Jesus is Not the Only Son of God
Gandhi was dead against conversion.But umpteen number of Christian missionaries were after him,to convert him.He never gave them a chance.They were after Ambedkar too,who had a wavering mind.Ambedkar in a speech in Nasik had declared that he is leaving the Hindu fold.Gandhi instead of the Christian Kingdom,propounded the Rama Rajya.Though he studied in London,unlike many others.he was never a Eurocentric;he had his moorings in Hinduism.
 |
Christian missionaries were greatly tempted to convert Gandhi. They thought that if Gandhi was converted millions of his followers will automatically follow suit. Christian missionaries came from all parts of the world, to discuss with him matters religious but often with the sole aim of converting him to Christianity. He listened to them patiently, argued with them and sometimes even rebuked them for mixing up social work with proselytising. What they had brought to sell did not appeal to Gandhi. He used to tell the missionaries that he refused to believe that Jesus was the only son of God and that the salvation of a person lay in accepting Jesus Christ as the Saviour.
Gandhi has described this incident in his Autobiography (1929):
"In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment. About the same time, I heard of a well-known Hindu having been converted to Christianity. It was the talk of the town that, when he was baptized, he had to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes, and that thenceforth he began to go about in European costume including a hat. These things got on my nerves. Surely, thought I, a religion that compelled one to eat beef, drink liquor, and change one's own clothes did not deserve the name. I also heard that the new convert had already begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity."
His real confrontation with Christian missionaries started in 1893 while Gandhi was in South Africa. Gandhi has described these first attempts in detail in his Autobiography thus:
"The first to come in contact was one Mr. A.W. Baker. He, besides being an attorney, was a staunch lay preacher.
"He upholds the excellence of Christianity from various points of view, and contends that it is impossible to find eternal peace, unless one accepts Jesus as the only son of God and the Saviour of mankind.
"During the very first interview Mr. Baker ascertained my religious views. I said to him: "I am a Hindu by birth. And yet I do not know much of Hinduism, and I know less of other religions. In fact I do not know where I am, and what is and what should be my belief. I intend to make a careful study of my own religion and, as far as I can, of other religions as well."
He also gave some religious books to Gandhi to read, including the Holy Bible. Mr. Baker had invited Gandhi to a prayer meeting next day which Gandhi attended. Apart from the general prayer, Gandhi records:
"A prayer was now added for my welfare: Lord, show the path to the new brother who has come amongst us. Give him, Lord, the peace that thou has given us. May the Lord Jesus who has saved us save him too. We ask all this in the name of Jesus."
One of the group was a young man Mr. Coates, a Quaker. He had given Gandhi quite a few books on Christianity and had hoped that he would come round and embrace Christianity.
Gandhi continues in the Autobiography:
"He (Mr. Coates) was looking forward to delivering me from the abyss of ignorance. He wanted to convince me that, no matter whether there was some truth in other religions, salvation was impossible for me unless I accepted Christianity which represented the truth, and that my sins would not be washed away except by the intercession of Jesus, and that all good works were useless."
Gandhi was introduced to several other practicing Christians, including a family belonging to Plymouth Brethren, a Christian sect..One of the Plymouth Brethren confronted Gandhi with an argument for which he was not prepared. He said:
"How can this ceaseless cycle of action bring you redemption? You can never have peace. You admit that we are all sinners. Now look at the perfection of our belief. Our attempts at improvement and atonement are futile. And yet redemption we must have. How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. He is the only sinless son of God. It is His word that those who believe in Him shall have everlasting life. Therein lies God's infinite mercy. And as we believe in the atonement of Jesus, our own sins do not bind us. Sin we must. It is impossible to five in this world sinless. And therefore Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace. Think what a life of restless is yours, and what a promise of peace we have."
Gandhi's reaction to this offer is typical of him and is oft quoted by his western biographers like Erik Erikson and Geoffrey Ash:
"The argument utterly failed to convince me. I humbly replied: If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless."
