Who Killed Australian Missionary Graham Staines?

Arun Shourie

The findings of the Justice Wadhwa Commission of Inquiry

On the face of it, the report of the Wadhwa Commission on the murder of the Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons should have been very welcome to our secular friends. Justice Wadhwa has concluded that the main person who organised the attack was Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh, and that his motive in doing so was "misplaced fundamentalism", namely his conviction that conversions by missionaries were threatening Hinduism. He also records evidence to the effect that Dara Singh had been involved in an activity which, in the eyes of secularists, is as deplorable as an activity can get: protection of cows from slaughter.

But no, the secularists are all in rage. "A stained report," "A whitewash," "A politically tutored report" -- they have been shouting. Justice Wadhwa has failed the litmus test: if only he had included a sentence -- a single sentence! -- imputing -- howsoever obliquely -- that Dara Singh was in some way affiliated to some organization that can be linked to the RSS or the BJP, what applause would have greeted the Report!

But the Judge has stuck to evidence. Hence the fury! For our friends, a Commission of Inquiry is credible only if it is useful!

In fact, the Report is instructive on many counts. Not to heed them is to condemn the country to further problems.

The first to draw a lesson should be the press. In Chapter 10, Justice Wadhwa takes up "Other Proximate Incidents." The first of these is the alleged rape of Sister Jacqueline Mary on 3 February, 1999. "Orissa nun raped in moving car," the headlines declared, Justice Wadhwa records. "Orissa's second stain: nun raped," shouted the Indian Express, "Nun gangraped by men in sari in Orissa," hollered The Telegraph. The village "has become the rallying point of Christians of the area," the papers proclaimed. "The press, on the basis of some statement made by the pastor of the Church highlighted the role of some Hindu fundamentalist organizations," writes Justice Wadhwa. "....It was termed as a planned attack on the Church. It was said that there was a role of communal forces.... Electronic media was not far behind. It was highlighted as an anti-Christian attack." "Do not treat this as an isolated incident," the papers quoted teachers of a Christian convent school saying, "A communal conspiracy is suspected to be behind the rape."

There indeed was a conspiracy, and a communal one at that. The whole thing was a concoction -- by those whose agenda it is to paint Hindus as communalists on the rampage, and the RSS, BJP etc. as organizations which are orchestrating a "pogrom". "Investigations, however, revealed that what Sister Mary said in the FIR was not true," records Justice Wadhwa. "It was a made up story. Investigations found that there was in fact no rape of Sister Mary.... B. B. Panda, D(irector) G(eneral) (of) P(olice) stated that the 'rape of the nun' case was projected and highlighted all over the world and was also projected as an attack on Christians when in fact it was not true, and the case turned out to be false."

The second incident occurred on 7 February, 1999. Two children, aged 10 and 19, were found murdered, a third had sustained injuries. "This incident again attracted a great deal of publicity in the media, including electronic media," writes Justice Wadhwa. "Newspapers came up with the headings, 'Two Christians killed, one injured in Orissa,' '2 tribal Christians done to death in Kandhamal,' and 'Orissa hunts for Christians' killer'. Additional D. G. P. John Nayak reportedly said that the communal angle to the attempted rape and murder could not be ruled out...." "A certain political party even blamed the State and Central Governments," Justice Wadhwa recalls, "and stated that the inaction of the State Government in the Manoharpur missionary killing incident (the killing of Staines and his sons) and the alleged rape of the nun in Baripada encouraged miscreants to commit yet another crime in Kandhamal." "In short," he concludes, "as per various reports that appeared in the newspapers, the incident was taken as an attack on the Christians."

And what turned out to be the truth? "Ultimately investigation revealed that the crime was committed by a relative of the victims who was also a Christian," the Commission notes.

I'll come to the third incident in a moment, for it concerns an institution other than the press. The fourth incident occurred on 8 December, 1998. Tribals attacked the police station at Udaygiri, stormed the jail, dragged two undertrial prisoners out, and lynched them to death in front of the police station. After that, they burnt houses belonging to members of a particular caste, Pana. The incident too was projected as a Hindu-Christian encounter. It was nothing of the kind. The tribals were being harassed by criminals who happened to be from the Pana caste. The police had been doing nothing. One day the criminals robbed tribals of all their cash as they were proceeding to seek employment. That ignited the flash. But a Hindu-Christian clash it became!

That is one lesson, and Justice Wadhwa draws special attention to it: the press should not rush to conclusions before it has investigated the facts. The facts he has recorded urge that the caution be made specific: the press should be particularly wary of going by allegations of communalism-mongers.

The second institution which comes out most poorly is the Minorities Commission. For quite some time now, this Commission has been putting out patently partisan reports, reports so partisan as to appear to be designed to inflame. It is all too the good, therefore, that in the course of his inquiries into the incidents, Justice Wadhwa has given us a glimpse into the way it goes about its work. The incident I postponed mentioning is typical.

In it, in mid-March, 1999, Hindus -- a minority in the village -- were pictured as having sparked off Hindu-Christian clashes in village Ranalai. Christians painted a large Cross on a hillock. Some Hindus transfigured it into a Trishul. A peace committee consisting of representatives from both communities decided that there would be neither a Cross nor a Trishul. Next day, Hindus went and erased the sign. Christians alleged that while returning, Hindus shouted slogans proclaiming victory. Tension mounted. While trying to control the situation, a Circle Inspector of the police was manhandled by Christians. He registered an FIR against three of them. Houses of Christians were said to have been burned down. Cross-complaints were filed by Hindus and Christians -- each side accusing the other.

The Minorities Commission sent a team, and declared that the genesis of the trouble lay in BJP men inflaming feelings of the local Hindus and instructing them to convert the Cross into a Trishul. As for the incidents and tension, it came to the conclusion it always does: the Hindus had created the trouble.

Justice Wadhwa observes, "These findings are without examining any person on oath or receiving evidence on affidavits." The Minorities Commission had also stigmatized the State Government for inaction. Justice Wadhwa writes, "When the members of the Minorities Commission visited the village [within a fortnight of the supposed incidents], normalcy prevailed. Cases had already been registered against members of both the groups...." Justice Wadhwa shows that the Minorities Commission proceeded in a manner that is in manifest violation of its own statute.

And he quotes the account that The Economic Times correspondent filed after visiting the village. The 22 March, 1999 issue of the paper reported, Justice Wadhwa writes, "that roots of the Ranalai village incident in Gajapati district of Orissa in which houses of Christian families were burnt down by Hindu tribals of nearby villages lie in the economic disparities prevailing between the two communities. The report further said that tension had been building up since the night of February 9, when 23 houses of Hindu families were burnt down by criminals belonging to the Christian community of the nearby Jhami Gaon.... The report further stated that 'The unfortunate incident was largely unreported and totally ignored by national and international media'."

