The cessation of the European hostilities in World War II
brought little relief for the German families interned in British India, at
least in the immediate months following the war. At Satara, Selma Heller
remembered, "for though the war had come to an end in May, 1945, we noticed
absolutely nothing. ..." (1) With the collapse of Nazi Germany, the "hardest
time in camp" (2) began for the German internees. For some it was only a case "from
May, 1945, until April, 1946," (3) but for others it continued until their
eventual departure from India. The opening months of peace ushered in scarcely
any change to the camp life and activities, except that the pressures from the
National Socialists were now history. Now the waiting game became predominant
and where any move might bring some hope for the missionary families.
Realizing that there was no hope for their return to the
Indian Church, (4) the Missions personnel had "prepared for home service"
(5) in
the German Church. The unqualified pastors-to-be had passed their theological
exams. Yet the question of a definite day of repatriation to Germany was clouded
in the distant future. Alma Tauscher expressed their feelings in the comment: "We
felt that was what irritated us most. The war was long over. Why should we have
to stay when the war had already been over for a year?" (6)
Five months following the defeat of the Third Reich and the
evaporation of the Nazi ideologies, the first signs of a change in the British
war policies towards the German nationals became apparent. In the interests of
the Lutheran churches established by the German Societies, certain efforts were
made before the October, 1945, Executive Meeting of the N.C.C. at Nagpur.
(7)
According to the minutes, the following report was made:
"Repatriation of German Missionary Internees.
The Secretary has been corresponding with the Home Department
of the Government of India on this matter, and has also interviewed the
Secretaries of that Department at New Delhi. The request of the Lutheran
Federation for the employment of certain German missionaries in non-German
Missions has been communicated to the Government and is receiving their
attention.
On October 6, 1945, the N.C.C. was informed ... that the
Government have decided to adopt the following policy in regard to all enemy
foreigners including missionaries:
1.
They consider that all enemy foreigners received from
abroad and interned or restricted to parole centres in India should be removed
from India. ...
2.
They have decided that all enemy foreigners formerly
resident in India whom it was necessary to intern or restrict to parole
centres up to the end of hostilities cannot be allowed to remain in India but
should be compulsorily repatriated. The Government of India will, however, be
prepared to consider individual applications for relaxation from this rule
which will be considered on the following grounds:
(a) risk of persecution on return to own country;
(b) length of residence and connections in India;
(c) required in India for work of national importance;
(d) those whose wives and children who are of British origin;
(e) any other circumstances in which compulsory repatriation
might cause undue hardship.
3.
The orders excluding enemy foreigners from major ports, the
provinces of Bengal and Assam and other strategic areas have also been
withdrawn.
4.
The Government of India have decided that it is necessary
to impose a ban on the admission of enemy foreigners for the next five years.
... They will, however, be prepared to consider relaxation from this ban in
exceptional cases, for example, to admit technical experts in the national
interests. (8)
What the Government's repatriation policy amounted to in
1945, the N.C.C. Executive Committee noted once more on the subject of the
German Missions personnel;
... that except for certain hard cases all German missionary
internees will he repatriated to Germany and that no German missionary will he
ordinarily allowed to return to India for a period of five years as was the case
after the last war. The NCC Executive Committee passed the following resolution:
That the Secretaries he instructed to consult with the War
Emergency Committee of the Federation of Lutheran Churches and with the
Churches in which missionaries of ex-enemy countries were working to learn
whose services are desired in India, ... either in their own missions or in
other mission fields. (9)
The news of the repatriation policy and of the five-year ban
from India reached the missionaries in camp, yet it was not unexpected news.
Karl and Selma Heller had experienced a similar procedure after World War I.
(10) Selma Heller recalled to mind, that in 1945,
In October of that year, we - my husband and I - received
the order that we would be repatriated. There-upon I requested and received a
leave of absence for a few days to return to our (mission) station to fetch
from there some of the things from our packed up belongings left behind, by
which occasion I sold my sewing machine there. Then I returned to the camp and
we waited for further developments. (11)
Now beginning with October, an unsettling mood arose among
the Lutheran missionaries, for German nationals were gradually being released
from the internment and the parole camps in British India. The remaining Jewish
emigrants and refugees were naturally awarded their freedom finally. Yet the
repatriation policy decreed by the Government offered little hope for any
special generosity. (12) However, there were engineers and businessmen with
their families, as well as the Catholic priests, who were granted their releases.
The criterion "for relaxation from this rule"
(13) of the repatriation policy hinged
on the urgency and on the necessity of an individual being required for a
specific task by a business, a firm or a church institution in India. For the
missionary families, as for the churches established by the German Societies,
1946 became a crucial year for the Indian Church. At Satara, "little by little
the camp became emptier. ... There a technician disappeared; there a businessman
with his family left from the camp." (14) "For there were the engineers and the
business people who were needed by their firms." (15) It was sometimes
demoralizing for those of an uncontested character and record, yet
Each private person, say an engineer or whoever he might be,
who seriously was demanded by a firm, was released. ... The British politics
after the war was more generous than one had anticipated. ... (16)
Measured in the perspectives of time and circumstances, when
the war fever and the fears had subsided, British generosity increased in the
closing months of the Raj and in the face of the impending Independence of India.
(17)
Among the German nationals there were the Roman Catholic
priests and also the Evangelical-Lutheran missionaries of the four German
Societies. The manner in which these two groups of missionaries were handled by
their church authorities and the way the "relaxation of this rule" for release
was approached by their own leaders stand out with contrasts. In the waiting
game of releases, it became a now or never cause of gaining further relaxations
to the rule.
The visit to India of Dr. John W. Decker, Secretary of the
International Missionary Council, the New York branch, and successor to A.L.
Warnshuis, and Decker's attendance at the "meeting of the Executive Committee of
the National Christian Council, held at Nagpur, February 15-17, 1945,
(18)
greatly assisted in making a bridge between the Indian and the American Churches.
Decker's presence gave him the opportunity to acquaint himself with the
situation as well as the leaders with whom he would later correspond.
As "representative of the Foreign Missions Conference of Switzerland,"
(19) Adolf Streckeisen had also attended the Nagpur meeting. On October 18th he wrote
to Decker:
You will have heard of the recent Government decision
ordering compulsory repatriation of the internees, but allowing exceptions
under certain - rather narrow - conditions. If they should be applied strictly,
I fear that scarcely any missionary will have a chance. I hear on the Roman
side already about 9 of their German missionaries have been released. They
seem to have their own way of approach and we have to see that we Protestants
are not lagging too far behind. As far as our Mission is concerned, we confine
ourselves to one family - Rev. and Mrs. R. Lipp - and application for them is
before Government. But no answer has been received so far. (20)
The Roman Catholics' "own way of approach" was to gain the
freedom of as many of their interned brethren and as early as possible. They
attempted to regain their German missionaries, veterans of India and trained and
versed in one or more of the Indian languages. The Roman Catholic Church saw the
urgency of the situation and the only rational way was to harness these brethren
immediately in the Church in India. In contrast Streckeisen seemed to be
insulted, in that the Protestants were lagging too far behind the Catholic
brethren. If this was a failure, who was responsible for the procrastination? As
one of the internees, Richard Lipp shed some light on this subject:
This is what I have felt very deeply; that the Church was
far too little aware of its duty, I mean the Protestant churches. When we saw
how the Catholics took an interest in their people, the Catholic Bishop of
Bombay took great pains to get his missionaries out. So many Catholics were
given the permit to return to their work, and some even to teach in a college.
If there were Roman Catholics who had very nationalistic
views, they of course were not allowed to return. But many people, say those
who were of my type, they were certainly allowed in the course of time to
return to some type of work, not necessarily missionary-at-large, ... but
maybe confined to a college or some institution. (21)
The Roman Catholic organizational structure with its
universal character saw the greatest consequence for its church and mission
labours in India, and for that reason it was militant in its desire to have its
priests and missionaries back. Already by October, 1945, they were triumphant
with their first nine men leaving camp. Karl Bareiss, not released by the
British authorities and not accepted by his Swiss Basel brethren, made this
observation:
They acted prudently and efficiently, that is, the
Catholics. They simply got some out; simply sent them first into another
province for some months and then brought them back to the Bombay Province.
Then there was nothing more in their way. The Basel people did not do that.
... (22)
The Roman Catholic Church's own way of approach was in the
image of the militant church, and each German missionary was an added warrior
for the increasing ranks of the Church in India. The Protestant missionaries in
internment did not receive the same quickened support, at least when the
opportunity still existed in the years 1945 and 1946.