Gandhi was troubled with what was written in the Bible itself after he started reading it. Gandhi narrates another experience:
"Mr. Baker was getting anxious about my future. He took me to the Wellington Convention. The Protestant Christian organize such gatherings every few years for religious enlightenment or, in other words, self-purification. --- Mr. Baker had hoped that the atmosphere of religious exaltation at the Convention, and the enthusiasm and earnestness of the people attending it, would inevitably lead me to embrace Christianity. --- The Convention lasted for three days. I could understand and appreciate the devoutness of those who attended it. But I saw no reason for changing my belief - my religion. It was impossible for me to believe that I could go to heaven or attain salvation only by becoming a Christian. When I frankly said so to some of the good Christian friends, they were shocked. But there was no help for it."
Gandhi continues:
"My difficulties lay deeper. It was more than I could believe that Jesus was the only incarnate son of God, and that only he who believed in him would have everlasting life. If God could have sons, all of us were His sons. If Jesus was like God or God himself, then all men were like God and could be God himself. My reason was not ready to believe literally that Jesus by his death and by his blood redeemed the sins of the world. Metaphorically there might be some truth in it. Again according to Christianity only human beings had souls, and not other living beings, for whom death meant complete extinction; while I held a contrary belief. I could accept Jesus as a martyr, an embodiment of sacrifice, and a divine teacher, but not as the most perfect man ever born. His death on the cross was a great example to the world, but that there was anything like a mysterious or miraculous virtue in it my heart could not accept. The pious lives of Christians did not give me anything that the lives of men of other faiths had failed to give. I had seen in other lives just the same reformation that I had heard of among Christians. Philosophically there was nothing extraordinary in Christian principles. From the point of view of sacrifice, it seemed to me that the Hindus greatly surpassed the Christians. It was impossible for me to regard Christianity as a perfect religion or the greatest of all religions.I shared this mental churning with my Christian friends whenever there was an opportunity, but their answers could not satisfy me."
Gandhi was only twenty-four when these skirmishes with Christian missionaries occurred.
 |
| Gandhi's prayer meeting at Juhu,Mumbai,1944 |
Gandhi wrote the following article on Jesus in Ramanand Chatterji's Modern Review in October 1941:
What Jesus Means to me
Although I have devoted a large part of my life to the study of religion and to discussion with religious leaders of all faiths, I know very well that I cannot but seem presumptuous in writing about Jesus Christ and trying to explain what He means to me. I do so only because my Christian friends have told me on more than a few occasions that for the very reason that I am not a Christian and that (I shall quote their words exactly) "I do not accept Christ in the bottom of my heart as the only Son of God", it is impossible for me to understand the profound significance of His teachings, or to know and interpret the greatest source of spiritual strength that man has ever known.
Although this may or may not be true in my case, I have reasons to believe that it is an erroneous point of view. I believe that such an estimate is incompatible with the message that Jesus Christ gave to the world. For He was, certainly, the highest example of one who wished to give everything asking nothing in return, and not caring what creed might happen to be professed by the recipient. I am sure that if He were living here now among men, He would bless the lives of many who perhaps have never even heard His name, if only their lives embodied the virtues of which He was a living example on earth; the virtues of loving one's neighbour as oneself and of doing good and charitable works among one's fellow-men.
What, then, does Jesus mean to me? To me He was one of the greatest teachers humanity has ever had. To His believers He was God's only begotten Son. Could the fact that I do or do not accept this belief make Jesus have any more or less influence in my life? Is all the grandeur of His teaching and of His doctrine to be forbidden to me? I cannot believe so.
Collected Works,Vol. 75 p. 69-70
During his life several Christian missionaries met him and tried relentlessly to convince him about the uniqueness of Christianity and the infallibility of the Bible. Gandhi was frank enough to tell them about their folly and the absurdity of their beliefs. Given below is confrontation of Gandhi with Christians in Kerala.
From John R Mott's discussion with Gandhi,13/14 November 1936,Vol.64 p.35-41 (Harijan, 19-12-1936 and 26-12-1936):
J.M.: But there is a deplorable confusion of thought and divided counsel even amongst friends. The Devil would like nothing better. My life has been mostly spent for the intellectual classes, and I feel very much conscience-moved to help in this movement.
Gandhiji cited the example of good Christians helping by working under the Hindu banner. There was Mr. Keithahn who was trying hard to smooth the path of the untouchables. There were Miss Barr and Miss Madden who had thrown themselves into the rural reconstruction movement. He then adverted to the problem in Travancore where an indecent competition was going on for enticing away the Ezhavas from the Hindu fold.