The constructions of the Minorities Commission on the Staines' murder turn out to be designed to colour that crime in the same hue. To take one example, Staines and his family were not involved in preaching of Christianity for the previous 10 years leading to conversion in Manoharpur, the Minorities Commission said in the report it sent to Justice Wadhwa. In fact, associates of Staines himself told the Wadhwa Commission that Staines used to conduct "Bible classes" at "Jungle camps." One of his oldest acquaintances told the Commission that Staines had been totally secretive about both the "Jungle camps" and the accounts etc. of the Leprosy House he ran. While some witnesses maintained that he never even attended baptisms, some reported that he did, that he provided vehicles for marriages and baptism functions. More telling is something of an order altogether different from the oral testimony of witnesses.

It turns out that Staines and his wife, Gladys, regularly filed despatches for a journal in Australia, Tidings. This journal is run by the missionary organization in Australia which financed Staines and his activities in Manoharpur. When the Commission learned about the despatches, it requested the concerned persons for copies of the journal. None were supplied! The Commission had to obtain these from other sources. Justice Wadhwa reproduces several extracts from the despatches.

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 25 April, 1997: The first jungle camp in Ramchandrapur was a fruitful time and the Spirit of God worked among the people. About 100 attended and some were baptized at the camp. At present Misayel and some of the Church leaders are touring a number of places where people are asking for baptism. Five were baptized at Bigonbadi. Pray for the Etani Trust in which the Mission properties are vested. One man managed by underhand means to get parts of the property in his own name and a number of nominal Christians of the Baripada Church are also trying to get some of this valuable property for themselves. The Trust is having to take legal action to rectify this."

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 23 July, 1997: Praise God for answered prayer in the recent Jagannath car festival at Baripada. A good team of preachers came from the village churches and four OM workers helped in the second part of the festival. There were record book sales, so a lot of literature has gone into the people's hand...." (Incidentally, "OM" is a carefully chosen acronym: the organization it signifies is actually one of the largest publishers and distributors of missionary literature!)

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 19 September, 1997: Praise God we now have the Ho New Testament in Oriya script and many copies are now in the hands of the Ho people. Pray to God that it will be used of God to speak to many as they read his word in their own language...."

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 11 February, 1998: Jungle camp means four days of Bible teaching, prayer and fellowship of Christians living together. It enables believers from other churches to meet with local Christians to discuss experiences and encourage one another.... The camp also can create hunger in the hearts of those who come just to observe. Each camp has a bookstall, which for many is the only chance to buy Christian literature.... It was also encouraging to see so many Ho people following the references in the Ho New Testament during the messages at Sarat Jungle camp. We sold all the New Testaments we took there...."

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 20 March, 1998: "....Over the next two months there will be a programme of baptism in nearby villages for those asking for them. These are times for witness to non-Christians too...."

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 19 May, 1998: There are many new believers in the Manoharpur Church and the work is growing. The devil is now finding opportunity to hinder the work of God. There is disagreement between the young people and the older men of the Church. A problem arose about the land on which the Church is built and the planned Vacation Bible School had to be canceled. Last year more than 100 children attended this programme. The translation of Daily Life into Oriya is complete...."

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 19 June, 1998: In many churches here Sunday schools have ceased to function. I have been advocating these and at a recent Church leaders meeting I heard that some have re-started this work.... The Vacation Bible School that was to be held at Manoharpur was canceled because of problems in the Church there. Two hundred and eight children registered for the one at Raika.... It was an excellent time and some young people who teach in VBS are being trained and encouraged for children's work and Sunday school."

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 21 August, 1998: ....There are still divisions in the Church at Manoharpur and the churches at Durakuntia and Burudi are very weak. It is wonderful to see the little girls being cared for in the Rairangpur hostel. They have a wonderful opportunity to learn to read and learn of the Lord...."

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 18 September, 1998: Four men visited Manoharpur Church to discuss the problems there and much was sorted out. A man who wants to be the head of the Church wants to bring in or join with two other groups who do not teach and walk according to the scriptures...."

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 19 December, 1998: It is encouraging to hear of some improvement in the Church at Manoharpur and that they are preparing for the jungle camp. Misayel, Paul and Nehemiah visited Patana in early December but, as many were away rice harvesting, they could meet only with a few. They were able to encourage a new believer who had been a priest of the Sana Dhoram, an animist sect. The village people pleaded with him not to become a Christian saying, 'How can we continue our worship if you leave us?' 'You can do as you like, but I am following Christ,' he said. Continue to pray. God is working."

The typical concerns of a typical missionary -- harvesting souls for the Church. The prejudices of a missionary -- Sanatana Dharma, an animist sect! While his wife and some others denied this, one of his close associates spoke of his "hatred" for other religions. This associate reported -- and even Gladys, Staines' wife, acknowledged -- that, if he happened to be at any non-Christian function, Graham Staines would never take prasad, as, Mrs. Staines claimed, doing so is prohibited in the Bible....

After reviewing the evidence, the Wadhwa Commission, therefore, concludes, "Besides his involvement with Leprosy House, Staines was also involved in missionary work. The missionary work of Staines has come to light from the various despatches sent by him to Australia, which are published in the newsletter, 'Tidings'. Staines also used to take part in baptism ceremonies although he may not have necessarily carried out the baptism himself. Paul Murmu says that Staines attended baptism ceremonies and marriage ceremonies of Christian families whenever he was available. However, it is the despatches sent by Staines to Australia in the newsletter 'Tidings' that make it clear that Staines was also involved in active propagation of his religion apart from his social work. It is also clear from the said despatches that conversions were taking place in jungle camps. The missionary work of Staines obviously included organizing and conducting jungle camps, translating the Bible in tribal languages, preaching of Bible to the tribals. It is obvious, therefore, that Staines was both a social worker engaged in the treatment and eradication of leprosy amongst the poorest of the poor and also a missionary driven by a deep commitment to his religion and the belief that he should spread its tenets amongst the people in the area. His missionary activities did lead to conversions of tribals to his faith."

But as far as the Minorities Commission is concerned, supresso veri, and pronounce! Even such misrepresentations by bodies such as the Minorities Commission are lessons in themselves. But, as we shall see, these are minor ones compared to other lessons which the Wadhwa Commission's Report holds out.

Having asserted that Graham Staines had not been involved in missionary work, the Minorities Commission asserted that cordial relations existed between Hindus and Christians, that there were no ill-feelings among them. The two assertions together set the stage for the main theme the Commission pressed: the murders were lightning out of the blue, they were the handiwork of Dara Singh, and Dara Singh in turn was affiliated to the Bajrang Dal.

While a number of Christian witnesses as well as some policemen told the Justice Wadhwa Commission that there was no communal tension in the area, others testified to the contrary. There had been tensions between the communities for seven years, they told the Commission. And for one reason.

