Swansea and Glamorgan Herald, and South Wales Free Press. — 1857-12-09 (Swansea, West Glamorgan, Wales)

SUPERSTITION AND TOLERATION IN INDIA.  AMONG the explanations of the causes of the Indian Mutiny (which is neither sufficiently explained nor sufficiently understood yet) are two of a religious character directly opposed to each other. One view is that the outbreak was solely produced by the unwarrantable interference of the Government with the religious prejudices or principles of the nativm. Another view is that we are suffering from a mark of the displeasure of Heaven because We have not taken advantage as we ought of cur splendid opportunity to evangelise India. For emaciate, we believe in neither of these theories. The principles of future Indian policy that are propounded by persons who hold these opposite views —and by others who, adopting neither theory, yet give a prominent place in their plans to consider'. ..tious of a religious nature- are remarkably differoat. An inquiry into the way we should treat the • Hincloos and Sfahomedans of India henceforward is more wiefid than speculations upon the pant; and for tie present we leave alone the intolerant theory and the Providential theory as explanations of the  4,eut.  One class of persons, animatedby a sincere desire to effect the speedy spread of Christianity and conversion of entire India, are not over-scrupulous about the means, but advocate a very determined I method of preaching. They are met by the indigI mint sarcasms of our equally warm and earnest apostles of toleration, who pronounce such Christian real to be only English Islamism. And truly it is hateful to hear, as we do sometimes from men of the pulpit, sentiments in regard to the evangelisation of the heathen that are as near akin as possible to the warlike missionary spirit of Mahomedanism. "Ow soldiers have opened a way for our mission- ! "aries in India!" Have they? It is a vile reproach to our religion to say no. Christianity is not a religion of lead and steel. The grand rouse of missions is grievously damaged where the emulative spirit of its advocates leads then, to make these slips. On the other hand, we protest most heartily against the strange stretch of toleration that would bid no stand idly and aequiewingly by to witness all the revolting cruelties of an cantors superstition. What is toleration? What does it mean? What do we mean by freedom of opinion in things social and religions' Polygamy is a religious institution in Utah would we tolerate it amongst the Mormons of England? Would we tolerate it if Utah became a British possession? Even the Government of the United States in not going to tolerate the Mormon institution,—(though that Government—lie the perpetual, unanswered reproach of every citizen of the boastful Republie —tolerates for the sake of vile dollars the most base, moat degrading, most cruel social institution that ever had a defender.) Among the institutions of persecuted Hindooism were infanticide and widow burning and religious suicide : was it right for us to tolerate these ?  The superstitious observances, the harmless erremoni., of the natives of India that do not provoke interference by becoming publicly shocking, and that do not violate the first principles of civilised society, we may very well ieave alone, to be dealt with at leisure by reason; but the most strict and just principles of toleration do not require us to permit enormities under the name of religion, and the open practice of disgusting customs, in India any more than in England. We are na, no Lord Derby maintains, "bound to abstain in the most 'careful manlier from any, the slighted interference "by,force or authority with the religion or supersti" tions of Mahomedans and Hincloos, however de"based and revolting they may be to our feelings." Nothing of the kind. The English race is in the position of rulers of India. We are bound to be careful to uphold there the principles of civilised society. We are not bound to convert the Hindoos by force—that is another thing; but neither are we bound to be nicely scrupulous of touching their heathenish religious prejudices. As a plain matter of duty, we are called upon, without violence or onnecessary harshness, to maintain as far as possible in India that public decorum we insist upon in Ensland, and the observance of the ordinary laws which replete religious rommanitica at home in their relation to society at large. Perhaps we have no business at all in India. The liberal vindicators of the rights of Hindooism should be satisfied with nothing lees than our complete evacuation of the country. At all events, while Englishmen remain there, any false complaisance shown in dealing with native idolatry is as much a reproach to them OA an attempt to pmpagate our holy faith by the sword. It is the mere quack of toleration who modifies into a bow of graceful courtesy him natural shrug of disgust at the abominable usages of a barbarous superstition.