WERE THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES THE HUNTING DOS OF WESTERN COLONIALISM?

WERE THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES THE HUNTING DOS

OF WESTERN COLONIALISM?

Part - II

Lal Dena

In the case of India the Christian missions did not precede the colonial movement, but they did follow in the heels of colonial powers. The Jesuit missionaries and to be more specific Francis Xavier did indeed come as a royal missionary, with the right to correspond direct with the king of Portugal, and with extensive powers from the Pope as  his legate for the whole of the East. But the Company’s attitude towards missionary work as for the most part based on expediency. With the assumption of political power in 1775 after the battle of Plessey, the Company’s government continued to view missionary activity in India with disfavor because of the presumed fear the missionary preaching was likely to create a hostile atmosphere which could affect the stability of the Company’s rule.

            To involve government in mission and mission in government, Charles Grant, an avowed Clapham Evangelical and influential person of the Court of Directors, came out with a novel treatise ‘Observation on the State of Society among the Asiatic subjects of Great Britain, particularly with respect to Morals; and the means of improving it’ and placed it before the of Directors in 1797. Obsessed with fear concerning the events in France, Grant had prepared his treatise to counteract the French revolutionary principles and anti-Church ideas propagated by men like Thomas Paine. It is, therefore, not surprising that Grant had failed to advocate any radical new departures in his treatise. On the contrary, he expected that ‘Christianity of the English sort might keep Indians passive, just as it induced contentment in the English lover order. His plea for Christian mission in India was thus motivated more by political conservatism than social radicalism. Conservative as he was, he fully endorsed Bishop Horne’s view of the attitudes inculcated by Christianity: “In superiors, it would by equity and moderation, courtesy and affability, benignity and condescension; in inferiors, sincerity and fidelity, respect and diligence. In princes, justice, gentleness, and solicitude of the welfare of the subjects; in subjects, loyalty, submission, obedience, quietness, peace, patience and cheerfulness… “Another illusion which Grant had developed was the permanence of British rule in India. He thought that conversion of the Indian people to Christianity could help achieve permanence. Not only that. More surprising was his mystic belief that the control of India was providentially put into the hands of the British by Supreme disposer; In short, undercurrent in Grant’s treatise was an implicit exhibition of the natural alliance of the missionary movement with that of British commerce. Christianity and education would improve the earthly condition of the people. This improvement would again, Grant believed, immensely further the original and continuing purpose of the British in the East: the great beneficiary would be British commerce… ‘In every progressive step of this work we shall also serve the original design with which we visited India that design still so important to this country–the extension of our commerce. The poverty of the Indian people and their ‘unformed’ taste were considered to be the main obstacles which limited the penetration of British manufacturers into India. Grant was unduly optimistic that these obstacles were to be removed by Christianity and education which were ‘the noblest species of conquest.’

            If Charles Grant provided knowledge and influence for the cause of missionary in India, Charles Simson at Cambridge supplied its spiritual leadership. Their influence was so profound that the first generation of the civil servants who were sent out to India were stamped with the Evangelical assurance and earnestness of purpose. It was due to their active patronization and initiation that a group of missionaries was sent out to India. This is not to suggest that the official policy of the Company’sgovernment towards the Christian mission was realized. The government under Wellesley (who succeeded John Shore) went to the extent of ‘quit notice’ to all the foreigners who were not in the covenanted service. The measure was obviously directed against the missionaries. There was, however, sometimes a shift in the government’s attitude towards the missionaries. This shift came particularly when the government felt the need for support from the Christian missionaries. For instance, the College of Fort William offered teachership to William Carey and the latter immediately availed himself to the opportunity by promising the lucrative rewards from linguistic and other means of assistance that he could offer for the institution. It is ironical that the government, by appointing Carey as teacher of Bengali, later on of Marathi and Sanskrit as well, became an accomplice in missionary work, while simultaneously refusing the missionaries legal status in India. On the other hand, Carey also readily extended his helping hand because he believed that this would not only facilitate the missionary work but also relieve them from embarrassment in getting support from the government in future. But it had serious implication which the missionaries a government, he became directly or indirectly a part for the colonial establishment.

