiguous use of the term conversion. In one place he said, ‘I am against conversion, whether it is known as Suddhi by Hindus, Tabligh by Mussalmans or proselytizing by Christians. Conversion is a heart-process, known only to and by God. It must be left to itself.’ 49 One notices that when he defines conversion as ‘a heart-process,’ it cannot be objected, but here he also declared, ‘I am against conversion.’ Elsewhere, he said ‘Real conversion springs from the heart and at the prompting of God,’ 50 and in another place he declared, ‘I am . . . not against conversion. But I am against the modern methods of it.’ 51 Most of Gandhi’s strong statements about or against conversion were made in the context of dialogical conversations, some formal and others less formal. Among these, we select two dialogues to analyze his arguments against religious conversion or religious change. The first of these was with A. A. Paul of the Federation of International Fellowships, who asked Gandhi to define his position on conversion. Gandhi, in response, asked Paul to frame definite questions. The following statements were raised on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Madras International Fellowship asking Gandhi to ‘answer these statements in Harijan.’
Conversion is a change of heart from sin to God. It is the work of God. Sin is separation from God.
The Christian believes that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s revelation to mankind, that He is our Saviour from sin, that He alone can bring the sinner to God and thus enable him to live.
The Christian, to whom God has become a living reality and power through Christ, regards it as his privilege and duty to speak about Jesus and to proclaim the free offer which He came on earth to make.
If any man’s heart is so moved by the hearing of this message as to repent and wish to live a new life as a disciple of Jesus, the Christian regards it as right to admit him to the Company of His professed believers which is called the Christian Church.
The Christian shall do all in his power to sound the sincerity of conviction in all such cases and shall point out, as he can the consequences of such a step, stressing the duty a man owes to his family.
The Christian shall do everything in his power to prevent any motives of self-seeking on his part and of material considerations on the part of the convert.
Inasmuch as Jesus came to give full life, and that as a matter of history conversion has often meant an enhancing of personality, the Christian shall not be accused of using material inducements if conversion results in the social uplift of the convert-it always being understood that such shall never be sued as a means to an end.
The Christian is right in accepting as his duty the care of the sincere convert, body, soul and mind.
It shall not be brought against the Christian that he is using material inducements, when certain facts in Hindu social theory, out of his control, are in themselves an inducement to the Harijan. [But see points 5 and 6] 52
In his response, 53 Gandhi indicated the complex nature of the statements and dissected them according to his own understanding. As for the first proposition, he said, ‘if conversion is the work of God, why should that work be taken away from him?’ This implies that in his understanding, it was Christian missionaries who were converting, not the spirit of God. He read this point in isolation and did not relate with other points, for instance, point 4. ‘The second proposition deals with the Christian belief handed to the believer … the truth of which thousands of Christian born are never called upon to test for themselves…’ He concluded that it is dangerous to present such a belief ‘to those who have been brought up to a different belief.’ The third proposition, he said, relates to the mystery of religion not understood by common people but only by those who live in the traditional faith.
‘The other five propositions [points 4 to 8] deal with the conduct of the missionary among those whom he is seeking to convert,’ and has no relevance for others. ‘The last proposition’ appalled Gandhi, and he calls it ‘the crown of all the preceding ones . . . [that] takes one’s breath away. For it makes it clear that the other eight are to be applied in all their fullness to the poor Harijans.’ He clearly asserted his doubt that the Harijans would understand any of these since even ‘the most intellectual and philosophical persons even in the present generation’ are puzzled by ‘the very first proposition.’ One can summarize Gandhi’s response by saying that all the propositions are based on Christian doctrine and, therefore, had no relevance for others in the first place. They all are too complicated to be understood especially by Harijans (Dalits) who are the target of the message. While there is truth in what he said, it is a skillful manner of deflecting and dismissing the arguments. The propositions were addressed to Gandhi and they are logical arguments to make a case against his viewpoint. As the authors explicitly acknowledged, they are Christian viewpoints based on Christian teachings. They were not messages addressed to Harijans or anyone other than Gandhi.
