The idea that the Catholic Church is a major landowner is often politicised, especially in communal or anti-minority rhetoric
Last week, the BJP initiative on waqf lands (land or assets donated for Muslim religious or charitable purposes) was in the news. Soon after this, circles close to the party in power were seen as highlighting the issue of Catholic "Church owned" lands across India. Mainstream newspapers like The Hindu, The New Indian Express, Hindustan Times, and The Telegraph, Kolkata focussed on this controversy.
Headlines in these papers read: 'Organiser' article reignites Catholic Church’s concerns over Sangh Parivar’s intentions. Or: After Waqf, BJP will take away land of Christians, Hindu temples: Thackeray.
Four days earlier, the Organiser, mouthpiece of the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) had highlighted this in a comment piece. It was headlined: "Who has more land in India? The Catholic Church vs. Waqf Board Debate". Soon and suddenly, that article has been taken offline, and is no longer available in cyberspace. See http://alturl.com/ui9wx
The article, quoted by the New Indian Express, said "the Catholic Church of India holds the distinction of being the largest non-governmental landowner, possessing vast tracts of land spread across the country". It said the "Catholic Church" owns about 17.29 crore acres of land worth Rs 20,000 crore throughout the country.
The expunged article claimed that much of the land was acquired during British rule. It said, in 1927, the British administration passed the Indian Church Act "facilitating large-scale land to the Church".
In fact, the Indian Church Act had nothing to do with the Catholic Church at all. It was a British colonial law passed to disestablish the Church of England in India. Before this Act, the Anglican Church (Church of England) was the state church for British subjects in India. The Act transferred the management of Church of England properties and assets in India from the British Crown to local church authorities. It also ended the privileged legal status the Church of England had enjoyed in British India.
So, what's going on? Is the charge correct? Was it an overreaction, or provoked by the Opposition? Is there some mischief and pot-stirring going on here? Why was the article removed suddenly? What is the truth of the issue?
In the past too, there were hints and insinuations of this. Except that after the Waqf issue, this one takes on ominous portents. At a quick glance, it will strike most as strange that the "Catholic Church" properties were all being put into one basket. Or treated as if these were under common ownership.
You don't need to be exceptionally bright to realise that the school in your village, the chapel next to your home, a hospital in Mapusa or Porvorim, and the Archbishop's Palace have little in common with their ownership.
All their owners may be Catholics. But the commonality stops there. Catholic institutions and their assets are owned by law associations and Trusts (e.g. Catholic Syrian Bank, started by Catholic laypeople and now a public bank), various congregations of nuns (such as the Carmelites or St Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity), religious orders (like the Salesians, Jesuits, Franciscans, Carmelites, Dominicans, Capuchins, etc.) and various dioceses or archdioceses. Religious Orders and congregations -- groups of priests, nuns and brothers who take vows and form communities -- are often more autonomous from the local diocese.
In Goa, temporal ("this worldly") assets are also owned and controlled by local fabricas. Catholic bishops don't own institutions, but oversee and coordinate the Church's policies on education, healthcare etc. (In healthcare, we unfortunately have only little happening in Goa.)
So, to imagine that all is under a common ownership is a figment of imagination, and definitely the worst case of political agenda-setting. Secondly, one has to ask what is the Catholic Church doing with all the "land" that "it" is supposed to be owning?
Available figures (Bishop Dr. Y. Ambroise: Christian contribution to Nation building in India, 2018) give a hint. The Catholic Church in India collectively runs over 17,000 educational institutions; over 11,000 are Nursery, Primary and Middle schools. There are also over 1500 professional and technical schools. In the year 2000, some 175 colleges were Catholic-run (by different organisations). Including two engineering and two medical colleges. Possibly the number has grown, despite some political hostility.
Recently, there has been a small but noticeable start in the sector of Catholic-run universities too. These include Christ University, Bengaluru; Assam Don Bosco University, Guwahati; St Xavier's University, Kolkata; St Joseph's University, Bengaluru; St Joseph's University, Dimapur; and XIM University, Bhubaneswar. Very recently, the Bihar government has also allowed the launch of St Xavier's University in Patna. Many of the institutions--excepting those at the higher level--are in rural areas, benefiting the poor and disadvantaged.
Catholic institutions account for 764 hospitals, 2575 dispensaries, 70 rehab centres, 107 centres for mental health care, 165 leprosaria, 416 institutions for the aged, 61 for the terminally ill and those suffering from HIV/AIDS, 113 medical training centres, 60 counselling centres, 162 non-formal health facilities, according to Ambroise. Given this, is the right question to point to the "land" or to ask how such a small community contributes so vastly?
This brings us to a more relevant issue: whose agenda-setting is this, and with what motives? One comment doing the rounds noted: "The idea that the Catholic Church is a major landowner is often politicised, especially in communal or anti-minority rhetoric. It can be used to sow suspicion or resentment, often without evidence."
Yes, each community needs to ensure its assets are well used. All religions, including shrines or temples (owning roomfuls of gold) have to ensure their own assets are not just protected, but also put to good use. The right people need to be in charge. In Goa, tenancy issues, and the fact that minorities may have limited political clout, has placed such assets in a squeeze. Land is sold to those with political clout (otherwise, these could be in limbo). But such decisions are also questioned. But to play communal propaganda games over the same is totally unfair, uncalled for and a recipe for disunity.