            It is understandable that such extended helps were a means for the extension of their missionary work. But when the missionaries demonstrated that such help would bring about closer relationship between the rulers and the ruled, they definitely fell in line with government. Edward Parry, Chairman and Grant, Vice-Chairmen of the Court of Directors, in their letter to Dundas, President of the Board of Control argues that Christian religion was a cementing factor between the two nations: “If… they embrace our religion, they would have a new cause of attachment to us … which would give us better assurance of their fidelity.” Because of the presence of few but influential pro-missionary officials, the Company was thus made to think that the introduction of Christianity and diffusion of its doctrines was to the government’s own advantage. But the Company felt concerned about the manner in which religious conversion was to be carried out. This cautious attitude stemmed from the primary concern for the safety and preservation of the empire. Given the choice between political stability and Christian conversion, the government definitely preferred the former. But it was also true that the government was not hesitant to promote religious conversion where it would legitimize its control over the subject people.

            With some high-ranking officials and influential members of the Parliament behind and obviously with the unstinted support from the Evangelical party, William Wilberforce, a member of at least 70 philanthropic organizations in England, led the parliamentary struggle for the opening of India to missionary enterprise In fact, Wilberforce argued that the sole justification and strengthening of British control over India lay in its Christianization for the Indian people. Falling in line with him, Fr Claudius Buchanan, then Provost of the College of Fort William, also found no other way than Christianization for establishing an unbreakable friendship between the two peoples. In their frantic efforts to enlist government’s support, permanent subjection of India to British rule even echoed in their slogans. Deeply influenced by Grant’s idea, Wilberforce appealed to his countrymen that they should do their best to strike roots into the Indian soil by transplanting their principles, law, institutions, and manners; above all, their religion and morals.

            Rallying behind the Evangelicals, the free-trade merchants in Britain also looked at the issue from the narrow commercial interest and contended that Christianity would change the habit and manner of the people thereby increasing their demand for British manufactured goods. It was this belief which provided the basis for the alliance of attitude between the missionary and the merchants. In fact, commercial and missionary opinions were two important factors which generated the colonial policy of nineteenth century English liberalism. One basic feature of this liberal outlook was the gradual abandonment of all desire this liberal outlook was the gradual abandonment of all desire for territorial power as an end. The Sunday Times summed up this desire thus: “It must be our policy to abandon altogether a narrow system of colonial aggrandizement which can no longer be pursued with advantage, and to build our greatness on a surer foundation by stretching our dominion over the earth of the universe.” This is simply to put that colonial domination was to be supplemented by ‘civilizing work’. The diffusion of European civilization among the vast population of the East was only a means for legitimizing their control over them. Therefore, the apparent concern of the wants of the subject people was only pharisaic. Peter Ekeh has succinctly pointed out that the successful colonization of any country was achieved more by the colonizers’ ideological justification of their rule tan by the sheer brutality of arms. This is to say that no conquest without the support of the conquest over the mind was lasting. Macaulay, who had been schooled in such a thought, realized the magnitude of the conquest over the ‘mind’ and commented in a flight of eloquence before the House of Commons thus: “The scepter may pass away from us. Victory may be inconsistent to our arms. But there are triumphs which are followed by reverse. There is an empire exempt from all natural causes of decay. Those triumphs are the pacific triumphs of reason over barbarism; that empire is the imperishable empire of our arts and our morals, our literature and our laws.” Macaulay wanted to accomplish the conquest over the mind of India through the diffusion of western civilization of which Christianization and modern education were important factors that would set the natives on a process of European improvement. This, he hope, would result in the permanence of the connection between India and England.

            What the Christian missionaries had sought was the removal of the restrictions which had so long impeded the progress of missionary labor in the Company’s dominion. In their attempt to achieve this objective, the Christian missionaries and their supporters had mistakenly shown in a much more enthusiastic fashion than what Christ ad admonished his disciples to ‘render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’, giving the impression as if they were official agents of the government and pioneers of British colonial expansion. They felt that they were more competent than government officials to determine what was best for their cause, as well as for the maintenance what was best for their cause, as well as for the maintenance of the British rule. They, for better or for worse, openly avowed while unconsciously working to undermine it.

