Life and Work in Benares and Kumaon, 1839-1877 Part 18

Much has been said about the compound system, as it has been called;--Christians living together apart from the heathen, and in most cases in the immediate neighbourhood of the missionary's residence. Much has been said, I think unjustly, in condemnation of this arrangement. It is not the hot-bed, which it has been called, in which robust Christian character cannot be produced. Native Christians, thus living together, hold constant intercourse with the heathen in the business of life, and are at the same time saved from the peculiar trials and temptations incident to living among Hindus and Muhammadans. So far as native Christians make their light to shine, it will be well seen by the heathen though their dwellings be apart. One great advantage of living in a mission compound, near the place of worship and the missionary's residence, is that wives and children can regularly attend public worship, and can come under the teaching of the missionary, and especially the missionary's wife, as otherwise they could not have come.

For a time we had quite a number of native Christians in our compound at Benares, who paid a small rent for their houses, and went out every day to attend to their respective callings. If they had lived in the city I cannot conceive how mothers and children could have attended worship as they did, or how my wife could have taught the children and held constant intercourse with the women. Because living in the compound, it does not follow that they are dependent on the mission for support.

There is nothing more desired by missionaries than that their people should maintain themselves, by their own exertions. Living among the heathen is often indispensable--it is so increasingly with our native Christians; but where circ.u.mstances admit, I think great advantages result from Christians living near each other and near the mission church. In our own country, are not favourable surroundings sought for the young and the inexperienced?

[Sidenote: PROGRESS.]

When I look back to the beginning of 1839, when I landed in Calcutta, and compare the native Christian community of that day with what it is now, I am struck with the great change which has taken place. If we confine the term to those connected with missions, they were then a mere handful. Now they are considerable in number, and they have become a recognized and appreciable portion of native society. They are increasing in number, though not so rapidly in the North as in the South, and are becoming rooted in the land. The largest native Christian community in the North-West is, I suppose, that connected with the missions of the American Episcopal Methodist Church in Rohilkund and Oude. It is largely composed of Muzbee Sikhs, a people much despised by both Muhammadans and Hindus. Of late the Salvation Army has entered on the campaign against Hinduism and Muhammadanism. Its organ boasts largely of success, but its statements have been strongly questioned by persons acquainted with the facts, on whose warm attachment to the cause of Christ full dependence can be placed. A well-known missionary of the Episcopal Methodist Church in Oude has been lately pursuing the tactics of the Salvation Army. Accompanied by a band of native Christians, he has been entering villages and towns with song and drum and tambourine.

The people in crowds have gathered round him. He and his brethren have preached Christ to them, have urged them to accept Him as their Saviour, and have given on the spot baptism, _chin_--the mark of the Christian Church, to any avowing their readiness to become Christ's disciples.

Time will show how far the work is genuine. Perhaps we old missionaries have been too slow in administering baptism. Of this I am sure, that nothing is more fallacious as the test of success than the number of persons baptized--so different is the opinion held by missionaries regarding the qualifications required in order to baptize. Native Christians are more self-dependent than they were, and are receiving a healthy impulse from feeling that they must push out for themselves.

They have to contend against much which is adverse and hurtful, but without indulging too sanguine hopes we may firmly antic.i.p.ate for them a brighter and better future than their past has been.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

CHAPTER XXVIII.

THE PEOPLE AMONG WHOM WE LABOUR.

MUHAMMADANS.

All over Northern India--I may say all over India--we find the followers of Muhammad. They are very unequally distributed. In some districts they form the majority, in others their number is very small, while in the cities they abound. There is among them all the variety of station which might be expected in a community composed of millions, ranging from princes, wealthy landholders, and great merchants, down to labourers and beggars. There is among them all variety of culture, from profound learning in a narrower or wider groove, down to utter illiteracy and gross ignorance. There is also variety of character, many leading notoriously wicked lives, while others are noted for goodness, and are honourable and useful members of society.

Looking at the Quran and the Bible, one might suppose there is a close accord between them, as both a.s.sert the unity and sovereignty of G.o.d, both condemn idolatry, and in both the same names continually meet us, such as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, and our Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, however, in India, as elsewhere, Muhammadanism has shown itself intensely hostile to the Gospel. The reason is apparent. I think it is difficult for any one to read with candour the Quran on the one hand, and the Bible, especially the New Testament, on the other, without perceiving the marked contrariety between them, notwithstanding their agreement on some points.