The Ezhavas in Travancore want temple-entry. But it is no use your asking me whether they want temple-entry. Even if they do not want it, I must see that they enjoy the same rights as I enjoy, and so the reformers there are straining every nerve to open the temple doors.
J.M. But must we not serve them?
G. Of course you will, but not make conversion the price of your service.
J.M. I agree that we ought to serve them whether they become Christians or not. Christ offered no inducements. He offered service and sacrifice.
G. If Christians want to associate themselves with this reform movement they should do so without any idea of conversion.
J.M. Apart from this unseemly competition, should they not preach the Gospel with reference to its acceptance?
G. Would you, Dr. Mott, preach the Gospel to a cow? Well, some of the untouchables are worse than cows in understanding. I mean they can no more distinguish between the relative merits of Islam and Hinduism and Christianity than a cow. You can only preach through your life. The rose does not say: 'Come and smell me.'
John Mott was an American evangelist, a prominent Y.M.C.A. leader and Chairman, International Missionary Council.
Extravagant Statements By Missionaries
Interview to Bishop Moore, Bishop Abraham and Others on 19 January 1937 at Kottayam
Bishop Edward Alfterd Livingstone Moore,fourth Anglican Bishop of Travancore-Kochi received Gandhi cordially and welcomed the Temple-entry Proclamation (in Travancore) as an important event. He inquired if the savarnas and Brahmins also welcomed it, or if there was any opposition on their part.
Gandhi said he had seen no signs of opposition. He had met several thousands of people, visited several temples, and had found savarnas and avarnas entering the temples in perfect friendliness.
Bishop Abraham asked if the Ezhavas were ready to treat the Depressed Classes of lower castes on terms of equality.
Gandhi said he could not reply with confidence but he was striving to emphasize that point everywhere, and he hoped that the Proclamation would be carried out in that spirit.
Bishop Moore said that he had heard that Mr Gandhi was disturbed over reports of Christian missionary work in Travancore, and that he was ready to remove any misunderstanding that it was possible for him to remove.
Gandhi said that he was indeed surprised at the report of conversions of thousands of people in the Telugu country and in Travancore made in Bishop Pickett's speech in England and in a statement of the Church Missionary Society appealing for funds over the signature of Prebendary Cash. He could not understand how responsible Christians could make extravagant statements to the effect that thousands had experienced a spiritual awakening and accepted the Gospel. The Bishop of Dornakal had even stated that those thousands included not only the Depressed Classes but a large number of so-called high-caste Hindus. Gandhiji said he had challenged the truth of these statements in the columns of Harijan and had invited them to prove that he was wrong. He had also met leaders working in Andhra and asked them to make inquiries into the truth of these extravagant statements.
 |
| Bishop Moore |
Bishop Moore confessed that he had trot read either the appeal for funds or Bishop Pickett's speech and could not, therefore, express any opinion thereon. He was quite sure, however, that no responsible missionary journal should ever publish statements that were not based on actual facts, and he wanted to assure Mr. Gandhi that no wrong information had ever been supplied from his diocese for which alone he could speak. During the last year they could record 530 persons as having been baptized into the Anglican faith.
Bishop Abraham said he had been to the Andhra country and had seen with his won eyes that there was a tremendous awakening there even among the middle-class savarnas he had addressed meetings which were attended by many of the high-caste people.
Gandhi: But that means nothing. Hundreds of students attend meetings addressed by Dr. Stanley Jones, but they cannot be said to seek conversion to Christianity. To say that hundreds attended meetings addressed by Christian preachers is very different from saying that hundreds have accepted the message of Jesus and from making an appeal for money in anticipation of people becoming Christian in large numbers.
Mr. Kuruvilla here put in whether Mr. Gandhi had any objection to their stimulating and responding to the spiritual hunger of people.
Gandhi said it was wholly irrelevant to the issue.
Bishop Abraham said they were responding to the spiritual hunger of the people. Mr. Gandhi could have no objection to that?
