The Cross And The Flag
Lal Dena
I am profoundly grateful to the
Faculty Council and the Principal of this Trulock Theological Seminary for
having invited me as a resource person at the Dr.T.Lunkim’s Lecture for this
year. A man of humble origin, self-educated and undaunted by huge obstacles and
adversaries, Pu Lunkim has not only revolutionized church organization and its
growth through his novel methodology of indigenization, but has also managed to
scale such heights in learning and academics by holding the double degrees of
Doctor of Divinity. He is a great patriot and a nationalist per excellence. He
is in fact the most distinguished personality who combines in himself
scholarship and discipleship. Therefore, to be a resource person at this
lecture which is instituted in the name of the most reverend Dr. T.Lunkim, the
God’s chosen man and man of destiny, is a rare opportunity and honor for me.
Coming now to the topic
“History of Christianity in North East India,” which has been assigned to me, I
would like, if I am permitted to do so, to focus on the nature of interactions
between Christian missions and colonial movement. My basic hypothesis is that Christian
missions and colonialism were two movements opposed to each other ideologically
because they were two distinct institutionalized entities drawing their
inspiration from opposed conceptual extremes. Therefore the interconnection
between them was more in the nature of a highly temporary process which was
solely determined by the principle of expediency.
Part
- 1
In the nineteenth century Christian
missions and colonialism seemed to follow upon each other in Africa
and Asia. It is for this reason that in the
eyes of many African and Asian peoples colonialism was seen to assume both the
role of a ‘politician’ and a ‘priest’ and Christian missions appeared to be a
part of and expression of western colonial expansion. Some of them even go to
the extent of characterizing missions as merely the ‘hunting dogs of western
imperialism[1].
Under the surface of seemingly cordial relations between missions and
colonialism, there lay a many branched complexity of difficulties. During the
historical period, Christian missions and colonialism interacted in different
forms and at different levels. This is to say that the mode of their
interaction differed from mission to mission and also from country to country.
The degree and extent of the interactions or conflicts between missions and
colonialism largely depended on the particular mission and the issues involved
as well as the nature of the colonial situation[2].
Therefore, any generalization of the relation of a particular mission with a
particular colonial government would be risky. The specific objective of this
paper is to examine the interconnections and collision of missionary and
colonial interests and how did they influence or affect the growth of
Christianity in North East India.
Total collaboration between missions
and colonialism, even though short-lived, could be seen in the case of Spain and Portugal – the two
countries of strong Catholic faith. For these two countries, missionary work
could hardly be dissociated from the interests of the state; neither could the
latter do without the faithful co-operation of the missions. Obsessed with the medieval
conception of missionization, Portugal
and Spain
were solely guided by the principle of cujus region, ejus religio[3].
Where missionary activity was backed up by colonial power, missionary preaching
obviously assumed a political character. The native peoples also got the
impression that one had ‘missionised’ them to exploit them. Aware of the serious implications of the
coupling of mission and colonial politics, Catholic missions, by the beginning
of the nineteenth century, gradually took missionary leadership into their own
hands. The Congregotio de propaganda fade (from Pope) cautioned its
missionaries that they should not occupy themselves with politics and also not
allow themselves to be used for political purposes[4].
In contrast to Spain and Portugal, the
English Crown did not become itself the colonizer. There seemed to be no
clear-cut alignment of the sword and the cross even though there was a strong
current of public opinion in English society that regarded plantations and
colonizing agencies to be responsible for the propagation of Christian faith.
In his instructions to the English navigators, Edward VI stressed that the
service of Christianity must be the chief motive of their expeditions[5].
In fact, commercial and missionary opinion constituted the basis of nineteenth
century English liberalism[6].
The only difference was that English colonial politics in Asia
lay in the hands of a powerful private trading company - the British East India
Company - which was motivated purely by commercial interest. The company saw in
the missions the possibility of disruption of peace which could affect
adversely its business interests. While the company’s view on missions did not
necessarily represent those of the British Empire,
the affinity of Christian missions and British colonial policy seemed to be
apparently over-shadowed by the company’s antagonistic attitude towards the
missionary movement.
