JASON KEITH FERNANDES
Some weeks ago there was a rather surpris ing opinion expressed by a member of the Catho lic Church in Goa: “The Church in India needs to urgently develop an Indian theology, spirit uality, and worship. The Church in India… has to be a witness of Christ in the Indian Context, with the use of Indian symbols, mu sic, etc, especially in liturgy and life.” One had to read these words a couple of times to be sure that one was read ing correctly. There were a number of reasons for the confusion. First, these words seem more likely from the lips of a belliger ent Hindu nationalist and not from a respected mem ber of the Catholic clergy. After all, should it not be understood that simply by virtue of living in India for generations, Catholics in this country, are already Indian? They do not have to try to become Indian, they simply are. They could wear red hats, yellow slip pers and dance the bachata, and they would still be as Indian as they were when they were wearing loin cloths and nothing more! The second reason these words seemed surreal was because they came after a whole lot of text which pointed to the glorious contributions of Christians in India to the cause of In dian nationalism, and In dian nation building. The text also correctly pointed out that some of the possi ble reasons for attacks on Christians in India is the re sult of the “rise of religious nationalism (Hindutva ide ology)”, “the politicisation of religion” where minori tised groups are presented as threats to consolidate a majority and garner the votes of this majority, the tacit toleration of attacks on Christians, and the “an ti-conversion narratives and laws.” After reading the lucid articulation of the reasons for attacks on Christians, it was perplexing to read the author then spout propos als that are what a Hindu nationalist would suggest: that it is only by imitating Hindus, that one can be ap propriately understood to be Indian. The problem with this proposal should be imme diately obvious. The mo ment one acknowledges that it is Hindus that define the standard of Indian-ness – and as so many scholars have already pointed out, it is in fact upper caste Hin dus who are seen to define the standard of Indian-ness – one is forever trapped in a relationship where one can never be an equal, or indeed a leader of the norms. One is always play ing catch-up. Further, not only is one always just a follower, but worse, someone who can be constantly berated and bullied, for not being In dian enough, or not doing enough for India. This is effectively the situation in which Christians find themselves in contempo rary India. This is not the kind of position one would want to be in a personal re lationship, why would one settle for such a dynamic when one is talking of one’s citizenship? The answer to this ques tion lurks quietly in the text of the article, which I now quote: “One of the most cit ed factors [for the attacks on Christians in India] is the growing influence of Hindutva, an ideology that equates Indian national identity, primarily with Hindu religion.” The prob lem is that we have lived for so long with the first bully in the room, Indian secular ism, that we are now firmly in the grip of the Stockholm syndrome. Much scholarly work has been done on the operation of Indian secular ism, and the Indian nation alism that birthed it. Most of these works point out to how Indian secularism, or more appropriately Nehru vian secularism, located the upper-caste Hindu as the perfect embodiment of Indian secularism. Once placed at the top of the pyramid, as the benevolent lord of the nation, there was no displacing them, especially since, as long as they were benevolent, and themselves Western imitating, there seemed to be no problem. It was only once the Nehruvian elite were ousted, when these elites were no longer be nevolent, as they now are not, and when these elites started pushing a mindless decolonising agenda, that the proverbial chickens came home to roost. By which time we were now convinced that the original and lesser bully was, in fact, a saviour. The trap, however, was laid much earlier, in the 19th century, when the Orientalist scholars con tributed to understanding Hinduism as native to the subcontinent, and all oth ers as coming from abroad. Working within this frame work, and refusing to look outside of it – which would be the act of true decoloni sation, we have gotten stuck in a not-so-pretty mess. How do we work our selves out of this sticky situation? Part of the response, I am firmly convinced, lies in not being apologetic, like the Catho lic author I have referenced above but being assertive. Christianity may have come from the outside, but it has brought much rich ness to this subcontinent, and indeed subsequently, the country. Much of what is recognisably Indian to day, is the result of the intervention of Christians – whether it is language, cuisine, or political struc ture. Indeed, one could go as far as to say that much of what is ethically good in the subcontinent is, in fact, Christian, and the result of Christian interventions. One could also point to the project of discursive de colonisation as the reason for India having become so much wilder in the past few decades. [Discursive decolonisation is best il lustrated as the logic that suggests we have to stop thinking as European, but revive, restore – but really invent – precolonial atti tudes and structures]. If one follows the logic of the English author and histori an Tom Holland, one easily recognises this discursive decolonisation as a form of dechristianisation. How does one respond to the vilification and per secution of Catholics and Christians in this country? Not by being a follower, but by being a leader. Where Catholics, and Christians, are still culturally domi nant, they must assert their cultures, rather than be embarrassed by them. They must build on these cultur al structures, which have always been in profound, and intimate, conversation with other traditions in the subcontinent. All of this, while being, in the case of Catholics, in conformity with the Magisterium of the Universal Church. (The author is a priest of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman.)