The other conversation on conversion was with his close and most trusted Christian friend Charles Freer Andrews.
54
‘What would you say to a man who after considerable thought and prayer said that he could not have his peace and salvation except by becoming a Christian?’ asked Andrews. Gandhi responded, ‘I would say that, if a non-Christian (say a Hindu) came to a Christian and made that statement, he should ask him to become a good Hindu rather than find goodness in change of religion.’
55
Here Gandhi made a skilful change from the question of ‘peace and salvation’ to ‘goodness.’ As we have discussed, for Gandhi, moral goodness, not salvation, is the basis of religion. Andrews then said, I cannot in this go the whole length with you, though you know my position. I discarded the position that there is no salvation except through Christ long ago. But supposing the Oxford Group Movement people changed the life of your son, and he felt like being converted, what would you say?
Gandhi answered, I would say that the Oxford Group may change the lives of as many as they like, but not their religion. They can draw attention to the best in their respective religions and change their lives by asking them to live according to them . . .
56
What is most surprising here is Gandhi’s differentiation between one’s life and one’s religion. He appears to understand religion as a community identity, not as faith-principles for the conduct of lives.
Gandhi’s Objection and Criticism of Christian Mass Movements
Many of Gandhi’s statements objecting conversion to Christianity were linked with ‘mass’ conversion of the Dalits (or ‘Harijans’ in his words) to Christianity. One may locate Gandhi’s aversion of Dalits’ conversion to Christianity in the context of his conflict with Dalits’ most notorious leader B. R. Ambedkar from the early 1930s. We will, however, focus our attention on Gandhi and the Dalit conversion to Christianity. Let me begin the discussion of this topic once again by quoting Gandhi’s strong words.
Presentation, with a view to conversion, of a faith other than one’s own, can only be necessarily through an appeal to the intellect or the stomach or both. I do maintain that the vast mass of Harijans, and for that matter Indian humanity, cannot understand the presentation of Christianity, and that generally speaking their conversion wherever it has taken place has not been a spiritual act in any sense of the term. They are conversion for convenience. And I have had overwhelming corroboration of the truth during my frequent and extensive wanderings.
57
Since Gandhi claims ‘overwhelming corroboration of the truth,’ it would be daring to challenge what is said here. No Dalit Christian community or individual has, however, reported any interaction with Gandhi on the question of their conversions, and how Gandhi corroborated ‘the truth’ here is difficult to discern. In Christian Missions: Their Place in India, where this 1937 statement of Gandhi was reproduced, it is followed by a collection of disgraceful stories of Christian mission works and conversion of the Harijans, collected and reported by an individual named Thakkar Bapa. There is no denying that the history of Christian missions in India contains numerous disreputable incidents such as those narrated by Bapa, and the allegation that economic factor played role in Dalit conversions is not entirely out of place, as we have discussed above. However, to claim ‘the truth’ based solely on one’s conception of how things can happen – in this case how the presentation of a faith can appeal only ‘to the intellect or stomach’– is less than persuasive.
The point that Harijans/Dalits cannot understand the presentation of Christianity is the basic standpoint of Gandhi, which has been contested strongly by Christians. To illustrate his point, he even likened the Harijans with cows. In the first of his two extensive conversations with John R. Mott, a prominent world leader of Christian mission and ecumenical movement of the early 20th century, Gandhi expressed the uselessness of missionary preaching to the Dalit communities. When Mott asked him why the missionaries should not preach the Gospel to the Dalits, Gandhi answered, Would you, Dr. Mott, preach the Gospel to a cow? Well some of the untouchables are worse than cows in understanding. I mean they can no more distinguish between the relative merits of Islam and Hinduism and Christianity than a cow….