In most cases, the missionary was far
ahead of the government and even of the trader. In a backward region where a
state of barbarism or savagery existed, the missionary usually ventured to
work. The selfless services which he rendered in terms of his expert knowledge
and moral influence tended to have a soothing effect on the people among whom
he worked and lived. This sometimes made the way easier for the exercise or
gaining of political control over the native peoples and this happened usually
where the missionary and the government belonged to the same nationality. Where
such colonial rule was established, missionary work tended to legitimize
colonial occupation[7]. Unable
to distinguish the ‘white man who preached’ from the ‘white man who ruled’, the
native peoples looked upon colonial rule as beneficial. Of course, the
psychological and social Implications of colonialism had disadvantages that far
outweighed the supposed advantages[8].
Events in Africa
produced proof that the missionaries normally favored the idea of bringing
their mission areas under the government to which they belonged. Nobody could
doubt David Livingstone’s sincerity when he first went to South Africa
from Scotland
to be a missionary and doctor to the people of Africa.
However Livingstone was not always the same person. His later public utterances
showed that his main objective was the opening up of a path for trade and
Christianity in Africa[9].
So far there was not much cause for surprise. But when he was said to have whispered
to the Duke of Argyll, “…What I can tell none but such as you, in whom I have
confidence, is this. I hope it may result in an English colony in the healthy
islands of Central Africa”[10].
Livingstone had to eventually break away from his original African sponsors,
the London Missionary Society because the latter thought that he spent too much
time exploring without gospelling[11].
Likewise the English missionaries in Cameroon and in South African
Bachuanaland also decided for British occupation of their mission areas. The
Anglican missionaries in New
Zealand were perhaps the strongest opponents
of imperial expansion. But they also succumbed when it seemed apparent that if
the British did not come in, the French would[12].
As political control advanced, the
missionary was prepared to welcome it and to co-operative with the government
if he was convinced that its policy was of benefit to the subject people. It
should be noted that the missionaries belonged to the epoch of Cecil Rhodes and
Bismarck. They were liable to be caught up in the stream of the time and half
consciously to identify their own country’s interests with the interests of the
kingdom of God[13].
No human motive were entirely pure and even the most blameless of missionaries
could be a victim to this. Instances, though few, showed that some missionaries
left the service of their missions and enthusiastically devoted themselves to
the service of their country in its colonial domain. This inevitably made them
appear before the eyes of the world and of the subject peoples in particular
more in the character of agents of their government than messengers of the
gospel[14].
Even where the missionary had not served any colonial power directly, he had
only too gladly accepted protection from the colonial power. In such a
situation, the missionary found it difficult to resist the temptation to
collaborate with the government. The temptation indeed was more difficult to
resist for those who had pro-imperialist leaning and held the view that the
hand of God was visible in colonial expansion. They tried to mystify colonial
expansion as a ‘divine command’ to intensify their evangelical work.
Gustav Warneck, the leading head of
the German Evangelical Mission of the time, has admitted that the objective of
the German colonial movement was not the establishment of the kingdom of heaven
on earth. And so he theologized the colonial movement as if it were a ‘divinely
willed’ opportunity for a missionary cause and “if God in heaven provides an
opportunity then His servants on earth have to take up the work”[15].
Such ‘divinely willed opportunities’ were usually never let go by most mission
societies. Warneck has thus justified the missionary’s action that sought to
take advantage for the colonial situation. More serious, he has rigidly
maintained that only the great colonial movements had made the missions
acceptable[16]. This
was really a dangerous proposition because the white official’s behavior which
was not always in conformity with biblical doctrines could stand in the way of
the success of missionary work.
