|
Prof.
Venkatesh Seshamani In this article, Professor Venkatesh Seshamani of the University of Zambia explores the implications of Zambia’s Declaration as a Christian nation from a Hindu perspective. In December 1991, President Chiluba declared Zambia a Christian Nation. The Declaration was subsequently accorded constitutional status after it was included in the Preamble in 1996. Before I try to provide a Hindu perspective on this Declaration, it is necessary for me to state some of the distinct features of Hinduism which inform the Hindu psyche in general. Hinduism: An Explanation Hinduism does not have any distinct origin in history like most other formal religions. It cannot be traced to any one personality like Jesus in the case of Christianity, Mohammed in the case of Islam, Zoroaster in the case of Zoroastrianism, Buddha in the case of Buddhism, Mahavira in the case of Jainism, Nanak in the case of Sikhism, Lao Tse in the case of Taoism, and so on. Neither is there any one distinct spintual text in Hinduism that has the status of the Bible, the Koran, the Zendavesta, the Granth Sahib and the like. The Bhagavad Gita or simply the Gita is often cited as the Hindu Holy Book. In a sense it contains the Word of God, so to speak. But the Gita is only a part of a long epic called the Mahabharata which narrates the story of two rival royal families that stake their claim to the throne. The story of the Mahabharata is narrated in some 24,000 stanzas and the Gita covers only some 400 of these stanzas. In sum, one might even say that there is no such religion called Hinduism. It was only a name given to describe the way of life of the inhabitants of India (called Hindus since they resided along the river Sindhu or Indus) practiced since times immemorial. This way of life was based on Sanatana Dharma, an expression in Sanskrit which can be broadly translated as eternal and immutable principles of righteous conduct. An underlying premise of Sanatana Dharma is the acceptance of the unity of humankind. In the North of India, the motto in Sanskrit was: "This is mine and that is yours is the reckoning of little minds; to the broadminded the whole universe is one family". In South India, the Tamils professed an equivalent motto that "every country is my country and every person my tribesman". The belief in the oneness of humankind is linked to the belief in the common lordship of one God. There is again a gross misconception among a lot of people that Hinduism is polytheistic. To the contrary, Hinduism is as monotheistic as Islam or Christianity. But a fundamental differentiating characteristic of Hinduism is a sort of pantheistic liberalism: the freedom to worship the one God in any form that a person wishes to. Krishna, the divine preceptor of the Gita, says: "In whatever form a devotee wishes to worship me, I shall render steadfast his devotion to me in that very form". A Hindu can worship God as Rama, Krishna, Shiva, or in any of the countless forms that exist in the pantheon of gods. But a Hindu can worship even Jesus or Allah if that is what he likes best to do and still be a Hindu. This is what subscribers to other formal religions do not often understand. But this is a key feature of Hinduism that has promoted the spirit of tolerance towards all religions. A Hindu does not really look at other religions as something different. To him they are only variations of Hinduism itself. That is why when Mahatma Gandhi was once asked to what religious denomination he belonged, he replied: "I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian and a Jew; for, either I am all of these or I am none of these". Perhaps this eclecticism can be illustrated by one of my own experiences. Some years ago I went to attend a conference with a Zambian Christian colleague in one of the cities of Europe which is famous for its beautiful churches. On a Sunday, we were passing by one of these churches and I told my colleague that we should go inside and pray. I then began to walk into the church but suddenly found my colleague standing at the door. I went back and asked him why he did not come in. He told me that it was a Catholic church but that he was not a Catholic. He then told me that I could go and pray and that he would wait for me! So there was a Hindu who wanted to go and pray inside a church and there was a non-Catholic Christian who did not even want to enter the Catholic church! My point in narrating this incident is not to berate my colleague but to illustrate how a Hindu mind works. The Declaration With this preamble, I now come to the Declaration contained in the Constitutional Preamble, namely, that Zambia is a Christian Nation. As long as this Declaration is made with an eclectic import, a Hindu would find no problem with it. In fact, it would be as good as declaring Zambia a Hindu Nation! This is not a dramatic statement. Hinduism is not a proselytizing religion. In fact you can’t even have a Hindu proselyte from another religion. A Hindu could formally convert to Christianity, or Islam but the other way round is not possible. A couple of years ago, when I delivered a lecture on Hinduism, one of the students asked me what he should do if he wanted to became a Hindu. I replied that if he was trying to live his life according to the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount, he was already a Hindu! For the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are only reaffirmations of the age-old Sanatana Dharma. From the way President Chiluba has rationalized his Declaration, it undoubtedly sounds eclectic. Had he declared, for instance, that Zambia is a born-again Christian State, there could have been room for misgivings regarding its eclectic character. But as it now stands, it seems only to purport to remind Zambians of the primacy of man as a moral being and hence the imperative for him to try his best to follow the path prescribed by Jesus. It would indeed be a great achievement for Zambia if this happened. Moral capital formation is as vital to a country’s development as physical and human capital formation. But here we must remind ourselves that Jesus was emphatic that to follow his path was not just to accept him but to act according to his teachings. To enter the kingdom of God, it is not enough to say "Lord, Lord", but