Gandhi said he could have no objection to responding to spiritual hunger, provided it was genuinely felt and expressed. But the matter was quite irrelevant to the discussion which was entirely about extravagant statements made by responsible people. He said to Bishop Moore that he would furnish him with a copy of the C. M. S. statement and he would like to know what Bishop Moore would have to say regarding it.
Vol.64 p.285-86. (Harijan, 13-3-1937)
Note: The interview took place at Bishop Moore's house at Kottayam. The object was to clear up misunderstandings.
Segaon, Wardha
January 30, 1937
January 30, 1937
Amrit Kaur's Views ( after Travancore)
Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was with me during the Travancore pilgrimage. Though she could not enter the temples, she followed the pilgrimage in all other respects. She has felt moved by what she observed during the pilgrimage, and has placed in my hands the following letter which I dare not withhold from the reader:
I am of opinion that the missionary with the best intention in the world - for we must credit him with honesty of purpose - has wronged Indian Christian in more ways than one. Many converts here have been denationalized, e.g., even their names have been changed in many instances to those of Europeans; they have been told that there is no true light to be found in the religion of their forefathers. The ancient scriptures of their ancestors are a closed book to them. At the same time, while there has been no conscious effort to purge the Indian Church of the taint of untouchability that exists within its own doors, the untouchability that exists in Hinduism has been exploited to the extent of so-called Christianity of the Depressed Classes. I say' so-called Christianity' advisedly, because I know that not one of these poor people to whom I have spoken and I have spoken to many - has been able to tell me anything of the spiritual implications of his change of faith. That he is equally ignorant of the faith of his forefathers and has been sadly neglected by his own community does not seem to me to be ample or any reason for transplanting him to an alien soil where he can find no root.
Your utterances during your pilgrimage of penitence in Travancore have been a great joy. In particular do I rejoice in your special message to the Christian community at Kottayam. In admitting once again the equality of all religions you have given Christians much food for thought, and I hope and pray that this will be the beginning of an era of self-purification for them no less than for the members of the Hindu fold. Are we not all Hindus inasmuch as we are the children of Hind? Is there not room for Jesus in Hinduism? There must be. I cannot believe that any who seek to worship God in spirit and in truth are outside the pale of any of the great religions which draw their inspiration from Him who is the fountain-head of all Truth. I am sure I am not the only Indian born in the Christian faith who holds these views, but I feel that if the teaching and example of Jesus are to enrich the life of our country, Indian Christians must turn the search-light inwards and seek to serve in that spirit of humility and tolerance which is the essence of all true religions and without which there can be no unity and no peace and goodwill on earth.Will you not help the Indian Christian to realize his mission? You can, because you have drawn inspiration from Jesus' undying teachings as embodied in the Sermon on the Mount. We assuredly stand in need of guidance.
 |
| Amrit Kaur |
Owing to her close contact with me there was hesitation on my part over the publication. But the knowledge that she has very imperfectly voiced what other Christian friends have told me has overcome my hesitation. But I do not feel competent to guide Indian Christians. I can, however, appeal to them as I did at Kottayam and as I have done before then through these columns. I am on safer ground in responding to the Rajkumari's belief that there is in Hinduism room enough for Jesus, as there is for Mahomed, Zoroaster and Moses. For me the different religions are beautiful flowers from the same garden, or they are branches of the same majestic tree. Therefore they are equally true, though being received and interpreted through human instruments equally imperfect. It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world's progress towards peace. 'Warring creeds' is a blasphemous expression. And it fitly describes the state of things in India, the mother, as I believe her to be, of religion or religions. If she is truly the mother, the motherhood is on trial. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity and vice versa? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man? If the morals of a man are a matter of no concern, the form of worship in a particular manner in a church, a mosque or a temple is an empty formula, it may even be a hindrance to individual or social growth, and insistence on a particular form or repetition of a credo may be a potent cause of violent quarrels leading to bloodshed and ending in utter disbelief in religion, i.e., God Himself.
Rajkumari Amrit Kaur belonged to the royal family of Kapurthala (Punjab) and was daughter of Sir Harnam Singh who had embraced Christianity. Thus Amrit Kaur was a Christian though a devoted disciple of Gandhi like several other Christians.
Prof S K George from Thrissur was in the Inner circle of Gandhi.He lost his job in the Bishop's College,Calcutta in 1932 for supporting Gandhi.He wrote Gandhi's Challenge to Chrstianity ,in 1939.