There is no doubt that missionary
expansion in various countries was greatly facilitated through its association
with government agencies. Prior to the extension of Britis political authority
into the Igbo country in West Africa, most
Igbos treated missionary evangelism with indifference. F.K.Ekechi, in this
connection has argued that British military imperialism and other forms of
colonial expansion were in fact basic to the decision of many Igbo communities
in embracing Christianity[17].
Therefore some missionaries in West Africa tended to regard British power and
prosperity as a blessing and so, saw nothing insidious in taking advantage of
their association with British economic or political expansion in furthering
what they considered to be the kingdom of God[18].
Surely some missionary movements had an almost Hebraic faith. They also
believed in worldly success and power which certainly attended the faithful
pursuit of duty, and were instrumental in forwarding what they thought were
God’s purposes in the world[19]. The only restraining factor was that worldly
success and power were not to be striven for their own sake. Where the mission
submerged into the colonial plunge without any restraint, its credibility
irreparably suffered and it was bound to be, to use Paul Schuetz’s words,
“Caesar who allows the hunting dog to run, will whistle him back. The hunting
dog serves him. The mission is an important factor in culture and civilization
and Caesar has the full right to whistle him away or back and it helps fulfil
his dearest tasks”[20].
While some missions might not have
totally excluded the possibility of preparatory support for colonial
aggrandizement, it would be wrong to assume that all missions had close
connections with colonial politics. Nor was it true that the missions or
missionaries could not operate successfully without the support of colonial
governments. Klaus-J Bade, a noted German theologian, had argued with some
exaggeration however, that the interconnection between missions and colonial
policy centered on the question of the need for stability which was provided
either by missions themselves or by colonial rule[21].
Bade has overlooked the fact that a stable political condition was not always a
pre-condition for the success of missionary work as evidenced by the existence
of some mission stations outside the European colonies. It cannot however be
denied that political stability was needed by missions for greater and more
permanent development. In fact the missionary and the native Christians
profited from the stabilization of political relations, improvement of
transportation and the economic development of a colony, let alone the
significance of the freedom of preaching and practicing one’s own religion
guaranteed by the state. Peaceful and stable conditions did foster those
conditions wherein Christian values and virtue and, to be more specific,
Christian faith, among them could take deeper roots[22]. Falling
in line with Klaus-J Bade, Elias Schrenk, a missionary of the Basel Missionary
Society, in his memorandum to the British Parliament, had emphatically stressed
that peace was a sine qua non for missionary work and even justified a strong
power stepping in where a weak people had not yet managed to arrive at a state
of peace among themselves[23].
The truth of the matter is that many missions could operate successfully
without colonial support. For instance, there emerged many mission stations in
countries such as Fiji, South and Central Africa, Sierra-Leone, Burma, Guiana,
etc., long before the British imperialists had set their foot on them[24].
Similarly British missionaries had managed to penetrate into Madagascar and Buganda and
consequently made a large number of converts quite outside the realm of British
colonial administration[25].
These instances not only invalidated the theory that the missionary found it
impossible to work outside the protection of a colonial power or the support of
armed forces but also established the fact that peaceful conditions were not
indispensable.
But one must overlook the fact that
colonial powers in many cases more or less directly exploited the missions for
their own ends. In the course of the nineteenth century, the colonial powers
had also developed the concept of ‘civilizing’ the people in their colonies.
The concern for the progress of the native peoples and promotion of the ‘ideas
of advantages of civilization’ also figured in the Congo Conference in Berlin, 1885, which
commenced, of course, with a ceremonial evocation of the omnipotent God[26].
The Conference was attended by almost all the European colonial powers. It was
the colonialists’ strategy to try to clothe their colonial enterprise as a
divine mission - that of taking up the ‘white man’s burden’ to the subject
peoples. The mutual binding between missions and colonial politics was at its
strongest where the two accepted the ‘white man’s burden’ as a ‘genuine
responsibility’ which some anti-imperialist missionaries referred to as
‘Christian imperialism’[27].
