| | In [[India]] Christians have long faced the issue of their and national identity in terms of two dominant models of Indian nationalism. These are the liberal democratic model of an even-handed secular state (an idea which was presumed to have won out at independence in 1947) and the more recently enhanced model of Hindu nationalism - a view which is less accommodating and which sees little room for Muslims and Christians in a nation-state intent on promoting Hindu religious and cultural values. A small Indian Christian educated elite endorsed the aims of the Indian National Congress founded in 1885 and, having suffered from European control and dominance in the churches, appreciated all the more readily the need for a genuine partnership and collaboration between Indians and Europeans. While they argued that national regeneration would come only through the values associated with the Christian movement, they also had to demonstrate that Christianity itself was not specifically European and that Indian Christians had a genuine commitment to India and were not 'foreigners' alienated from their own culture. There were three basic phases in Christian relations with the nationalist movement: an early period of hope and enthusiasm, including the active involvement of Christians in the Indian National Congress; a phase of disillusionment, increasing suspicion, and withdrawal, largely in response to the rise of militant and anti-Christian Hindu nationalism; and a period of partial recovery encouraged by a growing disillusionment with the British, Gandhi's initial attitude and 'helpful' comments, and recognition that a Hindu-dominated regime was an inevitability. There were also three basic Indian Christian attitudes toward the nationalist struggle. The great majority of Christians appear to have been largely indifferent to the movement, being more concerned with local issues such as family, caste, and local church or mission affairs. Others were openly hostile. They believed that any benefits they had were the result of the work of European missionaries and that Hindu majority rule would undermine hard-won achievements - not the least of which was protection against discrimination. A third group, which included most of the Christian nationalists, felt that they had a great deal in common with moderate Hindus and that collaboration in the building of the new nation would not only ensure greater protection for Indian Christians but would benefit all parties concerned.<ref>Geoffrey A. Oddie, "Indian Christians and National Identity, 1870-1947," ''Journal of Religious History'' 2001 25(3): 346-366, in [[EBSCO]]. </ref> | | In [[India]] Christians have long faced the issue of their and national identity in terms of two dominant models of Indian nationalism. These are the liberal democratic model of an even-handed secular state (an idea which was presumed to have won out at independence in 1947) and the more recently enhanced model of Hindu nationalism - a view which is less accommodating and which sees little room for Muslims and Christians in a nation-state intent on promoting Hindu religious and cultural values. A small Indian Christian educated elite endorsed the aims of the Indian National Congress founded in 1885 and, having suffered from European control and dominance in the churches, appreciated all the more readily the need for a genuine partnership and collaboration between Indians and Europeans. While they argued that national regeneration would come only through the values associated with the Christian movement, they also had to demonstrate that Christianity itself was not specifically European and that Indian Christians had a genuine commitment to India and were not 'foreigners' alienated from their own culture. There were three basic phases in Christian relations with the nationalist movement: an early period of hope and enthusiasm, including the active involvement of Christians in the Indian National Congress; a phase of disillusionment, increasing suspicion, and withdrawal, largely in response to the rise of militant and anti-Christian Hindu nationalism; and a period of partial recovery encouraged by a growing disillusionment with the British, Gandhi's initial attitude and 'helpful' comments, and recognition that a Hindu-dominated regime was an inevitability. There were also three basic Indian Christian attitudes toward the nationalist struggle. The great majority of Christians appear to have been largely indifferent to the movement, being more concerned with local issues such as family, caste, and local church or mission affairs. Others were openly hostile. They believed that any benefits they had were the result of the work of European missionaries and that Hindu majority rule would undermine hard-won achievements - not the least of which was protection against discrimination. A third group, which included most of the Christian nationalists, felt that they had a great deal in common with moderate Hindus and that collaboration in the building of the new nation would not only ensure greater protection for Indian Christians but would benefit all parties concerned.<ref>Geoffrey A. Oddie, "Indian Christians and National Identity, 1870-1947," ''Journal of Religious History'' 2001 25(3): 346-366, in [[EBSCO]]. </ref> |
| | + | Although Christian evangelism did not gain significantly more converts in India in the 1990s, the Sangh Parivar's anti-Christian activities increased in violence. Most explanations for the increased anti-Christian activity relate to Hindu nationalist parties' access to state power. However, the 'liberating potential of Christianity,' the type of Christianity articulated by Dalits and tribals (not Christianity per se), may offer a better explanation for the recent attacks. The failed Dalit Christian campaign for recognition as a Scheduled Caste (1990-98), which was supported by non-Christian Dalits, represented a developing Dalit identity that threatened Hindu nationalism. The Sangh Parivar's concern with the threat of conversion denies the legitimacy of cross-Dalit identity, and its emphasis on the 'foreignness' of Christianity denies the agency of marginal groups.<ref> John Zavos, "Conversion and the Assertive Margins: an Analysis of Hindu Nationalist Discourse and the Recent Attacks on Indian Christians," ''South Asia'' 2001 24(2): 73-89</ref> |