The history of Christianity in India is far older deeper and more complex
than the narratives circulating in present political debates. It did not arrive
with colonial cannons or imperial charters but entered the subcontinent quietly
through trade routes spiritual exchange and cultural accommodation. To
understand Indian Christianity honestly one must separate three distinct phases
its ancient civilizational roots its colonial distortion and the modern
political manufacture of conversion myths. Only then does the picture become
historically coherent and intellectually fair.
Arrival of Christianity in India
Christian tradition and a strong body of historical scholarship hold that
Christianity came to India in the first century of the Common Era around the
year fifty two. It is associated with the arrival of Saint Thomas the Apostle
on the Malabar Coast of present day Kerala. This coast was already integrated
into a vibrant Indian Ocean trade network linking India with West Asia the
Roman world and East Africa. Jewish traders Arab merchants and Persian
Christians frequented these ports long before Europe emerged from antiquity.
Christianity therefore did not arrive in India as an alien ideology but as
one among many spiritual currents flowing through an already plural society.
The earliest Christian converts were local Jewish communities and sections of
upper caste Hindu families particularly among Namboodiri Brahmins according to
long standing tradition. These communities came to be known as Saint Thomas
Christians or Nasranis.
An Indian Christianity not a European transplant
For nearly fifteen centuries Indian Christianity developed without European
involvement. This alone demolishes the popular claim that Christianity in India
is a colonial implant. During this long period Indian Christians spoke local
languages followed Indian customs dressed like their neighbors and organized
themselves as jati like communities within the Indian social order.
Their liturgy was in Syriac not Latin. Their theology was linked to Eastern
Christian traditions rather than Roman Catholicism. Their churches resembled
local architectural forms often indistinguishable from temples except for the
cross. Festivals included oil lamps flowers processions and music rooted in
Indian aesthetics. Christianity here did not seek to replace Indian culture but
lived within it.
Crucially there was no alliance with political power. Indian Christians had
no state backing no army and no institutional machinery to enforce belief. They
survived through acceptance coexistence and ethical credibility. Hindu rulers
donated land to churches just as they did to temples and Buddhist monasteries.
Jewish Christian and Hindu communities lived side by side on the Malabar Coast
with remarkable harmony for centuries.
Caste and social reality
A difficult but necessary truth is that Indian Christianity did not abolish
caste instantly. Converts carried their social identities into the new faith as
was common across Indian religious traditions. Buddhism Jainism and even Bhakti
movements did not erase caste overnight. Religion in India historically adapted
to social realities before gradually questioning them.
This does not weaken the ethical force of Christianity but rather situates
it honestly within Indian society. Social transformation was slow contested and
evolutionary not revolutionary. The expectation that a faith should instantly
dissolve entrenched hierarchies is a modern moral projection not a historical
reality.
The colonial rupture
The character of Christianity in India changed dramatically only in the
sixteenth century with the arrival of European colonial powers particularly
Portugal. With colonialism faith became entangled with empire. European
missionaries often dismissed indigenous Christian practices as inferior or
heretical. Latin liturgy was imposed. Local traditions were suppressed.
Cultural arrogance replaced accommodation.
The Goa Inquisition stands as a dark reminder of how Christianity when
fused with state power can become coercive and violent. Importantly this
coercion was directed not only at Hindus and Muslims but also at Indian
Christians who resisted European control.
The most powerful symbol of this resistance is the Coonan Cross Oath of
sixteen fifty three when thousands of Indian Christians publicly vowed never to
submit to foreign ecclesiastical domination. This was not a rejection of
Christianity but a rejection of imperial Christianity. Indian Christians fought
to preserve their indigenous identity and autonomy.
Distinguishing ancient and colonial Christianity
This distinction is vital yet deliberately blurred in modern discourse.
Ancient Indian Christianity was decentralized non coercive and culturally
integrated. Colonial Christianity was centralized coercive and culturally
imperial. To blame the former for the crimes of the latter is historically
dishonest.
Conversion during the ancient period was rare gradual and personal.
Communities remained small endogamous and socially embedded. Mass conversion as
a phenomenon emerged only under colonial conditions where material incentives
institutional pressure and power asymmetry existed. Even then it was not
universal nor uncontested.
The manufacture of conversion myths
The modern obsession with conversion is not rooted in historical experience
but in political anxiety. For nearly fifteen hundred years conversion was not a
social panic in India. It became one only in the twentieth century when
democracy enabled marginalized communities to exercise choice.
Conversion myths thrive because they serve power. They portray oppressed
groups as victims without agency and dominant groups as eternal guardians of
culture. They erase caste violence and social exclusion while blaming faith
choice for social instability.
People do not abandon ancestral traditions lightly. When they do it is
rarely due to theological persuasion alone. It is often a response to
humiliation exclusion and denial of dignity. Conversion becomes a moral
accusation only when equality threatens hierarchy.
Indian secularism as civilizational instinct
India did not invent pluralism in nineteen forty seven. It inherited it
from its own civilizational past. The subcontinent has always accommodated
multiple philosophies rituals and belief systems. Disagreement was normal
dissent was sacred and belief was personal.
Pre modern Indian rulers governed without enforcing religious uniformity.
They supported multiple institutions across faiths. The idea that one religion
must dominate public life is not Indian but imported from exclusivist political
theologies elsewhere.
The Constitution of India did not impose secularism as a foreign concept.
It codified a lived historical reality while attempting to protect it from
modern majoritarian politics.
Power not belief is the real danger
The consistent pattern across history is clear. Religion becomes violent
not because it exists but because it captures power. Christianity without
empire coexisted peacefully for centuries in India. Hinduism without state
enforcement absorbed dissent and diversity. Islam without political absolutism
flourished intellectually.
The danger lies not in faith but in the fusion of faith with state
authority. When belief becomes law dissent becomes treason and diversity
becomes threat.
Conclusion
Christianity in India is not a colonial shadow but an ancient Indian
presence. Its roots lie in trade not conquest in dialogue not domination.
Colonialism distorted its image and contemporary politics weaponizes that
distortion. Conversion myths collapse under historical scrutiny. Indian
secularism emerges not as imitation but as memory. India never feared many
religions. It feared one religion becoming power.
Author’s Introduction
Siddhartha Shankar Mishra
is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a commentator on law politics
and society. His writings blend legal insight with social critique and aim to
provoke reflection on power justice and public conscience.
No comments:
Post a Comment