The Bishop of Chichester showed sympathy to the struggles and aspirations of the people of India. His words and actions often matched with one another. His actions originated from his deep convictions and he always remained true to his convictions. Bell had made several soul-friends cutting across, race, nationality and religion and Gandhi, a Hindu, was one among them. Bell's another ecumenical friend D. Bonhoeffer also had a deep admiration for Gandhi and that he was obsessed with the idea of visiting India to meet with him and to learn spiritual lessons from him. Gandhi was liked for his ideals and goals and Bell and Bonhoeffer wished that they should read Sermon on the Mount with Gandhi. Bell wrote to Gandhi about Bonhoeffer's desire to visit India and Gandhi sent an invitation to Bonhoeffer that he might stay in his ashram in India and accompany him in his travels. Although the visit never happened, it showed the depth of friendship they had and it was clearly manifested when Gandhi visited Chichester 10-12 October, 1931 with his companions Miss. Madeline Slade (Mira Bai), Miss. Muriel Lester and C. F. Andrews. The visit of Gandhi was flashed out in local newspapers. The Chichester Observer and West Sussex Recorder (14 October 1931) called the visit as a private to call upon C. P. Scott who was then the former editor of 'Manchester Guardian' living at the Lawn in Campbell Road. People of Chichester were waiting near the cross to have a view of him as his car had to slow down before it got on to the Canon Lane. Gandhi waved to a music band which was passing by. Gandhi brought with him a spinning wheel which went everywhere he travelled. He took a morning walk along the banks of the Canal in Chichester. The West Sussex Gezette published fuller details of Gandhi and his stay in Chichester including his dress, people posing for photographs with Gandhi, a visit to the Dean and his family, his meeting with some of the members of the Cathedral Chapter and others at the palace and his walking up South Street where a puppy dog laid hold of his cloak in play. 'People showed such an interest in him during his visit that a number of the Chichester Police were posted on special duty.'

But the visit was arranged by Bishop Bell and Mrs. Bell who were willing to have Gandhi and his team in Chichester over a week-end. Andrews wrote to Woodward on 31 August 1931 that he was rather apprehensive that 'the British public may be either unwelcoming to Gandhi or incline to make fun of him'. Bell had already arranged for a room for Gandhi to stay in London and he wrote to Woodward on 31 August asking whether it would be possible to offer a room in house for Gandhi to stay. This was agreed and the Bishop wrote a letter on 2 September 1931 to Woodward thanking him for the accommodation.

The visit was arranged through the close friend and follower of Gandhi Rev. C. F. Andrews. Andrews visited Bishop Bell in Chichester to muster support for Gandhi's dreams for half a billion people whom he carried in his heart. He conveyed to the Bishop that Gandhi would like to get in touch with the Church leaders and he was keen to have an opportunity to talk to them privately without the press being present. Bishop wished to call for a meeting between Gandhi and Church leaders of Free Church and those of the Church of England. He wrote to Rev. P. T. R. Kirk, General Director of Industrial Christian Fellowship and a scholar in inter-faith matters, to ask if it would be possible to arrange a gathering of about fifty persons for an hour-long meeting in a room in the Church House. Bell suggested the time of 6: 15 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 October as the possible time for the meeting. Apart from fixing the time and place of the meeting, he even planned as to who would make-up the ideal group for such purpose, those who could understand the concerns Gandhi and those who could be a vehicle in taking those concerns to the people and reflecting with them. He considered that the Council for the Christian Ministers would be an ideal gathering for such purpose. The meeting took place and one of the participants of the meeting wrote her impressions about it to Mrs. Bell, 'I did hear Gandhi speak at the Institute, every bit of which was filled with people listening to him as to the microphones...there was not more opposition to him no jingoistic Englishman to ask awkward questions'.

Bishop Bell's efforts came under observation and soon he received a confidential letter from Sir Claud Schuster, Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor (1915-1944) dated 7 October 1931 which had negative things to say about Gandhi and his dubious claim of himself so that Bell would not entertain him nor listen to him. He sounded that Gandhi was not to be trusted and that sainthood could hardly be attributed to him because it would be 'impossible to divine what any particular Oriental is thinking or aiming at any particular time'. He further wrote that Gandhi created a false impression about him as if he was sincere but he placed demands on British Government which it could not possibly grant. Bell could not be dissuaded by the letter and at 10 a.m. on 11 October, 1931 Bell and Gandhi had a long conversation of a very frank and intimate nature lasting over two hours. Gandhi shared his views and aspirations with eagerness and trust and Bishop Bell listened to them with openness and understanding. Gandhi then attended the Evensong at the Chichester Cathedral where he was given a stall in the choir, an act which was very much disliked by some conservative persons in Chichester.