58
Shocked by such a comparison, many Christians expressed their dismay and disagreement to Gandhi. Gandhi maintained his position publicly in his article ‘The Cow and the Harijan.’ 59 Gandhi’s distrust on the Dalits’ intellectual ability and reasoning capacity is both absurd and mind-boggling.
As Webster has pointed out, most of Gandhi’s attack on missionaries for their ‘converting’ works among Dalits were made after 1932, the year the Communal Award (for separate electorates for Dalits) was made and Gandhi’s fast-unto-death led to the reversal of the Award to Dalits under the well-known ‘Poona Pact.’ The Award was based on the argument of Dalit leader B. R. Ambedkar that the Dalits are not Hindus and should be given separate electorates. While Christian leaders like V. S. Azariah agreed with Gandhi on opposing Communal Award for Indian Christians, they vehemently disagreed with Gandhi’s aggression against conversion. Gandhi stepped up his attack on conversion of the Dalits apparently in connection with his claim (against Ambedkar) that the Dalits are Hindus. Although Gandhi and Azariah rarely conflicted publicly, 60 Azariah, missionary-Bishop who led thousands of Dalits in today’s Andhra Pradesh was identified as Gandhi’s ‘Enemy Number One’ by the Editor of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. 61 Azariah deeply shared Gandhi’s nationalist aspirations. In fact, in response to Gandhi’s request to revoke separate electorates for Christians, Azariah published his second plea to oppose the Communal Award in 1932. But Azariah also opposed Gandhi’s rebellious activities such as civil disobedience, non-cooperation and ‘Quit India’ movements.
Most of Gandhi’s written criticisms against the conversions of the Dalits came after 1935.
62
Here we should also keep in mind the publication in 1933 of Christian Mass Movements in India by J. Waskom Pickett, the outcome of a commissioned study by the National Christian Council of India we have mentioned before. Did Gandhi read this book? He never mentioned the content of the book, but he read about the book in a report on the work and findings of its author published in The Church Times, which he severely criticized.
63
The report was on a speech given by J. Waskom Pickett, Bishop of the Methodist Church in India and author of the book in question. Speaking on mass movements in India where ‘four and a half millions of the depressed classes in India’ have become Christian, the report quoted him as saying the movement marveled ‘multitudes in India’ and dozens and hundreds of ‘high caste people are now coming to the Church.’ The report concluded with Pickett’s declaration that ‘It is a miracle,’ ‘one of the great miracles of Christian history.’ Gandhi entitled his response ‘What is a Miracle?’ and said, ‘I have rarely seen so much exaggeration in so little space.’ Gandhi just could not believe the figure given by Pickett. Unless Pickett claimed the ‘conversions due to the movement led by Dr. Ambedkar’ to Buddhism, Gandhi thought Pickett must have made extreme exaggeration. He even offered to correct the figure by saying ‘He [Pickett] has in mind the figures to date commencing from the establishment of the first church in India hundreds of years ago.’ What the Bishop has done, to Gandhi, is a caricature of a faith by one of its own followers. Exclaimed Gandhi: If all the astounding statements Dr. Pickett has propounded can be substantiated, truly it is ‘one of the great miracles of Christian history’, nay, of the history of man. But do miracles need an oratorical demonstration? Should we in India miss such a grand miracle? Should we be untouched by it? Miracles are their own demonstration.
Through the effort of India Conciliation Group, a group concerned with the deteriorating relation between Gandhi and Christians, attempts were made to reconcile Gandhi with Christian leaders especially Bishops Azariah and Pickett. But the effort in the end not only failed, but was also, as Susan Billington Harper rightly said, ‘counter-productive.’ The ICG did succeed in arranging a meeting among Gandhi, Azariah, and Pickett. Because of the promise to keep the content of the meeting confidential, and the only transcripts recorded by Gandhi’s Secretary Mahadev Desai could not be traced out till today, there is no record surviving. The meeting was soon followed by a controversy as a result of a three-part article written by Donald McGavran where he reported the account of the Gandhi-Azariah-Pickett meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, McGavran reported that Gandhi said to Azariah: You Christians must stop preaching to and making disciples amongst the Depressed Classes. If you do not, we shall make you. We shall appeal to the educated Indian Christians: we shall appeal to your home constituency; and if those fail we shall prohibit by law any change of religion, and we will back up the law by the force of the State.
