Organised Christianity, a fraud played in the name of Christ?

Himself an atheist, the English philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his book "Why I Am Not A Christian", asked what the true meaning of being a Christian was.

The gist of his question was whether to be a follower of Jesus meant being a good, truthful and god-fearing (in its most honest sense) human being or was it merely to follow a set of age old dicta.

Russell in all likelihood used "Christian" as a blanket term for organised religion. So the question obviously is universally applicable.

In the context of Christianity, which this article is concerned with, it becomes pertinent to ask that question as it has often been accused of being used as a tool of social engineering and furthering the numbers-game of an ecclesiastic institution rather than bring solace to mankind as claimed by most of its proponents.

Christianity in India is a case in point.

Going by legend, the onset of Christianity on the Malabar Coast, seeds of which were famously laid by the blessed St Thomas by pin-pointing flaws in rituals practiced by Namboodiri Brahmins, itself is flawed.

Little realising that Hindu rituals are mostly symbolic - or perhaps knowing it very well and hence using subterfuge – he played on the Brahmins' ignorance of their own religion to make inroads into the subcontinent, using that most widespread of all rituals: baptism.

A Hindu-dominated country, India harboured Christ's followers since the days when the religion had not even reached Europe and, even lesser, the Americas. Antagonism for the cross arose only with the advent of aggressive missionary activity during British era.

The Goa Inquisition didn't do a great favour either.

So, in a nutshell the cause for animosity boils down to that one practice – (aggressive?) conversions - a Semitic trademark.

It brings us to the fundamental attitude of Christian philosophy with regards to non-Christians: "Our religion is the sole path to His kingdom. Every other alternative is flawed!"

Now, when one of the basic tenets of Christianity is that all God's creatures are equal, isn't that attitude incongruous?

Or is it that non-Christian's are expected to demurely admit that all "believers" are first among equals like people who claim `In God they trust'?

Further, it would not be wrong to say that in the discourse between missionaries and non-Christians there is little philosophy and depth than use of rose-tinted imagery of the Christian west, tall metaphysical claims and inexplicable and ridiculous miracles, apart from monetary and other material trappings.

In simple terms, they appeal to the baser senses and not higher ones.

And this leads us to the fact that they appeal to mostly to the lowest strata of Hindu hierarchy – Dalits and tribals – both least educated and thus least enlightened in the society.

Most anti-conversion laws passed by Indian states – particularly those in Tamil Nadu – claim to target the `fraudulent' means of influencing vulnerable sections.

Now, if missionaries do not indulge in malafide methods for conversions what do they fear?

Isn't the concept of a Dalit-Christian, a negation of Christ's ideals? The "Pariah" Church of Kerala is a slap on the face of the Son of God.

Lal Jose's Malayalam movie "Achhanurangaatha Veedu" (2006) made pointed observation about the distinction between the Pentecoastal Church and "higher" denominations, noting that the former was a congregation of "dark" Christians and the latter of "fair" ones.

Was it pure love for humanity and grandiose designs to better the lives of tribals that brought Graham Staines and his family all the way from Australia to India, leading to his indeed abominable murder by Hindu fanatics?

If yes, perhaps he should have chosen a much easier and less risky route to God by tending to the " Stolen Generation" - the Australian Aboriginal children forcibly removed from families by the government and church denying the rights of parents between 1900 and 1969.

Meanwhile, the Church in India shows traits of a typical MNC giant.

Why is Christianity consciously projected as being synonymous with Western values and culture, even though the West, let alone the Vatican, has nothing to do with Christ?

Why are preachers/missionaries invariably in elegant ties, suites and blazers and not in a dhoti?

For some inexplicable reason the "Father" in mainstream Indian cinema – the most influential of the country's media - is always the calm, upright and benevolent soul, clad in white.

Vinod Pande's "Sins" (2005) sparked a furore when that holier than thou image was tampered with.

And yet Kerala-based evangelist M G Mathew had enough vitriol in his book "Haqeeqat", where he made claims like:

1. "Sita was abandoned in the forest as per Ram's wishes... Ram later asked Lakshman to kill Sita. In the end, Ram frustrated with life, drowned himself in Saryu. Such are the teachings of half-naked rishis who are praised by Hindutvawadis." (Page 100)

2. "(Lord) Krishna had a despicable sex life." (Page 391)

The state government, according to Wikipedia, has uncovered evidence of the Baptist Church of Tripura's support to National Liberation Front of Tripura, a violent separatist group that has attacked and killed Hindus in the region and has banned Hindu festivals by force.

The machinations reached a crescendo recently when temple authorities at Tirupati Tirumala in Andhra Pradesh found missionaries promoting the gospel inside the temple premises, allegedly egged on by a significant Christian section among employees of the devaswom board (as reported by NDTV and Indian Express in July, 2006)!

Why is it that no Church of any denomination, who claims to be righteous in its activities and upright in its conduct, has uttered a word against these and other instances of contrivance?