The Australian missionary organization which was financing Staines had set up 20-25 churches in Mayurbhanj and Keonjhar districts, a linguist working with the Indian Evangelical Mission told the Commission. Jungle camps were used for baptizing persons, witnesses told the Commission. B. B. Panda, who was Director General of Police, Orissa from October, 1997 to March, 1999, stated in a report to the State Government that "Mr. Staines was attending Jungle Mela in Manoharpur for the last more than 20 years. Majority of the local Adivasi Christians had been converted to Christianity through his efforts." S. C. Bala, the Superintendent of Police of the Crime Branch, who investigated the case, was asked by the Wadhwa Commission about his assessment regarding the likely motive for the murders. He told the Commission that the motive "appeared to be that non-Christian people were aggrieved on the ground that Christian fathers/missionaries are converting the people to Christianity in a deceitful manner by giving allurements."

More telling are the despatches of Staines and his wife in Tidings, the newsletter of the Australian missionary organization. They themselves wrote about these tensions repeatedly.

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 19 September, 1997: ....The Ho believers in Thakurmunda still face persecution. From time to time the village people have beaten them up, broken their bicycles and not allowed them to worship in their own Church building. Three people came to Baripada to meet district officials and petition for justice. Pray that action will be taken to allow freedom to worship."

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 22 February, 1998: We have just arrived home from the Baliposi camp a day early. Some people from a Hindu militant group who are persecuting the Christians came to the camp but were not able to disturb the meetings. On the last day the police came and told us to stop the meeting and leave, as they would not be able to protect us...." -- election-related requirements left no men to spare.

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 20 March, 1998: Six men came to Baripada to speak with officials in the intelligence department regarding the tension in the Thakurmunda area...."

"Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 19 May, 1998: ....We have been told that a militant Hindu group plans to concentrate on Mayurbhanj and Keonjhar districts to turn Christians back to Hinduism...."

In a word: conversions were taking place; this had caused tensions; so much so that a Hindu group had decided to try and get them back into Hinduism. But for our Minorities Commission, all was peace and harmony!

The First Information Report on the Staines' murder was filed by the pastor of the Manoharpur Church. He turns out to be a good candidate for some of our secularist organizations. The assailants shouted "Jai Bajrang Dal," he said in the FIR. Witness after Christian witness testified that what the assailants shouted was "Jai Bajrang Bali." The assailants set fire to the Church, he said. The Church turned out to not have been harmed. On count after count -- what he saw, what he heard, the persons he named as having committed the crime -- the pastor's statements turned out to be contradictory. On count after count he disowned them himself. After narrating these somersaults, Justice Wadhwa remarks, "It is, thus, clear that the FIR was drawn up only after the Chief Minister had left Manoharpur. From all angles, it is a doctored FIR, a large part of which has been disowned by the informant himself and also has been shown to be false." But it is this FIR which became the basis for imaginative journalism.

B. B. Panda, who was then Director General of Police, Orissa, told the Commission that the New Indian Express -- that is, the southern editions of the Indian Express -- of 25 January, 1999, quoted him as saying, "over 50 people suspected to be activists of the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad were involved in the incident, and so far 47 persons have been arrested." He told the Commission that as he had not said this, he sent the paper a contradiction. The paper did not publish the contradiction.

By that figure of 47-50 arrests hangs another lesson also.

One result of the gruesome nature of the murders, of the fact that even the little sons had been done to death, of the fact that the State Government had to show to the Congress leadership in Delhi that it was acting energetically, and also of the glare the media had brought to bear on the case was that the police felt it just had to show something. The consequence? "The police went berserk," observes Justice Wadhwa. It picked up anyone who in its imagination could somehow or the other be linked with the Bajrang Dal. Fifty one persons were thrown into jail. The Crime Branch found that there was absolutely no case against them. All of them had to be released. Justice Wadhwa observes, "It would thus appear that 51 persons underwent the agony of going into judicial custody for two months or more. Though initially the State Government took a great deal of pride that police arrested as many as 51 accused showing the efficiency and promptness of the police, but ultimately subsequent events showed that in the State of Orissa, as far as these 51 persons are concerned, there was no rule of law. Prakash Mehra (DIG) in his supervision note had stated that there was no evidence in respect of all the five FIR named accused persons or the 51 persons arrested by the local police."

"The question then arises in view of the contradictions which make the FIR a false document, what was the motivating force behind it?," asks Justice Wadhwa. "And why as many as 51 innocent persons were arrested between 23rd to 28th January, 1999?" "Answers to these questions are not far to seek," he concludes. "The State Government was rattled by the gravity of the crime. To divert attention from its own failure to maintain law and order and to protect the innocent and then show 'speedy and decisive' action, a false picture is presented."

And as for the involvement of the Bajrang Dal etc., the Commission concludes, "The Commission has scrutinized the evidence before it and especially the evidence of the associates of Dara Singh who were involved in the carnage at Manoharpur. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the persons involved in the crime was in fact a member of either the Bajrang Dal or BJP or any organization. There is nothing to suggest in the evidence before the Commission, or in the investigation conducted by the Crime Branch and the CBI thus far that there is involvement of any organization, even that of Bajrang Dal, in the planning and the execution of the crime."

Several witnesses testified to Dara Singh's involvement in the crime -- in preparing for it, in executing it. Justice Wadhwa is in doubt that Dara Singh was the prime mover. To fly off in rage at Dara Singh, and feel that one has done one's duty is to miss the point.

There are several important pointers. Several witnesses testified that Dara Singh had been engaged in rescuing cows that were being transported for slaughter. He had been trying to get the State to enforce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals laws. This activity was taken, even by the police, to be "anti-Muslim" activity. Dara Singh was accordingly implicated in cases filed by persons engaged in transporting and selling cows for slaughter. That is as far as the consequences for Dara Singh under the law are concerned. The effect on the people was the exact opposite. Witness-29, who testified that he had been asked by Dara Singh to accompany him to Manoharpur, told the Commission, "Dara Singh is a very popular figure in the village as he forcibly frees cows from the people who take them for selling. After freeing the cows, Dara Singh distributes the cows among the villagers...."

Cows are revered by Hindus. The man trying to save them becomes an outlaw in the eyes of the police, and a hero in the eyes of the people. Two lessons in that.

On the other hand, Staines and his associates are left free to go on converting Hindus to Christianity. There is no evidence that Staines himself resorted to fraud, force or allurement. Even so, tensions mount because of conversions. Staines' own despatches testify to this. But our institutions -- the Minorities Commission and the police being representative in this regard -- even in retrospect assert the fiction that there was no tension between Christians and non-Christians.

The second clue is provided by the evidence of a key witness, one whose testimony contributes most to nailing the involvement of Dara Singh. He is one Dipu Das. He was a close associate of Dara Singh. He revealed to the Commission that "youth from Gayalmunda and Bhalughera had approached Dara Singh sometime in August 1998 to stop the Christians from converting Hindus to Christianity...."

