Errors of Omission and Commission on Religious Freedom

- Dr. Ramesh N. Rao

The questions that Indians and Indian-Americans should be asking is how the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) selected the panel to present before it evidence of or arguments about religious freedom in India (The USCIRF held hearings on religious freedom in India and Pakistan, on 18/9/2000. One of those asked to testify was Prof. Ainslee Embree). Embree, professor emeritus at Columbia University and formerly Professor of History and Director of the South Asian Institute at Columbia University, and editor of the revised edition of the celebrated Sources of Indian Tradition (1988), and Religion and Nationalism in Modern India (1990) also served as the counsellor for cultural affairs at the American embassy in Delhi and special consultant to Ambassador Frank Wisner. Embree’s India connection began, as he says, when he “was looking for something interesting to do”, and a friend who had served as a missionary in India told him that the Indore Christian College, which had been founded by the Canadian Church, was looking for someone to teach European history.

One can argue that his vast experience on matters Indian was what the Commission was drawing upon. He makes the usual complimentary and even laudatory references to the Indian democratic spirit and the Hindu ability to accommodate, and the necessary adulatory comments on Gandhi and Nehru. What should be noted, however, are which of his political and religious biases led to him making the following remarks:

“Muslims in India have long complained of discrimination and oppression, but the attacks on Christians are new and for that reason frightening to the small and relatively isolated communities in which they live” (p. 1).

Embree, like most newspapers reporting the attacks on Christians or the murder of Staines and his two young sons, did not note what an India Today (R. Banerjee, “Desperate acts of faith”, India Today, 30/3/1998) story reported: that the missionaries were “on an overdrive, apparently following the call made at the state pastors’ seminar in Cuttack in November 1996 to ‘win Orissa for Christ by 2000 A.D.’”! The India Today report noted that churches “of all shapes and sizes have sprung up in most areas of the state in recent years. For instance, on both sides of National Highway 43 between Saunki and Nowrangpur and the state expressway between Parlekhemundi and Mohana. The state already boasts of 90 Christian missions and over 8,000 churches”. To top it all, local Christians had begun referring to Krishnapur as Krishtopur (after Christ). With society and culture so being undermined by fanatical Christians, Hindu organisations responded by organising yagnas to reconvert those who had left the Hindu fold. It is important here to note the sequence of events. If a cause/effect relationship has to be established the report in “India Today” establishes one clearly.

As the report notes, “the state is a perfect hunting ground for religious zealots because it has an illiterate SC/ST population of 38%”. Though the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, prohibits conversions by inducements, “the Government has rarely cracked the whip. In 1993, for the first time, a superintendent of police booked 21 pastors in Nowrangpur for breaking the law. But he was transferred immediately as many, including a sizeable section within the administration, were outraged by his boldness”.

Prof. Embree ignores in his presentation the “historical context” of Hindu-Christian rivalry. For example, the anti-Indian activities of Christian missionaries before independence sowed doubts about missionary activities later. K. Gupta, writing in The Observer of Business and Politics, 30/1/1999 says that in Sept. 1919, the Christian Missionary Review described Gandhi as an ‘extraordinary casuist’, an ‘unscrupulous and irresponsible demagogue’ responsible for the disturbances in Punjab the previous year. Urging India’s colonial masters to ‘adequately’ deal with Gandhi’s ‘egotistical mysticism,’ the Christian Missionary Review said that unless putdown, Gandhi and his nationalism would emerge as ‘one of the dangerous phenomena of present day politics in India’.” Much of the Christian rhetoric these days echo similar language and sentiments, but instead of Gandhi being the target it is the RSS and the Sangh Parivar.

Nor does Embree has anything to say about the Niyogi Commission Report of 1956.( Embree, in an earlier commentary, says the “RSS was allegedly instrumental, for example, in having a commission appointed in Madhya Pradesh in 1954 to investigate Christian activities” (Embree, “The function of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh: To define the Hindu nation”, in M.E. Marty and R.S. Appleby (Eds) Accounting for Fundamentalisms. The University of Chicago Press, 1994.) The Christian Missionary Activities Enquiry Committee was appointed by a resolution of the Government of Madhya Pradesh No. 318-716-V-Con., dated 14/4/1954. The Commission was appointed because a number of issues regarding conversions and proselytization were raised.

It was represented to the government that conversions of illiterate tribals and other backward people was effected by Christian Missionaries either forcibly or through fraud or temptations of monetary gain. The Government was informed that feelings of non-Christians were being offended by conversions through such methods. The Christian Missionaries repudiated before the Government these allegations and charged local officials and non-Christians of harassment. The state Government found that an agitation was growing on either side, and it considered it desirable in the public interest to have a thorough enquiry made into the whole question. Dr. M. Bhawani Shankar Niyogi, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Nagpur was appointed chairman. The Committee included Prof. S.K. George, representing the Christian community, Ghanshyam Singh Gupta, Ex-Speaker, Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Ratanlal Malviya, Member of Parliament, B.P. Pathak, Secretary to the Madhya Pradesh Government, Bhanupratap Singh Giri Raj Singh Deo, Member of Parliament, and Seth Govind Das, Member of Parliament.

The findings and conclusions of the Committee included the following:

Deliberate policy of International Missionary Council to send evangelistic teams to “areas of special opportunities opened to the Gospel” by the constitutional provision of religious freedom in newly independent nations. Enormous sums of foreign money flowed into the country for missionary work. These funds were used for proselytisation. Conversions were mostly brought about by undue influence and misrepresentation. In spite of assurances given by foreign and national missions to authorities, Missions used to serve extra religious ends by indulging in indirect political activities. Conversion muddled the convert’s sense of unity and solidarity with his society, and that there was a danger of his loyalty to his country and State being undermined. Vile propaganda against the religion of the majority community which resulted in breach of public peace. Evangelisation in India appeared to be a part of the uniform world policy to revive Christendom for re-establishing Western supremacy and was not prompted by spiritual motives. The objective was apparently to create Christian minority pockets with a view to disrupt the solidarity of non-Christian societies and the mass-conversion of a considerable section of Adivasis with this ulterior motive was fraught with danger to the security of the State. Schools, hospitals, and orphanages were used as means to facilitate proselytisation. Tribals and Harijans were the special targets of aggressive evangelisation. Allegations of discrimination against Christians had not been established. Such allegations were an old established Mission policy to overawe local authority.

Disclaimer