Hinduism as a Missionary Religion

Chapter II: The Neo-Hindu Conviction that Hinduism Is a Non-Missionary Religion

Chapter II The Neo-Hindu Conviction that Hinduism Is a Non-Missionary Religion During the modern period,1 that is, since 1800 AD, the general tendency within Hinduism has been to oppose conversion. In the main, this opposition has been directed at conversion from Hinduism, but it has often carried with it the implication that there may be no conversion to Hinduism either—though, on the latter point, it presents a less unified stand than on the former. Raja Rammohun Roy (1772/74–1833) is generally regarded as the first representative Hindu figure of the modern period. There can be little doubt that he was opposed to conversion from Hinduism to Christianity. He witnessed the intensification of Christian evangelism in India and spoke out strongly against it. In 1823, he started pseudonymously a journal entitled, The Brahmanical Magazine; or, The Missionary and the Brahmun; subtitled Being a Vindication of the Hindoo Religion against the Attacks of Christian Missionaries.2 In one of the articles published therein, he points out how Bengal has been under the British “for a period upwards of fifty years,” and that while “during the first thirty years,” the British seemed to follow a policy of noninterference with the religion of their subjects, “during the last twenty years, a body of English gentlemen who are called missionaries are endeavoring in several ways to convert Hindoos and Mussulmans of this country to Christianity.”3 He then proceeds to specify three such ways: publications critical of Hinduism; public preaching; and “if any natives of low origin become Christians from the desire of gain or from any other motives, these gentlemen employ and maintain them as a necessary encouragement to others to follow their example.”4 Roy acknowledges the fact the “apostles of Jesus Christ used to preach the superiority of the Christian religion to the natives of 31 32 Hinduism as a Missionary Religion different countries,” but he sees one important difference between the apostles and the modern missionaries. The apostles did not belong to the class of rulers of the countries they preached in.5 Roy, therefore , says that he would be far more impressed with the zeal of the missionaries if they preached in say Turkey or Persia, where they were not rulers, rather than in India. As for their scurrilous attacks on Hinduism, Roy remarks: “It seems almost natural that when one nation succeeds in conquering another, the former, tho’ their religion may be quite ridiculous laugh at and despise the religion and manners of those that are fallen into their power,”6 and then proceeds to cite several examples. It is clear, then, that Roy was opposed to conversion by Christians . Was he, however, equally opposed to conversion to Hinduism? This was hardly a realistic possibility in his time, but the theoretical possibility of this happening does seem to have entered his mind, as may be gauged from a tangential illustration he offers. Roy was present when the missionary Alexander Duff opened a school in 1930 and tried to “remove the prejudice which the Hindu students might have against reading the Bible.”7 On that occasion, he said: “Christians like Dr. H.H. Wilson have studied the Hindu Sastras and you know that he has not become a Hindu.”8 The statement seems to concede by implication the fact that it was possible to become a Hindu. It could also be that the possibility was entertained purely for rhetorical effect. That Roy was capable of converting people is clear from the fact that he “converted to Unitarianism the Scottish missionary with whom he was translating the New Testament into Bengali,”9 an incident that led the missionaries to bemoan the event as the Second Fall of Adam, because the name of the person involved was Adam! It should also be borne in mind that, according to the trust deed of the Brahmo Samaj, the organization Roy founded, members of any religion could attend its functions. This is indicative of Hindu tolerance on the one hand; on the other hand, however, the statement does make it possible for non-Hindus to identify with this Brahmo version of Hinduism. On the whole, however, both by temper10 and example,11 Roy probably would not have encouraged conversion to Hinduism; in any case, he was more concerned with stopping conversion from it.12 A few other pieces of evidence further seem to suggest that Roy would not have looked upon any missionary enterprise on the part of...