A true follower of Jesus Christ, one imbued with the spirit of His teaching and bent on the imitation of His example, cannot fail to cultivate holiness of heart and life, to cherish a humble, lowly temper, to look on all with love, however unworthy of love their character and conduct may be, and to promote their good in every way within his power.

A follower of Muhammad, so far as he is imbued with his teaching, regards G.o.d with profound reverence as the Sovereign of the universe, deems homage to Him most due, looks with indignation on the worship of idols, attaches immense importance to outward rites and services, glories in Islam, pays comparatively little attention to inward excellence, and sees no need for a change of heart. As a worshipper and servant of Allah, following the precepts of the Prophet of the later age, he deems himself the spiritual aristocrat of the race, and looks down with scorn on all outside the pale of his community, whom he is in some cases bound to put to death, and in all cases to subject to degrading conditions, so far as he has the power. However wicked his conduct may be, as a worshipper of Allah he is sure of more tender treatment in another world than that which awaits Christians and idolaters. Thus the typical Muhammadan is one who scrupulously observes the laws of Islam, goes through his devotions with all the regularity of a soldier on drill, fasts at the appointed season, gives alms to the poor, attends to all prescribed rites, and at least once in his life goes on pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. Outward religiousness, pride and self-righteousness, are his distinguishing characteristics.

[Sidenote: THE LICENTIOUSNESS OF MUHAMMADANS.]

Much has been said about the sensuality of Muhammadans. The sanction given by Muhammad to polygamy and extreme facility of divorce has borne bitter fruit. His own example has had a depraving influence. He alleged, indeed, a special Divine sanction for the dissoluteness of his later life, but this has not deterred his followers from thinking they could not go far wrong in imitating him. In addition to these facilities for a life of sensual enjoyment, the teaching of the Prophet in reference to female slaves has had a most depraving effect on family life. The Hindustanee expression for _libertine_, _profligate_--_luchcha_--is, I think, more frequently applied to Muhammadans in Northern India than to any other cla.s.s of the community. It must be confessed, however, there is so much licentiousness among other cla.s.ses--not only among Hindus, but I am grieved to say among many from our own land, soldiers and others--that I can scarcely join in declaring Muhammadans sinners in this respect above all others. There is this difference between the licentiousness of so-called Christians and Muhammadans, that in the teachings of the Gospel, while no unnatural restraint is laid on those who accept it, the strongest motives are brought to bear on them in favour of purity of heart and in opposition to licentiousness of life; while in the teachings of the Quran, amidst severe condemnation of the gratification of unlawful desire in some forms, there is much, if not to encourage, at least to give every facility for a life fatal to personal and domestic purity, a facility of which the adherents of Islam have largely availed themselves.

While agreeing with the views generally held by Christians regarding the teaching of the Quran and its influence in the formation of character, I cannot join in the sweeping condemnation of the Muhammadans which I have sometimes heard, as if they were one ma.s.s of corruption. In the middle and lower cla.s.ses in Northern India we are told, by those whose testimony can be trusted, monogamy is the rule. Many lead a quiet, orderly life, with the domestic affections in full play which beautify and gladden the home. A Muhammadan writer, who may be supposed to know his own people, tells us that polygamy is getting out of favour, and that a strong feeling has set in in favour of a man having only one woman to wife. Among them there are undoubtedly persons of high character, whose bearing would do honour to the adherents of a far higher creed. I have conversed with some who seemed to me set on knowing and doing the will of G.o.d, who showed, so far as I could obtain an insight into their character, a reverent, earnest, humble temper, as if they had come under the power of the few pa.s.sages, occurring here and there in the Quran, which inculcate spirituality of mind and love to all men, and as if they had in a measure escaped from the externalism so prominent in that book, and from its hard, fierce, bitter tone towards all who refuse to receive it as a revelation from heaven. With two Muhammadans I was for years on as friendly terms as I could be with any whose belief and practice differed so widely from my own. As to courteous, kindly demeanour, they were all that could be desired. I had many an earnest talk with them on the highest subjects, and I was struck with the apparent candour with which they listened to all I had to say.

They read with evident interest books I gave them, and in the case of one such an impression was made that I hoped he was coming to the acknowledgment of Christ as his Lord and Saviour; but after going to his Moulvies he kept to Muhammad, though with manifest misgiving.

[Sidenote: MUHAMMADAN OPPOSITION TO THE GOSPEL.]