Prior to the close of World War II certain overtures were
made by the National Christian Council in seeking a better understanding with
the Home Department, similar to J. Z. Hodge's consultations with Conran-Smith and
others in 1939 and 1940. As an example, Dr. Rajah B. Manikam, N.C.C. Secretary,
"interviewed the Home Secretary on October 23rd, 1944."
(23)
Manikam, a Tamil Lutheran, pointed out;
... that if the N.C.C. were kept informed by the Government
of their general policy regarding repatriation, it would help the N.C.C. in
making arrangements for the continued maintenance of the work done formerly by
the German missionaries. ... (24)
On February 15-17, 1945, it was brought to the attention of
the N.C.C. Executive Committee, that "negotiations were entered into with the
Government of India regarding the release of one of the Lutheran missionaries,
but the Government could not see their way to release him." (25) Further, the
Committee made the following motion:
In order that as soon as repatriation became possible (the
Government might be approached) to retain in India certain German missionaries,
correspondence was now proceeding between certain missions and their Boards in
the West regarding the employment of certain German missionaries now in
internment. (26)
These were the beginnings of the renewed consultations and
endeavours, though the missionaries on the other hand clearly had premonitions
of their repatriation.
Following the war, Manikam continued to correspond with the
Home Department concerning the interned families. At "the request of the
Lutheran Federation for the employment of certain German missionaries, ..."
(27)
i.e., "the services of Rev. H. Meyer and Rev. R. Tauscher" for the Jeypore
Evangelical Lutheran Church, (28) the possibility of retaining some of these men
and women for the Church in India took on a probable trend. Manikam admitted to
Decker that the "Indian leadership of the (Jeypore) Church is poor."
(29) At any
rate, it was thought that the missionaries might at least serve, if only for a
while, with "non-German Missions," (30) be they American or European Lutheran
Societies. This was the contention of Karl Bareiss (as discussed later) and the
pattern which the Roman Catholic Church had used. Thus, only in October, 1945,
the N.C.C. Executive Committee passed this resolution:
In the light of these consultations the Secretaries should
approach the Government of India and place be-fore them the need for adequately
staffing fields that have been occupied by missionaries of ex-enemy countries.
They should do all in their power to secure exemption from compulsory
repatriation of suitable missionaries whose services it is desired to obtain,
and also to secure sanction for the admission of new missionaries from such
countries. (31)
The German missionary himself had little choice or say in the
matter, so Selma Heller described the situation then.
We were not able to make any attempt to secure a position
which might enable us to remain in India. One of the internees through such an
attempt, which certainly was not very exertive, spoiled every hope of seeing his
wish fulfilled.
But from before the war some of our fellow-internees had been
so appreciated in their jobs by their firms or elsewhere, that their former
employers requested to have them back. (32)
Restricted from making an appeal to friends, organizations or
mission churches, "we had to wait until we were fetched."
(33) And in the year
1945 not a single German Evangelical-Lutheran missionary had departed from Satara or Purandhar.
It was not the wish of every missionary to remain in British
India. Johannes Stosch, Wilhelm Bräsen and Otto Tiedt had not seen their wives
since 1937 or 1938 when they came out to India alone, or the couples Heller and
Tauscher had children in Germany from the pre-war years. From Germany there were
requests made for some of the internees, as in the case of a Pfarrer Pompe's
letter in October, 1945;
... the direction of the Evangelical-Lutheran Mission of
Breklum has requested that the Evangelisches Hilfswerk (für Internierte und
Kriegsgefangene) convey the following petition to the International Mission
Council:
The International Missionary Council wishes an immediate
return to his homeland of the missionary Wilhelm Braesen, hitherto at the
Central Internment Camp, Dehra Dun, G.P.O. Bombay, and for Fraeulein Helene
Langlo, hitherto at the Parole Centre Satara, Bombay Presidency, to be effected
and carried through. (34)
Pompe's letter of appeal to Professor Knut B. Westman at
Uppsala was in turn forwarded to Norman Goodall of the I.M.C. in London. In the
latter's absence Betty Gibson acknowedged Westman's letter and informed him, "We
have been receiving quite a number of inquiries through different sources from
various missionary societies with regard to their people and their work abroad."
(35) But the influence of the I.M.C. upon Whitehall and the Government of India
had changed substantially from the days of William Paton, the man who "drove
himself unmercifully beyond human endurance" (36) until his death on August
21st, 1943. (37) With the courage of a Christian warrior, Paton had so ably
influenced his Government to understand Christian Missions in the British
colonies.
Then in December, 1945, in the interest of the German
families, a more vigorous approach was initiated by the increased role of the
Federation of Lutheran Churches in India. If the N.C.C., in spite of its
consultations and the correspondence with the Home Department, had to this date
no appreciable results, then it was time for the other Lutherans in India to act
prudently and efficiently before it was too late and all the German missionaries
were repatriated and banned from India. The Indian Church needed these men and
women, and the Missions personnel loved their Indian families, (38) knew their languages, taught their young and adults, and came to serve
in India as all the other Christian missionaries.
At the December 4th meeting of the Lutheran Federation's
Executive Council, some guidelines and requests were passed as resolutions:
(a) That the Federation Executive reiterate its strong desire
to have certain of the Lutheran interned missionaries already named in previous
correspondence retained in this country for service in certain of our
Constituent bodies and request the N.C.C. to use its good offices to secure the
retention of the missionaries in question.
(b) That the request of the Jeypore Evangelical Lutheran
Church for the services of Rev. H. Meyer and Rev. R. Tauscher being made
available. ...
(c) That the Constituent bodies concerned who have not
already acted be urged to invite by resolution for service in their respective
areas those missionaries who are acceptable to them and who are willing to work
under their Church organization. (39)
While the Roman Catholics were already receiving their
interned missionaries back, the Lutheran Federation was forced to assemble and
make these resolutions, indicating once more its "strong desire" for "the N.C.C.
to use its good offices to secure" some of the wanted German brethren. The names
of the interned missionaries had been mentioned often enough, and the
resolutions appeared to be a form of friendly persuasion that the N.C.C.
Secretary Manikam get things moving in the interest of the German Missions. In
this matter Manikam's letter to Goodall noted:
The Secretary of the Lutheran Federation adds the following paragraph:
"It appears as though no definite recommendations could be
expected at least for sometime from Gossner and Leipzig Evangelical Lutheran
mission area(s). The matter regarding the Jeypore field has become very urgent
because Mr. Anderson is very anxious to hand over charge and be ready to leave
the country as soon as passage is available. The Federation earnestly requests
that immediate action regarding the Jeypore field be taken."
(40)
These pressing matters were not only discussed and
resolutions passed at the December 4th meeting, but they were once; again taken
up at "an enlarged meeting of the Executive Council (Lutheran) ... at Madras on
December 28-29," (41) 1945, placing further responsibility on the N.C.C. to use
its influence as the leading non-Roman body of the Indian Christian Church. The
N.C.C. Secretary in turn did act, stating:
I wrote to the Government forwarding the resolutions of the
N.C.C. and the All-India Lutheran Federation and made a special plea for the
immediate release of Messrs Meyer and Tauscher. I also wrote about the release
of Mr. and Mrs. R. Lipp of the Basel Mission. ... Of course I made it clear that
our request for the release and retention of these missionaries was on the
condition that there was nothing politically against them. ...
The N.C.C. Executive Committee again made it quite clear that
we should consult not only the All-India Lutheran Federation but also the
Churches concerned. The Church in the Breklum field has unanimously asked for
the release and retention of Messrs Meyer and Tauscher. The Gossner Lutheran
Church has not yet (29th Jan.,1946) taken any definite action for the retention
of any of its missionaries; so also the Tamil Lutheran Church. The matter is
engaging the attention of the Lutheran Federation and I am keeping in close
touch with them. ... (42)
Obviously Lipp, Meyer and Tauscher fell into the category of
those who could be accepted, as "there was nothing politically against them."
