ANTI-CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE IN PARTS OF INDIA
In perspective
Christians form
about 2.5 per cent of India’s presently-estimated population of around 950 million.
The largest concentrations of them are in the State of Kerala in the South and in the
States of Nagaland, Mizoram and Megalaya in the North-East. They are in a majority
in these three States of the North-East . Sizeable numbers of Christians (Catholics)
also live in Goa and Pondicherry. A much smaller number live scattered amongst the
majority Hindu population in the rest of India.
The Syrian Orthodox
church is the oldest in India. The other denominations came later. The Orthodox
Christians constitute the largest single group in the Christian community of Kerala,
with the Catholics following behind. Presbyterians / Baptists are in a negligible
number in Kerala, but in a majority in the North-Eastern States.
The contribution of
the Church and the various Christian organisations in India to the spread of education has
been immense. Thanks to these organisations, Kerala has the highest percentage of
literacy amongst all Indian States. In the other States, some of the best
educational institutions are run by Christian organisations.
The majority of
their students have always been Hindus. Colleges like the Loyola (Catholic) of Tamil Nadu
and Andhra Pradesh, the Christian (Protestant) and St.Joseph’s (Catholic) of Tamil
Nadu, the St.Xavier’s (Catholic) of Mumbai and the St.Stephen’s
(Protestant) of New Delhi have had a legendary reputation in India for the high
quality of their educational standards and discipline.
Any Hindu student,
who had the privilege of passing through the portals of these institutions (like this
writer himself), would vouch for the fact that never once during their stay in these
institutions was an approach made to them to embrace Christianity or even to read the
Bible.
During the first
two decades after India’s independence, the majority of the top 20 successful
candidates in any Civil Service examination for recruitment to higher Governmental
responsibilities were Hindus who had been educated in Christian institutions. The number
has since declined due to the coming into being of other good institutions run by
non-Christian organisations.
However, many of
the higher educational institutions run by Christian organisations still maintain high
standards and, in recognition of their objective evaluation of the students’
performance without being influenced by considerations of religion, caste, money, social
status etc of the students, State Governments such as that of Tamil Nadu have given them
the deemed university status, that is, autonomy in decision-making and evaluation.
In relation to
their much larger number, the percentage of educational institutions run by Hindu
organisations which have established a similar reputation for objectivity of
evaluation without being influenced by extraneous considerations of religion, caste,
language, money, social status etc is much smaller.
There is no
discrimination against Christians in India in the matter of education, recruitment to the
armed forces and civilian Government services and appointments to the highest and the most
sensitive Government posts. The present Defence Minister of India is a Christian, who
started his career as a priest, but later gave up priesthood and entered politics.
Some of the pilots of the Air Force, who distinguished themselves for bravery during the
Indo-Pak war of 1965, were Christians. Christians have held many senior and
highly sensitive posts such as the Chiefs of Staff of the Air Force and the Navy ,
the head of the Central Bureau of Investigation, India’s equivalent of the FBI of the
US, head of the division responsible for the Prime Minister’s security, member of the
Election Commission etc.
The Indian Constitution and
laws do not bar any citizen from aspiring to any office in India, however high or
sensitive, because of his or her religion, caste or language. What is more, Indian public
opinion has never exhibited prejudice against the aspirations of any minority group to
occupy any post.
During 50 years of
India’s independence, one Sikh and two Muslims have held the high office of the
President of India. During India’s war with Pakistan in 1971, which led to the
creation of Bangladesh, the officer who headed the Indian army was a Parsi, the smallest
amongst the minority religious groups, the officer who led the assault on the then East
Pakistan was a Sikh, and his No.2 was Jewish.
At the height of
the Pakistan-sponsored insurgency in Kashmir in the early 1990s, the army and the Indian
Administrative Service officers who, as Advisers to the Governor, co-ordinated the
counter-insurgency operations were Muslims—one from the South and the other from the
North.
The Indian
Constitution and laws grant unrestricted freedom of religion and the laws except in Madhya
Pradesh and perhaps Orissa do not prohibit conversion.
India has
recognised the Vatican and allowed the Holy See to set up its diplomatic mission in New
Delhi. The Indian Ambassador in Rome is concurrently accredited to the Holy See. India
recognises the papal appointments of the high functionaries of the Catholic church in
India.