            At long last in 1813 the British Parliament removed all restrictions on missionary activities in India. Clause XXXII of the Charter Act of 1813 allowed the freedom for propagating Christianity and with it the missionary movement entered into a crucial phase spreading even in the far-flung areas of North-East India.

            The first significant contact with North-East India was made by the Serampore mission of the British Baptist Missionary Society in the early part of the nineteenth century. Curiously enough, the initiative for starting missionary enterprise came from the government officials. This was so because of the realization of the futility of the policy of military expedition which produced jealousy and suspicion culminating in endless wars of retaliation and revenge. They, therefore, expected that what could not be achieved by the military power could be gained by the power of the gospel. The officials in Assam also felt that Assam and its hills inhabited by various tribes who were not in the least influenced by Hinduism or Mohammedanism offered the most promising field for the spread of Christianity. Captivated by their simplicity of manners and void of prejudices which were perhaps common among the plains people, the officials believed that they could be rendered of ‘importance’ to the British India. In order to achieve this objective, they reiterated the need for the spread of Christianity and education among the hill people. James Johnstone, the Political Agent of Manipur also thought in terms of the stabilization of the British Empire and regarded Christianization of the people as the only effective means for mutually attaching them to the government. He, therefore, concluded that a large number of Christian hill men between Assam and Burma would be a valuable prop to the British.

            Eventually on the invitation from the British magistrate of Sylhet, William Carey of Serampore mission sent Krishna Chandra Pal, the first Serampore convert, to work among the Khasis in Sylhet who were apparently refugees from inter-tribal wars within the neighboring Khasi kingdom in December 1813. Over-enthusiastic, the magistrate even recommended outright baptism of these fugitives prior to proper religious outright baptism of these fugitives prior to proper religious indoctrination. The prospect was too rosy for Carey who had already undertaken the translation work of the Bible into Khasi language (in Gengali script) with the help of a Khasipandit. Carey was thus confident that Krishna Chandra Pal could have no language problem and be the right person to carry the message of Christ among the Khasisi. Krishna Pal remained in Sylhet foe eight months during which two Khasis and five natives of Assam were baptized. These newly baptized Christians became the nucleus of the Christian community later brought into existence at Chrrapunji. Coincidentally Cherrapunji which stood in the hills just above Sylhet became the first seat of British administration in the district.

            In the meantime, David Scott, Chief Commissioner of Assam, in his letter to Bayley, Secretary to the Government of India on 27 April 1825, made a novel plan to the Calcutta Council to invite missionaries to start humanitarian activities among the hill tribes of Assam. While thus seeking permission to negotiate with Bishop Heber at Calcutta for such missionary assistance, David Scott argued that nothing permanently good could be obtained by other means than gospelling. It does not mean that Scott had genuine concern for the spread of the Gospel. But he perhaps took it only as a means for taming the ‘unruly’. Quite optimistic about the success of missionary work, Scott thus strongly pleaded that even if government’s support was not immediately forthcoming; he himself would personally finance the missionary venture. The government apparently gave Scott the necessary permission to contact missionaries in his private capacity. But deeply impressed by the prospect of missionary work among the hill tribes; Fort William later on instructed work among the hill tribes, Fort William later on instructed work among the hill tribes, Fort William later on instructed the local officials in Assam to invite the Christian missionaries to undertake that they called a ‘mission of civilization’ to ‘humanise’ the wild tribes of the North-East Frontier, stating that ‘the government could give not only financial assistance but also salary to the people who might be employed in their capacity as missionaries. It should, however, be made clear that the missionaries might not have fully shared the official view which regarded Christian conversion as a means for strengthening the colonial occupation.  Basically they were strengthening the colonial occupation. Basically they were strengthening the colonial occupation. Basically they were prompted by the desire to communicate the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ to the millions of people that dwelt in ‘darkness’. Given the opportunity to do so, they were not hesitant to extend their cooperation to the government if such cooperation would enhance the extension of the kingdom of God.

