New agency PTI reported that Justice Sarang Kotwal said: “The title of the CD, Rajya Daman Virodhi itself suggests that it has something against the State while War and Peace is about a war in another country. Why you (Gonsalves) were having books and CDs at home? You will have to explain this to the court.” 

War and Peace, first written in Russian in 1869 and later translated into English in 1899, is known as world masterpiece. Tolstoy, great author, thinker had influenced number of people across the spectrum through this work, and continues to do so. Nobody could have imagined that this book would be objected as ‘anti-State’ material ever anywhere. But Pune police did.

Interestingly, the Pune Police is completely unaware that this world classic was translated into Marathi and published by the Maharashtra Government in 1977!

NewsClick has a copy of this translation published by ‘Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskruti Mandal’ (Maharashtra State Literature and Culture Forum). The book was translated by AN Pednekar in 1977. The copy of the book clearly mentioned that it is published by the ‘Secretary’ of the said forum and published at ‘Mantralaya’ in Mumbai, the state’s administrative headquarters! 

This book is also has an introduction by none other than Lakshmanshastri Joshi, who was a Colossus-like figure in Maharashtra’s political, social and cultural life, and one of the most influential thinkers that the state has produced.

Activist Vernon Gonsalves at his residence, 2018

Joshi was chosen as an advisor against untouchability by Mahatma Gandhi himself. When Gandhi was imprisoned at Yerwada Jail in Pune, Joshi used to give him references and inputs from Veda and Smriti (Hindu literature) against untouchability.

In his introduction, written on June 16, 1977, to the translated book, Yuddha Ani Shanti, Joshi mentions that “to make Marathi language rich with the world’s best literature, the forum (Literature Culture Forum) has chosen the most important 300 books in first series.” War and Peace by Tolstoy was one of them!

Before objecting to the possession of this book, the least Pune Police could have done is a little bit of homework that the book is considered one of the highly respected literary creations in the world today and is also a widely acclaimed in Marathi.

First published in Newsclick.
 

The post War and Peace’ in Marathi was published by the Maharashtra Govt. in 1977! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Christian priest who has won three journalism awards, received public recognition for tireless social work and been lauded for his contribution to Marathi literature? A man who inspired a citizen’s movement against the goonda–cum–builder lobby at the green tip of Mumbai? Meet Father Francis D’Britto 
 

​Vasai village is located about 75 kilometers north of Mumbai city stretching from Bhayander creek at the south to river Vaitarna confluence at the north. This coastal green belt covering 25,000 acres of land is called Vasai–Virar sub–region. This fertile, wooded and green region, north of Mumbai, has been tradition-ally protected by the designed development plans during colonial and post–Independence governments. 

However, in August 1988 the government of Maharashtra, with the stroke of a pen, converted this green belt into a residential zone, without any provision for supportive infrastructure. Citizens of Vasai, activists dedicated to sustainable development, genuinely feared that in the wake of the execution of these short-sighted changes made in the plan the environment, structure, topography and demography of this region would be adversely affected. But, predictably there was no voice of discontent whatsoever raised from established political parties, or any other public interest institution.

Around this time, a former municipal commissioner of Mumbai, also voiced public concern about the so–called altered development plan for the Vasai–Virar sub–region, through an article in the Marathi daily, Loksatta. The Marathi monthly Suvarta then took up the issue, breaking local silence with an article, voicing concern about the consequences of this hasty, re-prioritising of the project which was primarily motivated by vested interests, with the powerful builders’ lobby in mind. It was not easy speaking out on the issue, there was an all–prevalent fear of the politician–builder nexus that had terrorized local persons at the time. With little local support at the time, on April 1, 1989 Fr. D’Britto who edits Suvarta, called a meeting of eminent people including politicians and social workers from various walks of life; the response was mixed.

Those opposing the changes to the development plan came together and the Harit Vasai Saurakshan Samiti was born. Thereafter began a systematic concientising programme, with Fr. D’Britto moving all over Vasai, spreading information and knowledge about the issue. A mammoth gathering of 35,000 people on October 1, 1989, was the culmination. 

The meeting was addressed by Vijay Tendulkar, noted Marathi playwright, Kisan Mahta, renowned environmentalist, RV Bhuskute, a former tahsildar of Vasai and Fr. F. D’Britto, the convenor of Harit Vasai Saurakshan Samiti. Keeping in mind the protection of the greenery and provision of proper infrastructure, a complete revision of the plan was demanded by the Samiti. 

Predictably, the supporters of the builders’ lobby initiated a counter-agitation, which created confusion and uneasiness among the people. Also, the official stand of the Church on this issue was quite obscure. Initially, there were differences among lay Christians, residents of Vasai and the Church on the issue. Eventually, after the continued persistence and commitment of the samiti, that had begun appealing to people on principles of greater common good, proper infrastructure, agriculture, preservation of flora and fauna and water–logging problem, the Church hierarchy also lent support to the movement.

There were more challenges before the movement. In the 1990s, new housing colonies were mushrooming on both sides of Naigaon, Vasai, Nala–Sopara and Virar railway stations. In the absence of government provided tap water, people had to depend on ground water. But due to the close proximity of this area to the creek, the ground water was very saline and non–potable. The builders had started extracting potable ground water from the Vasai–Virar green belt to meet this purpose. 

