In the heart of Delhi, St. Stephen’s Hospital stands as a symbol of both medical care and the complex legacy of colonialism. Founded in 1885, the hospital has long been one of the most prominent healthcare institutions in the city. However, its history is entangled with a deeply controversial past, marked by the British colonial period and its entanglement with Christianity. The question of secularism in India is often invoked in debates about institutions like St Stephen’s, which continue to maintain a preference for Christian staff despite India’s constitutionally secular foundation.
Colonial Genesis of St. Stephen’s Hospital
In the late 19th century, when St. Stephen’s Hospital was established, India was under British colonial rule. The British empire, in its expansionist zeal, had forcibly taken vast swathes of land from native Indians, including Hindus, and appropriated it for their own purposes. The land on which St. Stephen’s Hospital was eventually built was no exception. Originally a small dispensary near the Yamuna River, the hospital’s roots trace back to a time when British Christian missionaries were not only spreading religion but also consolidating colonial power by establishing schools and hospitals.
The British invasion brought about profound disruption in Indian society. Traditional systems of education and healthcare, which had been in place for centuries, were severely undermined. The British did not simply introduce new structures; they dismantled existing systems to create an entirely new infrastructure, which was often alien to Indian culture and social structures. Schools and hospitals built by missionaries, including St. Stephen’s, were often funded through resources extracted from Indian lands—whether through taxes, exploitation, or outright confiscation of property.
This historical fact is often overlooked in discussions of the British colonial “benevolence” toward India. British-controlled schools and hospitals, including St. Stephen’s, were often presented as gifts to the Indian people. In reality, these institutions were tools of colonial control. The educational and healthcare systems they built helped propagate British values and Christianity, often at the expense of indigenous knowledge systems.
Secular Question: Christianity’s role in India’s modern institutions
In post-independence India, the principle of secularism was enshrined in the Constitution, mandating that the state would not favour any religion. Secularism in India was meant to guarantee equal treatment for all religions, ensuring that no single religious group could dominate or oppress others. However, the legacy of institutions like St. Stephen’s complicates this ideal.
St. Stephen’s Hospital, like many institutions with colonial roots, continues to operate under Christian management, with a preference for Christian staff. This practice raises questions about the true nature of secularism in India. Should institutions founded by Christian missionaries, funded with colonial resources, be allowed to maintain such religious biases? While many argue that the hospital’s modern-day mission is purely healthcare-oriented, the historical context cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, the practice of reserving employment opportunities primarily for Christian doctors has raised concerns about fairness and religious discrimination. This practice is contrary to the spirit of secularism, which should ideally allow people of all religions to have an equal opportunity to serve in public institutions, especially those funded by the Indian taxpayer.The Irony of the “Gifted” Schools and Hospitals
The argument that the British gave India schools and hospitals is often used to defend colonialism, suggesting that without British intervention, India would have remained in a state of ignorance and poor health. However, this narrative glosses over the fact that the British systematically dismantled India’s existing educational and healthcare infrastructure. Prior to British rule, India had a robust network of schools, universities, and healthcare systems, some of which were even considered to be ahead of their time.
The British introduced their own systems, but they did so to serve their own interests. The schools and hospitals built during colonial times were often designed to create a class of educated, loyal servants who would support British rule, rather than to uplift the masses. Missionary-run institutions like St. Stephen’s Hospital were part of this broader project of cultural imperialism.
Today, some may argue that the descendants of these institutions continue to operate in ways that benefit only a select community—namely, the Christian community. The preference for Christian staff, especially in leadership roles, highlights the continuing dominance of religious identity in certain secular institutions, undermining the idea that secularism has truly been achieved.
Modern Debate on Secularism and Fairness
The case of St. Stephen’s Hospital is emblematic of broader debates on secularism in India. The concept of secularism, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution, is often challenged when institutions with religious foundations continue to operate according to their original religious tenets. In the case of St. Stephen’s, the issue of religious preference in hiring raises questions about the inclusivity of Indian secularism. Is secularism truly secular when Christian institutions continue to maintain religious boundaries in areas like employment?
India’s fight for independence was not only about political freedom but also about reclaiming the right to define its own institutions, culture, and history. Institutions like St. Stephen’s, built during the colonial period, continue to represent a hybrid of foreign influence and Indian needs—a symbol of both resistance and subjugation.
A Reconciliation of the Past and Present
As India continues to grapple with the legacies of colonialism, the debate around institutions like St. Stephen’s Hospital provides an important lens through which we can examine the intersection of religion, history, and secularism.
In a nation that prides itself on its secular identity, it is essential to ask whether secularism is truly being upheld when religious preferences persist in institutions that were founded under foreign domination. The path forward for India may require a deep and honest reckoning with its colonial past, a willingness to question the fairness of current practices, and a commitment to creating truly inclusive institutions that reflect the pluralistic fabric of Indian society.
Comments