To ALL CHRISTIANS IN INDIA
Dear Fellow-Believers,
The story of our Religion is nothing but the record of the appearances of
Divinely inspired prophets, coming forward with compelling messages for their
times, to lead their fellow men to fuller life and closer walk with God. But that
story is also full of warnings to us, not to fail to discern the signs of the times,
to know the day of our visitation; for it has been the lot of most of those
prophets to be despised and rejected in their generation, though later ages
have built their tombs and enshrined their memory. It is India's glory that in
these latter days God has raised up a prophet, like unto these ancient men of
God, from among her children. For it is my conviction that Mahatma Gandhi has
been raised up by God in these days, as Moses of old, to lead his people out of
the desolation of foreign domination and to set their feet on the path of selfrealization and world service. But the representatives of insolent might have,
as of old, driven from before their faces the people's representative and God's.
But what of the people? Will they too reject and disown him? We are persuaded
better of the people of India as a whole.
For India has never stoned her prophets or rejected those that have been sent to her. But what of our
Christian minority?
India is on trial. We are confident that her people will come out vindicated and
triumphant out of this trial. But Chistianity in India is also on its trial. We wish
we could have been equally confident about that issue too. So far Indian
Christians as a community have held aloof from the National struggle and
allowed their inaction to be interpreted as acquiescence in reactionary
measures and thus estranged themselves from their countrymen whom they
seek to serve. But we trust they will not miss this last great opportunity to take
their religion to the heart of the New Indi in the making. For this time the
struggle will be swift and the issue decisive. We Christians ought to be devoutly
thankful that that struggle is directed along strictly non-violent lines, enabling
us to bear our part in it with a clear conscience. To us our Christian profession
has already committed us to this struggle both as to its objective and its
method. For as Christians we are bound to stand out against all injustice and
oppression; and it needs no labouring the point at this time that British rule in
India, in spite of all its seeming benefits, has in its totality done more harm
than good to the country; and that in the interests both of India and Britain the
present relation between the two countries must be radically altered. As to
non-violence, it/is our Master's method, the Way of the Cross; and it is
certainly up to us to be interpreters of its meaning and guardians of its integrity
in the Holy War 4hat has already begun. If I appeal to Indian Christians, men
and women, in all parts of the country to join in their thousands in the
movement, it is because I believe that this movement under Mahatma Gandhi
will lead to a partial realization at least of that great goal before mankind* the
Kingdom of God, of which our prophets have seen visions and for which our
Lord lived and died. It is our Christian duty, due both to God and country, to
help in the realization of that ideal. May we not be found wanting in this hour
of our trial!
As to methods and programme, Mahatmaji in his last appeal to the community,
issued through the Nationalist Christian Party of Bombay, has suggested two items in which Indian Christians can and ought to join. These are Khaddar and
Prohibition. As he puts it, he has felt that the poor Indian Christian community
needs Khaddar as much as any other community in the land for its economic
salvation. So he expresses the hope, in his own inimitable language, that "every
Indian Christian house will be adorned with the charkka and every Indian
Christian body with Khaddar, spun and woven by the hands of their poor
countrymen and countrywomen."
As for Prohibition, he could not understand, he says, how a Christian could take
intoxicating drink. If we Christians have not been in the forefront of this work it
is because we have been culpably indifferent to one of the curses that is ruining
our country.
The fullest co-operation with the country in these two items of constructive
work seems to me the least the Indian Christian community as a whole can do
at this juncture. But if individual Christians feel they ought to do more they
ought to do so in the name of the Christ we serve; and I appeal to all Christian
Churches and leaders to send them forth with their blessings and to uphold
them with their prayers.
YOURS IN THE SERVICE OF THE KINGDOM
S. K. GEORGE,
Lecturer (Resigned),
Bishop's College, Calcutta.