That is the key lesson: if the State is going to persist with double-standards in regard to the sentiments of Hindus and non-Hindus on the one hand, and with a deliberate shutting of eyes on the other, it is paving the way for such crimes.

That lesson is brought home most forcefully by Justice Wadhwa's findings in regard to the Orissa law that bears on conversions. As has been noted earlier, Orissa passed a law in 1967 to regulate conversions. It is known as the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act. Its constitutionality -- as well as that of the allied law in Madhya Pradesh -- has been upheld by a five judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1977 SC 908]. Among other things, the law provides, "No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religious faith to another by use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means, nor shall any person abet such conversion." Anyone doing so, the Act provides, shall be punished by imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine of Rs. 5,000. In case the offence relates to a minor, a woman or a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Tribes, the punishment shall be double.

To prevent misuse, the Act provides that the offence shall not be investigated by an officer below the rank of an Inspector of Police, and that no prosecution shall be instituted without the sanction of the Magistrate of the District or an equivalent authority.

The Act was passed in 1967. Rules under it were not framed till November, 1989, Justice Wadhwa notes. The Rules are salutary, and will repay a moment's attention:

"3(i) Each District Magistrate shall maintain a list of religious institutions or organizations propagating religious faith in his district and that of persons directly or indirectly engaged for propagation of religious faith in the district.

"(ii) The District Magistrate, if he thinks fit, may call for a list of persons with the religious faith, receiving benefits either in cash or in kind from the religious organizations or institutions or from any person connected therewith.

"4. Any person intending to convert his religion shall give a declaration before a Magistrate, 1st Class, having jurisdiction prior to such conversion that he intends to convert his religion on his own will.

"5(i) The concerned religious priest shall intimate the date, time and place of the ceremony in which conversion shall be made along with the names and addresses of the persons to be converted to the concerned District Magistrate before fifteen days of the said ceremony.

"(ii) The intimation shall be in Form A and shall be delivered either personally by the Priest to the concerned District Magistrate or sent to him by registered post with acknowledgment due.

"6. The District Magistrate on receiving the intimation from the priest shall sign thereon stating the date on which and the hour at which the intimation has been delivered to him or received by him, and shall forthwith acknowledge the receipt thereof in Form B.

"7. The District Magistrate shall maintain a register of conversion in Form C and shall cover therein particulars of the intimation received by him.

"8. Any person who contravenes the provisions of Rule 5 or 6 shall be liable to a fine of Rupees one thousand.

"9. The District Magistrate shall by the 10th of each month send to the State Government a report of intimations received by him during the preceding month in Form D."

That is the law. And what is the reality? Justice Wadhwa reports:

"No one was aware of the Freedom of Religion Act or the Rules framed thereunder in the State at least in the districts of Mayurbhanj and Keonjhar. These provisions of law were lying dormant and [had] never [been] put into operation for the last many years. Admittedly, there were conversions to Christianity in these two districts. No person intending to convert his religion ever gave a declaration before a Magistrate prior to such conversion of his intent to convert his religion on his own will which was the requirement of Rule 4. Similarly also the religious priest did not give intimation of such conversion as per Form A under the Rules. District Magistrate did not maintain a register of conversion as per Form prescribed. Since they did not make any record of conversions, they did not send any report of conversion to the State Government.

"Mr. Balakrishnan, District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj and Mr. Saurabh Garg, District Magistrate, Keonjhar were examined to know if any action [had been] taken under the Freedom of Religion Act and the Rules framed thereunder. They expressed ignorance of the provisions of the law relating to conversion and said they had become aware of these only after the incident at Manoharpur on the night of 22 / 23-1-1999. To me, it appears that even now they do not understand the full scope and intent of the provisions of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act and the Rules. These are salutary provisions and prohibit conversion from one religion to another by the use of force, inducement or by any fraudulent means. Even any abetment to such conversion has been made an offence. If these provisions of law, in my view, are strictly followed no one can have any grievance to contend that gullible and innocent tribals are being converted."

The Commission asked the Advocate General for a report on prosecutions under the Act. From 1967 to 1990, the Advocate General informed the Commission, the Act was not enforced as its constitutional vires had been challenged. Since then -- that is, in nine years -- 10 cases had been registered. In one case the accused had been discharged. In one case he had been acquitted. In regard to two the Final Report had been submitted. And six were pending trial.

The lesson -- a cruel one -- shouts at us: as this is the attitude of the State machinery to law, the Dara Singhs will continue to become heroes with the local population.

"But how can we disobey the command of our Lord?"

Arun Shourie

It isn't just that it is our right, it is our duty. For our Lord, Jesus Christ, has commanded us to go to all the nations of the world, and spread his message and baptize", the missionaries say, and even lay Christians. "How can we disobey his command and still claim to be Christians?"

The point apart that the claim cannot stand in law, how much weight can one attach to the claim itself? What exactly is Jesus supposed to have said? How do we know he said that?

Answers to these questions are vital in themselves - they are central to believing the claim or setting it aside. They are doubly important because they lead us to a fundamental point, indeed to what is the fundamental fraud in missionary activity. But first the answers themselves.

The bare sequence is as follows. Jesus has been nailed to the Cross. He dies. His body is interred. A large stone is placed to close the tomb. Devotees visit the tomb. The body is missing. Jesus appears to disciples. He speaks to them.

Now, let us take the sequence step by step. As everyone knows, there are four Gospels - by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. In the eyes of the Church each is a saint. Every word of each Gospel is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Who goes to the tomb ? For what purpose ? "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre", says St. Luke [288.1]. "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome," says St. Mark, as they "had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him" [16.1]. "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them", says St. Luke, "bringing the spices which they had prepared" [24.1, 11]. St. John reports Mary Magdalene alone as having gone to the tomb [20.1]. Thus : from Mary Magdalene alone to her and the other Mary, to the two of them and Salome, to the two of them and Joanna plus the other women who were with them. Similarly, whoever went, the purpose was either to "see the sepulchre" or to anoint the body. For the latter they were carrying sweet spices which they had either bought or prepared themselves.

What happened when, whoever went, arrived at the tomb? "And, behold, there was a great earthquake," says St. Mathew, "for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it" [28.2]. St. Mark mentions no earthquake, no angel descending; instead he says that, while on their way the women had been asking each other "who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?," when they arrived they saw that the stone had already been rolled away [16.3-4]. St. Luke too does not report any earthquake, he too says that when the women arrived they found the stone to have been rolled away [24.2]. According to St. John, Mary Magdalene alone had gone. He too mentions neither an earthquake, nor any angel descending. But he too reports that she found the stone to have been rolled away already [20.1].