            Assured of local officials’ support, the Baptist Missionary Society (BMS) opene a centre a Guahati in 1829. David Scott had not only helped the mission to establish a school but also deputed a British officer in the person James Rae, the Superintendent of Public Works for Assam to man the newly Superintendent of public Work for Assam to man the newlyestablished mission station. Soon Rae began to think that he was destined to seve as missionary. Accordingly, he resigned the Company’s service later on. But, aware of his incompetency, Rae preferred to go for a year’s theological training at Serampore. Though theologically more equipped and assisted y RamchandraNath, a native worker, Rae’s evangelistic work among the church which he had established did not fare well from the very outset. It was virtually dead. The arrival of a new missionary in the person of Rev. William Robinson failed to improve the situation. Finding no other alternative, James Rae and Rev. William Robinson left the mission for government service. Perhaps they had no strong conviction which could help them withstand the hard realities of life that normally befell the pioneer missionaries.

            Not disheartened by their failure in the Brahmaputra valley, the Serampore Mission endeavored to strengthen the work which had been started by Krishna Chandra Pal at Cherrapunji. In 1833, Aleexander B. Lish, an Anglo-Indian missionary, followed by Joshua Roe landed at Cherrapunji. It should be noted that the Khasi field was the twenty-first centre which the Serampore Mission had opened in India when the mission was no longer financially sound. Combining evangelism with school Alexander Lish and Joshua Roe opened three schools in different places which were definitely beyond their means. Because of financial constraint and inadequacy of man-power followed by the death of Joshua Marshman, one of the Serampore trio, the Serampore Mission decided to abandon both the Khasi and the Assam fields. In 1841, the American Baptist mission which had recently established a station in upper Assam took over the lower Assam, and the Welsh Presbyterian Mission stepped into the Khasi field.

The primary objective of the American Baptist Mission was to open a mission in China. The interest in ‘China Mission’ had been remarkably aroused by the publication of Charles Gultzlaff’s ‘Journal of Two Boyages along the Coast of China’ in 1834. Charles Gutzlafff was no doubt aware of the Chinese government’s opposition against the entry of foreigners in China but he projected the picture that the Chinese people, on the whole, were not averse to Christianity. The American Baptists  thus expected that a chain of mission stations would be established among kindred races, commencing in Siam and stretching though the Tenasserim provinces and the British empire into Assam, thereby encircling the western frontiers of China with influences  and agencies that mist sooner or later penetrate into hitherto impassable barriers of China as a part of Central Asian strategy, the American Baptists began to develop a fascinating interest in China. Their subsequent involvement in North-East India was only an accident or at most a part of this ‘Asian strategy’. But they were not clear as to how the plan of ‘China Mission’ was to be executed. Their approach to China through their mission station in Bangkok being not practical, they embarked on to fulfill this project through the Shan mission in northern Burma.

            Local situation also favored this venture. Mr. A.C. Bruce, who had been instrumental in the establishment of experimental tea plantation near Sadiya, had prepared the ground and convinced Francis Jenkins (successor of David Scott) to invite the missionaries. Accordingly, Jenkins forwarded Bruce’s letter to Charles Travelyan, one of the prominent young Turks of the Company in Calcutta. Utilitarian by background, Travelyan advocated the introduction of western civilization in India. But it would be wrong to assume that Travelyan had no fundamental religious interest. In fact, he combined in himself the fusion of the evangelical and radical outlook. Macaulay’s letter of 7 December 1834 to his sister, Margaret testified to the fact that Travelyan’s own religious feelings were ardent, like all his feelings, even to the extent of being enthusiastic.

            The missionary’s nationality was sometimes quite important and Charles Travelyn’s choice naturally fell on the British Baptists. William H. Pearce of Baptist Missionary Society at Calcutta informed the government that his mission had recently opened two fields at Cherrapunji and Guahati and therefore was not in a position to undertake a new field. He, however, suggested that the government should invite the American Baptists from Burma. Jenkins, Travelyan and Pearce thus jointly appealed to the American Baptists in Burma stressing jointly appealed to the American Baptists in Burma stressing the great opportunities a mission station at Assam would provide.

            At times Jenkins would correspond even to the home board in America by making proposals for new work sweetened with offers of financial assistance. Jenkins thus exercised tremendous influence upon the working of the American Baptist mission at least in its initial stage. On the other hand, the mission also had benefited from the support of government officials.