Gandhi's visit to Chichester was heavily criticised and some even criticised Bishop Bell for having invited him. Gandhi was looking for sympathy and support for Indian cause in England and he knew that such gesture could come from the Church. The Chichester Observer and West Sussex Recorder (21 October 1931) wrote, 'Such an atmosphere one can expect where Dr. Bell is.' The news coverage ended with an optimistic note, 'We can therefore... cherish the hope that his visit to Chichester will bear fruit in the days to come.'

Dialogue between Bell and Schuster

Bishop Bell responded in detail to Schuster the next day after Gandhi's visit to Chichester saying, 'I was much interested in him (Gandhi). He is obviously a good man....I am sure he is a much better and a much bigger man than some of his adulators contemplate.' Outlining the points of the discussion he had with Gandhi, Bell translated Gandhi's mind and thoughts to Schuster with great feeling of sympathy and heavy heart. He applauded Gandhi for his honesty and for his ability to meet argument with force of reason. Gandhi had shared with Bell about the unwillingness on the part of the Prime Minister, Lord Lothian and Lord Shankey to listen to Gandhi's proposals. Bell therefore pleaded for openness from the British side when looking at the definite scheme of Gandhi towards Indian self-rule at the Round Table Conference (September -- December 1931). He wrote to Schuster that he did his best 'to persuade him (Gandhi) of the real sincerity of the British Government in their policy to grant to India such degree of self-government'. Bell believed that Gandhi had 'a tremendous belief in collaboration' and this was illustrated by the 'Apple Analogy' used by Gandhi himself to put forward his dream for India. Gandhi wanted a British apple or an American one but not something which was not an apple at all but only a sham. Bell concluded the letter by saying, I am sure that you will not mind my saying for I only want you to know the facts as I saw them.' This letter of Bell was immediately responded to on the same day by Schuster and he wrote an eight page letter which he himself called 'a most depressing letter'. But he began appreciating Bell for having thrown light upon the problem and admitted that there was a great deal in Bell's letter that was very helpful. He also showed some interest in seeing the better side of Gandhi as Bell had seen. Yet, Schuster was building his argument on the prejudicial view that it was particularly difficult at all times 'to negotiate with the Orientals on an equal footing'.

A four-page reply soon followed from Bell on 16 October 1931 in which Bell proposed a scheme for the reduction of the British army in India at every ten year period so that ultimately there would be much smaller army if the self-government granted to India was successfully handled and administered. Gandhi himself felt that the idea would be a good one if implemented. Bell returned to 'Apple analogy' to convey the crucial point of the message to Schuster, 'You say that Gandhi knows perfectly well what is in your orchard. But could you not show him a definite Apple and say, 'This is what we are ready to give you and then put your head side by side with his and work at that Apple?'" What a great admonition from the great man to politicians like Schuster and if this method was to be followed in every situation of conflicts, problems, divisions and disputes that are gripping the world today, they would have seen their peaceful solutions. Bell put it across very strongly to Schuster not to think in terms of settling the issue with Gandhi by waging a war in India. Bell mentioned that Gandhi was warned by Emerson that there would be a war without mercy and wrote, 'Gandhi did not expect any mercy. War must be prevented'. He further remarked, 'War would be a terrible thing and would be the cause of untold disaster in India and in this country too'.

As the dialogue went on Bell's words began to work. Here is an example to show how Bell was a pastoral-prophetic counsellor. A reply from Schuster was sent the next day to Bell. Schuster's words showed clear signs of being convinced by what Bell wrote to him and a spirit of thankfulness slowly began to emerge. Schuster was moved and perhaps there was a change of heart. He wrote, 'I ought in the first place to say that on re-reading my last letter I thought it unnecessarily stiff and that it did not take sufficient account of the moral impression which you had formed of Gandhi during your conversations with him. This was the more unfortunate because if we could get a clear picture of Gandhi's moral and intellectual attitude...it would be far easier to form a clear view of the tactical necessities and such appreciation as yours assists to this very desirable end'. He expressed a hope that some change might be expected when the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and Hoare discussed things through for arriving at a solution. Bell thanked Schuster and finally wrote, 'I am delighted at what you say about your hope that when the Prime Minister returns to London the matter may be taken in hand....But what you say cheers me much'.

The week long enthralling debate and dialogue came to an end when Schuster wrote to Bell on 21 October 1931 thanking him for all what he had done. At the end, it was probably a moral victory for the Indian cause achieved through Bishop Bell but his advocacy did not come to a halt here.

