This is an important topic, but the essay at its outset overlooks overcrowding, socio-cultural factors, caste legacy, infrastructure/maintenance issues, poor design/accessibility, and civic sense/public etiquette and moves from the complexity of an Indian issue to solely focus on purity.
Using only the - white missionaries cleaning toilets- example reinforces the "White Christian saviour" cliche, which is overused by many Indian Christians. This particular example perpetuates a general Indian Christian outlook that favours colonialism, western imperialism and hinders the Indian Christian community from addressing post-colonial challenges.
We also have many examples of Indian social reformers: Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar from the 1800s to Bindeshwar Pathak who amongst other things founded the Toilet Museum in Delhi (he recently passed away), and Bezwada Wilson who was conferred the Ramon Magsaysay Award for his work in Manual scavenging.
The essay is philosophical. I wish it was more practical. Its focus on purity/pollution directly blames caste and Hinduism as the only issues in this challenge. It highlights that caste hierarchy is an issue in the church and in Christian leadership. Reading the blog title and summary, I am eager to read more about the practical role of bible-believing, church going, Indian Christians in our society who are viewed as agents of the west.
1. Yes, I agree that there are other factors too which contribute to unclean toilets in India. However, I still maintain that the worldview that sees toilets as impure is a rather foundational cause. Perhaps I could have been more careful in stating that among the many causes, the worldview beliefs are prominent ones.
The article is limited in scope and cannot address every one of the causes. Thus I chose to engage with the cultural beliefs primarily.
2. I do not see how you can jump from the example of a Western Missionary cleaning a toilet to saying that it contributes to "an outlook that favours colonialism, western imperialism and hinders the Indian church from addressing post-colonial challenges."
I question the very premise that the general Indian Christian outlook favours colonialism and western imperialism. In fact I say this is a problematic critique. This in itself is a form of Western Imperialism, although now coming from the Academia in the West. Post-modern and post-colonial thinking might have non-Western names such as Said or Spivak, but their thinking is essential Marxist and Western.
The missionary enterprise in India was both openly opposed by the British Raj and many of these missionaries played a leading role in Indian Nationalism. Indian Christian adoption of Western culture needs to be seen through the light of caste as well. As Varughese John writes in the paper "Christian Missions and Missionary Guilt,"
The figure of the dhoti-clad, half-naked Mahatma in wooden sandals is the very antithesis of Ambedkar, clad in a suit, wearing shoes, holding a book in one hand and pointing to the future with the other, which is how he is depicted in innumerable blue statues all over India.” While Gandhi’s dressing down as a half-naked fakir did elevate his stature as an ascetic within the culture, the same would have had the inverse effect if done by Dr Ambedkar, a Dalit.
I don't have data to back this up, but I suspect that efforts to indigenize faith and make it more Indian looking (at least in superficial elements like dressing) would often come from upper caste Hindus who converted, whereas lower caste Hindus who convert would seek to appropriate some aspects of Western culture as a symbol of resistance to the Indian culture that oppressed them.
3. Essays of this nature are also written from experience. I have observed that the facility in the Nilgiris that used to be owned by Dr Sterret still maintains clean toilets. My experience is limited.
4. I agree that this is largely philosophical. But caste is an important factor that does need to be talked about. Yes, it is a problem even within the church, and I want to highlight that the way we clean our toilets could be an indication that Indian Christians have not shed their beliefs about caste.
I also hold that not all thinking needs to be practical. Principia Mathematica was entirely theoretical, as was Godel's building upon the work. Alan Turing then built further upon these theoretical ideas to build the modern computer.
Thanks for the comment though. I do wish for more engagement on these matters.
By glorifying westerners and downplaying Indian roles, your example illustrates a recurring pattern. It is a western and colonial framework that obstructs a postcolonial exploration of what it means to be Indian and Christian.
I'm questioning whether such a pattern exists, or if it is recurring in any form. Even if it does, it is not founded on truth. The problem for the church in India is not the glorifying of Westerners. The problem is Indian customs such as the caste system which continue to lead to actual loss of lives. You cannot claim that A is problematic because it illustrates a pattern of B, without first proving that B exists and is in fact problematic.
I myself often spoke of the need for Christians in India to be more rooted to their own cultures. But I was challenged on this very point by a question by a friend, who asked why he should be patriotic or loyal to a culture that discriminated against and suppressed his people for so many generations. People sometimes express resistance to oppressive structures and cultures by appropriating the culture of the enemies of their oppressors. The Indian church (which is composed largely of lower-caste peoples) has done this. One might as well accuse Ambedkar of glorifying westerners and holding to a colonial framework, which is what right-wing magazines such as Swarajyamag do.