            The American Baptists readily accepted the offer because they saw in it the prospect of opening the ‘gateway to the Celestial Empire’ at no distant future. According to them, the proposed station, which was hoped to act as a highway to Tibet and Western China, would enhance its value from a missionary as well as from a political and commercial point of view. They hoped to accompany the government team to China via Assam route to make enquiry about the culture of the tea-plant and then carry the Gospel to the Chinese people beneath the protection afforded by the East India Company. It was this double interest both in the China Mission and the Shan Mission which ultimately dragged them to open a station at Sadya at the extreme eastern end of the Brahmaputra Valley.

            The American Baptist thus immediately designated two of their missionary families, the Nathan Browns and the Oliver Cutters, for the Sadya station Cutter was a printer and Jenkins offered Rs. 2000/- for the installation of a printing press. The objective of the mission was thus to use Sadya as a base because it was connected with Yunnan in China. It is to be noted that the Sadya station was only a part of the Asian strategy for evangelizing the Shans and then the Chinese. The vision of coordinated evangelistic enterprise extending throughout Central Asia made it difficult for the missionaries to sensibly organize the much humbler work of evangelizing the Assamese. Unaware of the realistic situation, they were more concerned with the Shan or Chinese birds in the distant bush than the Assamese birds in hadn. The ‘Asian strategy’ was ill-planned because the Singphos could not come to terms with the British. Therefore, political instability on the Assam-Burma borders greatly shattered Brown’s hope and made him to think that the whole strategy seemed to be blasted.

            Because of the unfriendly attitude of the Singphos and the Khamtis, Rev. Miles Bronson began to look towards the NamsangheaNagas of Tirap division of North East frontier Agency (NEFA). Both within the government officials and the mission board, the plan met with widespread support. Captain Hannay, the British Commander, endorsed the scheme because such work would contribute directly or indirectly to the British policy of pacifying the Naga tribes without having to assume direct administrative control over them. Jenkins also took personal interest in Miles Bronson’s pioneer\ring work among the Nagas and went to the extent of imploring the home board to reinforce the Manshang work. In fact, the local officials had to reinforce the Manshang work. In fact, the local officials had contributed to a total of Rs. 1,890/- for various aspects of the Namshang project. The warm official response was , however, negated by the compromising attitude of Miles Bronson who succumbed to his colleagues’ ruling that regarded the Brahmaputra valley as the ‘land of Canaanites flowing with honey and milk’ because of its fairly stable political condition with better medical facilities and communications. In the meantime, a serious controversy raged between the missionaries on the field and the home board which greatly jeopardized the progress of the missionary work in the Brahmaputra valley, while the latter failed to specify a clear framework within which it s missionaries were to work in the Brahmaputra valley. While the latter failed to specify a clear framework within which its missionaries were to work, it vaguely laid down that whatever be the area or situation, evangelism should follow the New Testament pattern and the missionary had to work in a manner approved by the board in advance. The board also questioned even the validity of education as an essential part of evangelism. It appeared that the controversy centered more on the financial constraint due to American Civil War which was reinforced by the unfruitful work of the missionaries on the field. The unsettled condition of the country, the missionaries failing health and their frequent removal from place to place contributed to the slow progress of converts, while on the home front, debts accumulated upon the mission’s treasury which heavily told upon the progresses of the missionary work on the field. Like the Central Asian strategy, the plan for evangelizing the Brahmaputra valley was launched with ambitious plans and extravagant hopes but with no sufficient resources. However committed they were, the twenty two missionaries could win only 50 Assamese souls during the twenty five years of work. The number of converts and students studying mission schools sharply declined. This made the prospects of the mission’s work in the Brahmaputra valley gloomier. As a result, the question of abandoning Assam mission was even contemplated. But the marvelous response of the Garos to the preaching of two native workers, Omed and Ramkhi (the first Garo converts) and the baptism of about thirty seven people at the hands of Miles Bronson on 14 and 15 April 1867 had reactivised the lack-lustre Assam mission. It also did indicate the shape of things to come in the hill regions for which the missionaries had shown little or no interest then.