(43) And at this stage, from the two autonomous Lutheran churches, the Gossner
and the Tamil (Leipzig) Evangelical Lutheran Churches, "no definite
recommendations could be expected at least for some time." (44) In the case of
the Leipzig Mission, the Tamil Church's northern field, Bishop Sandegren of
Tranquebar was once more on vacation in Sweden. (45) "As for Mr. Stosch the
Gossner Church Council has been somewhat hesitant about inviting him to Ranchi
because of the military occupation of the Church compound." (46)
Then much to the surprise of everyone concerned, Manikam
received some good news:
On February 9th, 1946, the Government of India informed the
Secretary, N.C.C, that the Government had decided to release the following five
missionaries:
The Rev. Dr. W. Graefe (Leipzig Mission);
The Rev. H. Meyer (Schleswig Holstein);
The Rev. R. Tauscher (Schleswig Holstein);
The Rev. J. Stosch (Gossner);
The Rev. R. Lipp (Basel Mission). It was also stated that the release of other interned German missionaries was
not possible. (47)
However, Manikam introduced another category in a subsequent
letter to Norman Goodall:
It has not been possible for them to release any of the
others owing to their adverse record. ...
You will note that with the release of these missionaries, at
least one experienced missionary is available for service in each of the four
important orphaned missions and churches. It is not yet possible for the
Government to give us any indication when the rest of the missionaries will he
repatriated. All depends on shipping conditions. (48)
From Manikam's communique one is made to believe that these
five releases close the case concerning the Lutheran missionaries, particularly
since the remaining 23 German brethren all fall into the realm of having "adverse
record(s)," and the next stage is to await their repatriation. For the N.C.C.
Secretary the issue had now been fully regulated.
The February news was cause for joy, even if it was four
months after the earliest Roman Catholic releases. Yet the War Emergency
Committee of the Lutheran Federation met on February 26th at Bezwada again. In
gratitude, these Lutherans, with Manikam in attendance,
RESOLVED:
That the War Emergency Committee express its gratitude to
Government for their generous action in being willing to release these
missionaries for service in India and request the Secretary, National Christian
Council, to convey to the Government its deep appreciation of their action. ...
To assure the National Christian Council that it is the
conviction of the Committee that they need have no misgivings regarding the
observance of the oath required by the Government from the missionaries already
recommended by the Federation.
Further RESOLVED to request the Secretary of
National Christian Council to give the necessary guarantee to the Government and
sign the papers, at present only for the Rev. Messrs H. Meyer and R. Tauscher
and to inform the Government that the matter of the assignment of Mr. Stosch to
work in the Gossner ... Church and the question of the employment of Rev. W.
Graefe not so far recommended by the Federation are still under correspondence.
That the War Emergency Committee assure the National
Christian Council that the Federation guarantee for Rev. J. Stosch, as in the
case of the Breklum missionaries, his salary and passage money for his journey
back to Germany when his period of service is terminated. ... (49)
Stosch, once the President of the Gossner Church, was granted
his release by the Government, but an invitation from his Church Council
remained delinquent. For that reason, "this committee further requested the
N.C.C. Secretary to confer with the President of the Gossner Church regarding
the employment of the Rev. J. Stosch in Ranchi District." (50)
Among the post-war developments mentioned, it was also noted:
"The Lutheran Federation is making arrangements for the care or the disposal of
the belongings of German missionaries if and when repatriated."
(51) And following a
statement on the War Emergency Fund, its receipts, payments and balance, the
Committee made three further resolutions, the most important being; "That the
Secretary of the N.C.C. be asked to confer further with the Home Department,
Government of India, regarding the cases of the unreleased German missionaries."
(52)
The Lutheran Federation and its War Emergency Committee
continued to press for the release of additional German brethren, obviously
since the Government had indicated a growing generosity towards their appeals.
From the Federation resolutions, one might draw some conclusions:
The Government of India was willing to release German
missionaries, i.e. Johannes Stosch, even if the mission church was hesitant to
request the return; (53)
The Lutheran Federation, as the umbrella organization for the Lutheran
churches of India, could not forget its "unreleased German missionaries,"
(54)
Lutheran brethren to be repatriated and banned; and
The Secretary of the N.C.C., Manikam, was to "sign t, the papers" for the
releases as a guarantee to the Government of India. (55)
Nevertheless, the procedure for gaining the release of a
German missionary from a camp became entangled in a complicated process of
successive and conditional stages.
A six (or more) point process of release seemed to develop;
Lutheran Federation recommended certain brethren;
(56)
Acceptance of that missionary by the church body;
(57)
N.C.C, through Manikam, carried these recommendations to the Government of
India; (58)
Government discriminated on these brethren - no adverse
record and politically safe (59) - and granted the releases;
Lutheran Federation supported the N.C.C. and Manikam gave
the guarantees, i.e., "as for Mr. Meyer and Mr. Tauscher I have signed the
undertaking required by the Government." (60)
Government, through the Home Department's Deputy
Secretary, V. Shankar, issued the release ORDERS. (61)
If one step in the intricate procedure was unintentionally or
intentionally omitted, i.e. the missionary's guarantee papers were pushed aside
and left to rest on the table, the chances for a particular individual to remain
in India were then negligible. It was a tedious system to contrast it with the
direct approach of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. There was a reward in fighting
"to secure the retention of the missionaries in question"
(62) for the Lutheran
churches.
By the time the February news of the five missionary releases
reached the parole camps, e.g. Richard Lipp at Purandhar, and the necessary "undertakings"
had been signed, it was March, 1946. (63) Ten months after the collapse of Nazi
Germany and five months after the release of the first Catholic priests, the
release orders arrived. Yet what was good news for these five families, was at
the same time a disturbing experience for the others. Why should one missionary
be chosen and another be rejected by the same mission church? Nevertheless, the
Lutheran Federation and the N.C.C. had only achieved their first major goal.
It was altogether a painful situation of missionary families
interned six years, a world war nearly a year behind them and everyone waiting
in British India for their repatriation day. Suddenly five, all without question
worthy candidates and invaluable leaders for the continuing work of the Indian
Church, were granted their freedom. Except for six brethren applying for
repatriation, (64) all interned were prepared to return to the mission churches.
While the evaluations and the judgments continued to be made
on these missionaries by others "behind the scenes," (65)
it was a pathetic guessing game in the camps, as no one was able to make an
appeal outside. Not to be accepted by the mission church which they had served
these years, meant a compulsory eviction and a ban from an adopted land.
At first the Government of India sanctioned the re lease of
at least one man from each mission church, and it is interesting to note some of
the developments leading up to the release orders of March, 1946. From the
Breklum Mission Heinrich Meyer and Rudolf Tauscher, as the former President of
the Mission Church and as the missionary with the longest period of service (since
1927), respectively, were unanimously requested by the Jeypore Evangelical
Lutheran Church. (66) Manikam had stated that he himself "made a special plea for the
immediate release" (67) of these two men. In fact, in February, 1945, before the
close of the war, Manikam indicated to Decker, that "we commend to the
Federation the needs of the West Jeypore Church … for two resident missionaries."
(68)
From the
Basel Mission Richard Lipp, who during the war had
emphasized his missionary vocation and his task to not get politically involved,
(69) was the only choice of the Swiss personnel. Based on what had been a "hitherto
considerable correspondence," (70) Adolf Streckeisen, "Superintendent of the
Basel Mission, has given the necessary undertaking in the case of Mr. Lipp."
(71) Streckeisen accepted the token offer of the Government, but he felt
strongly that "as far as our Mission is concerned, we confine ourselves to one
family - Rev. and Mrs. R. Lipp." (72) This admission of Streckeisen's attitude
stood in contrast to the Basel Mission Church, when the Indian church leaders
voted 14 to 2 in favour of the resolution: "The Synod welcomes heartily
missionaries who thus are enabled to come back and assures them that the bond of
Christian fellowship with them is as strong as ever." (73) The Indian Christians
spoke of "missionaries", while the Swiss personnel, still very much the
administrators, spoke of "one family". Earlier in the year Manikam had commented
on the Mission to Decker; "I do not believe that in other ways Indian leadership
has been greatly countenanced or encouraged." (74)
From the
Gossner Mission Johannes Stosch, a missionary to
India since 1908 and Chairman of the Mission as well as President of the Gossner
Evangelical Lutheran Church until his resignation in 1942, was the natural
person to be invited by his Church. However,
There was some hesitation in the mind of the Gossner Church
Council to invite Mr. Stosch for work at Ranchi in view of the military
occupation. ... We have had to deal with this matter rather carefully and
tactfully. (75)
The initiative for Stosch's return began, as Manikam noted;
... The Lutheran Federation went into this matter very
carefully on February 26th and at which meeting I was present and they requested
me to confer with Rev. J. Lakra, President of the Gossner Church.
