Sppech by Sri. Suresh Desai

[Guest guest]

Suresh Desai at the St. Pius Seminary at Goregaon on 10th March 1997 "Friends,

Father Julian just said that it is a Christian practice to invite people of

other religions and understand their views and perceptions. I am very happy

about this practice because it fits in with the Hindu tradition of not only

understanding the other people's views but also of appreciating, adapting and

assimilating the best of them. I thank Mr Norbert DeSouza, National President

of AICU and Father Julian for inviting me here to apprise you of my perceptions

on the Missionary activities. As you are aware I am a Hindu and I am very deeply

interested in the Hindu tradition and civilization which is the oldest surviving

civilization in the world. What appeals to the most is that the content of

Hindu thought is universal in

nature and is not confined to or doesn't address itself to a particular

geographical area or time or only to the people who are baptized in Hinduism or

believe in Hindu pantheon. I am not a religious person, do not indulge in any

worship of any deity, do not believe in rituals, do not go to any temple and

still I confess that, I am a devout Hindu and am accepted as such by my Hindu

milieu. My perceptions of missionary work are therefore, inevitably influenced

by my attachment to the Hindu culture. I belong to Goa, where Christianity has a

great deal of importance at the religious, cultural, political and social

levels. It was here that the missionary activities gained momentum four

centuries ago with the work of Francis Xavier and then Father Stevens. As

students we freely mixed with our Christian friends whose ancestors were Hindus

and were converted to Christianity only a few generations ago. In retrospect I

find this span

of their being Christians had not at all improved their spirituality nor their

socio-economic status. The improvement came in the wake of the freedom from the

Portuguese rule in 1962. Many of them now have bungalow type houses, own cars,

give Hindu names to their children and profess to not being much interested in

religion. In my mind, as in the mind of anybody who is conversant with the

history of Europe, the missionary activities and Christianity are inseparably

associated with Inquisition, with intolerance of science, with the fate of

Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno, Joan of Ark, killing of lakhs of women on suspicion

that they were witches, crusades and thousands of victims in the Goa

Inquisition. There is something like Heresy and heretics in not only in

Christianity but other semitic religions like Islam, and if I may say so, the

dogma of Marxism, beside the book and a Prophet. When you are working in the a

land of an ancient and dominant religion and try to preach the gospel of your

faith and convert a large member of people who after conversion disown their

cultural roots, it is inevitable and also justifiable that all your activities

are viewed with suspicion and are attributed to one fundamental motive that is

to convert people to your faith. Such cultural alienation in a country like

India where nationalism is based on cultural and civilizational heritage

creates piquant situations such as those on the North-east frontiers.

Ultimately, what is the objective of conversions ? At the spiritual level

conversions from one's religion to another are quite meaningless unless the

motives are purely mundane. Those who work with ulterior motives have to

adjust, readjust and reorient their strategies according to the change in times

which have been moving very fast during the last couple of

decades. Strategies change but not the motive. The change of strategies is

very often projected as basic change in the outlook which is wrong. The basic

change comes only with the reformulation of objectives. If the basic motive of

the missionaries is still to bring Hindus to the fold of Christianity, no amount

of change in strategies whether inculturation, acculturation or deculturation,

will exonerate them from the eyes of their critics, despite liberal theology

and acceptance of salvation through other religions but either in the

ecciesiocentric or Christocentric or theocentric manner. These terms are

hair-splitting, pure and simple. The inculturation is not a new concept. When

Father Stevens wrote Christapurana in Marathi 400 years ago in the style of

Dnyaneshwar, he gave an excellent example of inculturation. The objective was

to promote Christianity among natives. The Hindu civilization is a movement of

incredible continuities. In its march of over several millennia it has taken in

its stride innumerable vicissitudes, changes in the sources of livelihood,

pastoralism, agriculture and has entered the era of industrial development. Not

all people have kept pace with the progress. Many of them are left behind either

accidentally or of their own choice, so much so that pockets remained in the

pre-agricultural, food gathering stages, and a large number of people remained

agriculturists and a few urban areas have stepped into modernity. Nobody can

readily say when it all started. The entire process is sanatan, without a

definite beginning. I once again remind you that Hinduism is not a religion of

the book in the semitic senses. Therefore, the supreme court has opined it is

a comprehensive way if life. The uneven development of this process has left

some people in agriculture,

pre-agricultural, pastoral, nomadic and even the stage before that. That is why

the existence of tribal pockets. However the underlying continuity of the

process is such that they all belong to the same stream of Hinduism. The

British imperialists had other ideas. They wanted to sow the seeds of

division, dissension and separatism in the Hindu society to perpetuate their

own rule. That's why the 1871 census described the tribals as animists.

