Vishal Mangalwadi’s book, The Bible and the Making of Modern India, asserts that the Bible was a central force in shaping modern India, influencing its education system, social reforms, and nation-building process. Mangalwadi, an Indian Christian philosopher, argues that biblical principles introduced by Christian missionaries during the colonial era provided the intellectual and moral framework for India’s transformation into a modern nation-state. While his thesis highlights undeniable contributions of missionary activities, it overstates the Bible’s role, marginalizes indigenous contributions, and aligns with a colonial narrative that requires critical scrutiny. This article examines Mangalwadi’s claims, exposing their limitations and offering a balanced perspective on the forces that shaped modern India.
Mangalwadi’s Core Claims
Mangalwadi’s central argument is that the Bible, through missionary efforts, introduced transformative concepts such as universal education, equality, and governance, which were instrumental in creating modern India. He credits missionaries with:
1. Establishing Modern Education: Missionaries set up schools and colleges, breaking caste barriers and promoting literacy in vernacular languages.
2. Driving Social Reforms: Biblical teachings inspired campaigns against practices like sati (widow-burning) and child marriage, fostering equality.
3. Unifying India as a Nation: The Bible’s influence, Mangalwadi argues, provided a conceptual basis for India’s identity as a unified nation, even suggesting the name “India” derives from the biblical “Hodu” (Esther 1:1).
4. Influencing Leaders: Figures like Mahatma Gandhi were inspired by Christian ethics, particularly Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, in their vision for India.
While these points contain elements of truth, they are exaggerated and fail to account for the broader historical, cultural, and indigenous forces that shaped modern India.
Balancing Mangalwadi’s Claims
1. Overstating the Bible’s Role in Education:
Mangalwadi credits missionaries with introducing modern education, citing institutions like St. Stephen’s College and the Serampore Mission’s printing press. While missionaries did establish schools—educating over 500,000 students by 1901, per historian Robert Eric Frykenberg—their impact was not unique. Indigenous reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who founded the Brahmo Samaj and Hindu College (1817), were equally instrumental in promoting modern education. Roy’s efforts predated many missionary initiatives and emphasized rationalism and Vedic reform, independent of biblical influence.
Moreover, traditional Indian education systems, such as gurukuls and madrasas, already provided learning frameworks, albeit limited by caste and access. The British East India Company’s policies, such as the 1835 English Education Act, also played a larger role in standardizing Western education than missionary efforts alone. Mangalwadi’s narrative downplays these parallel developments, presenting the Bible as the primary catalyst.
2. Exaggerating Social Reforms:
Mangalwadi attributes social reforms, like the abolition of sati, to missionary advocacy inspired by biblical principles of equality. Missionaries like William Carey did campaign against sati, influencing the 1829 ban under Governor-General William Bentinck. However, Indian reformers like Roy were equally vocal, drawing on Hindu scriptures and rationalist principles to argue against such practices. The abolition of sati was a collaborative effort, driven by a confluence of Indian reformist thought, British administrative priorities, and missionary pressure—not solely biblical ideals.
Similarly, Mangalwadi’s claim that the Bible introduced notions of equality overlooks India’s own egalitarian traditions, such as those in Buddhism and Jainism, which predate Christianity by centuries. The Bhakti movement (15th–17th centuries), with its emphasis on devotion over caste, also fostered social equality without biblical influence. Mangalwadi’s selective focus ignores these indigenous contributions.
3. Questionable Claim on India’s Name and Unity:
Mangalwadi’s assertion that the name “India” derives from the biblical “Hodu” (Esther 1:1, referring to the Indus region in the Achaemenid Empire) is speculative and tenuous. The term “India” evolved from the Greek “Indos” and Latin “India,” rooted in the Sanskrit “Sindhu” (river), used by ancient Persians and Greeks long before the Bible. The Bible’s mention of “Hodu” reflects an existing geographical term, not a Christian invention.
Furthermore, the idea of India as a unified nation owes more to political, cultural, and administrative developments than to biblical influence. The Maurya Empire (322–185 BCE) and Mughal Empire (1526–1857) demonstrated early concepts of territorial unity, while the British colonial administration formalized India as a single political entity. The Indian National Congress, led by diverse leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, and Ambedkar, drew on secular and pluralistic ideals to forge national identity, not solely Christian principles.
4. Selective Reading of Gandhi’s Influences:
Mangalwadi highlights Gandhi’s admiration for the Sermon on the Mount as evidence of biblical influence. While Gandhi appreciated Christian ethics, he explicitly drew from multiple sources, including the Bhagavad Gita, Jainism’s ahimsa (non-violence), and Tolstoy’s writings. Gandhi’s rejection of conversion and his rootedness in Hinduism suggest that the Bible was one of many influences, not the defining one. Mangalwadi’s focus on Gandhi’s Christian connections ignores his broader syncretic philosophy.
Colonial Bias and Narrative Flaws
Mangalwadi’s thesis aligns with a colonial narrative that portrays India as a “backward” society transformed by Western Christian intervention. This perspective, echoed in some missionary writings, often depicted Hinduism and Islam as obstacles to progress, a view critiqued in posts on X as “Biblical Indology.” Such framing distorts India’s rich intellectual and cultural heritage, which included advancements in mathematics, astronomy, and philosophy long before colonial contact.
Missionary education, while impactful, was often tied to colonial agendas. Schools sometimes served as tools for cultural assimilation, promoting English and Christian values over indigenous knowledge. Mangalwadi glosses over this, presenting missionaries as altruistic agents of progress. For instance, the 1813 Charter Act allowed missionary activity in India primarily to strengthen British control, not solely to uplift Indians.
The Broader Context
Modern India emerged from a complex interplay of forces:
1. Indigenous Reform Movements: The Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, and leaders like Dayananda Saraswati and Ambedkar drove social and religious reforms, often challenging caste and gender norms independently of Christian influence.
2. British Administrative Policies: The British legal system, railways, and bureaucracy unified India administratively, creating a framework for nationhood.
3. Global Intellectual Currents: Enlightenment ideas of liberty and equality, alongside socialist and nationalist ideologies, shaped India’s independence movement more directly than biblical teachings.
4. Pluralistic Traditions: India’s diverse religious landscape—Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism—contributed to its modern identity, fostering a secular constitution that accommodates multiple faiths.
Conclusion
Vishal Mangalwadi’s The Bible and the Making of Modern India overstates the Bible’s role in India’s modernization, presenting a narrative that privileges missionary contributions while marginalizing other indigenous and secular forces. While missionaries did influence education, social reforms, and certain leaders, their impact was part of a broader and complex network of Indian reform movements, colonial policies, and global ideas. The claim that the Bible “created modern India” seems to forget
the agency of Indian thinkers and the subcontinent’s pluralistic heritage. A balanced understanding of modern India’s formation must recognize the Bible’s contributions without elevating them above the diverse forces that truly shaped the nation.