(76)
On March 5th, 1946, at Nagpur the N.C.C. Secretary
... had a personal interview with the President of the
Gossner Church, Rev. Joel Lakra, and after a good deal of discussion was able to
convince him that complications are not likely to arise if Mr. Stosch was
released. (77)
And on March 9th Manikam conveyed the news to the I.M.C.:
... Mr. Lakra has gone back to Ranchi this morning to request
his Church Council to welcome Mr. Stosch and to assign him to work in the
Theological Seminary at Lohardaga. I am to write to the Government of Bihar
explaining ... that Mr. Stosch comes back to the Ranchi District as a member of
the Gossner Church and not as a member of a separate German mission.
(78)
Rajah Manikam also pointed out to Betty Gibson in London,
... that Mr. Stosch is being welcomed as a friend, advisor
and well-wisher of the Gossner Church and that he is not to exercise any
executive functions. The Goss-ner Church is extremely chary of inviting
missionaries from abroad who will not become members of the Church and will not
serve in and under the Church. (79)
On precisely the same day, April 23rd, 1946, and at the
Parole Camp of Satara, Stosch also wrote to London;
Dear Miss Gibson,
I thankfully remember the help you gave me for my return to the Gossner field in
India when I saw you in London in July, 1925. Now Dr. Manikam invites me to
write to you that I am going to be released for theological work in Ranchi
District. In 10 days I hope to leave the camp. I shall not return to Ranchi as 'President
of the Church', hut as friend and adviser, having access to every department of
Church and Mission work and being a member of the Church Council, non-voting. In
a way an ideal appointment. My daily work will be in our Theological Seminary.
(80)
In May, 1946, an entire year following World War II, Stosch
departed from Satara to take up the teaching position at the Lohardaga Seminary.
Since "the Government of India have tabooed the entry of German missionaries
into this country for the next five years," (81) there existed the obstacle "regarding
his wife and daughter joining him in India." (82) For that reason Stosch did not
see the year out in India. On November 19th Manikam wrote to Betty Gibson:
We were finally able to secure a place for Mr. Stosch on
'Ansgar' to Amsterdam and Mr. Stosch went to Patna to get his passport. ... I am
indeed, like you, very sorry that Mr. Stosch has to return to Germany, so soon
after his release. His presence in the Gossner Church had been and would have
continued to be of very great help. (83)
Yet it is not difficult to understand Stosch's desire to
depart from India, considering the initial reluctance of the Gossner Church to
extend him an invitation, but also that his wife and his daughter would not be
allowed to come out to the British colony. The departure of Johannes Stosch from
the Indian scene brought to a close the career of one of Germany's most able
missionaries of the 20th century on the sub-continent and a service to the
Indian Church over a span of nearly 40 years, interrupted and scarred by two
world wars and the Gossner Church's many difficulties.
From the
Leipzig Mission, much to the surprise of everyone,
Dr. Walter Graefe was selected, but more than any other person he seemed to
unleash an unrest among the missionary families and some complications for the
N.C.C. One missionary's comment was: "That they permitted Graefe to go free and
that they sent Gäbler home, was obviously a mistake, for Graefe was certainly
everything else but a missionary. He was a language researcher"
(84) and a
scholar of Indian religions. Not only was Graefe's release unexpected, but he
had been favoured before Paul Gäbler, the Leipzig Mission chairman. Manikam also
expressed his amazement in the selection, "We did not ask for his release, nor
did the Lutheran Federation, but he was released because there was nothing
against him in his political record." (85) It also substantiated the position that "the
Tamil Lutheran Church has not yet taken any definite action for the retention of
any of its missionaries." (86) Thus Manikam tried to explain to Norman Goodall
the meaning of Graefe's freedom;
We did not ask for the release of Dr. Graefe but we did apply
for the release of the other four. Someone else must have written on behalf of
Dr. Graefe. The Tamil Church is not favourably inclined towards inviting him for
service. The Church of Sweden Mission is likewise not very happy about receiving
him into their work. ... There is some tension between the Swedes and the
Germans. I have therefore not been able to give the understanding on behalf of
Dr. Graefe. (87)
At any rate, regarding "Dr. Graefe, there was a lot said
about him going back to the field. There were a lot of un-pleasant things said
about people staying or not staying." (88) It was quite understandable that Graefe's
selection caused some turmoil, for of the three strictly German Lutheran
Missions, the Leipzig Society work, under the care of the Church of Sweden
Mission, was the only Mission which did not see its chairman, Paul Gäbler,
invited by his church.
One explanation for Graefe's release, beyond his clean
political record and also Manikam's evaluation, was the fact "that Mrs. Graefe
was Secretary to the Commandant (Fern), Satara Camp, and that this had much to
do with their release." (89) The Graefes departed from the parole camp and he
went to serve at the Department of Modern European languages, the Indian
Institute of Science in Bangalore. (90) In this manner a German researcher was
retained for India.
According to Selma Heller's observations and the speculation
among the internees, certain criteria were necessary to a release order;
They were determined after three viewpoints:
1. How he behaved himself before the war or whether he had
made himself suspicious (India was in its independence struggle from
England);
2. Whether he had showed himself as a follower of Hitler in
the camp in some way; and
3. How the commandant judged him in all the other matters. He
clearly had the most important word. (91)
They were strictly theories, but they were born of experience
and much time for contemplation.
For the other missionaries remaining in camp, there were the
added weeks for reflection and self-appraisal. The daily life had a routine and
the question whether one was to be repatriated or to be released persisted for
many more months. There were other concerns and some insoluble problems
preoccupying the families. As an example, in March a Leipzig missionary wrote to
the I.M.C. and expressed his concerns to Norman Goodall and Betty Gibson;
Mrs. Gerlach and I are still staying under the very same and
quite satisfactory conditions here at Satara. Both of us are healthy and all
right. In spite of our application for release to go on with work in our Tamil
Mission Field we now got the definite order for repatriation; from our Mission
only Dr. W. Graefe is released.
... Today, just one year ago (08.03.45), both of us had to pass
through a bitter sorrow: our first child was a still-born baby. During all the
months Mrs. Gerlach was quite all right, only during the last ten days sudden
trouble arose; we had to leave together for the good and near American Marathi
Mission hospital at Wai. ... The little girl I had to bury there among the other
missionary graves.
Our last news from our relations at home is the letter of my brother Walter
Gerlach, dated 17.2.45. We worry so much about all our relatives, and we would
be so much relieved, if we could get news from them. ... (92)
March, 1946, five German missionary families were granted
permits to leave internment; it would be some weeks before they all had departed.
The remaining families were still very much internees and destined for Germany.
April, 1946, brought encouraging signs for the interned
Lutheran families. Another release, on account of further appeals, was
indicative now that the Government of India was going beyond the token releases
of "one experienced missionary in each of the four important churches and
missions." (93) Also, "in the spring of 1946 some of the smaller camps were
dissolved, among them also the larger one at Purandhar, and from there the
internees ..." were accommodated at Satara. (94) Through this move all the
German missionary families, except for the five already released and the three
men at Dehra Dun, were now assembled for their eventual journey to Germany. Yet
the closing down of the other camps meant that the Jewish and the German
national families continued to depart in freedom. (95) According to one family
transferred from Purandhar,
In Satara ... each person was given one room; so that for
each family, as for the five of us, ... it really was quite pleasant in the
barracks, five rooms in a row. And we could fix them up as we wanted to.
Therefore Satara was a camp of which one has a vivid impression. ...
(96)
Those families transferred from the hill fort spent only a
brief seven months at Satara. Yet it too was an uncertain time; "as the
International Missionary Council's May, 1946, Bulletin stated, 'A survey ...
presents a rather monotonous picture of people carrying on doggedly or waiting
patiently for deliverance.'" (97)
In April the first major break-through in the Government's
policy on releases occurred, supporting Manikam's view "that the Government of
India have been very good to German missionaries in the country and have been
very generous and kind in their treatment of them." (98) Manikam wrote to Betty
Gibson over the latest development:
You will be glad to hear that in addition to the 5
missionaries whose release has been secured we have been able to get one other
free and that is Mr. Jungjohann of the Schleswig Holstein Mission. The Church is
now being asked whether it would invite him to work and if it agrees I shall
sign on his behalf the undertaking required by the Government of India from the
N.C.C. (99)
Traugott Jungjohann's release meant that the third Breklum
man of a total of six brethren leaving the parole camps was now permitted to
return to his mission church work. One might conjecture that an influential
factor in Jungjohann's freedom was due to his excellent service as Commandant
Fern's "economic minister" at Satara. His release supported Selma Heller's
observations, mentioned above under point 3. (100) Jungjohann's release from the
parole settlement, contrast to the first token releases, now awakened a real
hope for the remaining Missions personnel. It was well known that the Jeypore
District Commissioner thought well of his German missionaries. Yet more so,
Jungjohann's freedom to depart disqualified Manikam's March, 1946, statement - "It
has not been possible for them to release any of the others owing to their
adverse record." (101) And Jungjohann's release gave new impetus for those
outside the camp; for
The Lutheran Federation is now recommending to its War
Emergency Committee that the N.C.C. be approached to secure the release of
Messrs Gaebler and Gerlach. If this recommendation goes through, we shall try to
secure their release also.