Animists means people who worship spirits and propitiate them. It is indeed

very difficult to define where Hinduism ends and tribalism begins. I give my

own instance. I read Gita and the Upanishads. I am a devotee of Hindu thought,

I am well acquainted with the idea of the Absolute. But when I go to my

village, I see there my own cousins doing yoga for meditation in the morning

and indulging in worshipping the spirits of the ancestors, the Kuldaivata, the

gram

daivata, the Vetala and the Cobra in the evening. Would you say that they are

Hindus in the morning and animists in the evening? Some of them are extremely

well-versed in the subtlest nuances of the philosophies of Hinduism. Even

Ramkrishna Paramahansa, Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi have been organically

imbedded in this what you may call animist past. Hinduism is a continuous

process of evolution over the last thousands or perhaps lakhs of years. Some

people moved up by the elevator, some people are coming up the ladder rung by

rung. But they are the same people. Hinduism has developed from animism to the

subtle and scintillating philosophies of the Gita and the Upanishadas. Tribals

are therefore unmistakably Hindus. There are many tribal Gods in the Hindu

pantheon. Vetoba, Viroba, Giroba, Khandoba, Mhasoba, Satwai, Jokhai and many

such Gods are still being worshipped. Hinduism

doesn't reject anybody simply because he worships his own Gods. Gita

specifically mentions that whatever deity a man may worship whether it is Rama,

Shiva, Govinda, if he does it with single minded devotion, he ultimately reaches

the Absolute. One question which continues to plague my mind; why missionaries

want to expand Christianity in numbers? There is no evidence that the

conversion to Christianity has improved the world spiritually. However the

Christianity has helped colonialism and imperialism. From what I learn from

NEFA States, I feel the aims of the missionaries are predominantly political. I

would like to be proved wrong in my assessment. What happened in America in the

wake of the assaults of conquistadors like Cortez, Pizarro and Balboa and the

Portuguese in Goa and the Goa Inquisition reinforces my theory that their

ulterior motive is political power and spirituality is used as means to achieve

it. In Latin American countries, it is a well known fact that the Jesuits were

involved in the game of power. Today Europe and America which were the

bailiwicks of Christianity have spurned the religion in a large measure. I

think missionaries and the church should turn their efforts to first bring them

back to Christianity, instead of spending their precious efforts on evangelising

the tribals in India. Why are they not doing it? At the same time there are

movements like New Religion Movement (NRM) which are weaning the Catholics away

from the orthodoxy in favour of Pentecostal churches. Catholics also don't like

the sheep straying to Protestant fold. Trust you have not forgotten their

massacre in Paris on the day of St. Bartholomew. If Catholic missionaries

don't like Catholics moving away from their fold how do they expect Hindus to

like their people being lured

away to Christianity? Think over this in the context of the Pope saying during

his visit to South America that he wanted to save Catholics from Protestant

wolves. Today it is not the question of how many follow this religion or that.

There is a pronounced current of thinking that religion has long outlived its

utility, first, because of the capitalist orientation of the world, and

secondly but equally important, because of the techno-scientific advance which

tends to take man's thinking along empirical lines. Along with religion ethical

foundations also weaken. They are pooh-poohed as middle class morality.

Communism and fascism were the symptoms of this malaise. This disorientation

from the traditional morality has caused tremendous frustration among mankind.

You as priests should address yourselves to this dilemma and cease to think of

conversions. Finally, I once a gain

bring to your notice that mankind is turning its back on God and that is the

real problem. Conversions from one faith to another in this context are

ridiculous. We should all make concerted efforts to see that citadels of moral

restraints imposed by religions and faith in divinity are not shattered. As

priests, a great deal of responsibility devolve on you in this respect.