Increasing salinity in the ground water in this area as a result of this, had begun damaging agricultural produce. It was the HVSS that studied the situation and invited a scientific body of experts to determine the water table and degree of salinity. 

Among them were: 1) AFPRO – Action For Food Production, Ahmed-nager, 2) Coopers & Lybrand, London, 3) Bombay University, department of geography, government of Maharashtra, 4) Thane Zilla Parishad Land Survey.

The results of the survey proved the fears of the HVSS right, after which an agitation against the tanker and builders lobby was initiated. However, the local politicians supporting the builders, started harassing the peasants of the area. In its report dated May 20, 1991, The Times of India  stated: “The Christian population of the Vasai–Virar region is being terrorised by groups of toughs, allegedly let loose by local politicians and builders… The unprecedented and unprovoked violence against innocent people has its roots in the agitation against the overuse of wells in the Vasai–Virar green belt. The villages in the green belt, which are showing the first signs of a water scarce area, have a largely Christian population. Over the last few weeks, women in the area had begun a movement to prevent the ‘irrational’ use of their well water which is transported to the newly developed urban area mostly for construction work.”

Finally government officials intervened. Ministerial level discussions were held where HVSS was represented. As a result the tankers were banned from withdrawing water from the Vasai–Virar green belt. It was a clear victory for the Harit Vasai Saurakshan Samiti. 

Another attempt to impose another draft of the development plan for Vasai, this time by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), newly appointed as the Planning Authority for Vasai–Virar sub–region in 1990, was resisted by the HVSS. In September the same year, CIDCO presented an interim draft development plan for the area. HVSS studied the plan in detail and realised that, again, it was detrimental to the environment of Vasai–Virar area. In their plan CIDCO had proposed huge holding ponds and dumping grounds within existing residential areas in the green zone. This could cause untold harm to the health of the residents.

Once again the Harit Vasai Saurakshan Samiti protested against this plan. On January 26, 1992, a huge gathering of 1,00,000 people was held at Vasai grounds after which 1,00,000 protest signatures were collected and presented to the governor of Maharashtra, P.C. Alexander and to the then Prime Minister, VP Singh in New Delhi, who promised to look into the matter personally. CIDCO had to make alterations in its subsequent plans  whereby the green belt would be preserved.              

The post A people’s priest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Like Saibaba of Shirdi, Moin–ud–din Chisti of Ajmer and Ayappa of Sabarimalai, the devotion to Fr. Agnel unites all faiths and communities

 
Overlooking the bay at Bandstand in Bandra stands a landmark commonly known as Fr. Agnel Ashram. To the thousands of devotees that throng the shrine week after week, it is an isle of solace and succour from the grind of city life and its attendant problems. If one were to visit the place on a Sunday, one would be surprised to find a motley crowd comprising of almost every religious denomination in the country fervently praying as one family.  

Agnel Baba, as his devotees fondly call him, has carved a niche for himself in the secular pantheon of modern India. Like Saibaba of Shirdi, Moin–ud–din Chisti of Ajmer and Ayappa of Sabarimalai, the devotion to Fr. Agnel unites all faiths and communities. The weekly services are held in Gujarati, Tamil, Marathi, Konkani, Hindi and English to cater to the spiritual needs of his diverse following.

Who is this charismatic Agnel Baba? Born in 1869 at Anjuna, Goa, Agnelo D’Souza was an archetypal Goan Catholic born and brought up in the faith under the colonial Portuguese rule. His piety and intense spirituality made him an ideal candidate for priesthood. After being ordained a priest, he set about his vocation with ardent fervour and lived a saintly life serving the least of his brethren. 

He died at the age of 58 having collapsed immediately after preaching his last sermon. But myth followed the man. His saintly bearing and selfless service caused him to be remembered long after his death. Soon reports of miraculous happenings trickled in. People began to turn to him in distress. Cures and other favours were attributed to his intercession.

Then public acclaim pushed the Church to begin the process for his canonisation as a saint. As an interim step, he has been declared Venerable and his cause is under process by the Holy See.

Though Fr. Agnel was a non-controversial ‘Servant of God’ as he was called, the religious society to which he belonged has been in the eye of a storm since the last few decades. It is a quirk of fate that brought together his almost defunct Society of Pilar with one solitary active member and the founders of the New Society in 1939.

​Conceicao Rodrigues and Francisco Siquiera were two young seminarians being trained for priesthood at the Rachol Seminary in Goa. These young men had a dream to establish a missionary order that was dedicated to India. It must be remembered that at that time, the Portuguese missionaries had established their presence in India. The prophetic words of Pope Leo XIII served as inspiration to them. The Pope had said, “Your own sons, O India, will be the heralds of your salvation.”

This was the birth of their endeavour to start an Indian Missionary Society for the evangelisation of their motherland. The term “evangelisation” has been a subject of controversial interpretation for some time. The four disciples of Christ — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — were called the “Evangelists”. They followed Christ during the course of his ministry and recorded his words and acts for posterity. The New Testament is a compilation of the written works of these four called the gospels. 