Compare this with
the US, Germany, France and the UK. Even though their laws too do not prohibit any citizen
by birth from aspiring to the highest office, US public opinion could not accept
till 1960, almost two hundred years after its independence, a Catholic as the President;
no Catholic or Jewish person would stand a chance of becoming the head of State of
Germany; no Protestant or Jewish person would similarly stand a chance of becoming
the French President; and if Prince Charles marries a Catholic, he will have to give up
his right of succession.
No member of a
minority group—and particularly no Afro-American—has ever been appointed to head
the CIA, the FBI and the Secret Service, which is responsible for presidential security.
Compare India with
the Islamic world (other than Malaysia and Indonesia). Religious conversion from
Islam to other religions is banned in all Islamic countries, but not the other way round.
No non-Muslim can be chosen under the law as the Head of State and can aspire to senior or
sensitive posts. Pakistan has about 2 per cent Hindus, almost the same percentage as the
Christians in India. Have you ever heard of a Hindu or a Christian holding even middle
level posts in the Government, not to talk of senior posts? In the entire 50- year
history of Pakistan, one Hindu rose to the rank of a Brigadier in the Army. That is all.
He too was kept out of non-administrative, sensitive responsibilities.
Compare India with
China. Beijing has refused to recognise the Vatican and its right to nominate the high
functionaries of the Catholic church in China. The reason is partly political—the
Vatican’s relations with Taiwan—and partly religious—the perceived need to
maintain the independence of the Catholic church in China.
Can President Jiang
Zemin name a single Muslim of Xinjiang or a single Buddhist of Tibet or Mongolia or,
for that matter, a single non-Han from any part of China who has ever held any important
or sensitive post either during the 50 years of communist rule or even during the pre-1949
KMT regime?
Beijing has imposed
on the Tibetan Buddhists a State-sponsored Panchen Lama after arresting the legitimate
Panchen Lama chosen by the Tibetan Buddhists in accordance with their religious
traditions. And it is waiting for the Dalai Lama to die so that it could similarly impose
a State-sponsored successor on the Tibetans.
In the Muslim
majority Kashmir and in the Christian majority North-Eastern States, no person from
outside the province from any other part of India can acquire land. This restriction has
been imposed to protect the rights of the sons of the soil. Can anyone anywhere in the
world cite a similar legislation under which a majority community, at its own volition,
has imposed on itself restrictions on the right to acquire property anywhere in the
territory of the country in order to protect the minorities?
Thus, nowhere else
in the world have the Constitution, the laws, the political leadership and the public
opinion been as generous to the minorities as in India.
Why then the
alleged Hindu-Christian tension and periodic incidents of violence in some pockets
of India inhabited by Christians? In some instances, the violence has been by some
sections of the Christian population which took to insurgency against the administration
as in Nagaland and Mizoram while in other instances the violence has been by some sections
of the Hindus against the Christians as seen recently in some pockets of Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh and Orissa.
In analysing this,
one can straightaway exclude Kerala , which has had no history of Hindu-Christian
violence.
Nagaland has been
affected by intermittent insurgency since the 1950s and Mizoram was affected by a similar
insurgency for 20 years since 1966, but peace has been restored during the last 10 years
through a negotiated settlement between the Government of India and the Mizo insurgent
leaders.
Recent incidents of
violence in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa have been projected and
over-dramatised by the media, Christian organisations and sections of liberal
intellectuals in such a way as to create a wrong impression as if anti-Christian violence
was sweeping across India. Only the demonstrations by these groups are sweeping across
India and not violence against Christians.
The violence
against the Christians has been confined to some very small pockets in these three states
and the violence has taken place not because Gujarat is ruled by the BJP or Madhya Pradesh
and Orissa are ruled by the Congress (I), as the political parties in their urge for
partisan advantage, are trying to make out. The violence has taken place because these
provinces have a large number of tribals living in compact areas just as the
majority of the population of Nagaland and Mizoram are tribals.
In analysing this,
one has to keep in mind the nature of the tribal society ,the distrust evoked in the minds
of sections of the Indian population by their perception, right or wrong, of the
alleged role of foreign Christian missionaries in the large-scale conversion of the
tribals of the North-East under British rule and in encouraging the insurgency against the
administration and fears, real or imaginary, of a similar situation developing in the
tribal belt of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, if one was not careful.