Moreover, you're misunderstanding the illustration. It was not meant to glorify the westerner, but it was meant to glorify the Biblical wordview. The fact that he was a perceived leader illustrates the point. His ethnicity is irrelevant.
It sounds like you are trying to opt out of this conversation. A couple of thoughts before you close:
1. Your comments suggest you believe few Indian Christians engage in social action, that some who were raised Christian became Marxists, and that you're focused on white missionaries involved in conversion activity.
2. I don't understand the point of writing about being Indian and Christian and exalting westerners. Maybe the blog should be called: 'Being Western Christians in India: the ongoing post-colonial legacy.'
3. I find it irksome to write or respond to issues of caste. It's an issue demanding action – not contemplation, philosophizing, and just written words.
I feel you are reading things into this conversation that I am not intending to communicate at all. Or perhaps you are misunderstanding me. Let me clarify.
1. Nowhere did I claim that Christians are becoming Marxists. I am claiming that Marxism is a form of ideological imperialism from the West. And the usage of the very term "post-colonial" originates from such Western academic thinking. That doesn't make it bad. It's a helpful field of discourse. But I will not accept every talking point of "post-colonial" discourse uncritically.
Secondly, I have written 127 posts on this blog. There may be 3 references to western missionaries? Maybe just 2. It's rather dishonest of you to say that I'm "focused" on white missionaries involved in conversion activities with such numbers.
2. Let me clarify. I am not glorifying the westerner. If you think the illustration glorifies the westerner, that is "misreading" of my writing. The point of the text is to glorify "the worldview" not "the person."
3. Each of us have different contexts and different circumstances. Many in my context have never even heard of discussions around caste. Many think it doesn't exist at all. Yes, it requires action. And if you are involved in action about it, I'm very glad you are. But the need for one kind of response does not diminish the need for another kind of response. Different kinds of responses can all serve the same goal.
But yes, I do feel this conversation may not head to a satisfactory conclusion for either of us. So I think it's better we end here.
This is an important topic, but the essay at its outset overlooks overcrowding, socio-cultural factors, caste legacy, infrastructure/maintenance issues, poor design/accessibility, and civic sense/public etiquette and moves from the complexity of an Indian issue to solely focus on purity.
Using only the - white missionaries cleaning toilets- example reinforces the "White Christian saviour" cliche, which is overused by many Indian Christians. This particular example perpetuates a general Indian Christian outlook that favours colonialism, western imperialism and hinders the Indian Christian community from addressing post-colonial challenges.
We also have many examples of Indian social reformers: Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar from the 1800s to Bindeshwar Pathak who amongst other things founded the Toilet Museum in Delhi (he recently passed away), and Bezwada Wilson who was conferred the Ramon Magsaysay Award for his work in Manual scavenging.
The essay is philosophical. I wish it was more practical. Its focus on purity/pollution directly blames caste and Hinduism as the only issues in this challenge. It highlights that caste hierarchy is an issue in the church and in Christian leadership. Reading the blog title and summary, I am eager to read more about the practical role of bible-believing, church going, Indian Christians in our society who are viewed as agents of the west.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Pradeep.
1. Yes, I agree that there are other factors too which contribute to unclean toilets in India. However, I still maintain that the worldview that sees toilets as impure is a rather foundational cause. Perhaps I could have been more careful in stating that among the many causes, the worldview beliefs are prominent ones.
The article is limited in scope and cannot address every one of the causes. Thus I chose to engage with the cultural beliefs primarily.
2. I do not see how you can jump from the example of a Western Missionary cleaning a toilet to saying that it contributes to "an outlook that favours colonialism, western imperialism and hinders the Indian church from addressing post-colonial challenges."
I question the very premise that the general Indian Christian outlook favours colonialism and western imperialism. In fact I say this is a problematic critique. This in itself is a form of Western Imperialism, although now coming from the Academia in the West. Post-modern and post-colonial thinking might have non-Western names such as Said or Spivak, but their thinking is essential Marxist and Western.