The term evangelise has been defined in numerous ways. While the most acceptable would be “spreading the message of the gospels”, the methodology adopted for doing so is varied. To some, it means distributing Bibles to those who have never heard of Christ before. To others it means preaching the message of Christ. To the radicals it might mean converting the “non–believers” to the Christian faith. To the liberation theologians, it would mean identifying with the struggling masses to bring about salvation from material want. The definition keeps evolving depending on the needs of the times and the predisposition of the Church leaders of that epoch.

To the founder of the New Society, Frs. C. Rodrigues, the term evangelisation of the motherland held a different significance. According to Fr. C Rodrigues, “conversion” or proselytisation was not the object of evangelisation. 

To quote him: “This missionary concept, besides being genuine and apostolic, opens new perspectives to the missionary apostolate. The missionary, free from the preoccupation of “conversion”, gives himself with redoubled ardour to the evangelisation of all his parishioners, Catholics or non–Catholics. He sees to their education, opening schools wherein the knowledge of the Law of God is imparted to them. He interests himself in their social uplift establishing co-operatives and institutions of social assistance and strives against injustice and oppression.  

‘It is our endeavour to foster respect for all faiths and encourage people to work together unitedly to remove social injustice’ – Agnel Ashram

He does not exclude them from his creches, orphanages, asylums, hospitals and other works of beneficence. He teaches them the Word of God, the ten Commandments, the virtues, illustrating them with the examples of saints and heroes from Hagiology, also from history and tradition, in organised conferences, taking opportunity for promoting meetings of common interest, as theatres, cinemas, cultural conferences, through good press; in private conversation; he visits them and does not miss the occasion to get acquainted with them.  

On this basis the missionary will not be held as a minister of an alien religion but a minister of God, an exemplary custodian of morality, a benefactor of humanity, a social worker and an intimate friend of every home”.  (Cfr. V. Ixtt. July 17, 1954).

With this vision of service to country and people, Fr. C Rodrigues set about his mission. The going was tough. It was most difficult to convince the authorities of the need for a new Indian religious order, the first of its kind. Persistence paid.

On July 2, 1939, the founders founded the new Society of Pilar and established a new constitution with a new charisma and mission. During the first 10 years, they set up 12 elementary schools, 1 middle school, 5 orphanages, 6 health centres and 6 rice banks at Nagar Haveli. The society had its own press and published 50 different publications, two of which were its own periodicals. The editor of these two publications was Fr. Conceicao Rodrigues — Vaurad-deancho Ixtt, a bilingual weekly in Konkani and Portuguese and India, a monthly magazine in English. 

Through these periodicals, Fr. Rodrigues took up the defence of various causes of social justice such as fair wages, casteless confraternities, housing etc. However, there was one issue on which the periodicals maintained a stony silence — liberation of Goa from Portuguese rule. 
While all the others in Goa toed the official line, these two refused to publish even the official press communiqués issued by the Portuguese government. This earned the ire of the censors and Fr. C Rodrigues was a “marked man”. This policy continued till 1954 when the authorities in Goa got tough. To quote Fr. Rodrigues, “The real motive of my leaving Goa is public knowledge. When the India Legation in Portugal was closed, there were protest meetings in Goa, public speeches, telegrams and a press campaign denouncing the “imperialistic aims” of Nehru and other Indian leaders.

Our paper did not give prominence to these events. Two successive deputations were sent to us with a diatribe against Nehru and other Indian leaders to be published. I did not yield and politely refused to publish.”

With no support from the Church hierarchy, that was heavily biased in favour of the Portuguese rulers, Fr. Rodrigues had no option but to flee to Bombay. His confreres in the Society however stood by him. In fact, the editorial policy of Vauraddeancho Ixtt held firm, until the government in 1961 suspended its publication.

In 1957, the Fr. Agnel Ashram at Bandra was established. In a manuscript he expressed these feelings, “Once out of Goa, freed from the shackles of slavery and oppression of the foreign dominators, in Bombay, I started breathing the pure and dignifying breeze of independent India.”
The liberation of Goa in 1961 did not bring a change of heart in ecclesiastical circles in Goa. With their allegiance to Portugal, many shared the belief that Indian civilisation and culture were inferior. This was anathema to Fr. Rodrigues.  He strongly believed in the unity of the nation. India had remained united for centuries despite its diversity of languages, castes, religions and kingdoms. He believed there was a common ethos that united India. The sages and bards of yore had walked through its villages inculcating these values, inspiring and giving birth to its great epics enshrining these values. Fr. Rodrigues believed that the Society had a mission of cultivating and nourishing these values.

However, this was not the happy ending. In order to break the resolute will of the “nationalist priests”, the government in league with certain sections of the Goan hierarchy tacitly began promoting and funding dissension within the Society. This led to a split in the Society in 1977. Despite laborious efforts towards reconciliation, the schism remains till date. The Pilar Society and the Agnel Ashram Fathers are the two factions caused by colonial manipulation with the active support of a partisan hierarchy.

