Author: Kanchan Gupta
Publication: The Weekend Observer
Date: January 30, 1999
URL: http://www.secularindia.com/prophet_of_peace.htm
He is an "extraordinary casuist".
Unless stopped, his views will become a "dangerous phenomenon of present
day politics in India." His teachings can lead to "chaos and anarchy only".
His politics will lead to "mischievous consequences".
All this could well have been the
secularist brigade's criticism of Shri Ashok Singhal or Acharya Giriraj
Kishore of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Or Congress president Sonia Gandhi
berating leaders of the Sangh Parivar. Indeed, the outpouring of self-righteous
indignation that we read in newspapers and hear on television today, the
overflowing indignation of the Church and its newly sprung "human rights"
activists, is replete with such words and phrases.
But these words have been taken
from history. From cold print. From journals published by Christian missionaries.
Journals that still exist as evidence of missionaries, especially of the
Protestant variety, willingly allowing themselves to be used as instruments
of British rule in India. And the man referred to is Mahatma Gandhi, that
great apostle of peace and practitioner of Sanatan Dharma whose 50th death
anniversary is being observed today.
Gandhi's arrival on the scene had
greatly charged the nationalist movement and expanded the spread and scope
of the struggle against British colonial rule. Gandhi's philosophy of peaceful
resistance to colonial rule had found expression in the non-cooperation
agitation. This in turn set alarm bells ringing - the colonial establishment,
including the Church, was quick to realise Gandhi's potential. It retaliated
in full force, using its arsenal, including missionaries and their publications.
In September 1919, the Christian
Missionary Review fired the first salvo. A year later, the Christian Missionary
Review dropped all niceties and 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."
In fact, the murderous attitude
of the British in Punjab and the terrible fallout of the Rowlatt Act, found
ample support among the missionaries. Bishop Henry Whitehead not only supported
the Act but went on to denigrate the nationalist agitation against the
Act as a "striking illustration of the incapacity of a large section of
Indian politicians to face facts and realities, or to understand the first
principles of civilised government." We all know of the action of the "civilised
Government" so ardently backed by the missionaries - the massacre at Jallianwala
Bag.
Indeed, Ms Marcella Sherwood, speaking
on behalf of the Church of England Zenana Missionary Society and Rev Canon
Guildford, speaking on behalf of the Church Missionary Society, lauded
Gen Dyer's brutality, saying it was "justified by its results". The Christian
Missionary Review, describing Gen Dyer as a "brave man", said, absurdly
though, that his action was "the only means of saving life".
Another missonary publication, rather
disingenuously named The Young Men of India, heaped praise on Sir Michael
O'Dwyer, the Lt Governor of Punjab during those terrible days of bloodshed
and brutality by a ruthless colonial administration, saying that he was
"the strongest and best ruler the country has had in modern times." The
Harvest Field, also a missionary journal, was quick to point out that during
the nationalist uprising against the Rowlatt Act, Indian Christians were
not found "wanting in loyalty to the (British) Government." The International
Review of Missions was clear in its pronouncement that the means and methods
adopted by the British to put down the uprising in Punjab were neither
un-Christian nor a blot on British rule.
It is important that we understand
the import of the missionaries' view of the nationalist uprising against
the Rowlatt Act, their justification of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh,
their unrestrained praise for Gen Dyer. Those who saw nothing wrong with
drenching the ground of Jallianwala Bagh with the blood of Indian nationalists,
those who saw nothing "un-Christian" about the bloodshed, those who found
"loyalty to the British" in the cowardice of Indian Christians, could not
but have derided Gandhi and his non-violence.
For, Gandhi's unique contribution
to India's freedom movement, as also to freedom struggles in oppressed
nations across the world, Satyagraha, was considered "un-Christian" by
a majority of Protestant missionaries. The Christian Missionary Review
describing Gandhi's agenda as dangerous, predicted that it would lead to
violence, chaos and anarchy.
This view was seconded by The Young
Men of India. Commenting on Gandhi's freedom campaign fashioned around
the philosophy of Satyagraha, in March 1920, The Young Men of India wrote:
"Though Mr Gandhi may have satisfied his conscience as to its morality,
to plain common sense it means playing with fire, with the certainty that
if used with masses of Indian people, the fire will become a conflagration."
.
The Harvest Field, yet another missionary
journal, in its May 1921 issue, put on record its belief that "Mr Gandhi's
teachings" would result in "chaos and anarchy only." Gandhi, it said, had
brought a "sword to his beloved land."
"We have no animus against the man,"
said the Madras Christian College Magazine in October, 1921 - the best
way to rubbish a person, to inflict the most grievous wound, is to preface
the attack with "we have nothing against the man" - "but we have always
regarded the doctrines he has been preaching and the policy he has advocated
as pernicious." The Magazine, of course, had a pious purpose behind its
attack: to save India from the mischievous consequences that must follow
from their (Gandhi's doctrines) adoption." Such concern! Such piety!
But that was not all. The Madras
Christian College Magazine went on to offer a homily. All those who want
"peace and sobriety of life and progress," it urged, should reject the
"sophistry of non-violence". Let us recall these words when the current
president of the Congress today pays tribute to Gandhi as an apostle of
non-violence.
By 1922, the Madras Christian College
Magazine had dropped all pretensions. It declared that there was nothing
"positive or constructive" about Gandhi's programme of Satyagraha and that
his role till then had been "negative throughout". Gandhi, the Madras Christian
College Magazine added with a sweeping flourish, was "an anarchist at heart.
prone to mental confusion."
In her book, The Attitude of British
Protestant Missionaries Towards Nationalism in India, Elizabeth Susan Alexander,
offers an explanation for such vile diatribe against Gandhi as articulated
by the missionary publications: "British officials came to accept missionaries
as partners in the 'noble' task of shouldering the 'white man's burden.'
British officials defended their support of Christian missionaries as being
in the interest of their rule, for missionaries were used as instruments
of their policies of reform. Missionary activities were seen to have lucrative
results for British commercial interests."
On the 50th anniversary of the Mahatma's
martyrdom, let us not be overwhelmed by the fulsome tribute that will be
offered by our secular politicians who have discovered electoral merit
in closing ranks with present day Christian missionaries. Let us remember
the ignominy that was heaped on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the grievous
wounds that were inflicted on the Mahatma, by the partners of British colonial
rule.
India's colonial rulers have long
departed. Their partners remain in business.
This article appeared in The Weekend
Observer, published from New Delhi and Mumbai, on January 30, 1999, the
50th anniversary of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's assassination.