Upon reaching the tomb, upon seeing the stone rolled away, whom do they encounter ? An angel, says St. Mathew, sitting on the stone he has rolled away, "his countenance was like lightening, and his raiment white as snow", and so awesome was his presence that "and for fear of him the keepers [that is, the guards] did shake, and became as dead men" [28.2-4]. Not an angel, but "a young man", sitting, not on the stone outside the entrance to the tomb, but "on the right side" inside the sepulchre [the women see him after entering the sepulchre]. The young man is "clothed in a long white garment" -- not dazzling like lightening, just ordinary white. And upon encountering a young man unexpectedly inside the tomb, the ones who are "affrighted" are the women -- there is no mention of guards. St. Luke reports no angel, nor does he report one young man. According to him the women encountered "two men.... in shining garments" [24.4]. St. John has Mary Magdalene going alone, she encounters no one [20.1-2]. Thus, from "an angel" to "one young man" to "two men" to no one.

One woman, two sets of three women, or more than three women have reached the tomb. They have encountered an angel, one young man, or two, or none. The women see that the body of Jesus is missing. What happens next?

Do not be afraid, the angel told them. St. Mathew says. You are looking for the Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he is risen. "Go quickly and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." The women depart quickly "with fear and great joy", and run to the disciples. But on the way, Jesus meets them. "All hail", he says. They fall at his feet, they hold his feet, they worship him. "Be not afraid", Jesus says, "Go tell my brethern that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me" [28.7-10].

According to St. Mark, neither the angel at the bomb nor Jesus on the way asked them to give that message to the disciples. That one young man did so -- at the tomb itself [16.7].

According to St. Luke the conversation takes place with the two men at the tomb. Not only are the words that are exchanged different. No one - not the angel, not one man, not Jesus, not either of the two men - asks the women to tell the disciples that Jesus is going to Galilee ahead of them and that they will see him there [24.5-7].

According to St. John, what transpired was altogether different. Mary Magdalene goes alone. She sees that the stone has been removed, and the body is missing. She runs "to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved", and informs them that the body is missing. Simon Peter and the other disciple run to the sepulchre. They see for themselves, and return home. Mary, on the other hand continues to stand outside, weeping. She looks into the sepulchre and sees two angels "in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain". And then Jesus himself appears to her. Jesus appears to her - as in Mathew. But there are three differences. In Mathew Jesus appears to the two Marys, in John he appears to Mary Magdalene alone. In Mathew he appears as the two Marys are rushing to the disciples, in John he appears when Mary Magdalene, having informed two of the disciples, returns with them to the sepulchre. And, third, in Mathew, Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James, at once recognise him, they fall at his feet, they hold his feet, and worship him [28.9]. But in John, even when she sees Jesus standing in front of her, she does not recognise him. Instead, she takes him to be the gardener [20.14-15].

Jesus speaks to her in John, as Jesus does in Mathew -- though in the latter to two Marys, not one; though on their way to the disciples, and not at the tomb when one of them has returned with the disciples. But what he says is altogether different. In Mathew he says, "Be not afraid : go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there they shall see me." In John, Jesus tells Mary Magdalene, "Touch me not [in Mathew, the two Marys hold him by the feet]; for I am not yet ascended to my Father : but go to my brethern, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" [20.17]. Not a word about going to Galilee !

To proceed. The women have seen that the body is missing. They have or have not been told by an angel, by one man, by two men or by Jesus to tell the disciples one thing or something altogether different. Whom do they go and tell ?

In Mathew, they run to get the message to the disciples -- that they get to the disciples can only be inferred. For the account is overtaken by other happenings. First, as we have seen, Jesus himself appears to them. Second,the Gospel diverts to narrate a conspiracy of the Jews -- one which none of the other three Gospels mentions : noticing that the body is missing, the guards go to the chief priests who are at that time in assembly with the elders; there a conspiracy is hatched : to deny that Jesus has risen, the guards are to say that they had fallen asleep and, as they slept, the followers of Jesus whisked away his body. The guards are paid, and guaranteed protection. And on this basis the Jews get a concoction to deny the Resurrection unto this day [28.11-15].

In Mark, the women tell no one : after the conversation with the youngman, Mark informs us, "they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed : neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid" [16.8]. It is in what is acknowledged even in the printed Bibles to be one of three different endings to the Gospel of St. Mark that we are told that the women went to "Peter and his friends" and conveyed what they had been told [third alternate, 16.9-10 in The Good News Bible].

In Luke, the women convey the message to "the eleven disciples and all the rest" [24.8].

In John, Mary Magdalene, who alone has gone to the tomb, goes and tells not, for instance, "the eleven disciples and all the rest", she tells "Simon Peter and the other disciple, whom Jesus loved" [20.2].

But, of course, as she has not encountered anyone at the tomb at this state, she has no message to convey -- neither about going to Galilee nor about Jesus ascending to the Father. All she conveys is that the body is missing.

Informed or not, having received only the news of the missing body or having received that as well as a message, having received one message or an entirely different one, which of the disciples goes to the tomb?

In Mathew no one goes to the sepulchre. The eleven disciples proceed to Galilee [28.16].

In Mark, no one goes to tell the disciples that the body is missing -- the women having been struck dumb by fear. So, no occasion arises for the disciples to go to the sepulchre. Subsequently, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene. She tells them. But "they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not" [16.11]. In any event, no one goes to the sepulchre.

In Luke, the women narrate everything to the apostles. But, "their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" [24.11]. Peter alone gets up and rushes to the sepulchre [24.12]. Though later on, when they are talking to the resurrected Jesus, whom they take to be a stranger, two disciples speak of "certain of them which were with us" having gone to the sepulchre" [24.24].

In John, the information is conveyed not to all the apostles, Mary Magdalene informs only two - "Simon Peter and the other disciple, whom Jesus loved". And the two of them rush to the sepulchre [20.2-4].

The body, having disappeared, Jesus appears. To whom ?

In Mathew he first appears to the two Marys when they are rushing to the disciples [28.9]. Subsequently, as he had promised, he appears to the eleven disciples at Galilee [28.16].

In Mark he appears first to Mary Magdalene alone -- the occasion is neither at the tomb, nor on the way to the disciples, but an altogether different, sui generis one [16.9]. After that he appears "in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country" [16.12]. And finally he appears "unto the eleven as they sat at meat" [16.14] - where the conversation, to which we shall just return, takes place.

In Luke he appears first to two of the disciples as they are on their way to a village called Emmaus "which was from Jerusalem about three-score furlongs." Jesus walks with them, he talks with them. But they do not recognise him for the longest time - it is only later after he vanishes that, seeing how their hearts burned as the stranger talked with them, that they realise who he was [24.13-32].

They go to tell the eleven. Who says that he has appeared to Simon [24.34]. And as they are talking "Jesus himself stood in the midst of them." Jesus talks to them at length [24.36-50].