However, the Agnel Ashram Fathers have grown by leaps and bounds. What began as a Technical Trade School at Bandra has matured into the famous Agnel Technical School. The Fr. Conceicao Rodrigues College of Engineering is one of the most prestigious in the city. The Bal Bhavan, housing 70 orphans and the Community Polytechnic, imparting technical training to the rural youth have made their mark.

The Agnel Ashram is the only Christian society in the country to run three engineering degree colleges, 4 polytechnics, 4 orphanages and various other services. The Bal Gram at Goa is a children’s village that helps children grow in tune with nature. 

The latest addition is a multi–storeyed Bal Bhavan at Noida, Delhi that can accommodate over 150 orphans. Interestingly, while being shown around the campus, this writer noticed a little recess in the wall in every room of the Bal Bhavan. On inquiring about its utility, he was informed that this was the children’s “mandir” that accommodated the different deities that the inmates wished to worship according to their own religions!  A lesson in secularism for the little ones.  This year the Agnel Seva Ashram was inaugurated at a function addressed by Swami Agnivesh, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and Fr. Francis D’Sa. The object of this movement is to bring together people of all faiths to work for the common good and appreciate and understand the different religious faiths.

The road ahead is tough, but the Agnel Ashram Fathers are resolute in their mission.      

The post Agnel Baba, ‘Servant of God’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

Courtesy: Shutterstock

The misgivings caused by the Vatican Declaration Dominus Iesus in September notwithstanding, the Catholic Church cannot go back on the spirit of inter-religious dialogue and mutual respect enkindled by the Vatican Council II in the early 1960s

The Catholic Church’s theology, as expressed in Vatican Council II (1962–’65), represented a paradigm shift. This showed in the way that the Church perceived itself and the attention that it paid to other religions, human freedom and historical consciousness. The Church had arrived at a new self–understanding that distanced itself from a triumphalism that was often associated with a pre–Vatican II Christianity. However, with the appearance of the Vatican Declaration Dominus Iesus (DI) — made public on September 5, 2000 — many feel that a pre–Vatican II theological perspective is being resurrected. 

While the timing and tone of DI have raised certain fears about the future of ecumenism, it is good to remember that such a document cannot supersede the teachings of the Council. Before attempting to understand DI it will help to know what Vatican Council II affirmed in its documents about the relationship of the Church towards other religions. We shall then reflect on some of the questions raised by DI and comment on them.

The practice of religion usually suggests a way of life that includes beliefs, moral imperatives and sacred rites supported by an underlying faith in God. These elements unite persons and are meant to bring peace, harmony and deep human fulfilment to their lives. The unifying force of religion is based on the understanding that God is the origin and goal of all peoples on this earth. 

Such an understanding is also the basis for different religions working with each other in collaboration and not in competition. When dialogue became the buzzword at Vatican Council II, the official Church was aware that a paradigm shift had occurred in the way the Catholic Church would view other religions. 

The document that reflected the new thinking was Nostra Aetate (NA), the declaration on non–Christian religions. Its text has the following passage: “All men form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because
all share a common destiny, namely God” (NA 1). 

It is a fact of experience that people of different faith persuasions exist side by side in our world and benefit each other by living out the genius of their own particular religion. In our own country, we can find religious persons who live in closeness to nature and thus enter the realm of the spirit; others fix their hearts and minds on the absolute by refraining from making images of the divine. Still others practise asceticism and give themselves to ritual observances with the hope of communing with the divine. 

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflects a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.” (NA 2).  Further on, Catholics are exhorted to “acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths” which are found in other religions. We may rightly conclude that more than mere tolerance is connoted in the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding other religions.
Tolerance demands that one party live with another without harming or hurting the other. But tolerance is not enough for building community. Hopefully, tolerance will give way to respect for the other and finally to a mutually enriching dialogue. Harmony among different religions supposes that religions are in dialogue with each other. In such dialogue, a sharing of values, understand-ings and concerns occurs so that a deeper God encounter takes place in both the dialogue partners. 

The result of authentic dialogue is a transcending of the positions with which the dialogue partners began. Dialogue that is used for the sole purpose of imposing one’s own point of view on another is not authentic dialogue, but a manipulating strategy. When Pope John Paul II visited India in November 2000, he pointedly confirmed dialogue “as a characteristic mode of the Church’s life in Asia” (Ecclesia in Asia, no. 3), thus confirming what Vatican Council II had initiated.

Vatican Council II in which the official Catholic Church declared its positive assessment of other religions began a new era in the life of the Catholic Church. The beginning of a new historical consciousness led it to acknowledge the ways of the divine in those religions practised by the vast majority of people in the world.

For the first time in 20 centuries, the Church clearly recognised God’s presence in the lives of those who did not belong to the Catholic confession and a clear directive was given to Catholics to act in accordance with the new understanding. In Gaudium et Spes (GS), the Vatican II document dealing with the Church’s relatedness to the world, the Council states that God saves those who are not baptised members of the Church, in a manner known to him (GS 22).

In her teaching, the official Catholic Church upholds the right of a person to follow the religion of his/her choice. In Dignitatis Humanae (DH), the Vatican II document on religious liberty, the following is stated: “The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others”(DH 2). 

