That is very true. In fact, when the rebellion broke out, some of the first victims were Christians. In fact, these were Indians who had become Christians. That is because many missionaries from England had been carrying bad propaganda against Hindus and Muslims, and passing literature in Indian languages ridiculing Islam and Hinduism. But before the missionaries were attacked, unarmed Indian Christians were targeted.

Missionaries used to operate independent of the East India Company for many years. The company had its mind focused on commerce, not religion, but in the early 1830s it was forced to welcome the missionaries in its fold.

Ironically, one of the men responsible for this was the British politician and abolitionist William Wilberforce, who had championed the abolition of slavery.

How was he involved with the increasing role of missionaries?

His main reason for fighting slavery was conversion. He believed you could not really convert slaves; they should accept Christ freely. But he and other evangelicals did not object to ridiculing and downgrading other religions.

Looking at the involvement of the missionaries also raises an interesting point. You cannot look at colonialism as a monolithic phenomenon. By the middle of the nineteenth century, there were many modes and very distinct phases of colonialism. It was not the British per se, so much as specific groups with a specific imperial agenda, namely the evangelicals, who brought in the most obnoxious and dangerous phase of colonialism.

For by 1850, many British officials who had come under the influence of the missionaries were not interested in just commerce but also in winning converts. The missionaries in India and the Christians, even those who did not belong to the Church of England, became victims in the early days of the rebellion. Some of the documents pertaining to Indian Christians make for poignant reading.

Also see: Bahadur Shah's remains won't be shifted to India

Back

|

Next