In John, Jesus first appears to Mary Magdalene -- outside the sepulchre when she has returned with two of the disciples. She takes him to be the gardener, as we have seen, till he addresses her by her name [20.14 - 17].

He next appears to the disciples as they have assembled behind shut doors "for fear of the Jews" [20.19 - 23].

He appears again to the disciples eight days later - this time doubting Thomas too is present [20.26 - 29].

He appears a third time to his disciples at "the sea of Tiberias" [21.1 - 22]. Extensive exchanges take place between Jesus and the disciples on this - the last -- occasion.

By this uncertain route we reach the exhortation to carry the message to all nations. But what precisely does Jesus say on the subject ?

In Mathew, after telling his disciples that all power has been given to him in heaven and in earth, Jesus says, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all thing whatsoever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen" [28.18 - 20].

In Mark, he upbraids them for "their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he had risen." And then come the words relevant to our concern : "And he said unto them Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" [16.15 - 16]. Notice that here Jesus is asking the disciples to go "and preach the gospel to every creature" -- he is not asking them to baptize and convert the people they encounter. What he does is to forecast a future for those who believe and have been baptized, and for those who do not believe.

Incidentally, after this Jesus tells them : "And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hand on the sick, and they shall recover" [16.17 - 18]. Are the missionaries able to take up serpents? Are they immune to poison ? Do the sick recover as they touch them ? Are there devils which missionaries drive away ?

Thus, in a word, while in Mathew what Jesus says about baptism is an exhortation, in Mark it is an adjective. The even more consequential fact in this context is that the earlier manuscripts of the Gospel of St. Mark end at the 8th para of this chapter. Paras 9 to 20 - of which paras 15 to 18 which contain the exhortation form a part -- are acknowledged, even in the printed versions of the Bible today, to be later add-ons.

In Luke, Jesus is at pains to convince the disciples that what has been visited upon him is in accord with what had been written in the scriptures. Luke adds, "And he said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day," "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" [24.44-47]. Notice that here also Jesus is not asking them to convert and baptize, he is merely asking them to preach in his name -- indeed, what he asks them to preach is also limited to "repentance and remission of sins".

John also reports at length the exchanges which Jesus has with his disciples when he reappears to them. There is not a word in these passages about going out, converting and baptising, or even preaching to the others.

Would a claim based on so tenuous a foundation survive in any court assessing evidence?

The Pope Dispels All Doubts!

Arun Shourie
One thing to be said for the Pope�s visit: he has silenced secularists, as well as missionary-apologists.

Whenever attention has been drawn to the plans the Church has of converting India to Christianity, to its plans of "reaping the great harvest for Jesus," these propagandists and secularists have asserted that a miasma was being manufactured to sow hatred. Now that the Pope has himself declared that the Synod of Bishops was "a call to conversion;" now that he has reiterated his call to the Bishops to "open wide to Christ the doors of Asia;" now that he has proclaimed the goal of the Church again, "just as in the first millennium the Cross was planted on the soil of Europe, and in the second on that of the Americas and Africa, we can pray that in the Third Christian Millennium a great harvest of faith will be reaped in this vast and vital continent;" now that he, having heard reports of the Bishops has proclaimed his expectation, "the character, spiritual fire and zeal" of Asians "will assuredly make Asia the land of a bountiful harvest in the coming millennium;" now that having recalled what he wrote in Redemptoris Missio -- "God is opening before the Church the horizons of a humanity more fully prepared for sowing of the Gospel," -- the Pope has announced, "This vision of a new and promising horizon I see being fulfilled in Asia;" now that the Pope has embraced as his own what his Bishops had proclaimed -- "the heart of the Church in Asia will be restless until the whole of Asia finds its rest in the peace of Christ, the Risen Lord" -- now that he has again proclaimed that the very purpose of the Church is evangelization, that it is "driven" in this task by "the Holy Spirit" indeed that "the Holy Spirit is the prime agent of evangelization," that the Church is "empowered by the Holy Spirit" to carry out this task, the secularists seem a bit non-plussed about how to make out that the apprehensions which were being expressed about the Church�s plans and stratagems are figments manufactured to justify persecution.

And so are the Cardinals and Bishops, I presume! "We don�t want to convert everybody to Christianity," Cardinal Lourdasamy, described by the papers as "the only Indian Cardinal in Vatican City," told Doordarshan. "We just want to say we are Christians." How touching! How humble! And what do the propagandists say after the Pope�s explicit enunciation?

Every time they are confronted with what the Church has itself proclaimed is its one and only purpose -- to enlarge the empire of Christianity -- these propagandists have insisted that after Vatican II such a view is untenable. Vatican II marked a radical break with the past dogma, they have insisted. It acknowledged that other religions too can be paths to salvation. It explicitly embraced ecumenism, it explicitly asked Christians to develop respect for other religions. Vatican II did nothing of the kind, of course. But, confident that few in countries like India would have gone through the documents put out by the Council, the Church here has been putting out such fables. In any case, we now have the Pope himself clear up what he calls "a certain confusion about the true nature of the Church�s mission."

Yes, the Church respects the traditions to be found in Asia, the Pope says. Yes, it respects "the rights of consciences." "Respect, however, does not eliminate the need for the explicit proclamation of the Gospel in its fullness," he states. "Especially in the context of the rich array of cultures and religions in Asia," he says, "it must be pointed out that �neither respect and esteem for these religions nor the complexity of the questions raised are an invitation to the Church to with-hold from these non-Christians the proclamation of Jesus Christ.� " He reiterates the play on words by which he had camouflaged the matter during his visit to India in 1986.

He recalls that he had "stated clearly" then, "the Church�s approach to other religions is one of genuine respect... This respect is twofold: respect for man in his quest for answers to the deepest questions of his life, and respect for the action of the Spirit in man." What does that mean? The Pope explains: "Indeed, the Synod Fathers readily recognised the Spirit�s action in Asian societies, cultures and religions, through which the Father prepares the hearts of Asian peoples for the fullness of life in Christ."

Yes, Asia has many religions. Yes, the Asian people have sought answers to the deepest questions of life. But these religions are just a preparation for their becoming Christians. That is the essential point. Asia has given birth to the major religions, and to many others, and millions in it still espouse traditional and tribal religions, the Pope notes, and says, "The Church has the deepest respect for these traditions and seeks to engage in sincere dialogue with their followers. The religious values they teach await their fulfillment in Jesus Christ." "The Church in Asia finds herself among peoples who display an intense yearning for God," he acknowledges, only to add, "The Church knows that this yearning can only be fully satisfied by Jesus Christ, the Good News of God for all the nations." And again that "The Church is convinced that deep within the people, cultures and religions of Asia there is a thirst for �living water�..., a thirst which the Spirit himself has created and which Jesus the Saviour alone can fully satisfy."