We are approaching the Government with the request that they
re-examine the cases of the unreleased missionaries. (102)
In the same April 23rd letter, Manikam explained to Gibson:
The Tamil Church would have been happy to get Mr. Gerlach,
but the Tamil Church has voted against inviting any German missionary, including
Gaebler. I understand now that the Church of Sweden Mission which was also
reluctant to invite Mr. Gerlach for work in its field is changing its mind and
would like to assign him. ... (103)
The Lutheran Federation recommendations of Paul Gäbler, the
Leipzig Mission chairman, and Wolfgang Gerlach, a younger missionary with
administrative ability at the Shiyali School, were short lived. The Tamil Church
vote indicated certain fears towards the German brethren returning to take up
the positions which the Indian leadership had carried in their absence. Manikam
had also spoken of the tensions between the Swedes and the Germans, though the
first group were the administrators in freedom and the other the hapless
internees at the mercy of others. Furthermore, if Sigfrid Estborn was
representative of the erroneous, inexcusable thinking of the Swedes, then who
could tolerate "the German missionaries, some of whom were members of the Nazi
party and had openly propagated Nazism, ..." (104) to be in their midst again.
It was actually the junior missionary Gerlach who was most
'in demand' of the Leipzig men, and not Gäbler, the trusted and experienced head
of the Mission. Gerlach was needed for his services at the Shiyali School, hut
from the position of the Government of India, his release seemed unlikely, since
he was one of the two Leipzig men not released on parole in the few months of
1940. (105) How often did each of the remaining 22 missionary internees have the
occasion and the time to make a self-evaluation or to attempt to give a
justifiable explanation for the lack of an invitation from his mission church
and his continued presence in the parole camp? Gäbler and Gerlach were two
brethren who never had a chance, even as the Government of India became
increasingly "very generous and kind in their treatment" of the German families.
(106)
April in Satara came and went, and only the Breklum
missionary Jungjohann received his release order. The hot season was once again
upon the land and upon the internees in the barracks. For the months of May and
June, the British officials, most Christian missionaries and the more affluent
Indians had departed for one of the many wonderful hill-stations of India. The 'early
April' transfer from Purandhar to Satara, from an altitude of 3.600 feet down
to, 2.300 feet, seemed to be a particularly harsh measure for these families
with babies and children. Likely the British needed the Purandhar sanatorium
facilities for their own personnel.
From outside the camp there was little fresh news in these
vacation months. Inside the camp the families saw the weeks drag on, waiting for
deliverance from the heat in the barracks and from the uncertain future. With
the anticipated repatriation already announced in October, 1945, so one
missionary said, "Since we knew nothing about all the, things (outside the
camp), we prepared ourselves for the journey home." (107) In the summer heat,
followed by the monsoon rains, the families prepared themselves for Europe;
It was natural that we already started knitting wool clothes
for our children, though they were so used to the heat. Now we anticipated
arriving in Germany in winter. This was going to be forced upon us next.
(108)
There were other concerns about returning to the Vaterland,
and Christian Lohse envisioned one problem:
I had no great longing to return to Germany, because I could
well imagine for myself how things actually were. ... When I finally came home,
I could see that it was still worse than what I had expected. At that l time I
personally would have rather gone to America or (if to Australia than return to
Germany. (109)
After a three-month lull for the holidays, a respite came to
"the monotonous picture of people carrying on doggedly"
(110) at the Satara
Parole Camp;
For one evening in July Herr Meyer appeared quite
unexpectedly, since the commandant had called him so that he could help him in
these matters. He (Fern) was quite unfamiliar with each mission, and he could
not have familiarized himself with them.
Herr Meyer came to us to ask us whether there was the
possibility and whether we were prepared, instead of going back to our children,
we might return to our mission work again. He gave us until the following
morning to think it over. ... We were prepared to remain in India, since we knew
clearly how few missionaries could remain; and with this decision he departed
again. (111)
This was the case of the Karl Hellers (Leipzig Mission); for
... at first the Tamil Church wanted to virtually renounce
(all missionaries), since there were, at that time, men in its leadership with
strong nationalistic feelings. But then one voice was raised that one should not
completely reject the offer of the Government. (112)
The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church eventually accepted the
offer of the Government, as Selma Heller stated, "They took my husband out of
necessity." (113) Seemingly "they did not want him back, as he was quite
enterprising; yet they still did receive him back" (114) to assist in the
financial concerns and administration of the Tamil Church.
In August a most encouraging event occurred, here retold by
Frau Heller;
The still-existing camps were at the time under the eminent
official Mr. Shankar. This man visited us for a couple of days and on August
13th he held a consultation afternoon for all of us in the dining hall. After he
had made a short speech, he went from table to table and let the commandant
introduce the people to him. As he heard my husband's name and the name of a
Basel missionary (Bareiss) at our table, he said: "Oh, I can congratulate you
here right away. You are free." My husband, not exactly sure whom he meant from
the group, followed him and asked him again what he meant. "Well, you!" was his
reply.
We felt sorry for our friends who had to hear this and whose
names were not considered again. We ourselves rejoiced naturally. But even after
this, ("the oral news that we would be released," (115) ) and the silence,
regarding our staying in the country, ... we still had to wait for months. Some
of our friends from Ceylon and Indonesia then left the camp in September.
(116)
By August, 1946, the Government of India and the N.C.C. knew
fairly well how the German missionary families were going to fare regarding
their releases, and as Manikam wrote, "the financial implication of such a
procedure;" (117)
The All-India Lutheran Federation has, till now, been making
itself responsible for the maintenance of the released German missionaries. I
suppose a way would be found whereby the additional burden might be borne by the
Lutheran Federation. (118)
The Lutheran Federation was dependent on the world-wide
efforts for the 'Orphaned Missions' under the guidance of the I.M.C. in London
and New York, but strongly supported by the Lutheran Churches of America and the
Lutheran World Convention. (119) From their post-war budgets the American
Lutheran organizations forwarded substantial financial aid for the many orphaned
Lutheran mission churches in the world. (120)
From British India Manikam's August 20th letter gave Betty
Gibson this elaborate survey:
The Government of India are following a very liberal policy
in releasing as many as possible of the German missionaries against whom there
is no political record or whose release will not be too risky.
The total number of Protestant missionaries still in
internment and not yet released, is twenty-five. Of these, the following have
applied for repatriation to Germany:
1. BEAESEN, Wilhelm (Breklum) 2. TIEDT, Otto Will Georg (Leipzig) 3. RADSICK, W. (Gossner)
4. KLING, W. (Basel) 5. WEINERT, J. (Leipzig) 6. LANGLO, Miss H. (Breklum)
Of the remaining 19 it has been decided, on the basis s of
their record, both prior to and after internment, to keep in detention the
following 11 missionaries:
1. GERLACH, Rev. Kurt Wolfgang (Leipzig) 2. GÄBLER, Rev. Paul Hermann Julius Theodor
3. AHRENS, Rev. Walter Hans Albert (Breklum) 4. JELLINGHAUS, Rev. Karl Theodor (Gossner)
5. WOLFF, Dr. Otto (Gossner) 6. STORIM, Miss Irene (Gossner) 7. SPECK, Rev. Reimer Hans (Breklum)
8. LOHSE, Rev. Christian Johannes (Breklum) 9. HUEBNER, Rev. Christoph Friedrich Wilhelm (Breklum) 10. PALMANN, Rev. Guiseppe
11. LORCH, Dr. Theodor (Basel)
The remaining 8 missionaries are under the very liberal
policy of the Government eligible for release.