QUESTION AND ANSWERS SESSION FOLLOWED: Q.: You say all religions are equal. Is

there equality in Hinduism? A.: I did not say all religions are equal. You are

putting words in my mouth. There are hundreds of religions and cults in the

world and they are at different stages of evolution. Q.: You said there is

equality in Hindu religion. What about the caste system ? A.:

Equality is a socio-economic and socio-political concept and relates to mundane

matters. It is not relevant to an individual's efforts to identify himself with

the Absolute. This can be done at the spiritual level only. Caste system is

purely a social phenomenon and is dependent on a particular system of

production and distribution of the surplus. India was the first country to take

to agricultural production which required a lot of manpower woven in an

elaborate social net work. Today, in modern cities where industrial production

is predominant, caste system is considerably weaker than in villages where the

plough and the bullock have a sway. Q.: Are you sure caste system is not based

on religion? A.: Yes. I am sure and emphatically so. Castes and classes were

there in all countries depending on the means of production and the

distribution of surplus. In Rome, there were patricians plebeians and slaves.

Was Christianity responsible for the slave system? French Revolution occurred

because of the conflict of castes or classes and so did Russian and Chinese

Revolutions. For last more than hundred years Hindu social reformers have

worked to demolish castes. They have not done this because there was sudden

revelation in their mind, but their awareness of the changes in social,

economic and political contexts which spurred them to work against the caste

system which was losing its relevance. Would any of you show me a single

reference where caste is associated with religion? Q.: What about

untouchability? A.: Where is untouchability today? In our constitution? In our

legal system? The social evolution takes place over many

centuries. At different stages, in the process, there may have developed social

practices which appear ugly distortions today. The whole Hindu society is

setting its face against such outmoded distortions. Q.: Has Hindu religion

given them equality? A.: I repeat that equality is a social and not a religious

concept. At religious level, our galaxy of saints who realised God includes

Mahars like Chokha Mela, a Chamaar like Rohidas and many other saints from

lowest depressed classes. Moksha is not withheld from anybody Gita says that a

sage views in the same light a, Brahmin, a dog, a bull, an elephant and a pig.

He treats them all as equals. Q.: What is your idea concerning reservations for

Christian dalits ? A.: Are there dalits among Christians ? Impossible. You just

said it is Hinduism and not

Christianity which believes in castes. How come this shameful reference to the

caste of Christian dalits ? Christian dalits is a contradiction in terms.

Coming to Reservations, are their such reservations in your own schools and

autonomous institutions for Christian dalits ? You invited these people to

embrace Christianity with a promise that they would cease to be dalits after

conversion. Now you are reimposing and perpetuating their dalithood. We Hindus

are aware that in the past depending in the contexts of times, we have heaped

injustices on dalits and reservation is a way to atone for these wrongs. What

Christians have to atone for ? Perhaps they also seem to have perpetrated

similar treatment on their dalits all these years. Then why did you convert

them ? They would have enjoyed the reservations had they continued to be Hindu

dalits. Q.: You said God could be realised by Dnyana and also through Bhakti.

Is Bhakti practiced by people ? A.: Those people who are spiritually inclined

practice Bhakti. I concede that just as among Christians those who are

interested in salvation are microscopic few and among Muslims majority of

people disregard Koranic injunctions and indulge in all sorts of pleasures,

womanizing beyond the scriptural limits of four wives, booze, eat sausages and

take Pathani interest on their ]endings, among Hindus too followers of Charvaka

might be in overwhelming majority. Man by nature is licentious and lascivious

creature and religion tries to keep his waywardness in check. Those people who

are capable of it among Hindus can straight go to Nirguna through Dnyana or

Hathayoga like Dnyaneshwar. The devotees who are not capable of it, do it

through Bhakti. Dnyaneshwar's friend and

disciple Namadeo was a Bhakti margi and there were friendly arguments between

them about the superiority of Dnyana over Bhakti or vice-versa. A story has it

that once they together were on an all India tour and in the thick of summer

came to the Rajasthan desert. No water was seen around to quench their thirst.