PERHAPS I owe it to my friends in different parts of the country to explain why it is that I felt it my duty to give up a place so congenial to me as Bishop's College, to wander into the wilderness, giving up for the time being even the care of my little family. To make my position fully clear I had better begin at the beginning of my 'spiritual pilgrimage'. It was during the great Non-cooperation days of 1921 that I began really to live. Up to that time I was merely
the child of good parents, myself a good boy, which meant a harmless boy,
though I had, all unsuspected by others, my own inner stormy life3
Mahatma
Gandhi's life and message gripped me at that time and they have remained with
me as an abiding influence, deepening and vitalizing as the years go by. Above
all else they helped me to realize Christ and his message more than anything
else. I realized with a distinctness, that has been blurred at times by
considerations of safety and expediency, but which has never entirely faded
out, that the central thing in Christianity is the hope of the Kingdom of God and
that the Lord Jesus is inviting us to carry on the building up of that Kingdom
with the devotion and in the spirit which characterized himself in his life on
earth. Doctrinal affiliations have always seemed to me of less importance than
devotion to the ideal of the Kingdom and it was in that belief that I came as a
student and later as a member of the staff of Bishop's College. I shall ever be
grateful to the Principal of Bishop's College for his understanding of my
position and his uplifting faith in me, even though his own interpretation of
Christianity differed in its emphasis from mine.
But it was inevitable that my attitude should in the end clash with that of the
authorities of the Church in India, especially at a time like this, when I believe
that the Spirit of God is moving mightily to establish the foundations of the
Kingdom of God in this land. For the Church with its commitments, its alliances
with vested interests, its natural conservatism, and unfortunately in India its
foreign leadership, was not to be expected to welcome such a radical thing as
the Kingdom of God coming in power, particularly when God's chosen agent for
it happens to be one outside its own fold. For it is my conviction that Mahatma
Gandhi today is a worker for the Kingdom of God, perhaps the greatest force
working for it here or anywhere else. I have for long felt it in my innermost
being that he is a man of God and that the greatest duty of any Christian or any
God-fearing man at this time is to stand with him for Truth and Justice, and
true Brotherhood between men of all classes and creeds and races. This, ofcourse, is a personal conviction which no one can be argued into. But it made
my own way clear.
My differences with the authorities of Bishop's College are of some years’
standing. During the last Civil Disobedience movement I had a little
correspondence with the Metropolitan over his very unconvincing reply to Prof.
Kumarappa. That time the Metropolitan had threatened to take action and the
threat hung over me all through the next two years. When the struggle was
renewed this year I could not remain indifferent to it. Believing as I do, that
the Indian satyagraha is the Cross in action and that it gives Jesus Christ his
greatest opportunity to enter the heart of a remade India, I held it to be my
highest duty both towards the College and the Church in India to identify
myself entirely with this non-violent movement, based absolutely on Truth and
seeking solely to establish peace on earth and goodwill among men. But such an
attitude on my part was regarded as disloyalty to the College and therefore I
had no other alternative but to leave the College to follow my own conscience
at this time of my country's need and my Lord's opportunity.
I fully trust that the Church in India will not long continue in its present apathy
and will not finally miss this great opportunity to take her religion and her Lord
right into the heart of the New India in the making and thus win for Him the
devotion of this dear Mother of us all. May this consummation not long be
delayed is the prayer of
YOUR FRIEND AND COMRADE
\S. K. GEORGE
Calcutta, March 31, 1932
\
Gandi's letter to George
MY DEAR GEORGE,
I was glad you were in the Ashram. I hope your fever has left you. For the time
being only this note. Yes, Rama Raj is possible even with this mixture, if the workers are true. This does not exclude me. If I am true, there must be true coworkers, if false also. Do write whenever you feel like it.
LOVE,
Yeravda Mandir, 3-10-'32 BAPU
S K George to Gandhi
The Ashram,
Sabarmati,
Oct. 5, 1932
MY DEAR BAPU,
I wonder whether my short note of September received your notice at all. As I
said in that I have been striving to follow you for the last ten years, seeing in
you God's chosen agent for bringing in His Kingdom on earth in this generation.
Your life and your devotion to your ideal of Rama Raj made Christ and his
Kingdom more real to me and I felt that in standing behind you I was helping to
bring in Christ's Kingdom. It was this conviction of mine that brought me into
conflict with the authorities of the Church in India and led to my resignation
from Bishop's College, Calcutta, where I was a tutor. But having taken that step
and having come to the Ashram for fuller identification with your cause, I find
myself still perplexed as to my Christian duty. Before leaving the Ashram (I am
going for a short stay at the Christa Seva Sangh, Poona) may I use my privilege
as an ashrarmite of sharing my perplexities with you?