Bell was pressing for more positive results and he identified himself with Gandhi and his search for freedom. He wrote to Gandhi on 23 October 1931 about the disappointment Gandhi experienced on the outcome of the Round Table Conference and that Bell was in agreement with his grievance. 'I am anxious however to write to you in order to let you know what our conversation on October 11th has not been....I trust, without fruit...you will see that your words to me have not been wasted....I have not been idle and that your visit to Chichester was most valuable...I do mostly sympathize with you in your sense of disappointment at the delay and your longing to get to business. I believe you will get to business very soon.' For these words of hope and encouragement Gandhi thanked Bell and said, 'I knew that you were doing all you could for the cause of India's freedom which to me is the cause of humanity. I am not losing hope in the midst of despair.'

A Proposed to Visit to India

There were support groups for Indian freedom working and lobbying in Britain. In 1932, the Indian Conciliation group approached Bell and requested him to be a member of a small group visiting India for the purpose of creating conciliation and understanding between Britain and India. This was politely turned down by Bell on the count of existing commitments. A three member team was preparing to go to India sent by the pro-Indian group with a memorandum. Bell even refused to sign a memorandum prepared by S. L. Polak, the lawyer and a closest friend of Gandhi in South Africa, on behalf the Conciliation committee on the ground that he had only a second-hand knowledge of India in order to be deeply involved in the way expected of him but assured them that he would give them the introductory letters required for their visit. But a great turn-around happened and the deputation could not make the trip to India. There was no purpose in going to India when Samuel Hoare, the Secretary of State for India (1931-1935) had denied permission for the deputation to see him. Later when he realised that Bell was likely to be one of the members of the visiting team, Hoare then sent a message of willingness to meet with the group.

Meanwhile, the situation in India worsened which belied the hopes of Bishop Bell. The Viceroy of India did not want to see or negotiate with Gandhi when he returned from London and Gandhi was put in prison by the Indian Government with Police brutality at its height. Miss. Slade informed the unhappy situation in India along with seven enclosures dealing with the new ordinances of the British Government in India. She wrote, 'How differently everything has turned out to what we had hoped! Those beautiful days in Chichester and other English homes all seem like a distant dream now!!' The Round Table Conference did not produce any result in line with the expectations and the Indian National Congress set up a parallel government. Bell hastened to write a letter to Hoare on 16 March 1932 expressing his shock over the conditions in India, '...I cannot disguise that I am very much troubled by the reports which reach me from India. Very large scale imprisonment and the placing of many of these political prisoners in the same class as the lower kind of criminal is disturbing...knowing the personal high character and culture of Desai and Gandhi's imprisonment is strange...Please do not think that I am insensible to the difficulties of the administration,...but I am very much afraid of the after-effects of a policy of repression.' Bell was happy over the news conveyed by Miss. Slade that Gandhi was doing well in prison.

In another development, W. Paton made a proposal to send a letter to the Cabinet raising deep concerns about the turbulent situation in India. He spoke to the Archbishop of York to gather support. He also sought the involvement of the Archbishop of Canterbury either for a letter signed by Church leaders published or for a letter sent to the Cabinet. Both the Archbishops gave the attention necessary and the Prelate in Canterbury was planning for a meeting with Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of York had a long conversation with Lord Irwin, Viceroy of India, on the subject of Indian freedom. Bell's pursuance of the matter concerning India and its right for self-rule came to a stalemate for the next ten years as correspondences relating to the issue of India are found wanting in his files but one gets the impression that his desire for India attaining its self-rule was still fresh in his mind. In 1944, Bell was invited by Reginald Sorenson, a British MP and a supporter of India, to attend a meeting in the committee room of the House of Commons to discuss breaking the deadlock in India. If it was mid 1930's, Bell probably would have attended. He declined the invitation stating that although he saw the importance of the problem, he had identified himself with other interests (perhaps with Germany) and it was not possible then to devote time for any special initiative with regard to India.

However, when the meeting of the Labour Government decided to send a Cabinet Mission to India consisting of three members (Lord Pethick-Lawrence, the Secretary of State, Sir Stafford Cripps, the President of the Board of Trade and Mr. Alexander, the first Lord of Admirality) to negotiate with the Indian leaders on the transfer of power to India, Bell published a public appeal seeking for prayer and support for the Cabinet mission with words full of unchanging sympathy and un-diminishing concern for India. It read, 'The problem is the difficult problem of the development of India into completely self-governing nation. The moment has come for the supreme effort of all....The negotiators have to tackle a human problem, calling for the exercise of the finest human qualities. Among those qualities are patience, a will to look forward rather than back, a relation to see the other's point of view and Charity.' Bell summoned the readers to pray for India and for the success of the Cabinet mission and said that both India and Britain were nations with deep resources of religious traditions Hence, he called for 'the British people to reach out in the spiritual realm to the people of India and urged the people to pray for 'the Indian leaders by the name Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru and Jinnah and for Indian people in their millions.' The Cabinet mission did not attain hundred percent success during its three month long (16 March to 29 June 1946) visit both to the present India and Pakistan. Nevertheless, its efforts created a firm platform in the form of a historic Cabinet Mission Plan for deciding the future destiny of the people of India in terms of framing a constitution and solving the Hindu-Muslim divide.