While I cannot join in the sweeping condemnation of Muhammadans, I must acknowledge my experience accords with that of my missionary brethren regarding those with whom I have come ordinarily into contact. When I have been speaking to a company of Hindus, and have apparently secured their attention, I have been sorry to see a Mussulman coming up, as past experience had prepared me for the immediate introduction of such questions as the Trinity, the Sonship of Christ, His propitiatory sacrifice, and not infrequently the eating of pork. I have done my best to stave off such untimely discussion, and to keep to the subject I was teaching, but in not a few instances my audience has been broken up by the new-comer insisting on being heard. During my long missionary career I have had many discussions with Muhammadans in public and in private, in some cases conducted with a calmness and fairness which promised good results; but in still more numerous cases with a readiness on their part to resort to the veriest sophistry, and fly from one point to another, and with a love of disputation which led to wrangling, and could accomplish no good. The controversy between Christianity and Muhammadanism has been carried on by the press as well as by oral discussion. In this department the late Dr. Pffander, Sir William Muir, and Mr. Hughes of Peshawur, have done excellent service.

It might be supposed that as Muhammadanism is so near to Christianity that it may almost be called a Christian heresy, and as we have in consequence much common ground, we might expect to find its adherents more accessible than Hindus to the Christian missionary. The opposite is the case, furnishing another ill.u.s.tration of the fact that no religionists are so antagonistic to each other as those who most nearly approximate. At the present time all over the world, Popery, under the conduct of the Jesuits, is far more hostile to Protestant missions than any form of heathenism.

It ought to be mentioned to the credit of Muhammadanism that it arose as a protest against polytheism and the worship of idols. This protest it has maintained down to our day. Not even a religious symbol is allowed to appear in their places of worship, and hence the marked contrast mosques present not only to Hindu temples, but to Christian churches.

Muhammadanism is a proselytizing religion as well as Christianity.

During my Indian career I have heard of a convert now and then from Hinduism in the North-West, and very occasionally one from Christianity; but these accessions have been very few. In Bengal, on the other hand, it appears that during the last thirty or forty years a great number of low-caste people have been drawn into the Muhammadan ranks, many of them small farmers, who think that by belonging to a large and influential community they can the better contend with the landlords. It is said that the change is simply one of name and ritual.

The accessions from Muhammadanism to Christianity have been very few; but some of the best converts in the North-West belong to this cla.s.s.

[Sidenote: HINDUS AND MUHAMMADANS IN CONTACT.]

For centuries Hindus and Muhammadans have been near neighbours in India.

In the ordinary course of life they have had much intercourse with each other, and have exerted a strong mutual influence, the Muhammadans, especially of the lower cla.s.s, having become in a measure Hinduized, while the Hindus of the lower cla.s.s have become, if I may use such a word, in some degree Muhammadanized. I believe the stricter Muhammadans are of pure Mogul and Pathan descent, while the more lax are the many who at different times have been drawn or forced into Islam. Our Muhammadan servants speak continually of their caste, have many Hindu notions, and follow many Hindu practices. Low-caste Hindus, on the other hand, are prominent in some Muhammadan processions. Both Muhammadans and Hindus, as a rule, are satisfied with their respective position, as a.s.signed to them by Allah or Fate, have no repugnance to each other, and no wish to disturb each other.

So far, however, as Muhammadans and Hindus are imbued with their respective systems they must be antagonistic; and their antagonism, though generally latent, every now and then breaks out into fierce strife, which but for the interposition of Government would lead to civil war. Early in this century there was in Benares a pitched battle between them, when they a.s.sailed each other with the utmost fury, and were separated by military force. All have heard of a recent conflict in Southern India, where blood was shed and property destroyed. About thirty years ago Oude was threatened with the outbreak of a war between the parties. There have been recently conflicts in Rohilkund on the occasion of processions, which but for prompt interference would have led to disastrous results.

[Sidenote: MUHAMMADAN REFORMERS.]

Of late years a reforming party has arisen among the Muhammadans with both political and religious ends in view. This party painfully realizes the loss incurred by their fellow-religionists on account of their neglect of the English language, and their failure to accommodate themselves to their new masters, thus allowing the Hindus to get in advance of them. They consequently discourage exclusive attention to Arabic and Persian literature, and advocate the cultivation of English.