Their names are:
1. ROEVER, Rev. Hans (Leipzig) 2. HELLER, Rev. Karl and Mrs. Selma (Leipzig)
3. DILLER, Miss Amy (Gossner) 4. KLIMKEIT, Rev. Johannes and Mrs. Renate (Gossner)
5. SCHMIDT, Miss Hedwig (Gossner) 6. HELMS, Rev. Nikolaus & Mrs. Hedwig (Breklum)
7. BAREISS, Rev. Karl & Mrs. Hanna (Basel) 8. BORUTTA, Rev. Helmut Fritz Erhard & Mrs. Helene (Gossner)
(121)
As a point of clarification, Betty Gibson's letter to Walter
Freytag mentioned the fact that "Dr. Manikam's letter of August 20th indicated
that 11 missionaries were to be kept in detention, I presume, with the
possibility of later release in India." (122) Yet in her closing paragraph, she
conceded to Freytag the very opposite; "... but I expect that they too will be
sent home now." (123)
With only a year remaining for India's Independence set for
August 15th, 1947, the British Government made the generous offer of the above
"8 missionaries" to the N.C.C. and the Indian Church. In this regard Manikam
could write:
I am now getting in touch with the Churches and Missions
concerned regarding the employment of these persons, should they be released and
also with the Lutheran Federation regarding their financial support and
repatriation expenses if need be.
The National Christian Council has been requested to give
undertaking on behalf of each one of these missionaries with reference to their
good behaviour. (124)
And with the Government's increasingly generous policy, it
was the thinking among the missionaries, as expressed by Christian Lohse, that "if
the N.C.C. had claimed us, we could all have been released. Each private person,
... whoever he might have been, who seriously was requested, ... he was released."
(125)
One further glimpse into the Central Internment Camp at Dehra
Dun might offer an insight into the continuing problems of the post-war years.
Most of the German missionaries from the Dutch East Indies were quartered at
this camp; and following the death of Fritz Mack (Basel), only Otto Tiedt and
Hans Röver (both Leipzig), and Wilhelm Bräsen (Breklum) remained at Premnagar
from the brethren once serving with the Missionary Societies to British India.
Tiedt described how heavily these post-war months hung upon the internees:
We continuously longed to go home, but the British commandant
apparently had no interest that we should be sent home. ... This was Colonel
Williams; ... he accompanied us throughout entire India. He was already with us
in Ahmadnagar. ... He made a business out of us then. ... For if the camp had to
be dissolved, he then would have to return to his army unit. ... In any case, he
had an excellent occupation there in north India with his parolees and he did
not necessarily care for a change.
And this (camp) he managed until we made a disturbance and
gained the YMCA's help. They then came again, and so I informed them, "Well, our
people are completely, stirred up. Frankly, we want to return home. We have been
interned the longest; we were arrested the first day of the declared war and
confined from that day on. ... None of the prisoners of war had to sit as long
as we did. We certainly have the right to appeal that we might be sent home as
early as possible." In this matter the YMCA personnel could clearly see the
situation and informed us that they would take up the matter. (126)
The YMCA men, Messrs Franklin and Bell,
(127) according to Tiedt, "established direct contact with the Government of India."
(128)
Whatever the Government plans may have been for the German
nationals, the missionaries had little knowledge regarding their future. The
British seemed to be moving extremely cautiously. Yet besides the YMCA and the
International Red Cross personnel in India, some further church organizations
offered assistance. In one case Tiedt noted:
Now I had written a letter, because we also wanted Christian
literature for the camp. And I knew who to write to ... (in) the Berlin Church
Foreign Office. ... They suggested that I turn to a certain person, Olivier
Béguin, in Geneva. And then he concerned himself with supplying us Christian
literature, with novels and whatever else they were permitted to send, though
everything could not be sent out. In this manner we formed our own library. ...
(129)
Ever since World War II was over, the male internees at Dehra
Dun could only look forward to the happy reunions with their families in
Germany, and the continuing supply of literature from the World Council of
Churches was no substitute. Tiedt, as a camp pastor, appealed to Béguin again;
Your newspaper "Die Lagergemeinde" has arrived again, and we thank you for it.
But I must add that there is no great interest in this paper. After all these
years of internment people have become extremely weary in every respect. One
must not forget that this is the eighth year of our internment. We receive the
letters from home, asking us to return after all this time. ... I am glad for
every man who still feels some responsibility towards his family. I am sorry to
say that there are many other cases where the husband reads calmly about the
trouble which his family faces at home, but only worries about himself.
However that may be, those who feel any responsibility, say that if the people
in Geneva can't do anything else but send us papers, then they can't be
concerned for us any longer. The Protestant Christians in the world have done
little else for us so far. I am writing this to you quite frankly. It has no
purpose solely to be polite and to overlook the truth. ... I think you will
understand that after having been behind barbed wire for seven years, one is
weary of most everything. (130)
These were the customary internment complaints, but Tiedt's
letter pointed to a grave disappointment among the German brethren. His frank
letter was properly channelled. Béguin, in his letter of October 22nd, 1946,
appealed to Norman Goodall for assistance:
Please find attached the copy of a letter we received from
Rev. Otto Tiedt. As you see, Rev. Tiedt is interned in British India since many
years, and now has lost courage. We feel very sorry for him, and are sending you
the copy of this letter, because we hope, that you shall be able to help.
We have also sent a copy to our delegate in London, Staff Chaplain W.B. Johnston
C.F. The War Office. ...
We are writing to Rev. Tiedt, telling him that we sent the
copy of his letter to you ... and we hope to be able to encourage him in his
difficult situation. (131)
It was a discouraging situation, to say the least, and what
further encouragement the Church organizations were able to render in this
period is difficult to assess.
After the seven years of internment, the missionaries, in
their role as the camp chaplains, expressed a growing indignation. It was not
only a case of having "lost courage" under the futile detention, hut the
brethren had lost faith in the representatives of the Christian Church outside
the camps. What had happened to the spirit of Tambaram? It was even more
surprising how much courage Tiedt and his colleagues had, considering the
physical and the psychological pressures, the barbed-wire fences and guarded
gates, and then the isolation or the desertion behind the barracks life. Wilhelm
Bräsen (Breklum) reiterated what non-Germans seemingly were not able to
understand for lack of the experience, namely, "the meanest thing which one can
afflict upon any creature is to place him behind barbed wire and fences,"
(132)
and strictly because of his nationality.
In the closing months of internment another enlightening
correspondence was carried on between Hans Röver (Leipzig) and Betty Gibson in
London. In writing to Röver at Dehra Dun, Gibson informed him that Walter Graefe
of his Mission had been permitted "to return to missionary work" and that a "special
appeal to the Government" had been made for Gäbler and Gerlach.
(133) Röver was
aware of these developments. Also Betty Gibson consoled him with the news:
Some 4 or 5 men of other missions have been given similar
exemption but all other German missionaries will be repatriated. This is, I am
afraid, very hard for those who have given so much of their lives to India, but
it is one of the disastrous results of war that distrust and suspicion take
many years to allay. (134)
Even less comforting for the missionaries under detention was
the awareness of a growing alienation with their mission churches. Here Gibson
pointed out the hard facts to Röver;
In India there is not only the Government attitude to be
taken into consideration but also that of the Indian Church. As you know there
has been a very rapid move towards independence during the war and the Indian
Church leaders are showing a very critical spirit with regard to those for whose
return they are ready to press. The Government is inclined to consider the
release only of those whom the Indian Church is ready to receive. ... There is
no choice before the interned missionaries and those who are sent home now must
acquiesce in the hope that someday the way may once more open to them to serve
in the mission field. (135)
Gibson's delineation on the critical spirit of the mission
churches was a realistic appraisal, though it was a depressing note for those
who suddenly had "no choice" in the affairs of the mission work. As inmate No.
91 of the Dehra Dun Internment Camp, Röver had already been granted a release by
the Government in August, 1946, yet he lacked the necessary undertaking from his
mission church or the N.C.C.
Hans Röver's reply to Betty Gibson was also direct;
Of course I understand well that the mission work will
continue even if we are repatriated. Perhaps your council too has now received
news about the efforts of Dr. Samuel, Madras. Seeing this kind (of) attitude of
the Indian Christians I doubt that the repatriation is one of the disastrous
results of war. But I fear that it is the result of the resolution which was
adopted at Geneva by the International Missionary Council with regard to the
political feelings of the National Christian Council and thereby political and
religious matters were mixed up. From the biblical point of view we have to pay
attention to the danger which had spoiled my own Church at home. ...