to abide by the will of the Lord. Any such declaration has obviously to be made in a language that the people would understand. Over 72 per cent of the Zambian population is Christian at least in the nominal sense. So when the President says: "every inch of this land belongs to Jesus Christ", it would readily strike a chord in most people’s hearts. If he were equivalently to declare that every inch of Zambia belonged to Vshnu or Ahura Mazda, how many could understand or appreciate him? There is therefore no harm in declaring Zambia a Christian Nation if its intention is to exhort people to conduct themselves according to the righteous principles of the word of God. Pitfalls of Declaration Having said this, I must however, also point out what I consider to be the pitfalls in making such a Declaration — and the pitfalls are many. The understanding of the one who makes such a Declaration need not be the same as that of those who receive such a Declaration. While the one making this Declaration may be eclectic in his views, others need not be so. By virtue of their religion being uniquely accorded constitutional status, a feeling of religious superiority can develop among Christians that suggests: - If it is Christian it must be good and if it is good it must be Christian. - If it is not Christian, it cannot be good and if it is not good it is because it is not Christian. This assignment of a one-to-one correspondence between Christianity and goodness could lead to discriminatory practices — a tacit system of apartheid based on religion. The greater danger would be if this feeling of religious superiority degenerates into bigotry that prompts one to look at all non-Christians as lost souls that need to be saved. Some time back I was watching a programme on CNN involving a discussion between Jewish and Christian Church leaders in the United States.
The Jewish leader contended that no matter what one believed, as long as one was leading an honest life, God would still be pleased. One of the Christian leaders did not accept this and contended that salvation depended on whether one accepted Jesus Christ as one’s personal saviour or not. The Jewish leader then asked if Mahatma Gandhi must be in hell because he was not a Christian and by the same token whether Hitler could have gone to heaven had he confessed to his holocaust sins. The Christian leader hinted that such was indeed the case. Stunned, the Jewish leader exclaimed that he could not believe that he was hearing this! But such rigid attitudes need not be ruled out even here in Zambia. One can recollect the attempt, very soon after Chiluba made his Declaration, to ban Islamic programmes from television and radio. Besides one cannot forget the Livingstone episode a few years ago in which the Hindu temple and the Islamic mosque were destroyed. These events may not be directly linked to the Declaration and may have been caused by other motives. But the danger that all non-Christian religious or spiritual practices may be branded as dangerous or as satanic cults cannot be ruled out. From this perspective that suggests the possibility of the development of religious superiority, religious apartheid and bigotry, the statement in the Preamble to the Constitution is an oxymoron. It declares Zambia a Christian nation while upholding the right of every person to enjoy that person’s freedom of conscience or religion. But how secure can religious minorities feel in a State that does not profess to be secular even if the constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and worship? There are several Islamic States in the world wherein there are Christians and Hindus and also Christian churches and Hindu temples. It is questionable if these Christians and Hindus are freely practicing their respective religions. In the Islamic State of Saudi Arabia, for instance, I understand it is a crime even to display the Bible in public. Of course, there is presently no such problem for the Hindus in Zambia. No material change has occurred for the Hindu community so far since and as a result of the Declaration. But what assurance is there that this will be the case in the future as well? Especially when the present leaders are no longer there? Constitutional Status The Constitutional status of Christianity also raises the issue of equality of opportunity to people of all religions to contest political offices, especially the Presidency. Could a non-Christian, if elected President, truly owe allegiance to the Constitution that declares Zambia a Christian Nation? But in the first place, would a Christian vote for a non-Christian as President when he knows that such a person, if elected, would have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution that accords this special status to Christianity? These are the kind of inconvenient questions that come to mind. In 1996, Zambians voted for Mr Dipak Patel, a Hindu, in the Parliamentary elections even when he stood as an Independent against the MMD Christian candidate. It was a testimony not only to Mr Patel’s political calibre but also to the maturity of the Zambian voters in his constituency who obviously did not let religious considerations influence their voting decisions. By his work in his constituency Mr Patel was known and judged. But with the passage of time and with the growing amount of print and electronic media being devoted to the propagation of Christianity that is not always confined to the interpretation of the Gospel, could one expect such maturity to continue? I do not regularly watch the Christian programmes on television. But I remember in one such programme that I did watch, the televangelist clearly suggested that non-Christians cannot reach God. Then, in a reference to Mahatma Gandhi, he said: "He led his people to independence but he did not lead them to God". Such statements which, in my own opinion, constitute a gross prevarication from truth, and when made by people skilled in the art of rhetorical claptrap, if broadcast repeatedly, can serve as a powerful medium of indoctrination and eventually transform the minds of undiscriminating viewers and listeners to make them hard-core bigots. This is the potential danger we must avoid.
Ref.: JCTR (Jesuit Centre for Theological reflection), n. 46, Fourth Quarter 2000.
|