Bell's deeper involvement in the struggle for freedom by Indians was born out of his conviction that 'the Church should also be a champion of human rights;..and that the rights of men derive directly from their condition as children of God and not of State.' The essential witness of the Church was to be a Christian teacher and prophet in international matters, affirmed Bell. He called the worship of power, totalitarian State, nationalism, racialism and the craving for riches as idolatries of modern time. His ecclesiology was so unique and dynamic in its content and praxis that his views were clear and strong on making Christian faith relevant to concrete political situations. He wrote, 'Clearly peace, based on justice, is a supreme concern of the Church' and 'disputes between nations should be resolved by peaceful means, such as arbitration, conciliation or diplomacy.' Bell's Episcopal ministry epitomised these ideals and his Christian discipleship never failed to live them out in his day today life and ministry.

Bishop Bell and the Church of South India: A Tale of the True Mediator and Reconciler

We now turn to the Part II of Bell-India series which deals with his love and passion for the union of churches in general and for the union of churches in South India in particular. The Church of South India has a membership of about 3 million Christians living mostly in the four southern states of India. It was born out of a union of Anglicans, Methodists, Congregationalists and Presbyterians in which at the time of union the Anglicans constituted more than half the total member. The Union scheme took its shape in 1919 and consummated in the inauguration of the Church of South India on 27 September 1947 after about thirty years of negotiations and joint-efforts. Bishop Bell's interest on South India Church Union began as early as 1920, the year after the significant meeting that took place in Tranquebar, India in 1919. Since then, each volume in the series of Documents on Christian Unity devoted substantial sections on the problems and prospects of Church unity in South India. These works edited by Bell are an invaluable source of data and information for a diligent researcher on the nature and progress of unity in South India. Soon after the Tranquebar meeting in 1919, Bell invited Bishop Azariah, the first Indian Anglican Bishop India and the Chairman of the historic Tranquebar meeting, to write an article on Reunion for the magazine Constructive Quarterly outlining the descriptions and discussions of the South India Proposals. He believed that such an article would make an important contribution to the consideration of unity by all people. When he met the Bishop of Dornakal in 1927, India and had conversation with him on the South India Union Proposals. Bell wrote about his impressions of Bishop Azariah whom he met the Lambeth Conference of 1920 for the first time. 'I remember him (Bishop Azariah) vividly at the Lambeth Conference of 1920, where I first saw him, a very young Bishop in a purple cassock, with his black hair, sparkling eyes, and eager speech appealing his elder brothers in the Anglican communion to give their support to the formation of a united Church in South India...' Bell asked him and Bishop Palmer, Bishop of Bombay (1908-1929), if they could speak about the South India Reunion question in London. The date and the time of the meeting was announced by Bell in the Church Times which said: 'It is in order to give a full explanation and to answer questions arising out of the proposals (Church Union in South India) that the Bishop of Bombay and the Bishop of Dornakal have kindly consented to address a meeting under my Chairmanship, in the Church House, Westminister on July 15th at 3 p.m.

The meeting took place and the reports that appeared about the Church Union in the Church Times ridden with criticisms and negative responses from the Anglo-Catholics. In order to remove the misreading of the proposal, Bell sent Azariah a copy of Bishop of Colombos article that appeared on the Church Times and felt that the official information from Azariah would 'do good to those misdirected Church Times readers. Azariah sent a copy of the full resolution of the General Council of the Province of India on 3 March 1928. Which had a hand-written note from Azariah which read, 'These Resolutions have been well received by the South India United Church (Presbyterians) and the Wesleyans. We go forward now with great hope.' Bell wrote a reply encouraging the attempt made by the younger church. Azariah kept sending to Bell the draft of the revised proposals that were taken in the subsequent joint-committee meetings of the South India Church Union and his letter dated 4 April 1929 to Bell said that all the sections of the uniting churches were thoroughly satisfied though criticisms from die-hards from each church might continue but they were confident that the union scheme would get the assent from the local church bodies. This situation was only the beginning of the trouble waters. Bell's friendship with the churches in South India stood firm to guide it through the difficult days that were ahead for its recognition and acceptance by the Church of England.