(136)
In reference to the appeal for Gäbler and Gerlach, he wrote:
Meanwhile you will have heard the events with regard to the
release of those you mentioned in your letter. As the National Christian Council
did not care very much for them during the war, I am afraid the Council will not
do it even now after the war. (137)
Röver closed his letter to Gibson with this hope:
May God help your Council to find another field for those who
have to leave, because nobody would call it a Christian spirit, - asking a
mission-worker to quit his service after he had only worked and lived for the
mission, and was waiting during his internment of seven years for the day to
serve again the Lord on the field. (138)
In 1946 British India was already very much aware of the
impending independence of the country by August, 1947. It was impossible to
evaluate the Church and the mission scene without sensing the national and the
chauvinistic aspirations of the Indian people. Most Indians rejoiced at the
thought, that finally the white rulers of the British Raj were once and for all
times withdrawing. This was not the case among all Christians in the mission
churches, yet there were others who could not he withheld from the political
climate in the land. This latter group rightly enhanced the coming of age of
the Indian Church. (139) At the same time, Hans Röver had
pointed out the danger in the German Church during the Nazi period of mixing up
the political and religious matters. (140)
The approaching independence and the nationalistic sentiments
of Indian Christians greatly affected the German missionaries' future. It is
true that the Christian Church in India sought its own independence, yet it
still could "not become autonomous with regard to the finances."
(141) It was clear to the German brethren that their
release depended on "those whom the Indian Church is ready to receive," yet the
one and possibly the only person who was able to press for the return of each
missionary, as in Stosch's return to Ranchi, was the N.C.C. Secretary, Rajah
Manikam.
During 1945 and 1946, in the meetings of the Lutheran
Federation of India and its War Emergency Committee, in the conferences with the
leaders of the German Mission churches, at the N.C.C. Executive meetings as well
as their general gatherings, in the consultations with the Government of India
and in the correspondence with the I.M.C. (London and New York) and the Lutheran
leaders in America, no other church figure in India stands out so dominantly,
especially on the question of German Missions, as the Lutheran Dr. Rajah
Bushanam Manikam, as the N.C.C. Executive Secretary.
Manikam was born in Cuddalore, also a station founded by the
Danish-Halle Mission in 1737, revived again by the Leipzig Mission in 1856 and
finally brought under the Danish Missionary Society work. Thus Manikam came out
of the heart of the Leipzig Mission field and the Tamil Lutheran Church. After
having received his Ph.D. degree from Columbia University, New York, from 1929
to 1937 he taught at an American Lutheran institution, the Andhra Christian
College at Guntur. Thereupon he joined the National Christian Council team as
the Secretary of Christian Education. (142) In 1941, upon the retirement of J. Z.
Hodge, Manikam and Dr. Charles Wesley Ranson served jointly through 1945 as
Secretaries of the N.C.C. (143) In reference to World War II,
The credit for steering the Council through these stormy years and for tackling
efficiently all these problems must go to Dr. Manikam. He organized support for
the orphaned churches during the War and laid the foundations for the policy of
the Council in post-war India. Under him the N.C.C. experienced an enormous
expansion, and ... he repeatedly put forward the demand for immediate
integration of church and mission. Under his leadership the Council changed from
a kind of missionary institution to a truly indigenous organization.
(144)
The turbulent, politically-oriented years of 1945-1947 in the
post-war British era were crucial for the country, for the Indian Church and for
the foreign missionaries. The trend towards indigenous, autonomous churches was
well overdue, and yet it was problematic on most mission fields.
(145) The question of the withdrawal of the German
Missions personnel from the churches and the yielding of their responsibilities,
i.e. the Gossner and the Breklum fields, had been resolved largely by the
internment of the missionaries. Yet in the post-war period, when the men and
women so dearly yearned to return to their mission churches, their acceptance or
their rejection was conditional to the political climate among the Indian
Christians. These churches, seeking their own identity, were influenced by the
N.C.C. and Rajah Manikam. The observation of a German missionary was correct, in
that there was both "the politics of the Government and the politics of the
N.C.C." (146)
It would be an evasive gesture not to recognize the fact that
Manikam was an Indian nationalist. (147) It would be logical to expect an
educated church leader, having studied in the United States of America and in
England, to then be "very definitely Indian-minded." (148) Helmuth Borutta
(Gossner), one of the fortunate men to be released in late 1946, offered a
defence of Manikam's sentiments;
He too was committed to a position that was against the
British Government. ... If you go and speak on the issue, ... he was a
nationalist. ... I would likely have been the same. I don't hold this against
Manikam, for it was his duty, even as a pastor, to he a good Indian.
(149)
Even if Manikam contained his disapproving attitude towards
the Government, the British authorities greatly relied on his advice and his
undertakings for the German families. His sentiments went beyond an anti-British
spirit; he was encompassed by a caste and colour consciousness, e.g."brown and
white, ... they must work together." (150) This
consciousness became the more obvious following the war and it could well have
influenced the N.C.C. Secretary in making the association of the German
missionaries with the dominant ruling class of British officialdom.
Manikam's first name was 'Rajah', and he was a prince of the
Indian Church;
He of course was of a higher caste in his background than the
ordinary South Indian Christian. ... It doesn't matter what your job was, it was
your caste background. And his background was a medium high landowning community,
neither of the Nadara nor the out-castes, which was the vast mass of the
Southern Christians. They were a very strong, small group of them ... among
these Christians; but they have almost all died out. ... They were very
outstanding people, like Manikam; a very remarkable body of people came out of
Tinnevelli. (151)
Manikam was an outstanding person as the Executive Secretary.
of India's highest non-Roman church body. However,
He certainly had his weaknesses. He was a curious personality
in that sense. After all his deep-rooted conviction, which you see running
through so many people, that your primary responsibility is for your own in the
wide family sense. You get the Asians in Africa and the complaint that they
identified themselves with one another. ... They employed their own people in an
enclosed world. (152)
All the time you have always got to remember what you were
dealing with. Manikam went his own personal (way) and when his family situation
was not involved, he was wise and interesting and a far-sighted person. But when
Manikam's personal interests were involved he could be absolutely incredibly
difficult. ... (154)
Rajah Manikam had on the one hand a higher caste
consciousness, while on the other hand,
His background being Lutheran, ... he was related to a
Mission which was related to German work very definitely. ... And that did set
him free. ... It set him free in a real sense to be more aware of nationalism
than perhaps the English Missions would have been. (155)
Of course, the missionaries' internment made a vacuum and
thereby the occasion for this greater freedom. Yet Manikam himself, as a
personality drawn from the Indian caste structure (a particular problem in the
Tamil Church), "came as a kind of superior into the camp."
(156) Richard Lipp
remarked:
I knew him very well. He came to the camps, but he came as
the N.C.C. man, and he played (an important role). Well, of course he was a
shrewd man, clever; but his character was not the strongest. ... And then you
see, even his own missionaries who were Lutherans, who brought the Gospel ...
(157)
to the Tamil people, they were rejected outright at first
when the Government of India intended to release them.
It was a sign of strength and vision that the Indian Church
should become totally indigenous. Yet Manikam
... was not only a nationalist, but he was also a chauvinist.
That means the Missions had to be discontinued completely; it must be solely
Indian, as much as the navy and fleet become Indian. (158)
Quite understandably, among the Indian Church leadership,
They were very much for the reduction of the potential of the missionary. ... As
an example, that Rev. Helms was released, was not the wish of the N.C.C., rather
the Government set him free. ... (159)
Herein lay one of the pronounced difficulties surrounding the
German missionaries. With the mission churches becoming independent and some
leaders nationally minded, it is significant that there were so many German
brethren permitted to remain in India. However, in the matter of the exemptions,
Christian Lohse (Breklum) believed that "we could all have been released, if the
N.C.C. had requested us." (160)
After "considerable amount of talking with the National
Christian Council for the release of the missionaries and for the posting of
them," (161) it was already November, 1946.
(7) Rajah B. Manikam and Charles W. Ranson, Minutes of the
Meeting of the Executive Committee of the National Christian Council (Nagpur:
NCC Offices, 24-25 October, 1945), p. 4.
(18) Rajah B. Manikam & Charles W. Ranson, Minutes of the
Meeting of the Executive Committee of the National Christian Council (Nagpur:
NCC Offices, 15-17 February, 1945), p. 3.