A few of this cla.s.s have come to England to prosecute their studies, but for the many who must remain in their own land an inst.i.tution has been opened at Allygurh, in the North-West, in which provision is made for imparting a liberal education. It cannot be expected that Indian Muhammadans can have a strong liking to the English Government, but this reforming party wishes to reconcile itself to the new order of things, and to identify itself with our rule so far as the Quran permits. In religious belief these reformers range from strict orthodoxy to rank rationalism. Their leader is an able and ardent advocate of Islam, though he has thrown off what he deems unauthorized and hurtful accretions, and many of his followers no doubt agree with him. A Bengalee Muhammadan, a graduate of Cambridge, has published a book ent.i.tled "The Life of Muhammad," which is saturated with rationalistic views. I cannot suppose he stands alone in his rationalism, but I have no means of knowing to what extent his views are shared by others. The whole party is the antipodes to the Wahabees, the extreme Puritans of Islam, who aim at following strictly the instructions of the Quran and the Traditions, and wage war to the knife against Christians and idolaters. Between the Wahabees and the reformers there is a very numerous party--it is supposed the great majority of Muhammadans--who have little sympathy with the strictness of the former, but as little with the looseness of the latter, who in their opinion are sacrificing Islam to their ambitious and selfish views. Between the reformers and those who cannot advance with them there has been sharp controversy, and there is no prospect of its coming to an end.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

CHAPTER XXIX.

THE PEOPLE AMONG WHOM WE LABOUR (Continued).

HINDUS.

I have endeavoured in my account of Benares to describe the Hindu idolatry there practised, and in my account of our missionary preaching I have stated the arguments by which that idolatry is defended. The Hindu system, it is well known, is at once pantheistic and polytheistic.

The universe, we are told, is G.o.d expanded. _Brahm_--he alone is the Existent One; but there are several persons and objects in which he is more manifest than in others, and as owing to _Maya_ (illusion) we believe in our separate existence, it is fitting that to these objects special honour should be paid. I have mentioned the hideous aspect of the images worshipped at Benares, and their hideous aspect well accords with the character attributed to the G.o.ds worshipped under these forms.

[Sidenote: THE INFLUENCE OF HINDUISM ON CHARACTER.]

We are all familiar with the maxim, Like priest, like people. May we say, Like G.o.d, like worshipper? If so, we must regard the Hindus as in the very mire of moral debas.e.m.e.nt. Just think of a whole people acting like Shiva, Doorga, and Krishna! I think it cannot be doubted by any one who looks at the nature of the human mind, and the power exercised over it by its belief, that the worship of these and similar G.o.ds, along with the prevalent pantheistic and fatalistic views, which strike at the very root of moral distinctions, have done much to deprave the Hindu mind. The people, indeed, often a.s.sert "to the powerful there is no fault." The G.o.ds had the power and the opportunity to do what they did, and therefore no fault attached to their conduct; but ordinary persons have neither the one nor the other, and for them it would be very culpable to pursue the same course. Can a people fail to occupy a low place on the plane of morals to whom the maxim I have quoted would be tolerable? I believe they do as a people occupy a low place, and yet not nearly so low as might have been antic.i.p.ated.

There is much to counteract the influence exerted on the Hindus by the evil example of their G.o.ds, by their excessive trust in outward rites apart from all mental working, and by the pantheistic teaching of their philosophers. They retain a moral nature, and acknowledge the distinction between right and wrong as readily as we do, though the distinction be inconsistent with the views they often express. The requirements of society and of daily life exert a powerful and salutary restraint by the obstacle which they present to a vicious career. The family const.i.tution has conferred immense benefit on the Hindus, as on other nations.

It must be acknowledged that however long we may reside in India, our knowledge of the inner life of the people is very limited. We may be for years on the best terms with them; we may meet them frequently, and converse with them freely on all subjects; there may be not only acquaintance, but to all appearance friendship: and yet we have no entrance into the family circle, we cannot join them in the family meal, we can scarcely get a glimpse into their home life. If they be of the poorer cla.s.s they would be shocked at our entering their houses, and conversing with their women and children. If of a higher cla.s.s, they visit us and we visit them. They have a room of audience in which they welcome us. On occasions they prepare sumptuous feasts for Europeans, of which they themselves do not partake. However friendly we may be with natives of rank in Northern India, it is difficult, often impossible, to secure an interview between our wives and the female members of their families. As to English gentlemen, they never see the face of a native lady. Still, notwithstanding our being kept so far outside Hindu family life, we know enough about it to be sure there is often strong family affection. We have many proofs that parents regard their children with the most tender love; and we know that in the lower cla.s.ses, at least, children often requite this love by sending a large portion of their wages to their aged parents. I myself have often been the channel of communication. It cannot be doubted that this family affection is widely extended, and has a very happy influence on the character and life of the people.