64
Both Gandhi and Azariah denied the truth of McGavran’s story, and Azariah stated it to be ‘wholly and absolutely untrue.’ While the fact that McGavran could report the meeting in such a detail is questionable and that the detailed report is clearly deniable, the truth of Gandhi’s aggression against conversion to Christianity is undeniable as he continued to attack the whole phenomenon.
Where does the truth about ‘mass movements’ lie? As I have mentioned earlier, as a result of the movements, the number of Christians quadrupled, but not overnight nor in a decade. The comparative figure we have quoted above (1,246,288 in 1872 to 6,020,887 in 1932) reflects the growth (of approximately 4.8 millions) in 60 years’ time. If the presentation of Pickett or as it was reported cast the impression that the growth came instantly – and that is how Gandhi appeared to have read it, statistics does not support it. If this was really how Pickett reported, one senses the role of traditional missionary hagiography in the description. On the other hand, Gandhi’s trivialization of the movements and the transformation of Dalit converts by the Gospel in Indian Christian history is either a major oversight or a political ploy. Azariah clearly opined that it was after seeing the 1931 census report that Gandhi and Rajagopalachari increased their attacks against Christian missionaries and conversion. While Gandhi could hardly believe that such movements had happened, he also condemned Christian missionaries for targeting the Dalits. For one, as we have discussed above, he could not believe that any genuine conversion of Dalits can happen because of their reasoning incapacitation. Someone wrote to inform him that ‘Lakhs
65
of the Depressed Class people in South India, as you know, have joined Christianity wholesale. . . . What would you advise about them?’ Gandhi wrote, In my opinion, they are not examples of real heart conversions. If a person, through fear, compulsion, starvation or for material gain or consideration, goes over to another faith, it is a misnomer to call it conversion. Most cases of mass conversions, of which we have heard so much during the past two years, have been to my mind false coin.
66
In objecting possibility of any ‘real heart conversion’ of the Dalits, Gandhi insisted that every Dalit conversion is being prompted by material gain. While rejecting his take on the former (impossibility of real conversion for Dalits), we agree that non-religious motives played significant role in the conversion movements. Ironically, one must look at the very Hindu caste-based worldview for the intricate connection between religion, social location, and economic condition/status. There is a strong economic element in the oppressive structure of caste system that the poverty of Dalits is endemic to their socio-religious identity. The ‘unbreakable’ bounds of the caste people based on the ‘doctrine’ of karma (and related to samsara) that warrants casteism also shuts out the Dalits (making them ‘outcastes’) from any hope of changing life for the better in one’s lifetime except by leaving Hinduism. Leaving Hinduism was the step taken by B. R. Amberdkar in 1936 when he and his fellow Mahar (Dalit) community ‘left’ Hinduism and embraced Buddhism. While Gandhi disagreed with Ambedkar, what Ambedkar and the Mahar community did was a non-issue for him as he considered Buddhism as part of Hinduism. Ambedkar’s conversion, seen to be motivated purely by socio-economic factor, was not endorsed by most Christians even at the time. Bishop Azariah commented, ‘religion is not a matter that can be adopted or changed by fifty million people at the behest of a leader, however influential he may be. Nor would there be any spiritual gain to the follower from a religion so adopted.’ 67 The movement surrounding Ambedkar could be seen as a symptom of a larger Dalit revolutionary ferment. Gandhi could neither believe nor allow any revolutionary move by Dalits, and tried to resolve Dalit problem as an in-house issue of Hinduism. To this end, he campaigned against untouchability and for the opening of Hindu temples to Dalits, which enjoyed great success. But his strong defense of varnadharma 68 (the basis of the Hindu practice of caste system), as his critics including Ambedkar pointed out, could not allow Dalits to be given anything near equal treatment with the rest of Hindu communities. From the Dalit viewpoint supported by many Christians, for any extensive economic change to happen to Dalits as a community, the socio-religious warrant of the oppression in the form of caste has to be removed. Unless this happen, the only other option is to leave the system and the structure by converting to another religion.
