Interview of T K Oomen

'Christians are more indigenous than upper-caste Hindus'

by Parshuram Ray

T K Oommen, writer and professor of sociology, whose study of The Christian Clergy in India has just been published, discusses the thorny issue of conversion and points out why the issue of indigenising Christians or the Christian church is a contradiction in terms

Professor T K Oommen is Professor of Sociology at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He has published a dozen books and over 70 research papers. His books include Charisma, Stability and Change; Doctors and Nurses; Social Transformation in Rural India; From Mobilisation to Industrialisation; Protest and Change; Alien Concepts and South Asian Reality; and Citizenship, Nationality and Ethnicity. Professor Oommen has been associated with several academic and administrative agencies including the Planning Commission, University Grants Commission, Indian Council of Social Science Research, National Law School of India University, UNESCO and FAO. A scholar of international repute, Oommen is, at present, president of the Indian Sociological Society and has recently written a new book titled The Christian Clergy in India. Parshuram Ray spoke to him about his latest book and the issues it deals with, including the origin of Christianity in India, the conversions debate and fundamentalism.

What inspired you to write this book?

There were two sources of inspiration. One was the interest I had in the study of modern occupations and professions in this country, as a sociologist. The second was that, as a person who grew up in Kerala and as a member of the Christian community, the church had approached me, along with several others, to do a study on theological education in India.

Can you tell us something about the origin of Christianity in India?

According to popular belief amongst Indian Christians, particularly those in southern India, Christianity came to our country in the first century AD when St Thomas, one of the apostles of Jesus Christ, came to the Kerala coast and converted some people there. These people were believed to be upper-caste Hindus, so there was no pressure or resistance to converting. The story remains by and large a belief, a myth, in the sense that there is no clinching historical evidence to show that it really happened. By about the third century AD, however, there were Christian settlements in Kerala. So, one can always work backwards and say that if there were Christian settlements by the third century AD, there ought to have been some before that as well. One can, therefore, assume that Christianity arrived in India in the first century itself; that is to say, it came to India before it went to Europe.

How can you say that Christianity came to India before it went to the West?

Christianity went to Europe between the fourth and fifth centuries AD. It came to India in the first century AD -- it's historically recorded.

What are the other misunderstandings about Christianity in India?

The other misunderstanding is that Christianity is a western religion. This is wrong. Christianity is an eastern religion; like Judaism and Islam, Christianity too has its roots in the Middle East. It's true, Christianity has been hijacked by the West. And it spread to the rest of the world from the West. That is because of the association of the church with the state and with colonialism. But the reality is that Christianity is an eastern religion. Q.: Can you tell us how Christians adopted the regional culture and local lifestyle of the people here? A.: There are different layers of Christians in India. The Anglo Indians constitute a westernised group that imitates people in the West, in terms of what they wear, what and how they eat, etc. But the rest of the people who have been converted from local communities, dalits, backward classes and tribals have rarely adopted western lifestyles and culture.

One stereotype is that Christians are heavy consumers of alcohol. That is absolutely wrong. In a healthy Christian family, alcohol is never taken, except during occasions like Christmas. So, to believe that Christians are necessarily consumers of alcohol is wrong. I can give you a very interesting example from Kerala. When a Christian boy marries he exchanges a ring, which is a western custom. But he also ties a mangalsutra with a cross at the end, called tali in Malayalam. This is a typical Indian custom; it's a local custom. Instead of replacing the local custom, a synthesis has taken place. We all eat the local food, not so-called `western' food.

You have written in your book that the socio-cultural source of defining Christians is based on two fallacious doctrines. Can you explain what those two doctrines are?

One is that religion should be the basis of constructing a nation-state. The other is that religion should be the centre of forming a lifestyle. My argument is that since the explorations of the 16th century, there has been an enormous amount of migration from one part of the world to another. Therefore, earlier identification of religious communities and particular territories is no longer in existence. When we talk of a nation, the first thing we assume is territory. If there is no co-terminality between religion, you cannot think in real terms of nation and religion. That is the first difficulty. The second difficulty is that the lifestyles of people are associated with their religion. There are certain things that are very specific to Christians, like lifecycle rituals, or theologically speaking canonical rituals of birth, baptism, marriage or death ceremonies. But look at other celebrations. In Kerala, for example, each one of us celebrates the festival of Onam, irrespective of whether one is a Hindu or a Christian. Onam is like the national festival of Kerala. So there are two types of ritual celebrations -- one specific to religion, the other social rituals in which everyone is involved. If we make a systematic comparison, say between the Kerala Christians and the Maharashtrian Christians, we will find that there is much less common between them, as compared to a Kerala Christian and a Kerala Hindu, a Maharashtrian Christian and a Maharashtrian Hindu. This is not clearly understood. What people normally do is use one identity as a primary identity; in fact this identity is used as a total identity. Methodologically speaking, that identity is used as a mistaken part for the whole. I have several identities: my identity as a Christian is one small part. I have an Indian citizenship identity. I have a Malayalee identity, and I have the identity of a professor and a sociologist. Why are all these identities relegated to the background while you zero in, and over-emphasise, only one of my identities -- my Christian identity? If you study my time expenditure for a week, maybe a month, I spend nearly 90 per cent of my time as a sociologist, roughly five to seven per cent as a family man, and maybe only one per cent as a Christian. Yet, you reduce me to that one percentage.

You mention in your book that the plea for indigenisation of Indian Christians is a contradiction in terms. Why?