Although the Catholic Church and her members are convinced of the truth of the Christian faith, they are obliged to uphold the right of all to follow the religion of their choice. In fact, after Vatican II, some predominantly Catholic countries were obliged to change their laws in order to offer all their citizens the freedom to practise and profess publicly the religion of their choosing. 

But it has taken centuries for the Catholic Church to change her attitude to other religions and accord them recognition and respect. In the fifteenth century a Council of the Church could still assert that no one who remained outside the Catholic Church, “not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics or schismatics” could partake of eternal life. This view was the logical outcome of the oft-repeated position: “outside the Church there is no salvation”. 

For the first time in 20 centuries, the Church clearly recognised God’s presence in the lives of those who did not belong to the Catholic confession. 

Today, the official Church does not teach that the unbaptised are lost. In fact, the Church accepts that God saves persons even when they are not found within the visible confines of the Church. Among the many new teachings that Vatican II offered, the one found in Lumen Gentium (LG), a document specifying the nature of the Church, has been of particular significance for grasping how salvation comes to persons who are not members of the Catholic Church. 

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation” (LG 16). 

We can rightly conclude that the teaching from Vatican Council II viewed the relationship between Christianity and other religions as positive and beneficial. Secondly, such teaching admitted that persons outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church could be saved. Thirdly, the Council acknowledged the God–given right of every person to choose and follow his/her own religion. 

In the light of the official teaching that was enunciated in Vatican II, an understandable surprise greeted the appearance of the Declaration Dominus Iesus (DI). Was DI aimed at the Indian theologians, as Cardinal Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, suggested? No, one is quite sure. The document claims that it does not teach anything new, but merely presents “the principal truths of the Catholic faith” in areas where “confused or erroneous ideas and opinions” are found.

Can a Catholic discern positive and helpful elements in such a document? He/she can, for DI is an official pronouncement of the Catholic Church having “a universal magisterial nature”. For instance, DI underlines the obligation of the Catholic to share his/her Christian experience of God with all those who look for it. This has always been a legitimate concern of the Catholic Church although it has sometimes used objectionable means to achieve the end. 

DI also reminds the Catholic that Jesus Christ remains the central focus for the Christian and the ultimate norm for his/her way of life. DI rightly questions a lackadaisical approach to religion that looks for the lowest common denominator in appreciating the merits of one religion from those of another. 

Seriousness in the matter of choosing one’s religion is expected of a person who is making a faith commitment to God. DI asks Catholics to respect the contents of the Church’s faith when fashioning responses to the pressing needs of contemporary culture (DI 3). 
Yet, one wonders why DI portrays the sharing of the Christian experience of God only from the standpoint of the mission texts found in Mark 16:15-16 and Matthew 28:18-20 (no. 1). These texts conjure up visions of colonial conquests and campaigns of the conquistadors! Would not such sharing be better illustrated by listing references in Matthew 5:13-14, where the Christian is called to be the salt that seasons or the light illumining the world; or Matthew 25:34-40, which points out that service to the needy makes one a member of God’s kingdom; or John 13:35, where Jesus proclaims that loving another person is a sign of being his disciple?

One can also agree that a believer  finds the religion of his/her choice uniquely suitable for making his/her faith commitment and consequently for obtaining salvation.     

Mother Teresa made this point very correctly when she said: “I like all religions but I am in love with my own.” Hence, for the Christian, Jesus Christ is unique and makes a total claim on him/her. 

But it is not clear how one can view beliefs present in religions other than Christianity as the product of mere human effort (DI 7). And yet, DI itself concedes that God “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expressions even when they contain “gaps, insufficiencies and errors’” (no. 8). Further, DI would need to justify its claim that the “followers of other religions” even if they can receive divine grace “are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of means of salvation” (DI 22). It is difficult to understand why DI would want to make such pronouncements about the religion of another.

The Catholic in India is deeply committed to the person of Jesus as found in the apostolic faith of the Church. But he/she is also aware of God’s presence in the other religions that must be respected and reverenced. This awareness is the fruit of firsthand experience from living with those of other religions. 

The task of the Indian Church is to proclaim the Christian experience as a response to the real needs of people. The Church must not give cause to view this task as a threat to other religions. Hence, Catholic theologians in India living in the midst of religious pluralism continue to theologise in a way that is truly Christian and authentically Indian. 

The Church’s official teaching today cannot go back on what was proclaimed and promulgated in Vatican Council II. Whatever be the misgivings that occur because of the style and expression in DI, those of other faiths must know that the spirit of religious dialogue enkindled in Vatican Council II cannot be extinguished.            
—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Christian contribution