The missionary enterprise in India was both openly opposed by the British Raj and many of these missionaries played a leading role in Indian Nationalism. Indian Christian adoption of Western culture needs to be seen through the light of caste as well. As Varughese John writes in the paper "Christian Missions and Missionary Guilt,"
The figure of the dhoti-clad, half-naked Mahatma in wooden sandals is the very antithesis of Ambedkar, clad in a suit, wearing shoes, holding a book in one hand and pointing to the future with the other, which is how he is depicted in innumerable blue statues all over India.” While Gandhi’s dressing down as a half-naked fakir did elevate his stature as an ascetic within the culture, the same would have had the inverse effect if done by Dr Ambedkar, a Dalit.
I don't have data to back this up, but I suspect that efforts to indigenize faith and make it more Indian looking (at least in superficial elements like dressing) would often come from upper caste Hindus who converted, whereas lower caste Hindus who convert would seek to appropriate some aspects of Western culture as a symbol of resistance to the Indian culture that oppressed them.
3. Essays of this nature are also written from experience. I have observed that the facility in the Nilgiris that used to be owned by Dr Sterret still maintains clean toilets. My experience is limited.
4. I agree that this is largely philosophical. But caste is an important factor that does need to be talked about. Yes, it is a problem even within the church, and I want to highlight that the way we clean our toilets could be an indication that Indian Christians have not shed their beliefs about caste.
I also hold that not all thinking needs to be practical. Principia Mathematica was entirely theoretical, as was Godel's building upon the work. Alan Turing then built further upon these theoretical ideas to build the modern computer.
Thanks for the comment though. I do wish for more engagement on these matters.
By glorifying westerners and downplaying Indian roles, your example illustrates a recurring pattern. It is a western and colonial framework that obstructs a postcolonial exploration of what it means to be Indian and Christian.
I'm questioning whether such a pattern exists, or if it is recurring in any form. Even if it does, it is not founded on truth. The problem for the church in India is not the glorifying of Westerners. The problem is Indian customs such as the caste system which continue to lead to actual loss of lives. You cannot claim that A is problematic because it illustrates a pattern of B, without first proving that B exists and is in fact problematic.
I myself often spoke of the need for Christians in India to be more rooted to their own cultures. But I was challenged on this very point by a question by a friend, who asked why he should be patriotic or loyal to a culture that discriminated against and suppressed his people for so many generations. People sometimes express resistance to oppressive structures and cultures by appropriating the culture of the enemies of their oppressors. The Indian church (which is composed largely of lower-caste peoples) has done this. One might as well accuse Ambedkar of glorifying westerners and holding to a colonial framework, which is what right-wing magazines such as Swarajyamag do.
Moreover, you're misunderstanding the illustration. It was not meant to glorify the westerner, but it was meant to glorify the Biblical wordview. The fact that he was a perceived leader illustrates the point. His ethnicity is irrelevant.
The example is problematic as glorification of westerners and colonial movements rather than indigenous ones.
Haha... I guess we'll just have to disagree then. :D
It sounds like you are trying to opt out of this conversation. A couple of thoughts before you close:
1. Your comments suggest you believe few Indian Christians engage in social action, that some who were raised Christian became Marxists, and that you're focused on white missionaries involved in conversion activity.
2. I don't understand the point of writing about being Indian and Christian and exalting westerners. Maybe the blog should be called: 'Being Western Christians in India: the ongoing post-colonial legacy.'
3. I find it irksome to write or respond to issues of caste. It's an issue demanding action – not contemplation, philosophizing, and just written words.
I feel you are reading things into this conversation that I am not intending to communicate at all. Or perhaps you are misunderstanding me. Let me clarify.
1. Nowhere did I claim that Christians are becoming Marxists. I am claiming that Marxism is a form of ideological imperialism from the West. And the usage of the very term "post-colonial" originates from such Western academic thinking. That doesn't make it bad. It's a helpful field of discourse. But I will not accept every talking point of "post-colonial" discourse uncritically.
Secondly, I have written 127 posts on this blog. There may be 3 references to western missionaries? Maybe just 2. It's rather dishonest of you to say that I'm "focused" on white missionaries involved in conversion activities with such numbers.
2. Let me clarify. I am not glorifying the westerner. If you think the illustration glorifies the westerner, that is "misreading" of my writing. The point of the text is to glorify "the worldview" not "the person."
3. Each of us have different contexts and different circumstances. Many in my context have never even heard of discussions around caste. Many think it doesn't exist at all. Yes, it requires action. And if you are involved in action about it, I'm very glad you are. But the need for one kind of response does not diminish the need for another kind of response. Different kinds of responses can all serve the same goal.
But yes, I do feel this conversation may not head to a satisfactory conclusion for either of us. So I think it's better we end here.