But doubts and criticism about the South India Union began to flow in the pages of Church Times. J. C. Winslow wrote in Church Times on 5 April 1929 who expressed alarm over the decision that the Union would impose a non-episcopal minister serving in an Episcopal congregation. A strong feeling of objection to the decision in the proposal was expressed and it was urged that 'the united Church is to pledge itself to doing nothing in this matter of appointment of ministers which will have the effect either of violating conscience or of infringing the long established traditions of any of the uniting churches'. Series of letters followed in the Church Times. On 26 April 1929 a statement of Catholic Objections to the proposed scheme of Union was published. It objected to the mutual recognition of ministries within the united Church on the principle that the three-fold ministry was the only recognised and approved ministry of the Apostles and that it had the legitimate succession from the Apostles. The statement particularly viewed the position taken in the union proposal with regard to the Episcopate namely 'the historic Episcopate in a Constitutional form is the method of Church Government, which is more likely than any other to promote and preserve the organic unity of the Church'. The critical response was, 'This seems to us wholly inadequate as making episcopacy a matter of utility and not of principle.' The statement was signed by Dr. Gore, Fr. H. P. Bull, Mackay, Rev. G. A. Mitchell, Rev. G. L. Prestige, Rev. W. J. Sparrow Simpson, Mr. Will Spens, Dr. Darwell Stone, C. H. Turner and Fr. P. N. Waggett.

This powerful statement was followed by a letter in the Church Times on 6 September 1929 demanding a rewording of various clauses in the Union proposals in order to make sure that the Anglican Church was not asked to compromise its tradition and 'to commit itself to the principle for equal validity of (other) ministries'. Bishop Bell did not believe in short-cuts, rash moves and unplanned activities towards achieving an objective. There were several conferences held on the theme of Unity the late 1930's particularly the Conference of Life and Work in Eisenach and the World Conference on Faith and Order held at Maloja. There were also around this time some significant achievements of Reunion of Methodist churches in Britain, the consummation of Presbyterian union in Scotland. Bishop Bell was unhappy over passing a resolution in Lausanne Conference expressing words of support for the S. I. Church Union. The Bishop of Gloucester moved the resolution which was seconded by the Archbishop Germanos of the Orthodox Church. Fears were expressed that such a measure might lead to frictions in the relationship between CE and the Orthodox Church.

Following this, in 1932, an initiative was made for the first time to counter the criticisms made by a section of the CE called The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament decided that SICU was contrary to Catholic Faith and Order. Meanwhile, a document issued from Oxford criticising the action of the General Synod of the Anglican Church in India (The Church in India, Burma and Ceylon) troubled some of the Anglicans in India and there were strong signs that it would jeopardize the decision-making process. As a result, three Anglican Bishops in India (Bishops of Nagpur, Assam and Colombo) revolted against the Union scheme and they protested against it with an appeal addressed to the Episcopal Synod of the Province dated January 1933. The problem was brought to the attention of Bishop Bell by the Bishop of Worcester who wrote to him with deep concern about the revolt of the three Bishops and about the opposition that came from the majority of the Anglicans in Britain. His contention was that the supporters of the scheme had 'cooled off' which helped the opposition to grow stronger. He, therefore, wanted Bishop Bell to sign a manifesto drawn in support of the union since the Lambeth Conference of 1930 had already resolved to stand by the brethren in India 'while they make this experiment with generous good will'. Bishop Bell was not in favour of the method by which the solidarity with the Church Union in South India was to be expressed. He had the necessary ecclesiastical diplomacy but never lost vision, principle or courage. He wrote to the Bishop of London, 'I do whole-heartedly agree with you about the folly of stirring up these manifestoes...My reason was not lack of sympathy for the South Indian Union, but an entire disbelief in these panicky tactics.' But the Bishop had a role in sending the Manifesto in support of the Anglican Church in India as the Bishop of Madras wrote to Bishop Bell, 'We were encouraged to see that there was till a substantial body of public opinion in England supporting us.' He informed Bell that the whole synod of Church of England in India decided to proceed with the endeavour to secure union.

Bishop Bell and the Lambeth 1948

The churches in India pressed ahead with their proposed union scheme towards its implementation. The Church of South India came into existence at a great ceremony and worship held at the St. George's Church in Madras on 27 September 1947. The event, though an achievement by world churches, was not looked with full favour and recognition at the Lambeth Conference of 1948. Bell's role at the Lambeth was one of the greatest acts of advocacy and ecclesiastical statesmanship which both the Church of England and the Church of South India should cherish as it bespeaks a powerful testimony for Bell's devotion and dedication to his vision of Church Unity. The measure of his commitment can be seen in what Bell accomplished as the Chairman of the Committee III dealing with the question of Unity of the Church at the Lambeth Conference of 1948. The section of the Committee's report on the Church of South India had 'a warmth and graciousness' as the Secretary of the Committee had put it. One aspect of the report became a subject of heavy debate as the opposing and critical voices at the Conference argued for rewriting of the clause which read 'The Conference rejoices and give thanks to God for the measure of unity locally achieved by the inauguration of the Church of South India'. The Bishop of London argued in favour of deleting the words 'rejoices and give thanks to God' which was joined by several strong voices of support from Bishop of Blackburn, Bishop of Natal and the Archbishop of Perth. Voices to retain the words as they were in the report came from the Bishop of Oxford and Bishop of Lichfield and Bishop Bell as the spokesperson of the Committee.