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Colleges and Vocational Training Schools    (Total: 292)
(Catholic Church –182, Church of South India-28, The Lutheran Churche-24, The Church of North India-34, The Methodist Church – 17, The Mar Thoma Church – 6, The Seventh-day Adventist Church – 1)
Junior Colleges    (Total: 170)
(Catholic Church – 168, The Seventh-Day Adventist Church – 2)
Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools     (Total: 3,614)
(The Catholic Church – 3,074, The Church of South India – 203, The Lutheran Church – 92, The Church of North India – 193, The Mar Thoma Church – 29, The Seventh-day Adventist Church – 15, The Salvation Army – 8)
Pre-Primary and Primary Schools and Village Schools  (Total: 11,801) (The Catholic Church – 8,733, The Church of South India – 1,896, The Luteran Church – 484, The Church of North Church – 198, The Mar Thoma Church – 135, The Salvation Army – 102)
Technical Training, Industrial and Agricultural Schools  (Total: 1,127) (The Catholic Church – 1053, The Church of South India – 65, The Lutheran Church – 2, The Church of North India – 26, The Mar Thoma Church – 7)
Teacher Training Schools   (Total: 15) (The Church of South India – 12, The Lutheran Church – 3)
Training College  (Total:1) (The Lutheran Church – 1)
Day and Boarding Schools  (Total:108) (The Methodist Church – 108)
Lower Schools  (Total: 150) (The Seventh-Day Adventist Church – 150)

SOCIAL WELFARE INSTITUTIONS
Hostels   (Total: 3,403).  (The Catholic Church – 2719, The Church of South India – 338, The Church of North India – 158, The Luteran Church – 110, The Methodist Church – 50, The Salvation Army – 18, The Mar Thoma Church – 10)
Orphanages   (Total: 1,645)
(The Catholic Church – 1,320, The Church of South India – 282, The Luthean Church – 33, The Mar Thoma Church – 10)
Dispensaries   (Total: 1,875). (The Catholic Church – 1716, The Church of South India – 109, The Church of North India – 11, The Lutheran Church – 19, The Salvation Army – 20)
Primary, Community and Rural Health Centres  (Total: 49) (The Lutheran Church – 15, The Seventh-day Adventist Church – 34)
Hospitals   (Total: 883). (The Catholic Church – 679, The Church of South India – 67, The Church of North India – 54, The Lutheran Church – 29, The Methodist Church – 8, The Salvation Army – 16, The Mar Thoma Church – 18 The Seventh-day Adventist Church – 12)
Homes for the Aged and the Destitute  (Total: 321). (The Catholic Church – 309, The Lutheran Church – 8, The Mar Thoma Church – 4)
Leprosaria    (Total: 276) (The Catholic Church – 276)
Rehabilitation Centres  — Leprosy  (Total: 240)  (The Catholic Church – 154, The Church of South India – 41, The church of North India – 11, The Lutheran Church – 3, The Methodist Church – 10, The Salvation Army – 13, The Mar Thoma Church – 8)
Natural Family Planning Centres (Total: 58) (The Catholic Church – 58)
Social Welfare Centres  (Total: 279) (The Catholic Church – 276, The Mar Thoma Church – 3)
Creches  (Total: 136) (The Church of South India – 136)
Adult Education Centres  (Total: 4) (The Lutheran Church – 4)
Schools for the Blind  (Total: 3) (The Lutheran Church – 3)
Social Service Centres  (Total: 25) (The Methodist Church – 25)
Psychiatric Centre    (Total: 1) (The Methodist Church – 1)
Children’s and Women’s Homes (Total: 41) (The Salvation Army – 41)

ECONOMIC/FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Employment Bureaus  (Total: 36) (The Catholic Church – 36)
Farm Colonies  (Total: 3) (The Salvation Army – 3)
Cooperative Societies and Banks (Total: 228) (The Catholic Church – 228).

The post Wedded to the catholic value appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Why has the life and work of Ramabai and, more importantly, her critique of society been marginalised from mainstream history which otherwise is more than generous to the great men (and occasionally women) school of history? Ramabai had all the elements required for a ‘great’ character: she was articulate, learned, confident and forceful — a woman who got considerable media attention when she first burst upon the public arena in the 1870s.
 
Men of the nineteenth century, both reformists and traditionalists who had been waxing eloquent on the ‘glorious’ position of women in ancient India, suddenly found an embodiment of such womanhood in the person in Ramabai. Welcomed and feted in Calcutta in 1878–79, Ramabai was soon honoured with the title of ‘Saraswati’ for her learning and eloquence, not just in any ‘vernacular’ but in Sanskrit (from which women had been traditionally excluded) — an apt title that was soon to become ironic. 

The goddess Saraswati is associated with learning but also with vac (speech or voice). Unfortunately, as Ramabai was to discover, unless this voice or speech tied into what men wanted to hear and what they themselves were saying, it was regarded as dissonant. Ramabai’s critique of Brahmanical patriarchy and her decisive break with its oppressive structure through her conversion to Christianity were too much for those for whom nationalism was synonymous with Hinduism. Ramabai became at best an embarrassment and at worst a betrayer. 

Her marginalisation then is not the mere consequence of gender bias in history, although that certainly accounts for a part of it. It is not merely an obscuring, an invisibilising, as is commonly the case with women, but a suppression. Our task then is not just to retrieve forgotten histories but to explore the histories of suppression.

That Ramabai’s absence from dominant history is not a case of forgotten history but a case of suppression is evident from accounts of Annie Besant, whose life and work invariably find mention in any history of modern India. In many ways Annie Besant’s life was a counterpoint to that of Ramabai and was probably perceived as such. 