It is your ideal of Rama Raj that has won my allegiance. But my growing misgiving is whether it is possible to build up any Kingdom of God with people who have not seen the vision of it and do not accept its ideals as life-principles. The Congress does not share your ideal and is not working out your methods — for non-violence as a principle is poles apart from non-violence as a policy. I do not blame the Congress for it. It is a political organization, working for a political goal and for the realization of that it has adopted non-violence as the best policy — nonviolence in the sense of avoidance of violence — so as not to give a handle to its enemy, against whose organized violence it would otherwise have no chance. That, I believe, is all the non-violence that is in practice in the Congress campaign, though individuals may be found who carry it further. Undoubtedly even as a policy it is superior to violence and the only workable one in India; and I hope and pray that India will stick to it. But you will admit that non-violence as a policy cannot bring in the Kingdom of God. A worker for that Kingdom seeks no immediate and tangible success. He is content to wait till God's good time for its coming; indeed its coming means the perfecting of its methods and its workers. The goal of Indian Swaraj obviously cannot wait for such perfection. It is a political goal and it cannot long be delayed without disaster to the country, without making unrest habitual and driving impatient spirits among the youth to reckless acts of violence. The distinction therefore between the two ideals and the methods of their attainment ought, I think, to be made far more clear than at present. You, as a worker for the Kingdom of God, ought, in my humble opinion, to stand aside from the struggle for mere political power without hampering the swift acquisition of the latter by your insistence on methods which really pertain to the former and which you cannot get practised by a mass of workers who are in the main moved by the lesser ideal.
Take the case of your recent fast. I quite see that to you it was a religious issue
and consequently far more important than the political question, and therefore
you were prepared to lay down your life for it. But, as the leader of the
Congress, you are fighting the political battle and thousands have followed you
to prison expecting a speedy settlement of that. In turning aside from that
main issue to fight untouchability, I humbly submit that, you were betraying
the cause of the Congress. In taking up the untouchability question in the
manner you did, you were really being true to yourself, but that as a worker for
Rama Raj and not for Indian independence. India can get independence with
separate electorates and with many imperfections which may not be tolerable
in the Kingdom of God: only it would not be the independence of your
conception; it would not be Rama Raj. But the issue has not been cleared as to
whether the masses, and even the leaders, who stand behind you would prefer
political independence in the immediate future or be content to wait and suffer for the Kingdom of God "which comes not with observation" and which cannot
be forced upon men. I believe the majority of those who work under you,
especially the leaders, would be willing to let go the distant and glorious ideal
for the more tangible and immediate goal. Unless that issue is cleared in your
favour you should stand aside and let the Congress fight its battle for its own
legitimate, though lesser goal, while you should come out as a worker for God's
Kingdom, challenging the allegiance of all who work and pray for it throughout
the world.
Having ventured to say so much, may I go on to make a further criticism? That
relates to your fast. The time and circumstances at which you elected to fast
on the issue were such, it seemed to me, as to throw part of the odium of it on
the Government. This would be more clear if we think of the eventuality of
your death. It would have irrevocably embittered the country against the
Government, while you would really have died at the hands of the people. For
however much the Government may be to blame for exploiting our unhappy
differences this issue is peculiarly one of our own creation and maintenance,
and one who felt, as you do, the enormity of our guilt in the matter would have
exonerated the Government altogether and directed the fast solely against the
people. What I mean is that this issue had better been fought with the
Government left out. A deeper sense of your Hindu responsibility for the crime
would have led you not to embarrass the Government even to the extent that
the decision did and was meant to. I know I am treading on sacred ground when
I question what you claim to be your divinely guided choice of time and say that
the issue had better been tackled when the independence question was settled
and you, from the height of your power, could have hurled your life as a
challenge against this long-standing injustice.
Forgive me if in anything I have seemed to be irreverent. I was only being utterly frank with you. May I be favoured with a reply C/o the Acharya, Christa Seva Sangh, Poona?