Bishop of Edinburgh moved a motion for deleting the word 'rejoices and' which was voted 121 in favour but 119 voted in favour of the words as they stood in the report. It could not be carried as the difference was by a small number. When the debate resumed, Bishop Bell pointed out that the committee was unanimous in about the inclusion of 'rejoicing'. He said, 'The whole Committee, as one man, said we want to rejoice and give thanks'. He further said that he would be disappointed if the joy was to be removed from the motion. He told the members of the Conference, 'I only wish that you had the experience which the Committee as a whole had.' The support found an increase in number as the next voting was 126 for the omission of the words and 127 against their omission. A few more members decided to show support to the Committee's report. Finally, Bishop Bell broke the neck-and-neck race in accepting to omit the words 'rejoices and' so that the discussion moved on to consider other important aspects of the report on the Church of South India. The end result was that the report underwent change here and there but it was to the full credit of Bishop Bell to have presented in a most positive manner the story of union in India. He earned a lot of good-will of the Anglican Communion to the formation of the Church of South India and many came to see the true side of what happened in South India and to a deeper appreciation of it. But the job was not yet over for Bishop Bell. There were more challenges ahead of him which he faced in a resolute manner to mend the broken relationship between the Church of England and the Church of South India.

In view of the decisions taken at the Lambeth Conference, the SPG decided to withdraw support to the Anglican missionaries who were part of the Church of South India from 1 January 1949. Bishop Bell approached the Archbishop of York requesting him to raise the matter at a Bishops' meeting as it would make an enormous difference. In agreement with Bell's views, the Prelate replied to Bell and expressed his regret over the SPG's decision. Bishop Newbigin from India attempted to raise awareness over the issue among the Bishops in England and he spoke to Bishop Bell for a course of action to ensure the continuance of support from the SPG. Bell urged that the matter was considered in Bishops' meeting and in the Convocation. The desirable change could not be realised as the SPG decided to set up a separate fund from voluntary contributions but not from the main budget of the SPG. Bell was displeased at the outcome and he wrote to Bishop Western in India, 'SPG's rigidity is very depressing' and he felt that the whole question of the Constitution of SPG should be addressed. Bishop Basil Roberts, Secretary of the SPG apologised to Bell saying that he was sorry that the procedure over the 'South India Conversation' had caused Bell any disquietude. To which Bell solemnly replied, 'I feel a certain responsibility to the Church of South India, having been with them and believing in them'.

Bishop Bell: A True Friend to Younger Churches

Bishop Bell never looked defensive or becoming upset when members of younger churches pointed out the divisions within western Christianity. He felt that it was not only the Indians who ought to think about the need of mission in their own country but also their mother churches. He affirmed, 'Parent Churches and younger Churches alike are involved in a missionary situation. The character of the challenge varies from culture to culture and from country to country; but in essence it is the same. All Christians are called to proclaim the Kingship of Christ,' For Bell, lack of unity obscured the vision for mission and vice versa. Bell agreed with the words of C. Ransen who said, 'The complacency of the Churches concerning their disunity can only be accounted for by the loss of the conviction that the Church exists to fulfil a mission'. In one his sermons, he preached, 'It is in facing all those who call themselves Christians with those who are not Christians, or are lapsed Christians, that the most fruitful approach to unity will be found.' In other words, unity and mission were inseparable for Bell and where the link was dimly seen the unity initiatives could not fructify. In the same sermon, Bell noted, 'I am persuaded that just as the overwhelmingly powerful motive of the evangelisation of India that constrained the Anglicans, Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Methodists to unite in south India, it is the want of such a motive, as powerfully held, that is the real reason for our slowness at home. We have no over-mastering passion to preach the Gospel to the non-Christian world'. He concluded the sermon with challenging questions which the churches all around the world should hear: 'But can we, with a good conscience remain satisfied with the things as they are? Are we to refuse to suffer irregularities and anomalies for a while? Dare we sit down and do nothing?' Bishop Bell understood the ecumenism thus: 'ecumenical' meant both 'world-wide' extending to all parts of the world breaking national and territorial boundaries. Ecumenism also meant 'spiritual traffic' which he described by the words of W. A. Visser't Hooft that spiritual traffic between the churches which draws them out of their isolation and into a fellowship of conversation, mutual enrichment, common witness and common action.'