Further, does the Church approve of the unabashed drivel shown by the likes of Miraclenet and God TV? If not, why is no voice is raised?

Apart from deftly marketing the religion, the Church also seems to spearhead the spread of insecurity among native believers by raking up controversial issues where there are none.

The recent "Da Vinci Code" issue, for instance, was a point in case.

On a mere political level, what was the aim of the protest against the movie – screened without as much of a whimper in Christian countries?

More importantly what is wrong if Christ was married and showed traits of a human being?

A true Christian's (The author himself claims to be one thanks to the space provided by Hinduism) love and respect for him should leap manifold if Christ did all that he did being a mere mortal, clearly showing that his kind of "miracles" are not beyond human reach.

But alas, the Church faced with this kind of thinking is, ironically, exactly like the Roman Empire faced with Christ's ideas.

Blasphemous?!

History's little drops of poison

Communalism has been alive and kicking in India ever since the arrival of the Europeans... India has been invaded by several armies through millennia... but these invasions were viewed through the religious lens... Invasions by Muslim chieftains like Chengiz Khan, Mahmoud of Ghazni and others were just part of life during those ages...

Because, within India too Hindu kings invaded each other regularly, and plundered and looted each others' wealth. So those rampages by Muslim armies were not given the communal hue by natives... They were just another set of looters and invaders.

But things changed with the arrival of the Europeans, and if I may add, the accompanying Christian missionaries. The reason why I think so is simple. The Europeans arrived with the idea trade and then graduated to creating captive markets and raw material sources. This later acquired hues of racism, brought about by the brutal use of gun powder to subjugate the natives.

The moment the Indo-European relationship inculcated identity issues, there arose the need to in racial comparison and subsequently the need to show the White as superior... Thus began a systematic and diabolical programme of reinforcing identities along with generous doses of inferiority complexes and insecurities (Kipling's "White Man's Burden" et al.).

In the Indian context, this process was accompanied by the need to split the society into smaller parts so that each could be handled sperately. Religion was the easiest available social unit that could be seprated into meaningful entities. "Divide and Rule" was born.

This is not to say that Muslims did not carry the sense of superiority or Hindus were devoid of it. The imposition of Jaziya by most Muslim kings proves otherwise. But almost always they were minimal measures to split the society. And almost always the goal was to bring about a harmony in -- be it by the Mughals or Tipu Sultan or various artistes (Ghalib, Faiz, Khusrau, Kabir et al)... they all sought to evolve a syncretic culture...

Like almost everything in this country, the Indian polity has inherited divide and rule in unhealthy measures too.

After the British policies led to the country's dismemberment in 1947, India took a more courageous, long-sighted and sane path as compared to Pakistan. Yet, despite Nehru's unflenching, dedicated and visionary approach towards democracy, secularism and liberalism, the one misake he committed was not breeding leadership in the Congress--perhaps the one and only bastion of the ideals of India's founding fathers.

Lack of leadership--the Nehruvian variety--led the way to his daughter Indira getting into his saddle. Though cast in the same secular, patriotic dye as her father, Indira lacked his democratic vlaues. She shunned criticism, destroyed opposition, sought ultimate control.

It is not surpising that the deterioration of the Congress into a bootlicking party, decaying of the process of appointment of Congress chief mininsters in the states, seeping of corruption into the Indian judiciary etc coincide in their timing with Indira's rise.

While this was happening to the Congress and its spirit, it was the communal forces that were gaining. 1975 could be considered the watershed year for Indian secularism when Indira, with the Congress's deterioration into an autocratic entity, succumbed to the temptaions of emergency and within two years the rightwing, cobbling up a rag tag coalition with the Congress rebels, for the first time made their presence felt in Indian politics.

Ever since it has been a cat and mouse game of who outmaneuvres the other in religious pandering, often nuanced, often not. The rise of Bhindrenwale in Punjab, the devastating effects of the Shah Bano case, the attempted counterbalancing move of opening up the Babri Masjid for the rabid Hindus etc have acted like individual drops of poison.

The populist version of the Hindu righwing's ideals--The Ramayana and the Mahabharata--were "benevolently", and inadvertantly if you please, transmitted via airwaves by the Congress on Doordarshan! But what has exacerbated the communal atmosphere of India are the global changes.

With the unleashing of LPG forces, Indians, as any other nationals, got sucked into the churning of identities that accompanied LPG in 1991 (actually mid 1980s). With an already heavy plate of various communal "starters", the "maincourse" of globalisation simply overawed India.

And, as in the case of almost all other nationals, many Indians began to find refuge in their traditional identities. Hindus being the overwheming majority in India did the biggest damage by getting on to this bandwagon of hardening identities.

Today every aspect of history is looked at by many Indians as a religious issue.

J N Dixit once rightly said, "India is secular because of its Hindus."

If majority Hindus cease to be genuinely secular in future, we can say goodbye to India as we know it.

I may have omitted several issues and for that reason whatever I have written may sometimes feel disjointed or illogical and even biased... Its purely my understand, which itself is, I hope, still evolving...