[Sidenote: THE CHARACTER OF THE HINDUS.]

Professor Max Muller, in his recently-published book, "India, what can it teach us?" discusses at length the character of the Hindus. He quotes the views entertained by persons of large Indian experience, who had mixed freely with all cla.s.ses, and yet differ widely in their testimony, showing that in forming an estimate of the character of a community we are greatly influenced by our temperament and by the standard we employ.

Sir Thomas Munro, the famous Governor of Madras, speaks of the character and attainments of the Hindus in the most laudatory terms. He says, "If civilization is to become an article of trade between England and India, I am convinced that England will gain by the import cargo." Sir Charles Trevelyan, on the other hand, speaks of them as a morally depraved people, to whom "the phenomenon is truly astonishing" "of a race of men on whose word perfect confidence may be placed." "The natives require to be taught rect.i.tude of conduct much more than literature and science."

The Professor is evidently inclined to take the favourable view. He thinks the ordinary view of their falsehood and dishonesty is applicable only to the rabble of the cities and the frequenters of our courts, but is most unjust to the unsophisticated people of the country, whose truthfulness he extols. After the laudation of these honest and truthful people, I must say I was amused with the _navete_ of the learned Professor, when he goes on to show that the excellence of his _proteges_ is not sufficiently strong to be maintained in the face of temptation.

He says, "A man out of his village community is out of his element and under temptation. What would be called theft or robbery at home, is called a raid or conquest if directed against distant villages; and what would be falsehood or trickery in private life, is honoured by the name of policy and diplomacy if successful against strangers." The lauded truthfulness and honesty are so delicate that they cannot stand the breath of the nipping cold which has to be encountered when they leave their sheltered enclosure. The excellence is, according to the Professor, though he does not say so in words, merely conventional, as it rests on the principle of mutual insurance among those who form a closely-knitted community, bound together by common interests and a.s.sociations. Even then excellence needs to be guarded by an oath, which is viewed with superst.i.tious awe. I do not think the Professor's friends will thank him for this defence of the morality of their countrymen.

When I think of the wickedness rampant among large cla.s.ses in a country like our own, notwithstanding our great privileges, I shrink from applying to the Hindus the strong terms of condemnation which I have often heard. There is among them, as I have already said, much family affection; they are, in ordinary circ.u.mstances, very courteous; they often manifest a kindly disposition; almsgiving is reckoned a high virtue; many lead quiet, orderly, industrious lives; and, as Max Muller tells us, from the earliest age _satya_, "truth," in its widest sense, has been represented by them as the very pillar on which goodness rests, though it must be allowed it has been much more praised than practised.

[Sidenote: THE HINDU AND CHRISTIAN STANDARDS.]

Am I then to say, as many have done, that Hinduism has done its adherents no harm, and that Christianity has done its adherents no good--that the Hindus as a people stand as high morally as we do? With every desire to speak of them as favourably as I can, with a pleasing recollection of many acts of kindness and courtesy, and with every desire to rid myself of prejudice, I must dissent strongly from this view. I cannot forget the lurid light cast on the native character during the Mutiny; the treachery, ingrat.i.tude, falsehood, and cruelty shown by many who gloried in their caste purity--relieved, however, it is only right to acknowledge, by notable instances of faithfulness and kindness. I cannot but remember the impression often made on my mind of their low standard of character, the absence of high motive, even when full expression has been given to the distinction between right and wrong. Happily, in our land there are many, in every cla.s.s of society, who, as the result of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, hate sin in every form, and strive after excellence, an excellence springing from supreme love to G.o.d, and prompting to sustained effort for the good of man, for which we look in vain among the best of Hindus, though among them we discern the workings of conscience and the desire to do what is right.

The standard of character is undoubtedly far higher among us than it is among Hindus, and this standard, protesting as it does against wickedness, and calling us to aspire after goodness, is in itself an incalculable benefit to a community. For many a day it has been my settled conviction that Hindus are vastly better than, looking at their religion, we could expect to find them, and that we on the other hand fall far below the excellence to which our religion summons us. If Hinduism was allowed full sway over its adherents society would go to pieces, while we should rise to the excellence of angels if we were to come under the full sway of the Gospel.