On the issue of Dalit upsurge for fuller life and what role Christians should take, Gandhi clashed with a group of nationalist Christian intellectuals who published a carefully written document entitled ‘Our Duty to the Depressed and Backward Classes.’
69
Acknowledging the revolutionary spirit moving among the Depressed (Dalit) communities, the document unequivocally lauded the political shift in the 1930s (post Communal Award and Poona Pact) to recognize their plight and steps taken for their uplift by Hindu reformers while also criticizing the tyranny of caste. It encouraged Christians to welcome the new shift in which ‘the process of absorption of the Depressed and Backward Classes into Hindu community’ accompanied by a ‘great gesture of friendliness’ by the Caste Hindus was going on (pp. 78–79). The document discouraged ‘aggressive evangelistic programme’ in the current critical situation of the Dalits and even discarded the belief held by many Christians that ‘the present upheaval is going to result in an influx of the Depressed and Backward classes into the Christian Church’ (p. 79). It, however, affirms ‘Mass Conversions’ of the Depressed and Backward classes in the past as ‘mainly the outcome of the desire for social justice and all-round uplift’ in which ‘the Christian Church has succeeded in helping large sections of converts from these communities to a higher standard of life . . . and to real transformation in the life and character of individuals and groups belonging to these classes’ (p. 79). The document closes with two statements of faith that it firmly holds in connection with the Christian role in the uplift of Dalits. The first one says, Christianity will continue to exercise the attraction which it has always had for the poor of the land…. Men and women, individually and in family or village groups, will continue to seek the fellowship of the Christian Church. That is the real movement of the Spirit of God. And no power on earth can stem that tide. It will be the duty of Christian Church in India to receive such seekers after truth as it is in Jesus Christ and provide for them instruction and spiritual nurture. (p. 80)
The second affirmation upholds that ‘the task before Indian Church is to permeate the ideology and outlook of the land with a genuine respect for the teachings of Jesus and a willingness to accept his leadership in all that concerns personal happiness and national well-being’ (pp. 80–81). In reading the document, an outside reader may come away with the notion that it is a Christian statement immensely influenced by Gandhi’s thought and that Gandhi would acclaim it. Nay, Gandhi repudiated the document and titled his response ‘An Unfortunate Document.’ Calling the authors ‘patronizing,’ he treated them with deep suspect and said, ‘They would not be aggressive for the sake of expedience.’ Furthermore, ‘The purpose of the manifesto,’ he said, ‘is not to condemn unequivocally the method of converting the illiterate and the ignorant but to assert the right of preaching the Gospel to the millions of Harijans’ (p. 82). Would he always be dissatisfied if one does not condemn the conversion of Dalits? Locating ‘the key to the manifesto’ in the last two points we have quoted above, he said, ‘these few sentences are a striking instance of how the wish becomes father to the thought’ (p. 82). It seems as if any positive or permissive mention of ‘Mass Conversion’, let alone affirmation, pricked his conscience negatively. Who is patronizing in this debate? Cannot one have the liberty to state and profess his or her belief? Did not Gandhi do that even more so?
Concluding Observations
What led Gandhi to such a strong objection to conversion? How are we to interpret his antipathy toward Christianity and Christian missions? Gandhi’s basic objection to conversion is clear. Because he insisted that all the great religions of the world are equal, there is no point in changing from one to the other. He concluded his response to Paul and the Federation of International Friendship mentioned above by saying, I believe that there is not such thing as conversion from one faith to another in the accepted sense of the term. It is a highly personal matter for the individual and his [or her] God…. For I regard all the great religions of the world as true at any rate for the people professing them as mine is true for me.