Before Annie Besant came out to India she had been an active member of the women’s suffragette movement. Once she was in India she threw herself into the task of the spiritual and national regeneration of the country. The nation’s regeneration itself was inextricable from a revival of Hinduism. Within a few years of her arrival in India Annie Besant established herself as an outstanding revivalist of Hinduism in south India as she held forth vigorously on the ‘glories’ of ancient and modern Hinduism. 

What is significant is that reform itself was irrelevant in her national and spiritual revivalist agenda. Hindu culture was ‘blessed’ in her view and needed no major changes. The chief target of her ridicule, especially in the late nineteenth century, was the social reformers whose influence she regarded as ‘debilitating.’ The impact she had was tremendous, the more so because here was a cultivated European woman outlining the virtues of Hinduism in all its facets as she besought Hindus to avoid the pitfalls of so-called western advancement and revere their own culture. 
The newly constituted English–educated elite fraught with ambivalent feelings about themselves and their society found it most reassuring that a member of the ruling race was vigorously defending Hindu society. Annie Besant’s defence of Hindu society and civilisation enabled this class to exorcise any sense of guilt they might have especially in relation to the low status of women in their own families and in the wider community. 

Further, as she idealised many controversial practices, including celibate widowhood by a refusal to sanction widow marriage, her sex, her eloquence, her antecedents and her nationality, all worked together to undermine the basis for social reform which a section of the educated elite had begun to recommend.

Over the years Annie Besant revised her position on reforms to some extent but continued to speak and write fervently about Hinduism, with nationalism and Hinduism being intertwined in her social and political agenda. Her approach to women’s issues remained cautious and in her later years she concentrated her energies on building up the Theosophical Society and on the Home Rule Movement. 

Despite the changes in her position on the need for reform Annie Besant continued to be associated in the minds of men with her pleas for a revival of Hinduism and for the foundation of nationalism as lying in Hinduism — ‘Without Hinduism there is no future for India,’ as she put it?
An important facet of Annie Besant’s career both in England and in India is that like Ramabai’s it was deeply controversial. But what needs to be noted is that unlike Ramabai, in the final analysis, the controversies around Annie Besant were not of the kind incapable of being accommodated within the dominant nationalist discourse in history, whereas in the case of Ramabai this appears to have been impossible. 

Ramabai crossed two Lakshman rekhas: first, she mounted a scathing critique of Brahmanical patriarchy at a time when even contemporary male reformers were shying away from confronting its structure; second, as a high–caste Hindu widow herself, she ‘chose’ to become a Christian, ‘betraying’ her ‘religion’ and thereby her ‘nation’ in the eyes of nineteenth century Hindu society. Not just that, she had led other high-caste Hindu widows to do likewise. 

Ramabai’s choice represented an audacious challenge to men: a widow was regarded in nineteenth century Maharashtra as someone who should retreat into the dark spaces even within the confines of the home. That such women could choose to accept a new religion and a break with the faith of their kinsfolk was seen as outrageous. Henceforth Ramabai symbolised a threat to the moral and social order of the kind of nationalism being forged by Hindu nationalists. 

It was not without reason that Ramabai was regarded as having betrayed the nation; such a label masked the power relations which determined what the political and social agenda within nationalism should be. It was not an agenda which could include a critique of patriarchy, or of Hindu social institutions and religious practices, when it was voiced by a woman publicly and one who had opted out of the faith and customary practices of her ancestors.

The difference in the way in which Ramabai and Annie Besant have figured in historical writing in both the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as well as now indicates that there has been an easy conflation not only of nationalism with Hinduism but more importantly of Christianity with colonialism. There is a latent assumption that in opting for Christianity Ramabai and others had accepted the religion of the rulers and had therefore become ‘compradors’ and were complicit with the colonial presence. 

Such an assumption is both simplistic and motivated. The mere existence of a relationship between Christianity and colonialism is not enough to treat Christianity automatically as the handmaiden of colonialism. That there were some shared ideological positions is evident but it needs to be noted that there were also major moments and points of tension between the colonial administration and the Christian missionaries. 

More importantly, for those who were potential or actual ‘converts’ were Christianity and colonialism the same thing? Did acceptance of Christianity mean the acceptance of colonial relationship or of western dominance over indigenous people? There is no reason to accept such assumptions without an analysis, which has hardly been undertaken, of the many facets of Christianity in India. It is unlikely that such a lacuna is likely to be filled in the near future given the obsession with ‘colonial discourse’ which is currently dominating historical scholarship. 

Practitioners of discourse analysis are unwilling to explore pre-colonial structures or to dismantle colonialism itself into its constituent elements. In practice, therefore, such a view ties in with the agenda of Hindu nationalism both in the past and in the present.  

(From the preface to The Life and Times of Pandita Ramabai, By Uma Chakravarti, Kali for Women, 1998).

The post Censored History appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ruth Manorama, herself a part of the Dalit Christian Liberation movement and founder of Women’s Voice and the Dalit Women’s Federation, Bangalore, spoke to Teesta Setalvad on the issue of caste within the Indian church and the un-addressed plight of Dalit Christians.

What about the question of Dalit Christians and women among them?
Of the 20 million Christians in India today, some 160–170 million are Dalits. However, the power within the Church still lies with the upper castes that control all the institutions of better education. So, it is true in a sense that the Church in large part has remained within the control of the upper castes.