            Moved by the event, the Naga work which was abandoned in 1841 was revived, but this time among the AoNagas by F.W. Clark, amsiionary to the Sibsagar mission in 1871. Mr. Clark was primarily preoccupied with works among the tea-garden labourers in the beginning and his subsequent interet in Naga work was more an accident thatn deliberate. Godhula Brown, an Assamese evangelist, was instrumental in the preparation of the groundwork for the planting of Christianity in Naga hlls. Godhula’s evangelistic zeal was mized with at too great risk. Godhula’s evangelistic zeal was mized with at too great risk. Godhula’s greatest disadvantage was that he was regarded as a ‘subject man’ and ‘a Company man’, meaning that one living under English rule. Undaunted, Godhula proclaimed himself as teacher of a new religion, and declared this to be his sole errand. Impoverished by famine, pestilence and Intertribal war involving many and costly sacrifices, the Nagas could hardly afford to have one good meal a day. In the failure of their own gods to give them help, the people naturally looked towards, the Supreme God who, Godhula told them, was the ‘Bread of life’.  Following their baptism, Clark wanted to open a permanent mission centre among the AoNagas who were then placed under an “unadministered area.” He sought the permission of the Government of India through Col. Hopkinson, the Commissioner of Assam, who was a bit reluctant to recommend the case because of the recent enactment of the ‘Inner Line Regulation’. For this reason, the British officer did not advocate even the penetration of British traders into such areas. TO justify his stand, Hopkinson pointed out that even during his short stay in Assam the missionaries on two occasions with their new converts formed settlement and planted tea gardens which they afterwards sold to joint-stock companies. The Commissioner expected that Rev. Clark would not do the same thing, but he failed to make ‘invidiousness of drawing a distinction between a planter and a missionary, and of telling the one he must stop at a line which the other may transgress’. At his own risk and with no assurance of protection from the British, Clark was permitted to find settlement among the Nagas. The faint hope of evangelizing the whole of Asia still lingered and the Naga alone, but rather as a part of great system to reach the Monglian people of Asia.

At the outset, the Welsh Mission operated through the London Missionary Society (1795) which was a conglomeration of Anglicans, Welsh Presbyterians and Congregationalists (Independents). Since the Congregationalists dominated the London Missionary Society, the Welsh Presbyterians felt that they simply funded the society without sharing responsibility. The specific issues which widened the breach were the conflicting. The specific issues which widened the breach were the conflicting opinions on church polity and the policy adopted in the recruitment of missionaries. One such example was the outright rejection of any missionary candidate from Presbyterians and the only disqualification seemed to be their being Methodists. Because of sectarian feeling within the component members of the London Missionary Society and want of greater responsibility, the Welsh Mission ultimately broke away from the society to form that is known as the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Foreign clearer sense of responsibility and greater liberality among its workers. Since then, the Welsh missionaries criss-crossed various continents and definitely India was one of their chosen fields.

            As regards the specific area of operation, Dr. Wilson of Scottich Presbyterian church, who had already been in India, suggested Gujarat, whereas Jacob Tomlin, an ex-missionary of London Missionary Society in India suggested three places, namely, Khasia-Jaintia hills, Manipur and Malour in Central India, giving, of course, first priority to the Khasia hills. Prior to his departure to England, Jacob Tomlin projected to work his way t China through Assam and on failing to do so, went to the Khasi hills and stayed at Cherrapunji for some time. The Welsh mission accepted Tomlin’s suggestion and the compulsive factor that informed the decision was the growing political stability in the hills  coinciding with the British Baptist Mission’s decision to abandon their Khasi field. Thomas Jones from Montgomeryshire, who landed on 22 June 1841, soon established a mission station at Cherrpunji. When the capital of Assam was officially shifted to Shillong in 1866, the Welsh Mission also thought it expedient to move to the new capital. With the gradual consolidation of their hold over Khasi hills partly

because of the generous help from government in the form of financial grant and partly because of friendly attitude of some Khasi rajas, plans were afoot to extend the mission’s area of operation even beyond the Khasi hills. One such field was the turbulent Lushai hills which eventually became one of the major fields of Welsh Mission soon after the former had come under the sway of British imperialism in 1891.

References:

GeoffrayMoorhouse, The missionaries (London, 1973), p.134.

Ibid., p.135

 James Morris, PaxBritanica, The Climax of an Empire (New York, 1968),

 p.121.

 Stephen Neil, Colonialism and Christian Missions (London, 1968), p. 414.

Ibid., p.280

Ibid., p.414

 Klaus Bade, op. cit., p.82.

Ibid., p.82.