Till Christianity came to
the North-East, the tribals did not belong to any organised religion. They were animists
or nature worshippers. The tribals of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa are
similarly animists.
The tribal culture,
whether of the North-East or of these three states or even of North Myanmar and Northern
Thailand, is marked by four common features—a love of pork and alcohol, equality of
gender relationship and a relaxed, permissive (the word permissive is not used in a
pejorative sense) attitude to sexual relations.
Thus, Islam with
its strict prohibition of all these features could never make any headway in the tribal
societies of India, Northern Myanmar and Northern Thailand. In India, this left the
field open for the advance of Christianity and Hinduism. Since Hinduism itself did not
encourage conversion drives, the Western –mainly American--Christian missionaries,
under British rule, undertook a systematic conversion of the tribals of the North-East,
with official encouragement.
This conversion
drive was not confined to the North-East. It was also extended to the Kachin State and the
then Chin Hills Special Division of Northern Myanmar and the Karen-inhabited areas of
Southern Myanmar. Between the two world wars, these areas underwent a total transformation
from a belt of largely animists to one of Christians.
An interesting
point to be noted is that though these conversions took place with British encouragement,
most of the missionaries and funds came from the US. Even today, an objective analysis
might indicate that most of the funds for Christian missionary and humanitarian work come
from the US and, to a limited extent, from Germany. Contributions from other Western
countries would, in comparison, be small.
Despite the long
spell of British rule in India and the conversion drive in the North-East, the British
Anglican church has little presence in the North-East.
One should resist
the temptation to compulsively look for sinister explanations for this. A plausible and
benign explanation is that the Americans as a people are more God-fearing than the West
Europeans and give more generously for religious and humanitarian causes, whether they be
in the US or outside. Possibly, their income-tax laws also play a role in this.
After the outbreak
of the Second World War, this conversion of vast tracts of the animist belt into a
Christian belt acquired, in the eyes of the West, a strategic importance as an effective
way of stopping the advance of the Japanese towards India through the Karen, Kachin
and Chin areas.
For this purpose,
large sections of the tribals of our North-East, of Northern Myanmar and the Karen
areas of Southern Myanmar were trained by the British in arms and ammunition and it is
these trained Christian tribals who took to insurgency after the departure of the British
from the area in 1947 (from India) and 1948 (from Myanmar).
Despite her
charisma and determination, Aung San Suu Kyi has not been able to make any headway in her
pro-democracy movement in the rural areas of Myanmar because the rural Buddhist population
of lower Myanmar suspects that she has been propped up by Western elements and
the Christian organisations which created the original divide between the
Christians and the Buddhists. Even though she is a devout Buddhist herself, this
perception of her dependence on these elements has denied her the expected support in the
rural areas.
To understand
further the distrust in the minds of sections of the Indian population about the role of
foreign missionaries, one has to study the use of the missionaries by Western intelligence
agencies before, during and after the Second World War.
After its creation
in 1947, the CIA made extensive use of the American missionaries working amongst the
tribals in the Yunnan province of China for intelligence collection and for organising a
resistance movement against Communist rule. These missionaries used to co-operate not only
with the CIA, but also with the KMT intelligence.
After the capture
of Yunnan by the Communists in 1950, the KMT troops in Yunnan crossed over into the Shan
State of Myanmar. By taking advantage of the absence of Myanmarese army control over
Northern Myanmar, these troops, supplied by air by the CIA from bases in Thailand,
continued to organise raids on Chinese army posts in Yunnan.
In this, they
received valuable help from the Lisu tribes , who are found in Yunnan and in the Kachin
State of Myanmar. American missionaries, who had been active converting these tribes to
Christianity since the 1930s, played an active role in rallying these tribes in support of
the KMT troops.
The PLA managed to
defeat these KMT troops in 1967-68, after which these missionaries moved over to the
Kachin State of Northern Myanmar. When the Myanmarese army, worried over their activities
in its territory, tried to arrest them, they crossed over into the Vijaynagar area in the
Tirap District of Arunachal Pradesh in India and then went to the Chiangmai area of
Northern Thailand.