True, these peoples have their ancient traditions and beliefs. But it is the Church which by transmitting "her truths and values" which "renews" them "from within," the Pope asserts. It strengthens "the positive elements already found in them," he maintains. It "refines" them, it "renews" them "in the light of the Gospel." In a word, it is in their own interest that the Church strives to bring the poor souls into Christianity! "The peoples of Asia," declares the Pope on our behalf, "need Jesus Christ and his Gospel. Asia is thirsting for the living water that Jesus alone can give.... The disciples of Christ in Asia must therefore be unstinting in their efforts to fulfill the mission they have received from the Lord..."

In India we are taught to believe that God is everywhere, that He has manifested Himself in many forms, and that, therefore, we must subscribe to sarva dharma samabhav, etc. The Pope has no time for such syrupy make-believe. In his eyes this is no virtue, it is one of the difficulties in making Asians accept that Jesus is the one and only Saviour, it is a notion that has to be put out of harm�s way. Nor, he warns, is the notion that God is universally present to be allowed to become "an excuse for a failure to proclaim Jesus Christ explicitly as the one and only Saviour." Indeed, he asserts emphatically, "the presence of the Spirit in creation and history" points only to Jesus as the one "in whom creation and history are redeemed and fulfilled." To Jesus, and to the Church, he adds for good measure!

It is in this background that the Church�s invitations to "dialogue" must be seen. Much is made of its invitations, they are projected as proof of its openness, even of its modesty -- see, we are willing to learn from others! Almost without exception such non-Christians are invited for exchanges who have little knowledge of the workings of the Church, and even less of their own tradition. They feel compelled to recite the usual homilies about "the essential unity of all religions," they repeat the same platitudes about the Sermon on the Mount. And the Church�s purpose is served: it can show that it is open, that it is tolerant, that it respects people of other faiths.

What does the Pope say is the purpose of such "dialogues"? "Ecumenical dialogue" -- by which he means dialogue with non-Catholic Christians -- "is a challenge," he declares, "and a call to conversion for the whole Church, especially for the Church in Asia where people expect from Christians a clearer sign of unity." The reason he gives for attaining unity among different denominations of Christians is itself revealing: "The Synod of Bishops acknowledged," he recalls, "that �the scandal of a divided Christianity is a great obstacle for evangelization in Asia.� " For us, of course, what he says about the form and purpose of "dialogue" with non-Christians is even more important.

"From the Christian point of view," he declares candidly, "inter-religious dialogue is more than a way of fostering mutual knowledge and enrichment; it is a part of the Church�s evangelizing mission, an expression of the mission ad gentes." "Christians bring to inter-religious dialogue the firm belief," he continues, "that the fullness of salvation comes from Christ alone and that the Church community to which they belong is the ordinary means of salvation."

He recalls that he has already written in an earlier communication to the Asian Bishops, "Although the Church gladly acknowledges whatever is true and holy in the religious traditions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam as a reflection of that truth which enlightens all people, this does not lessen her duty and resolve to proclaim without failing Jesus Christ who is �the way and the truth and the life�... The fact that the followers of other religions can receive God�s grace and be saved by Christ apart from the ordinary means which he has established does not thereby cancel the call to faith and baptism which God wills for all people."

Those not accustomed to the circumlocutory enunciations of the Church would do well to note the condescending phrase, "whatever is true and holy in the religious traditions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam as a reflection of that truth which enlightens all people." What is true and holy in these religions? That which conforms to Christianity! The rest is but a groping, a preparation for being fulfilled in Christianity!

Therefore, the Pope reminds the assembled Bishops that he has earlier instructed them in Redemptoris Missio, "There must be no abandonment of principles nor false irenicism" -- that is, Christians engaged in "dialogue" must not fall for false attempts to create peace. He is explicit, what he wants Christians to strive for is, to use his words, "Evangelization in dialogue and dialogue for evangelization."

As this is the purpose, he declares that "only those with mature and convinced Christian faith are qualified to engage in genuine interreligious dialogue." Only such persons "can without undue risk and with hope of positive fruit engage in interreligious dialogue." And therefore he urges the Church in Asia "to provide suitable models of interreligious dialogue.... and suitable training for those involved."

And he draws attention to some devices that are already yielding "good results." "Scholarly exchanges," "common action for integral human development," "defence of human and religious values" -- friends who get so enamoured at being called to seminars and workshops on such topics should remember what the purpose of such get-togethers is. Exactly what the purpose of the erstwhile Comintern used to be in setting up "Peace Conferences" and "Peace Committees"!

But there is more that the Pope has dispelled, as we shall see, more for which we must be grateful to His Holiness.

The Observer
November 19, 1999

The Pope Dispels All Doubts!

Arun Shourie
One thing to be said for the Pope�s visit: he has silenced secularists, as well as missionary-apologists.

Whenever attention has been drawn to the plans the Church has of converting India to Christianity, to its plans of "reaping the great harvest for Jesus," these propagandists and secularists have asserted that a miasma was being manufactured to sow hatred. Now that the Pope has himself declared that the Synod of Bishops was "a call to conversion;" now that he has reiterated his call to the Bishops to "open wide to Christ the doors of Asia;" now that he has proclaimed the goal of the Church again, "just as in the first millennium the Cross was planted on the soil of Europe, and in the second on that of the Americas and Africa, we can pray that in the Third Christian Millennium a great harvest of faith will be reaped in this vast and vital continent;" now that he, having heard reports of the Bishops has proclaimed his expectation, "the character, spiritual fire and zeal" of Asians "will assuredly make Asia the land of a bountiful harvest in the coming millennium;" now that having recalled what he wrote in Redemptoris Missio -- "God is opening before the Church the horizons of a humanity more fully prepared for sowing of the Gospel," -- the Pope has announced, "This vision of a new and promising horizon I see being fulfilled in Asia;" now that the Pope has embraced as his own what his Bishops had proclaimed -- "the heart of the Church in Asia will be restless until the whole of Asia finds its rest in the peace of Christ, the Risen Lord" -- now that he has again proclaimed that the very purpose of the Church is evangelization, that it is "driven" in this task by "the Holy Spirit" indeed that "the Holy Spirit is the prime agent of evangelization," that the Church is "empowered by the Holy Spirit" to carry out this task, the secularists seem a bit non-plussed about how to make out that the apprehensions which were being expressed about the Church�s plans and stratagems are figments manufactured to justify persecution.

And so are the Cardinals and Bishops, I presume! "We don�t want to convert everybody to Christianity," Cardinal Lourdasamy, described by the papers as "the only Indian Cardinal in Vatican City," told Doordarshan. "We just want to say we are Christians." How touching! How humble! And what do the propagandists say after the Pope�s explicit enunciation?