 Tang Tiangli’s “Mission, the Cultural Arm of Imperialism” in Jessie G. Lutz,

  ed., Christian Missions in China (Massachusetts, 1965), p.52.

  Paul A. Varg, “A Survey of Changing Mission Goals and Methods” in ibid.,

  p.2.

 F.K. Ekechi, “Colonialism and Christianity in West Africa: The Igbo Case, 1900-1915” in Journal of African

History, Vol.21, no.1, 1971, p.103.

 Robert Strayer, op.cit., pp.32-33.

 Eric Stokes, op.cit., p. 33.

 Von Walter Holste, “KolonialismusalsTheologisches Problem” in Stat Crux dumvolviturorbis (Festchrift fur Hans Lilje, Berlin, 1959), p.163.

 Klaus Bade, op,cit.,p.78.

 A.P Thronton, Doctrines of Imperialism (New Your, 1965), p. 63.

 Stephen Neil, op.cit., p.6.

 V. Shivaram, op. cit., p.6.

 D.A. Low, The Lion Rampant: Essays in the Study of British Imperialism (London, 1973), p.118.

 Fritz Blanke, op. cit., p.92.

 Robert Strayer, op.cit., p.106.

 Jan Hermelink, “Die CHristliche Mission und Der Kolonialismus” in Das Eude der Kolonializet Wade von Morgen (Stutttgart, 1961), p.34.

Ibid., p.35.

 Robert Strayer, op.cit., p. 101.

 Klaus Bade, op.cit., p.79.

 Von Walter Holsten, op.cit., p.163.

Ibid., p.162.

 Von H.W. Gensichen, “Die Deutsche Mission und der Kolonialismus” in   Kerygma und Dogma, April 1962, p.143.

BengtSundkler, The World of Mission (Michigan, 1965), p.121; see also Bade, op.cit., p.83.

Holsten, op.cit., p.149.

 Galatians, 3:26 and 28 (Good News Bible).

 Sebastian Kappen, Jesus and Freedom (New York, 1977), pp. 114-115.

Ibid., p.117.

Gensichen, op.cit., p.149

 Corinthians II, 5:20 (Good News Bible).

 Hubert Jedin, “Weltmission und Lolonialismus” in Seculam (1958), p.402.

 Jerome D’Souza, SardarPanikkar and Christian Missions (Trichinopoly, 1957), p.53.

 V.W. Holsten, op.cit., p.161.

Shivaram, op.cit., p.10.

 Stephen Neil, op.cit., p.332.

 Jan Kermelink, op.cit., p.38.

 Charles W.Forman, ed., Christianity in Non-Christian World (New Jersey, 1967), p.112.

Ibid., p.112.

Ibid., p.114.

 John William Kaye, Christianity in India: An Historical Narrative (London, 1859), pp.3-4.

 E. Daniel Potts, British Baptist Missionaries in India, 1837: The History of Serampore and Its Missions (Cambridge, 1967), p.3.

 John William Kaye, op.cit., pp.4-5.

 K.P. Sengupta, The Christian Missionaries in Bengal, 1793-1833 (Calcutta, 1971), p.1.

 E.J. Hobsbawm, Labouring Men (London, 1964), pp. 23-33.

 Eric Stokes, The English Utilitarians and India (Oxford,. 1959), p.27.

 K.P. Sengupta, op.cit., p. 7.

 Stephen Neil, op.cit., pp. 73-74.

 Arthur Mayhew, op.cit., p. 50.

 Francis G. Hutchins, The Illusion of Permanence; British Imperiialism in  

India (Princeton, 1967), p. 13.

Ibid., p. 13.

 Eric Stokes, op.cit., p. 34.

 Charles Grant, Observation, p. 220.

 Eric Stokes, op.cit., p. 11.

 E. Daniel Potts, op.cit., pp. 174-195.

Ibid., p. 175.

Bodlejan MSS. Correspondence on Mission in India: Parry and Grant to Dundas, 8 June 1807.

 K.P. Singupta, op.cit., p.  57.

Ibid., p. 58.

 Stokes, op.cit., p. 35.

Ibid., p. 40.

Ibid., p. 43.

Peter Ekeh, op.cit., p. 96.

 Stokes, op.cit., p. 45.