Your humble follower,
S. K. GEORGE
Gandhi to George from jail
My Dear George, I prize your letter for its gentle frankness. Only I cannot give you the full reply it deserves. My position as a prisoner would not warrant my giving you a detailed reply. One thing I may say. I do not isolate politics from religion as you appear to me to do. Religion to be true must pervade every activity of life. And that activity which cannot be pursued without sacrificing religion is an immoral activity to be shunned at all costs. Politics is not only not such an activity but it is an integral part of civic life. The rest of the discussion must be postponed to a more auspicious occasion. Only do not give me up in despair. I hope you had my previous letter. 14-10-, 32 Yours, Bapu.
( Gandhi-George Correspondence from George's book,Gandhi's Challenge to Christianity).
Segaon, Wardha
April 3, 1937
April 3, 1937
An Unfortunate Document
( A Reply to Barrister George Joseph and Others)
Fourteen highly educated Indian Christians occupying important social positions have issued a joint manifesto setting forth their views on the missionary work among Harijans. The document has been published in the Indian Press. I was disinclined to publish it in Harijan, as after having read it more than once I could not bring myself to say anything in its favour and I felt that a critical review of it might serve no useful purpose. But I understand that my criticism is expected and will be welcomed no matter how candid and strong it may be.
The reader will find the manifesto published in full in this issue. The heading(1) is also the authors'. They seem to have fallen between two stools in their attempt to sit on both. They have tried to reconcile the irreconcilable. If one section of Christians has been aggressively open and militant, the other represented by the authors of the manifesto is courteously patronizing. They would not be aggressive for the sake of expedience. The purpose of the manifesto is not to condemn uniquivocally the method of converting the illiterate and the ignorant but to assert the right of preaching the Gospel to the millions of Harijans. The key to the manifesto is contained in paragraphs 7 and 8. This is what one reads in paragraph 7:
"Men and women individually and in family or village groups will continue to seek the fellowship of the Christian Church. That is the real movement of the Spirit of God. And no power on earth can stem that tide. It will be the duty of the Christian Church in India to receive such seekers after the truth as it is in Jesus Christ and provide for them instruction and spiritual nurture. The Church will cling to its right to receive such people into itself from whatever religious group they may come. It will cling to the further right to go about in these days of irreligion and materialism to awaken spiritual hunger in all."
 |
| George Joseph |
These few sentences are a striking instance of how the wish becomes father to the thought. It is an unconscious process but not on that account less open to criticism. Men and women do not seek the fellowship of the Christian Church. Poor Harijans are no better than the others. I wish they had real spiritual hunger. Such as it is, they satisfy by visits to the temples, however crude they may be. When the missionary of another religion goes to them, he goes like any vendor of goods. He has no special spiritual merit that will - distinguish him from those to whom he goes. He does, however, possess material goods which he promises to those who will come to his fold. Then mark, the duty of the Christian Church in India turns into a right. Now when duty becomes a right it ceases to be a duty. Performance of a duty requires one quality - that of suffering and introspection. Exercise of a right requires a quality that gives the power to impose one's will upon the resister through sanctions devised by the claimant or the law whose aid he invokes in the exercise of his right. I have the duty of paying my debt, but I have no right to thrust the owed coppers (say) into the pocket of an unwilling creditor. The duty of taking spiritual message is performed by the messenger becoming a fit vehicle by prayer and fasting. Conceived as a right, it may easily become an imposition on unwilling parties.
Thus the manifesto, undoubtedly designed to allay suspicion and soothe the ruffled feelings of Hindus, in my opinion, fails to accomplish its purpose. On the contrary, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I venture to suggest to the authors that they need to reexamine their position in the light of my remarks. Let them recognize the fundamental difference between rights and duties. In the spiritual sphere, there is no such thing as a right.
1. The heading of the manifesto was. "Our Duty to the Depressed and Backward Classes".
Note: The signatories were: K.K. Chandy, S. Gnanaprakasam, S. Gurubatham, S. Jesudasen, M. P. Job, G. Joseph, K.I. Matthai, A. A. Paul, S.E. Ranganadham, A.N. Sudarsanam, O. F.E. Zacharia, D.M. Devasahayam, G.V. Martyn.( only 13 names are there-Ramachandran.)
Vol.65 P. 47-48 ,Harijan, 3-4-1937