Every time they are confronted with what the Church has itself proclaimed is its one and only purpose -- to enlarge the empire of Christianity -- these propagandists have insisted that after Vatican II such a view is untenable. Vatican II marked a radical break with the past dogma, they have insisted. It acknowledged that other religions too can be paths to salvation. It explicitly embraced ecumenism, it explicitly asked Christians to develop respect for other religions. Vatican II did nothing of the kind, of course. But, confident that few in countries like India would have gone through the documents put out by the Council, the Church here has been putting out such fables. In any case, we now have the Pope himself clear up what he calls "a certain confusion about the true nature of the Church�s mission."

Yes, the Church respects the traditions to be found in Asia, the Pope says. Yes, it respects "the rights of consciences." "Respect, however, does not eliminate the need for the explicit proclamation of the Gospel in its fullness," he states. "Especially in the context of the rich array of cultures and religions in Asia," he says, "it must be pointed out that �neither respect and esteem for these religions nor the complexity of the questions raised are an invitation to the Church to with-hold from these non-Christians the proclamation of Jesus Christ.� " He reiterates the play on words by which he had camouflaged the matter during his visit to India in 1986.

He recalls that he had "stated clearly" then, "the Church�s approach to other religions is one of genuine respect... This respect is twofold: respect for man in his quest for answers to the deepest questions of his life, and respect for the action of the Spirit in man." What does that mean? The Pope explains: "Indeed, the Synod Fathers readily recognised the Spirit�s action in Asian societies, cultures and religions, through which the Father prepares the hearts of Asian peoples for the fullness of life in Christ."

Yes, Asia has many religions. Yes, the Asian people have sought answers to the deepest questions of life. But these religions are just a preparation for their becoming Christians. That is the essential point. Asia has given birth to the major religions, and to many others, and millions in it still espouse traditional and tribal religions, the Pope notes, and says, "The Church has the deepest respect for these traditions and seeks to engage in sincere dialogue with their followers. The religious values they teach await their fulfillment in Jesus Christ." "The Church in Asia finds herself among peoples who display an intense yearning for God," he acknowledges, only to add, "The Church knows that this yearning can only be fully satisfied by Jesus Christ, the Good News of God for all the nations." And again that "The Church is convinced that deep within the people, cultures and religions of Asia there is a thirst for �living water�..., a thirst which the Spirit himself has created and which Jesus the Saviour alone can fully satisfy."

True, these peoples have their ancient traditions and beliefs. But it is the Church which by transmitting "her truths and values" which "renews" them "from within," the Pope asserts. It strengthens "the positive elements already found in them," he maintains. It "refines" them, it "renews" them "in the light of the Gospel." In a word, it is in their own interest that the Church strives to bring the poor souls into Christianity! "The peoples of Asia," declares the Pope on our behalf, "need Jesus Christ and his Gospel. Asia is thirsting for the living water that Jesus alone can give.... The disciples of Christ in Asia must therefore be unstinting in their efforts to fulfill the mission they have received from the Lord..."

In India we are taught to believe that God is everywhere, that He has manifested Himself in many forms, and that, therefore, we must subscribe to sarva dharma samabhav, etc. The Pope has no time for such syrupy make-believe. In his eyes this is no virtue, it is one of the difficulties in making Asians accept that Jesus is the one and only Saviour, it is a notion that has to be put out of harm�s way. Nor, he warns, is the notion that God is universally present to be allowed to become "an excuse for a failure to proclaim Jesus Christ explicitly as the one and only Saviour." Indeed, he asserts emphatically, "the presence of the Spirit in creation and history" points only to Jesus as the one "in whom creation and history are redeemed and fulfilled." To Jesus, and to the Church, he adds for good measure!

It is in this background that the Church�s invitations to "dialogue" must be seen. Much is made of its invitations, they are projected as proof of its openness, even of its modesty -- see, we are willing to learn from others! Almost without exception such non-Christians are invited for exchanges who have little knowledge of the workings of the Church, and even less of their own tradition. They feel compelled to recite the usual homilies about "the essential unity of all religions," they repeat the same platitudes about the Sermon on the Mount. And the Church�s purpose is served: it can show that it is open, that it is tolerant, that it respects people of other faiths.

What does the Pope say is the purpose of such "dialogues"? "Ecumenical dialogue" -- by which he means dialogue with non-Catholic Christians -- "is a challenge," he declares, "and a call to conversion for the whole Church, especially for the Church in Asia where people expect from Christians a clearer sign of unity." The reason he gives for attaining unity among different denominations of Christians is itself revealing: "The Synod of Bishops acknowledged," he recalls, "that �the scandal of a divided Christianity is a great obstacle for evangelization in Asia.� " For us, of course, what he says about the form and purpose of "dialogue" with non-Christians is even more important.

"From the Christian point of view," he declares candidly, "inter-religious dialogue is more than a way of fostering mutual knowledge and enrichment; it is a part of the Church�s evangelizing mission, an expression of the mission ad gentes." "Christians bring to inter-religious dialogue the firm belief," he continues, "that the fullness of salvation comes from Christ alone and that the Church community to which they belong is the ordinary means of salvation."

He recalls that he has already written in an earlier communication to the Asian Bishops, "Although the Church gladly acknowledges whatever is true and holy in the religious traditions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam as a reflection of that truth which enlightens all people, this does not lessen her duty and resolve to proclaim without failing Jesus Christ who is �the way and the truth and the life�... The fact that the followers of other religions can receive God�s grace and be saved by Christ apart from the ordinary means which he has established does not thereby cancel the call to faith and baptism which God wills for all people."

Those not accustomed to the circumlocutory enunciations of the Church would do well to note the condescending phrase, "whatever is true and holy in the religious traditions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam as a reflection of that truth which enlightens all people." What is true and holy in these religions? That which conforms to Christianity! The rest is but a groping, a preparation for being fulfilled in Christianity!

Therefore, the Pope reminds the assembled Bishops that he has earlier instructed them in Redemptoris Missio, "There must be no abandonment of principles nor false irenicism" -- that is, Christians engaged in "dialogue" must not fall for false attempts to create peace. He is explicit, what he wants Christians to strive for is, to use his words, "Evangelization in dialogue and dialogue for evangelization."

As this is the purpose, he declares that "only those with mature and convinced Christian faith are qualified to engage in genuine interreligious dialogue." Only such persons "can without undue risk and with hope of positive fruit engage in interreligious dialogue." And therefore he urges the Church in Asia "to provide suitable models of interreligious dialogue.... and suitable training for those involved."

And he draws attention to some devices that are already yielding "good results." "Scholarly exchanges," "common action for integral human development," "defence of human and religious values" -- friends who get so enamoured at being called to seminars and workshops on such topics should remember what the purpose of such get-togethers is. Exactly what the purpose of the erstwhile Comintern used to be in setting up "Peace Conferences" and "Peace Committees"!

But there is more that the Pope has dispelled, as we shall see, more for which we must be grateful to His Holiness.

The Observer
November 19, 1999