Because there is hardly any alien element in Indian Christians. In the case of the Muslims, you have the distinction between the ashrafs and the ajalafs. The ashrafs are the nobility supposed to have come to India from outside and settled down here. There is no comparable category among Christians. Almost 100 per cent of Christians in this country are local converts. So they are Indians. Only their religion is supposedly alien, non-Indian. And if the theory that the Aryans came to India from outside is correct, and if the adivasis, dalits, backward classes and Dravidians in general were the pre-Aryan people who occupied India before the Aryans came, then the Christians are more indigenous than the upper-caste Hindus. Because they were adivasi converts who were already here. They were dalit converts who, also, were already here. They were converts from the backward classes -- they too were already here. Therefore, to talk about indigenising them is a contradiction in terms. They are certainly very, very indigenous.

What is the basic difference between eastern Christianity and western Christianity?

Apart from the geographic divide, there are many basic differences. For example, western Christianity has a very fundamental power in Rome -- the Pope. The Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox churches do not accept the Pope. These are separate loci of power. There are variations in the rites and rituals of Christianity practised in the west and in the east. In the western church, the Pope is the ultimate power; in eastern Christianity he is not. Both are distinct in terms of power, authority, customs, rituals and practices.

You have written in your book that theological education, in India, is inadequate. Why do you think so?

There is a widespread belief among the Christians of this country that the clergy is not adequate to the needs and aspirations of the people. The clergy has to be trained properly. The problem arises when the clergy belongs to an upper caste and the church is being used mainly by people from a lower caste. Then, there is difficulty in handling them. Only in some churches can people from lower-caste backgrounds become members of the clergy. At the moment the situation is in favour of an upper-caste clergy.

For example, look at the church leaders, bishops, etc. A majority of them are from the upper caste. The Christian clergy should represent all aspects of the community.

To what extent has the caste system influenced Christianity?

The reality in India is that the caste phenomenon is very much part of everyday life, and so it also influences life within the Christian church. You cannot honestly say that the problem of caste has been eradicated from the church. In Kerala, when people from lower castes began to be converted, they had their own separate church. There was one for the upper castes and another for the lower castes. Those churches that did accommodate lower-caste Christians asked them to sit separately. Even during Holy Communion, the upper castes were served first and then the lower castes. Now this has all disappeared. The same process has taken place with Indian secular education also. The untouchable child was admitted to school. He was allowed to enter the classroom and sit in a corner; then he was allowed to mix with the others. It is very wrong to say that the caste factor has disappeared from the Indian church. When it comes to marriage, Christians too very cleverly find out the caste background of the boy or the girl.

In your book you talk about the different varieties of communalism. Can you tell us which variety is most dangerous to our society?

Actually, two types of communalism will pose the biggest threat to Indian society and the polity. The first is secessionist communalism. By secessionist communalism I mean the tendency on the part of a religious community to claim a certain territory as a sovereign state. The second variety, also capable of great threat, is assimilationist communalism. What I have in mind is the Hindutva brand of communalism -- one nation, one people, and one culture. India is not one nation, one people, and one culture. It is a multiplicity of people living together in one political hope. The most important characteristic of the Indian situation is pluralism.

What is your opinion about the conversion controversy?

The Constitution is very clear. I am not saying that the Christians should convert. My point is that all religions should have the right to believe, to preach and to convert human beings. Convert, in the sense that you say this is your belief. Someone else, who is convinced, could change his religion. But there is no form of either inducement or force. If I am convinced, who are you to stop me from changing my religion? It is like saying, I am in the Janata Party and I realise that what's going on in the Janata Party is not good for me, so I change over to the Jan Sangh. If I can change my political party, there is no reason why I can't change my religion. It is a matter of conviction as an adult, a free citizen of this country.

But there have been accusations about Christians using inducements for conversion. What do you say to this?

When we come down to the question of inducements, I do not have any personal story to illustrate the fact that anybody has used force or fraud for conversion. But it is quite possible that gradually an atmosphere is created where you are probably given the benefit of the doubt that a change of religion may be better. Better in a material as well as spiritual sense. The issue of conversion is an old problem with Hinduism, because Hinduism doesn't believe in conversion, as do Islam or Christianity or Buddhism. Buddhism is a proselytising religion; Hinduism gradually absorbs. In the case of both Christianity and Islam the process goes on -- one fine morning you are baptised. You had a previous life, now you have a new life. Hinduism converts, but gradually, slowly -- it penetrates in a peaceful way.

Therefore, you cannot say Hinduism doesn't convert.

Do you think that Christians in India have any reason to worry about their identity and religious freedom?

I think the feeling among Christians, right up to the time the BJP acquired power, was a sense of peace and tranquillity. But now there is a great sense of fear. There are a few people who come and tell me their stories regarding this. The moment the BJP came to power, the whole situation changed. So many people, who looked at the BJP and the Sangh Parivar with suspicion, are now convinced. It is the political party that decides. The state is helpless; it has nothing to do with the communal and secular divide. When the present government was formed, thanks to allies like George Fernandes, Mamta Banerjee, Naidu and so on, it could not be termed communal, by any stretch of the imagination. But when it came down to the issue of Christians, I did not find any of these allies -- Mamta, George or Naidu -- putting pressure on the government and telling them that what they were doing was wrong and simply unacceptable.

(The Transforming Word)

Parshuram Ray is an environmental activist, researcher and writer based in New Delhi.

Published in Humanscape, December - 2000.