In the sermon preached at the University of Cambridge, Bell stressed the importance of knowing the power of divisions in the world in order to understand the gravity of the need for a solution, namely unity. Bishop had a humble view of himself when he stated that he was an 'active assistant' and 'a close student' as he had participated in the discussions in the various levels of dialogue for over 30 years between the Church of England and other churches on the subject of Christian unity. He had a very objective estimation of the efforts for the unity of the churches in the United Kingdom and he quoted from the Report on Church Relations in England, 'The scandal of our age, long divisions will not be lightly or easily removed. Traditions harden, customs become fixed, and honest convictions are tenaciously held.' He went on to say, 'But there has been one outstanding event in this century's record of Christian Reunion...I mean the inauguration of the Church of South India....Their conferences covered almost 30 years as the conferences in England! But how different was the result! And, in spite of the problems that remain, what a lesson this union teaches!'

Bell's Memorable Visits to India

Bishop Bell visited India in the year 1949 (20 November to 3 December 1949) on the invitation of the Bishop Michael Hollis and his visit was reported in the daily newspaper The Mail published from Madras (Chennai) and it read: 'Ever since 1920 he (Bishop Bell) had followed the fortunes and destinies of the union of churches which now composed the Church of South India with immense interest, immense hope and immense admiration and followed its inauguration with great thanksgiving'. He was interviewed soon after he arrived in Madras for another leading daily in India The Hindu in which Bishop spoke against racism policy adopted in Australia as he was visiting India on his way from visiting Australia. He said that there was a growing feeling among the churches in England against the policy adopted by the South African government. The purpose of his visit was to find out in reality how the infant united church was doing so that he would report back to the Convocations of the Church of England. He attended the Faith and Order of the meeting of the Bishops in Madras on 1 December 1949 which lasted for eight hours and the first point of the Bishop Bell's hand-written notes taken during the meeting read, 'Not a grain of hesitation or doubt about orthodoxy of the Church'. Bell's report on his visit to India concluded thus: 'I close with this simple avowal of my own conviction, as that of one who has seen and heard....Complete unity is the goal towards which the Church of South India is moving. There are anomalies in the meantime, but it was the unity already won, the evangelistic zeal, and the devotion of this brave and growing Church, which made the outstanding impression on my mind. And when I left Madras on December 2nd I left with confidence and hope.' Bell returned to India as he had arranged the 1953 Central Committee meeting of the WCC in Lucknow (1-8 January, 1953). R. C. D Jasper calls it as 'one of Bell's crowning achievements in his work for the World Council.'

The Task Perfected by Bell

Following the debate on the CSI at Lambeth 1948 and its decision to snap ties with the infant Church, Bell was in the frontline again in attempting to restore a warm relationship between the CE and CSI. He was instrumental in setting the official process in motion to discuss the Lambeth resolutions about CSI. A joint committee of both Houses was formed that it would present its report as to the Convocations' attitude to the Lambeth recommendations. The first meeting of the joint committee of Canterbury and York Convocations of which he was the Chairman took place in April, 1949. The first visit of Bell to India then ensued to make 'on the spot' observation on how CSI was expressing the catholicity of its faith and the Episcopal nature of its ministry. In the course of the deliberations between the Convocations, Bell replied to criticisms that came stronger from a section of the Church of England on four points. He began his speech in the Convocation of Canterbury on 13 October, 1955 by saying, 'There is a very small minority amongst those who are anxious which is highly vocal in denunciation and talks of secession. I do not think that we need trouble about that small minority.' His argument was that there were many who could not speak in support of the CSI because of lack of information. He went on to present to the Upper House the debate that took place in the Lower House on the question of relationship with the Church of South India. The outcome of the debate was a positive one as the resolutions passed by the Lower House cleared the anxiety by voting in favour of 81 to 41. Bell noted the following points from the Report of the Joint Committee with regard to the CSI as something Anglican Church should emphasize, namely the Catholic nature and character of the united Church. In his words, '...that it (united church) should contain the catholic creeds, the catholic Sacraments, the Scriptures, and the Catholic and Apostolic ministry...I do not think that more than that should or need be asked.' The Anglicans, he concluded, should not ask for a copy of itself in the united church but 'a reproduction of the primitive Catholic Church in its important features' and by this stand the Anglicans would be making a contribution towards Church Unity.

The pathway laid out and the lights lit up to it by Bell for a restoration of communion between the CE and CSI ended in recreating a glowing relationship of Christian fellowship and 'growing inter-communion' between the two Churches and this was a great achievement for the spirituality and the ecclesiastical statesmanship of Bishop Bell. Bishop Leslie Newbigin wrote to Bell on 14 July 1955, 'It is impossible for us to express all that we owe to you for your tireless work in the cause of understanding and reconciliation. Let me simply say that you can be sure that we here do really feel that debt and are more thankful than I can say for all you have done.' The words of Bishop Sumitra, the Moderator of the Church of South India, written to Bishop Bell are to be remembered, 'Your Chairmanship of the joint committees of the Convocations of Canterbury and York in 1950 and 1955 had much to do with the closer fellowship we now enjoy with the Church of England.'