The theory of operational unity was put in such a way as to give the impression
that colonization and missionary work were two sides of the same thing.
Certainly there were common fields of operation. Education and medical work
were the areas in which missions and colonial structures were most closely
integrated. The intermingling of missionary work and colonial politics had to
give in very quickly when the financial or man-power of the missions became
inadequate to perform the tasks[28].
In such cases, the government offered funds to the missions for humanitarian
services. But they did not stop there. They carefully tried to infuse or
introduce the interest of the ‘mother-land’ in the teaching materials and in
shaping the educational structure[29].
The educational process thus seemed to be involved more in a systematic
application of influence on the minds, moral and religious susceptibilities of
subject peoples. The whole undertaking of the missions (where they collaborated
with colonial powers) was made with an avowed allegiance to the nation state.
In the process, the missions tended to operate within the limited framework of
the colonial structure. They catered to the needs of the government by training
and recruiting the lower level of government and commercial bureaucrats. The
socialization of the subject peoples into the colonial culture appeared to be
the manifest function of such missions which at best only improved the existing
structures[30].
The question arises: Why did the
colonial powers back such moves? It was not that all the colonial powers had
developed such an interest in missionary work from purely religious motives.
They were perhaps convinced that the ‘civilizing influence of missions’
advanced colonial plans directly or indirectly. Moreover, in contrast to the
officials of the colonial administration, the missionaries, by virtue of their
dedication and deep commitment to their work, had gained a closer relationship
of trust and intimacy with the people. Equally important, the missionaries had
remained as a rule considerably longer, if not for life, in the country[31].
Therefore, the missionary movement was seen as the most effective force of
colonization, not only because it did not use force, but especially since it
penetrated more deeply into the life of the people. The cooperation of missions
or missionaries was sought as the completion of the task that the colony of a
Christian power (nation) became a Christianized colony because of the fear that
the colonizers could never consolidate their authority if the subject people
were not Christian[32].
Their whole concept thus centered on conquista espiritual. Aime Casaire in hid
‘Discours sur le Colonialisme’ had argued that Christianity was related to
colonialism in so far as the evangelical task was exploited by colonizers as
they hypocritically put the cloak of humanity on something inhuman. The double
equation: Christianity=civilization; heathenism=barbarism (lack of
civilization) was propagated and it gives rise to fearful colonialistic and
racistic consequences, the victims of which were the non-European peoples[33].
The misrepresentation of missionary
work as an indispensable factor for ‘national undertaking’ also provided the
seemingly common ground of operational unity. In this way a significant step
for the coordination of missionary and national interests of a particular
country to which the missionary belonged was made. In such a case, the mission
could be a ‘mission of faith and love’ only in the way it served the church and
the country[34]. This
was, in fact, a critical situation in which many missionaries were placed.
Claiming to be both a missionary and a nationalist at the same time, some
missionaries even carried with them their national prejudices and took up the
work of spreading the gospel as a matter of ‘patriotic honour’ and ‘national
duty’[35].
The basic characteristic of Christianity was its universalism. The moment it
was made to lose its universality by linking it with the national interests of
a particular country, the mission eventually became the instrument of colonial
expansion and colonial expansion became colonialism[36].
As a matter of fact, Christianity knew
no geographical or national barriers. Apostle Paul’s message: “It is through
faith that all of you are God’s sons in union with Christ Jesus” and here
“there is no difference between Jews and gentiles, between slaves and free men,
between men and women; you are all one in union with Christ Jesus[37].
In other words, faith in Christ was faith in a new humanity. This can be
further illustrated from Jesus Christ’s teaching and behavior which was
subversive of both the Jewish power structure and Roman imperialism. By birth
Jesus was a Jew, but the universal character of the new humanity that he
proclaimed contradicted the nationalist particularism of the Jewish authority[38].