While these
missionaries, who were already in their 70s at that time, are now dead, many of their
children, who had married Lisu boys/girls and grand-children, who have also taken to
missionary work, have since then been working amongst the tribals of Northern
Thailand.
Amongst the reasons
why insurgent groups of our North-East prefer to use Thailand and the Philippines as
a base for their activities are the easy availability of arms and ammunition in the
smugglers’ market in Thailand and Cambodia and their ability to remain in touch with
the American missionaries in Northern Thailand and the Philippines.
Some of these
missionaries help the insurgent leaders by getting them foreign travel documents and
hospitality, meeting the expenses on their travels to Geneva, New York and other places to
draw international attention to their grievances and arranging meetings with officials of
international organisations.
The use of
sections of US journalists and missionaries in many countries by the CIA came to notice
during the post-Watergate enquiries into the functioning of the agency. Non-Governmental
opinion in the US strongly criticised this and called for a ban on such use.
President Carter,
thereupon, banned the use by the CIA of US journalists and missionaries for its
operations. While the ban in the case of the missionaries was absolute with no exceptions,
in the case of the journalists, the CIA Director was empowered to use them on a case by
case basis, if there was no other way of protecting vital US national interests. The CIA
has been using this relaxation in Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea and Cuba. Even in the
case of the missionaries, the ban is only on the use of US and not non-US
missionaries.
Of the other
intelligence agencies, the French agencies were extensively using Catholic missionaries in
Indo-China and Francophone Africa. The MI-6, the British external intelligence agency, was
allegedly in touch with Rev.Michael Scott, who was active amongst the Nagas, and with the
late Phizo, the Naga insurgent leader, during his stay in exile in the UK. There have been
allegations of the involvement of Anglican missionaries from the UK in supporting
the Christian militant groups in southern Sudan and of the Portuguese missionaries in
backing the insurgents of East Timor.
India’s
experience with the undesirable activities of foreign missionaries in the North-East and
their suspected contacts with Western intelligence agencies, fears of a similar
transformation of the animist tribal belt of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa into a
Christian belt and of the exploitation of this belt to encourage feelings of alienation
against the administration impelled the then Governments of the Congress headed
successively by Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi to take notice of
these dangers and formulate a policy response which, while preventing any dangers of a
repetition of the North-East in the tribal belt of these three States, would at the same
time maintain communal and inter-religious harmony.
The policy response
consisted of the appointment in Madhya Pradesh of a commission with one of its members
chosen from the Christian community to enquire into the undesirable activities of foreign
missionaries in the State’s tribal belt, the enactment of a law in M.P. banning
conversions under certain circumstances such as paying money in return for conversion, a
close monitoring by the security agencies of the activities of the foreign missionaries
and of the way they spent the funds received by them from abroad.
While there have
been foreign missionaries who have done excellent humanitarian work amongst the tribals,
there were also others who had an axe to grind against the Government of India and
encouraged feelings of a separate identity amongst the tribals. Whenever such
negative instances came to notice, the Government used to call the missionary and politely
ask him to leave the country, without publicising the action.
Thus, concerns over
any undesirable activities of foreign missionaries, particularly in the tribal belts, have
always been there and are not a figment of the imagination of the present Government
in New Delhi. What was new was the way the present leadership and its party
cadres articulated the concerns in unwise and even provocative language and, instead of
continuing to discuss and handle this sensitive issue professionally at the highest levels
of the administration, took the issue to the streets and let it be articulated and
exploited for partisan purposes in a deplorably crude manner.
This has created a
public hysteria in certain pockets of the country, particularly in the tribal belts, and
led to cruel acts of violence against innocent Christians and their places of worship and
to the horrendous murder of the Australian missionary who had been doing excellent work
amongst tribals afflicted by leprosy and two of his three teen-aged children.
Instead of further
poisoning the atmosphere through allegations of international conspiracy against India
etc, it is high time we take this issue out of the streets and resume dealing with it as
in the past—professionally at the highest levels of the administration in a discreet
and low-profile manner. Undesirable temptations to exploit such issues for partisan
political purposes could further damage communal harmony in the society.
B.RAMAN.
31-1-99
(The writer is Additional Secretary (Retd) of the
Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, and presently Director, Institute For
Topical Studies, Chennai.
E-Mail Address: corde@md3.vsnl.net.in )