(23) Manikam & Ranson, Executive
Committee - February, 1945, op. cit. p. 6. As in the opening months and years of
World War II under the Secretaryship of J.Z. Hodge, so too in the closing months
and years of the war and also in the post-war period, the NCC officers,
particularly Rajah Manikam, served as spokesmen for the Indian churches and
missions in their appeals to the Government of India.
(29) Rajah B. Manikam, Letter to Norman Goodall (Geneva: WCCA
- IMC File, 29 January, 1946); Rajah B. Manikam, Letter to John W. Decker (Geneva:
WCCA - IMC File, 23 February, 1945). According to William Richey Hogg,
Ecumenical Foundations (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952), p. 323, "In January,
1943, he (Decker) succeeded Warnshuis. In similar fashion, following Paton's
death, the Reverend Norman Goodall was chosen in London." Decker served in New
York.
(38) Tauscher, op. cit., p. 5; Lipp, op.
cit. p. 18; Hermann Palm, P.I. (Böhringen: 13 June, 1973), Tr. p. 3; Theodor
Lorch, P.I. (Ludwigsburg: 13 April, 1973), Tr. p. 2, Lorch expressed a basic
concern of all missionaries in India; "Wir wollten bewusst den Indern dazu
verhelfen, dass sie die indische Kirche würden. Ich habe meinen Kollegen im
College nahegelegt, ihre Andachten doch in Malayalam zu halten. Sie haben
gesagt, sie seien da überfordert; es falle ihnen leichter das in Englisch zu
tun. Aber wir Missionare waren weiterhin die die gedrängt haben, dass die Inder
bewusst ihre Dinge selbst in die Hände nehmen sollten, ohne zu ahnen, dass der
Krieg das dann zwingend notwendig machen würde kurze Zeit später. Wir taten das
einfach aus der richtigen Erkenntnis, denn die Zeit des Mündigwerdens war nicht
weit weg."
(39) Rajah B. Manikam, Minutes of the Meeting of the
Executive Committee of the National Christian Council (Mysore City: Wesley Press
& Publishing House, 3-4 April, 1946), p. 5; Manikam, Letter to Goodall, loc. cit.
The meeting was held at Allahabad instead of the customary Nagpur.
(57) Manikam, Letter to Goodall, March, 1946, loc. cit.
(58) Manikam, April, 1946, Minutes, op. cit., p. 5.
(59) Manikam, Letter to Goodall, January, 1946, loc. cit.
(60) Manikam, Letter to Goodall, March, 1946, loc. cit.
(61) V. Shankar (Deputy Secretary), "Order" (of Release for
Richard Lipp), (New Delhi: Government of India, Home Department, No. 24/28/1/45
- Political (EW), 21 March, 1946; also "Order" (of Release for Heinz von Tucher;
No. 67/2/40 - Political (E), 4 January, 1944; Appendix).
(63) Shankar, Order of Release for Lipp, loc. cit.
(64) Rajah B. Manikam, Letter to Betty D. Gibson (Geneva:
WCCA - IMC File, 20 August, 1946).
(65) Heller, Manuscript on Internment,
loc. cit. She wrote, "In Bezug auf die Missionare spielte sich hinter den
Kulissen einiges ab, von dem wir erst später erfuhren."
(66) Manikam, Letter to Goodall, January, 1946, loc. cit.
(92) Wolfgang Gerlach, Letter to the International Missionary
Council (Geneva: WCCA - IMC File, 8 March, 1946). Gerlach wrote concerning "Mrs.
Gerlach's parents: Herrn Pfarrer Curt Weidenkaff, ... and from my parents: Herrn
Pfarrer Th. Gerlach, ... (all in Saxony). ..."
(93) Manikam, April, 1946, Minutes, op. cit. p. 5.
(97) Kenneth Scott Latourette & William Richey Hogg, World
Christian Community In Action (New York & London: International Missionary
Council, 1949), p. 37.
(98) Manikam, Letter to Goodall, 9 March, 1946, loc. cit.
(99) Manikam, Letter to Gibson, 23 April, 1946, loc. cit.
(104) C.H. Swavely, ed., The Lutheran Enterprise in India
1706-1952 (Madras: Diocesan Press, 1952), "The Church of Sweden Mission 1874" by
Sigfrid Estborn, p. 140.
(105) Martin Weishaupt, ed., "Unser indisches Missionsfeld
1939/40" by Carl Ihmels, Evangelisch-lutherisches Missionsblatt (Leipzig: Verlag
der Evang.-luth. Mission zu v Leipzig, September, 1940), p. 101.
(106) Manikam, Letter to Goodall, 9 March, 1946, loc. cit.
(119) L.S. Albright, Aid For Orphaned Missions (Financial
Statement - January 1 - December 31, 1946; London & New York: International
Missionary Council, 31 March, 1947), p. 4; Latourette & Hogg, op. cit., p. 44.
(120) Gustav Bernander, Lutheran Wartime Assistance to
Tanzanian Churches 1940-1945 (Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells, Studia Missionalia
Upsaliensia IX, 1968, pp. 170). Though the work focuses on the Tanzanian
Churches, the assistance stems from a world-wide endeavour of the Church.
(121) Manikam, Letter to Gibson, 20
August, 1946, loc. cit.; Betty D. Gibson, Letter to Walter Freytag (Geneva:
WCCA-IMC File, 15 November, 1946). According to Manikam's tabulation and letter,
under No. 10 a Rev. Guiseppe Palmann is listed. He did not belong to any of the
four major German Missions in India, nor is the writer able to assess forwhich
Society Palmann laboured. His name does have both German and Italian origins.
However, Rudolf Ertz, as printer and manager of the Mangalore Basel Mission
Press, was overlooked.
(139) Lorch, op. cit., pp. 2-3. Very
parallel to Lorch's comments, under footnote 38, were these remarks: "Dazu kam
in der damaligen Zeit, dass die Frage der südindischen Kirchenunion bereits
aktuell war. Ab '39 hat man sehr bewusst daran gearbeitet; vorher hat man
bereits darüber gesprochen, man hat vorbereitet in der Richtung auf diesen
Schritt. Auch von daher war die Indianisierung der Kirche in vollem Gang. Wir
haben uns darauf eingerichtet, unabhängig von der Gefahr eines Krieges, dass
diese vielen Erziehungseinrichtungen in der Basler Missionskirche möglichst eine
eigene Organisation bekommen sollten. ... Wir gingen davon aus, die Zeit ist da,
dass die Missionare sich sehr zurückziehen und die Inder ihre Dinge selbst in
die Hand nehmen."
(141) Easter Raj, P.I. (Erlangen: 19
July, 1970), Tr. p. 9. In its entirety, the future Bishop of Tranquebar's
statement was, "That is very important; you see, even with regards to the Tamil
Evangelical Lutheran Church, though this Church became autonomous with the
Constitution, with the Bishop, with the Church Council and the Administrative
Council and all that, they did not become autonomous with regard to the finances."
(142) Günter Gloede, ed., Ökumenische Profile - Brückenbauer
Der Einen Kirche (Stuttgart: Evangelischer Missionsverlag, GmbH, Vol. II, 1963),
p. 61. Kenrick M. Baker jr. contributed the biographical sketch on "Rajah
Bushanam Manikam - Der ökumenische Botschafter in Ostasien," pp. 59-65.
(143) Kaj Baago, National Christian Council of India,
1914 - 1964 (Nagpur: Christian Council Lodge, 1964), p. 87. The author lists all
the Presidents and the Secretaries of the N.C.C. for the above period.
(145) Manikam, Letter to Decker, loc.
cit. In reviewing the scene and the status of the Continental Missions in India,
Rajah Manikam, as NCC Secretary, expressed his doubts; "This, indeed, is a
gloomy picture of the Orphaned Missions and Churches in India. But there is
another side to it. I am glad that Lutheran missionaries and Indian Lutherans
have rallied to the support of these distressed Church and Mission bodies. They
have given liberally for their support. They have transcended national and
linguistic barriers. They have shown their oneness in Christ. ..."
(147) Martin Pörksen, P.I. (Hamburg: 24 August, 1973), Tr. p.
14; Borutta, op. cit., p. 15; Michael Hollis, P.I. (Bury St. Edmunds, UK: 19
April, 1973), Tr. p. 17; Lipp, loc. cit.; Heller, P.I., loc. cit.
(150) Pörksen, op. cit. , p. 15. The
comment was made to Martin Pörksen when the Breklum Missionary Society director
journeyed to India in 1956 to attend the ceremony at which time Rajah Manikam
became the Bishop of Tranquebar
910 KB 