Discipleship of Jesus, thus in a final analysis, consists, above all, in total
self-dedication to the creation of a new human community, in which love will
replace violence, service will replace the brute exercise of power, in which no
barrier will separate man from man, in which the first will be the least of
today, namely, the wretched and the dispossessed of the earth.”[39]
Seen in this light, some evangelical
missions kept themselves firmly away from any solidarity with colonial powers
and shielded themselves from the emphasis on colonial and general civilizing
purpose. It follows that the right mission or anti-collaborationist missionary
could not be used as the hand-maiden of colonial politics. Instead, the
missionary did not give compromising loyalty to a government if that government
was an instrument of oppression nor tolerate such national limitations. In
short, he denounced all subtle forms of ruling and controlling claims and undertook
measures to ensure human dignity to all peoples of the world. Regardless of the
nation he came from these words of Apostle Paul were the only guidance: “Pro
Christo legatione fungimur” (We are emissaries of Christ)[40].
It would be the death of the apostolate if the missionary served his earthly
fatherland more than God’s kingdom, because the native people could easily
understand what he actually wanted from them.
Underneath the apparent
alliance between the Christian missions and colonialism, there were therefore
inner ideological contradictions. The missionary movement at least in some
cases, was basically motivated by ‘a profound love of Christ and an intense
desire that others should share that love, together with a sincere love of
fellowmen and sympathy for the poor and the suffering were the special objects
of the love of Christ[41].
Whereas the colonial movement was primarily motivated by commercial interest - the
interest to exploit the material resources and find new markets for the
products of their home industries. Basically colonial policy was inconsiderably
egoistic. It looked upon the natives as members of an inferior race and as
instruments to further its own interests. Aime Casaire has discussed at length
the damaging impact of colonialism on subject peoples. He has seen in
colonization nothing but the lust for gold, plunder and profiteering and
concluded that “a nation which colonized and justified colonization begot
finally and inevitably its Hitler.”[42]
The method of work and
approach also point to the inner contradiction in their basic beliefs. While
the missionary preached Christian precepts of charity, unselfishness, purity
and temperance, the colonial official practiced ruthless severity and enriched
himself by forcing the natives into virtual slavery[43].
This is not to ignore the fact that there were many officials who were public
spirited, even as much the missionary. Among the business people there was
terrible class snobbery and race prejudice. In supporting the missionary’s
educational programs, the colonial government wished to have orderly and
disciplined citizens who could staff its administrative apparatus. On the
contrary, the cultural and social side-effects of missionary preaching and
community building including health care had contributed to the availability of
disciplined and thoughtful people who at times resorted to a criticism of
existing systems or even protested against the injustice of colonial rule[44].
And it was these newly emergent elite among the Asian and African people who
took over the government in the post-colonial period.
From the very outset,
the missions were concerned with the building up of independent churches with
their own leaders both in Asia and Africa. Thus in so far as the missions were concerned,
the idea of independence had been formulated often consciously and sometimes
unconsciously long before any colonial power had thought of such questions of
nationalism[45].
Through this, a new conflict arose between the goals of the missionaries and
those of colonial politics. While Christianity was not based on any ‘isms’
whatsoever, Christian awareness was, for instance, an integral part of the
emergence of African nationalism[46].
Christianity taught the uniqueness of an individual, his infinite worth before
God; whereas colonialism, in many respects, said just the opposite. In short,
biblical teachings were basically at variance with colonialism. Few erring
pro-imperialist missionaries were suspicious of the emergence of nationalist
movements and they either kept themselves away from such movements or took
sides with colonial powers. But these few missionaries should not be confused
with the main stream of missionaries who, by example and precept demonstrated
the reality of Christian principles[47]. It
is therefore more correct to say that true European Christians stood on the
side of what was right - namely, that oppression or suppression of any human
being was wrong. Such missionaries were friends of national leaders and strove
for independence from colonial rule in decisive phases of freedom struggle both
in Asia and Africa.
[1] See for example, Temu, A.J.,
British Protestant Missions, (London,
1972), p. 132 and Panikkar,
K.M., Asia and Western Dominance (London, 1953), p. 455.