Has conversion of Dalits to Christianity liberated them significantly from their earlier plight?
The legacy of the missionaries has alleviated large sections of the most marginalised sections but the endogamy within the Church has remained. Progressive forces from the Christian Dalit liberation movement — of which I am a part — have been working hard to revolutionise the Church and reaffirm its missionary zeal which has always been present in service and justice, not just for the rich but also, for the poor.

However, while critiquing the Church we must always remember that the critical mass of the Church’s functionaries have always worked guided by the philosophy of love and justice. That is part of their faith, as they understand it, guiding them to areas no one else goes.
In the field of education, health and other social sectors, Christian contribution is enormous. In running thousands of institutions for the aged, the infirm, leprosy homes, child-care homes and homes for single women, women’s hostels, too.

For the missionaries who are dedicated to this service, imparting education and running educational institutions itself is evangelism, running a hospital is itself an act of evangelism, going to far-off areas and setting up a health clinic, is evangelism. And for them, the love of Jesus has shown them this way.

Besides, there is a lot of dialectic within the Church. Do you know that women and men within the CSI and Lutheran and Anglican churches have struggled for the right to get women ordained as priests? Today, the Lutheran and Anglican churches in India have ordained their women. This has not happened in the Catholic Church, unfortunately. It is within the Catholic Church, especially, that nuns and sisters need to be liberated from the hierarchy that is rigid and often unsympathetic to their dedication.

The dedication of these nuns is second to none. They go to remote areas where not even a mosquito would go, driven by their mission, giving education and health services to sections are the most uncared for. But the Church that ought to be providing the necessary shield and umbrella is being defensive. The Church needs to stand up and talk the truth and speak out, openly. It needs to awaken, show more solidarity to its sections that are being threatened. It is time for the church to stand up.

You began your career working within the Church but have now moved to more radical pastures…
I began my career working within the church institutions, by getting trained in community organisations, imbibing the radical methodology of Soul D’Alinsky, and later the Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire — to conscientise the poor for the their liberation. 
While students in the Christian schools were initiated to involve themselves in services of the less fortunate, many of the theologians and activists within the Church were inspired not only by the scriptures but also by a Marxian analysis of society. This coincided with the time when our country was also pursuing the Russian model of socialism.

The liberation theology pursued by the radical Indian churches in the seventies and eighties has inspired many young people of the time. It also helped us to ask the Church very uncomfortable sections related to position, status, power and sharing of resources, distribution of resources and wealth.

Where does the Dalit Christian issue stand today?
The issue of reservations for Dalit Christians remains a key issue when we are struggling for liberation. There is no difference at all between the conditions of the Dalit poor and the Christian poor. Our real task is to get the discriminatory Presidential order of 1950 repealed. Why is the Church evading this critical issue that is important to 75 per cent of Indian Christians?

Would you say that conversion to Christianity has met the expectations of the sections that converted to escape the scourge of caste and untouchability?
Conversion has liberated large sections from the scourge of untouchability, yes. However, it is also a fact that in many parts of India, the Church itself could not escape the clutches of the Hindu caste system. Which is why we have the Syrian Christians, the Goa Brahmin Christians, and grossly discriminatory practices within the Church. Why? Because the Church did not take it’s own theology very seriously, and also because it was not able, or did not want, to address the deep-rootedness of the scourge of caste. After the missionaries left, sections of the Indian Church got sucked into the caste system that catered only to the rich. 

Are there attempts within the church to rectify this?
This is now being analysed and addressed, thanks in so small part to the Dalit Christian liberation movement. What we must not forget, however, is that many Hindus converted themselves to various religions to escape the agony of the dreaded, treacherous caste system and the agony of untouchability. Conversion was and is the most available form of awakening for the most downtrodden in the Indian context.

Internally, these large conversions brought a lot of problems to the Church because the new converts, the idealistic pastors, began asking questions, demanding radical and more equitable approaches from within the Church itself.

The conversion issue is being whipped up by communal outfits in the context of brutal attacks on Christian religious persons and institutions. As a Dalit Christian what do you have to say on the issue of conversion? 
Even in the face of these brutal attacks and violence led by communal forces, the Church should not be defensive on the issue of conversion. It is still the way out of oppression for hundreds of thousands of our people. 
Look, it is the sheer humanity and stupendous success behind the work of Indian Christian institutions that motivates the current attacks. The Church should resist these attacks and speak out firmly. Christian schools and institutes of higher education are producing the best minds, leaders in their fields. Besides, education in Christian institutions comes with a life ethic of caring, justice and compassion that is missing elsewhere. 

The Church is afraid to speak out but why should it be? Under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, you have the right to practice and propagate your religion; this is part of individual freedom and personal liberty and it cannot be taken away. Put this in the context of the Indian socio-economic reality where caste is the major source of lived discrimination; if our work by it’s mandate take us to these sections whom no one is looking at, why should we be defensive?

The Church is being unnecessarily defensive. The role of the church has been decisive, it has been a major contributive factor in the building of our nation and it should assert this as such. The Indian Christian has not been committed to anything other than peace and justice.

The post ‘Power within the Church still lies with the upper castes’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.