With parched mouths they discerned a distant well and rushed to it. The well was

very deep and water lay at the bottom. How to get it? Dnyaneshwar looked at

Namdeo with an air of achievement and said, " Namdeva, now you see the power of

Yoga". By his yogic powers, Dnyaneshwar took the form of a tiny ant and went

down the well along its wail, had mouthful of water and came up. Namdeo said,

"Dnyanoba, now you see the power of Bhakti". He took his cymbals in hand and to

their rhythm started singing "Vithal, Vithal". As the recitation reached its

crescendo, water at the bottom of the well flushed up and he quenched his

thirst. "That

is the power or Bhakti", he said. Now this might be an apocryphal story, but it

makes a point. Bhakti is as effective as Dnyana or yoga, if not more. Adi

Shankarcharya was advaitin but subsequent philosophers, Madhwa and Ramanuja

were dvaitins or Vishistadvaitins. They conceded that God could be realised by

Bhakti. Unfortunately very few people today are anxious to realise God and the

world over, they have become worshipers of mammon. Q.: You have spoken against

conversions. What about Christians being reconverted to Hinduism? A.: If

somebody wants to return home to his ancient religion, it is definitely not

conversion. Let him come back like the Prodigal Son. (laughter). Q.: Why you

are against conversions? A.: Why are you

for conversions? What is your objective in converting the people to your faith

and expand it numerically? I can understand qualitative improvement of a

religion, say from Saguna to Nirguna or from animism to Bhakti. Religion means

an individual's craving and efforts to realise God. He may do it in the way he

thinks is most suitable for him. That's what Hinduism teaches. Sarva Deva

Namaskara Keshavam Pratigachhati. It is immaterial whether you worship Jesus

or Mohammed as your worship ultimately reaches the Absolute., what we call

Brahman. Semitic religions however, whether it is Islam, Christianity or dogma

of Marxism, thirst for quantitative expansion, simply because they hanker after

political power, a materialistic, mundane objectives and want to exploit

religion for the purpose. That's why missionary activities blossomed in America

under the patronage of Spanish Conquistadors and in India it

sanctified the colonialism of the British and the Portuguese. When I rack my

brains about what is the fundamental objective of conversions, I get the

resounding reply, "Imperialism". That's what made Francis Xavier write that

every time a new convert smashes his idols and destroys his temples where he

worshiped just before conversion, his joy knows no bounds. And such a man is

called a saint! If our Dnyaneshwar and Tukaram had written a similar thing, we

would have called them criminals. Q.: Do you think it is possible for you to

settle your problems with Muslims through a dialogue with them ? A.: That will

depend on the attitude of Muslims. Hinduism has reached understanding with

Scythians, Huns, Parthians, Greeks, Parsees and Jews and has no problem with

them. But Muslims are different. Their religion is highly imperialistic.

That is why it came into this world in 622 A.D. and by 732 A.D. it had reached

India, outer walls of Chine and overran Europe. Had Charles Martel not defeated

them at the battle of Tour, the entire Europe would have been Muslim today. The

civilization and culture of this country existed many thousands of years before

the advent of Islam in the world and Muslims in this country have to taken

cognizance of it and be proud of the ancient cultural and civilisational

traditions of this country. You may not worship Rama and Krishna as religious

figures and I myself do not give them religious importance. But they were among

the architects of the civilization and the ethos of this land. Muslims or

Christians in this country have to identity their cultural roots with their

messages and the message of Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Upanishadas. If

Muslims sincerely do it, there won't be any problems. Q.: If Bhakti can lead to

Moksha, why Hindu people go to pilgrimage? A. As I have said earlier, people

perceive God according to their comprehensional capacity Although majority of

mankind is irreligious and materially oriented, paying cosmetic loyalty to

religion is also part of life, like going to Church on Sunday If people get

happiness through it, let them have it. All men can't be Paramhansas. Q.: You

said the problem is to check decline into irreligiosity and crass materialism.

How can we do it ? A.: I am not competent to give you guidance. I have made a

suggestion and leaders of thought and spirituality and learned people all over

the world should sit together and find a way out. Terrorism, violence,

obscenity, moral chaos all are offshoots of decline of spirituality You are

going to be priests and you should do something

about it. Bringing some Hindus to Christianity or taking Christians to Islam is

puerile, meaningless in the context of the bigger problem of promoting spiritual

inclination among the entire mankind. Return to Index

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.