70
Gandhi might have thought his statements were quite definite, but when one lays out his various statements, there are questions left unresolved. If he insisted that because all religions are equal and there is no ‘question of comparative merit,’
71
why did he use such a comparative language in stating ‘Why I am a Hindu’? To quote his words, Believing as I do in the influence of heredity, being born in a Hindu family, I have remained a Hindu. I should reject it, if I found it inconsistent with my moral sense or my spiritual growth. On examination I have found it to be the most tolerant of all religions known to me.
72
He then went on listing the qualities of Hinduism. Among the superior quality of Hinduism, he included ‘its freedom from dogma,’ its inclusiveness, and that non-violence ‘has found the highest expression and application in Hinduism’ (which includes Jainism and Buddhism). Gandhi gave himself the freedom to examine religions and to make his choice. He gave himself the option ‘to reject’ or to remain in Hinduism, but could not give the same option to others especially the depressed classes (or Dalits) whom he called Harijans.
How then do we sum up the contradicting viewpoints between Gandhi and the Christians on conversion especially of the Dalits (and by implications, of the tribals)? Sudhir Chandra concluded that Gandhi carried ‘the tension between his aversion for and acceptance of conversion’ 73 throughout his life and never ‘resolved the issue . . . in his mind. . . . Though the matter was never resolved,’ he continued, ‘Gandhi’s argument tended to be more often against than for conversion.’ 74 It is also important to note that he viewed the whole issue from the emergent reformed Hindu viewpoint in the context of the national struggle for freedom and selfhood. As I have mentioned elsewhere, what Erik Erikson called Gandhi’s ‘dialectic problem’ is crucial in understanding him. To quote Erikson, ‘[Gandhi] had to call for a rapid modernization of awareness and aspiration and yet also to acknowledge and even preserve those aspects of the ancient social structure which alone could provide irreplaceable elements of a traditional identity.’ 75 Tradition and modern, or to use Clifford Geertz’s terms, ‘primordial’ and ‘civic,’ met in Gandhi. He skillfully utilized (by somewhat modernizing) primordial sentiments to achieve modern political success. 76 Gandhi’s main goal was to claim Indian ‘national’ self-dignity against colonial rule, for which he gathered its cultural strength by appealing to its traditional identity. It is in this context that his critical stance against Western Christianity represented by British colonial rulers and missionaries has to be located. In the vulnerable political and cultural condition of his struggle against imperialism where he defended Indian selfhood (Swaraj) by building its self-sufficiency (Swadeshi) against the impending Western cultural overtaking of its traditional values, Christian missions in general and Christian conversion in particular were nothing but menaces for him. From such a viewpoint, Gandhi looked at the issue of conversion to Christianity with deep suspicion. This suspicion blinded him from seeing, inter alia, the native initiatives and their importance in the mass movements, their spiritual genuineness, the Christian missionary focus on caste Hindus and its ignoring of Dalits, and the positive impact conversions had realized in the life of the Dalits.
When it comes to Dalit mass conversions in particular, the contradiction between Christian understanding of the movements and Gandhi’s is more than a matter of interpretation, but a conceptual contrast. Gandhi’s anthropological concept on the ‘Harijans’ was ridiculous and unacceptable for Christians. He could not believe that ‘Harijans’ were capable of anything spiritual, and suspected their conversion to be purely the result of material inducement. On the other hand, Christians claimed to have seen the transformation of Dalit communities as a result of their conversions. While giving him every respect as the nation’s ‘mahatma,’ Christians have every reason to disagree with him. One should also recognize that Gandhi’s disapproval and denigration of the missionary practice of conversion forced Christians to be prudent in their understanding of conversion and practice of mission.
Footnotes
Funding
The final form of this article comes out of the research done as ‘scholar-in-residence’ at the Crowther Centre for Mission Education, Church Mission Society, Oxford in February 2010.