[2] Strayer, Robert W., The Making Mission Committees in East Africa
(New York, 1978), p. 2
[3] Blanke, Von Fritz, ‘Mission and
Kolonial-Politik’ in Europe und Kolonialismus
(Zurich and
Stuttgart, 1962) p. 92
[4] Ibid. p. 106.
[5] Mayhew, Arthur; Christianity and
the Government of India
1600-1920 (London),
p. 50.
[6] Stokes, Eric; The English
Utilitarians and India
(Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 40.
[7] Bade, Klaus-J; ‘Colonial Missiona
and Imperialism: The Background to the Fiasco of the Rhenish
Mission in New Guinea’ in the Australian
Journal of Politics and History, Vol. XXI, No. 2,
August, 1975, p. 78.
[8] Eke, Peter; “Colonialism and the
Two Publics in Africa’ in Comparative Studies
in Society and
History, Vol. 17, No. Cambridge University
Press, 1975, p. 99.
[9] Moorhouse, Geoggray; The
Missionaries (London,
1968), p. 414.
[10] Ibid. p. 135
[11] Morris James; Pax Britanica, The
Climax of an Empire. (New York, 1958), P. 121.
[12] Neil, Stephen; Colonialism and
Christian Missiona (London,
1968), p. 414.
[14] Ibid. p. 414.
[15] Bade, Klaus; op.cit., p. 82.
[16] Ibid. p. 82.
[17] Ekechi, F.K.; “Colonialism and
Christianity in West Africa: The Igbo Case,
1900-1915” in Journal
of Africa
History, XXI, I (1971), p. 103.
[18] Strayer, Robert; op. cit. p. 33.
[19] Stokes, Eric; op. cit. p. 33.
[20] Holsten, Von Walter; ‘Kolonialismus
als Theologichs Problem’ in Stat Crux dum volvitur orbis
(Festchrift fur Hans Lilje,
Berlin, 1955), p. 163.
[21] Bade, Klaus; op. cit. p. 78.
[22] Thronton, A.P.; Doctrines of
Imperialism (New York, 1965), p. 63.
[23] Neil, Stephen, op. cit. p. 304-305.
[24] Shivaram, V.; op. cit. p. 6.
[26] Blanke, Fritz; op. cit. p. 92.
[27] Strayer. Robert; op. cit. p. 106.
[28] Hermelink, Jan; ‘Die chistliche Mission und Der Kolonialismus’ in Das Eude der
Kolonializet
Wade Welt Von Morgen
(Stattgart, 1961), p. 34.
[29] Ibid. p. 35.
[30] Strayer. Robert, op. cit. p. 101.
[31] Bade, Klaus, op. cit. p. 79.
[32] Holsten, Von Walter; op. cit. p.
163.
[33] Ibid. p. 162.
[34] Gensichen, Von H.W.; ‘Die deutche Mission und der Kolonialismus’ in Kerygma und Dogma
(April, 1962), p. 143.
[35] Sundkler, Gengt; The World of
Mission (Michigan,
1965), p. 121; See also Bade, op. cit. p. 83.
[36] Holsten: op. cit. p. 167.
[37] Galatians: 3:26 and 28 (Good News Bible)
[38] Kappen, Sebastian; Jesus and Freedom
(New York, 1977), p. 114-115.
[39] Ibid. p. 117.
[40] II Corinthians 5: 20 (Good News Bible, 1977)
[41] D’Souza, Jerome; Sardar Panikkar and
Christian Missions, (Trichinopoly, 1957), p. 53.
[42] Holsten, V.W., op. cit. p. 161.
[43] Shivaram; op. cit. p. 10.
[44] Neil, Stephen; op. cit. p. 332.
[45] Hermelink, Jan; op. cit. p. 38.
[46] Forman, Charles W. Edt., Christianity
in Non-Christian World, (New Jersey, 1967), p. 113.
No comments:
Post a Comment