Bishop Bell and D. S. Radhakrishnan

Bishop Bell's theological and ministerial perspectives were far wider that in them was space for inter-faith matters and concerns. Particularly, in the 1950's, Bell began to move out of ecclesiastical boundaries and see truth in other religions. This was illustrated by a brief and yet a close relationship he had with Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, an Indian Philosopher and Statesman, when he was the Indian Ambassador in Moscow and later became the Vice President (1952 -1962) and President (1962-1967) of India. Relationship between the two began at a much earlier period of 1930's but they found at a very later period that they both had a common platform on matters of world peace, programmes of the UNESCO and the religions of the East. Their correspondences showed deep affection and respect for each other as Radhakrishnan wrote to Bishop Bell on 1 August 1951 'How are you getting on? Remember me to your wife' and Bishop addressed him 'Dear Sarvepalli' The relationship grew formal in the subsequent years as the Bishop addressed him 'Dear Vice-President' and was addressed by Radhakrishnan 'My dear Lord Bishop'. There was an exchange of ideas and perspectives between them and Radhakrishnan, a great religious thinker and prolific writer, sent copies of his speeches he delivered and articles he wrote to Bishop Bell. He, for example, sent Bell a copy of his paper 'Religion and Our World: Indian Tradition and the West'. Bell replied, 'Your letter and MS of your chapter on "Religion and our World" reached me in Switzerland ten days ago, just as the conclusion of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches. ..I find myself in much sympathy with what you say in both sections of the chapter, or rather in all four sections: including your words about monopoly of Truth, and exclusive claims...But I write especially now in connection with the fourth section, and the present international situation which seems to me to be steadily worsening. I am very greatly struck by your analysis and conclusion with measures for settlement. I only wish they could have effect given to them!'. The meetings minds and exchange of ideas were not one-sided. When Radhakrishnan sent to Bell a copy of his speech broadcasted in India on United Nations Day, Bell saw an area in Radhakrisnan's thinking which needed greater emphasis. Bell commented, 'I have read your broadcast with deep interest and sympathy. Certainly what you say about the oppressed worker and personal freedom needs saying rather strongly...I like your broadcast altogether and, not least, its last page (on world peace). Bishop Bells' exploration into inter-faith matters was curtailed by his death and Radhakrishnan's condolence message to Mrs. Bell summed up well the friendship between the two.

Radhakrishnan wrote, 'I met him (Bishop Bell) a number of times at the Corpus Christi, All Souls in Oxford and Athenesian Club in London. I had the pleasure of meeting him also at Lucknow when he came for the World Council of Churches meeting. He was a liberal Christian: friendly to all religious men and gentle and refined in his behaviour. He did me honour by quoting me in a speech which he made in the House of Lords some years ago. You have sustained a great loss and I may assure you all his friends share your sorrow.'

Conclusion

Bishop Bell had no difficulty in breaking the wall that might separate peoples around the world on the basis of culture, history and religion and related himself to their aspirations and struggles with an exceptional clarity of vision and open-mindedness. In him one who could not see the spirit of judgment and discernment that worked on prejudice and double-standardness. He was a man whose energy and intellect were wholly devoted to and spent for the cause of the unity of humanity and universality of the churches around the world. Paternal instincts were rare in him and he looked at the younger churches with empathy and respect and never failed to see the better side of things and, at times, he felt that they had a few lessons to offer for their parent churches. He encouraged the younger churches to participate in international meetings and forums so that their views could be heard and testimonies shared. He visited India twice and both occasions were landmarks in history. Bishop Bell was a great advocate and a true friend of the Church of South India. I serve in the garden which was watered by him. If Gandhi is regarded a Father of our country, as a Christian I do not hesitate to call Bishop Bell 'the Father of modern ecumenism'. Both were Mahatmas (great souls) in their own right and they are symbols of freedom, unity and good-will among all human families on earth for generations to come.

When the news of the death of Bishop Bell reached India, Bishop Michael Hollis, the first moderator of the Church of South India, sent a condolence letter in which he stated, 'He (Bell) has helped us so much from the beginning over Church of South India and are never turned to him for advice in vain.' Another tribute came from Russel Chandran, a colleague of Bell at the World Council of Churches and a former Principal of the United Theological College, Bangalore wrote, "Bishop Bell always impressed me 'as a humble man of God'...and the attitude he took to the Church of South India was most encouraging to us....When I saw him at last at New Haven in 1957, he was discussing with me the question of presenting a common religious front to the social and political problems of the world....The way he made inquiries about his friends in India showed the amount of personal affection he held for people. He always made me feel that he was a personal friend, not just a great man.'

The Rev. Dr. Joseph G. Muthuraj teaches at United Theological College in Bangalore, Indin. He can be reached at muthurajg@yahoo.com