True Indian congress dirty communal politics’s Weblog

October 31, 2008

Muslims and congress party

Filed under: Christian Missionaries, Communists, Hindu, Indian congress, Islam, Muslims, patriotism, RSS, Sonia gandhi — truecongresspolitics @ 3:21 pm

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=hub081108Muslims_widen.asp

 

‘Muslims, widen your hearts’

As Bajrang Dal head, Prakash Sharma is one of the Hindu Right’s most incendiary faces. SHOMA CHAUDHURY tests his conviction and his ire

madhur bhandarkar

Photo:
SHAILENDRA PANDEY

Tell us a little about your life, and why you joined the Bajrang Dal.
I don’t think a publication like yours would be too interested in my life story, so I will keep it brief. I come from a middle-class joint family in Kanpur. My father died when I was very young. All my education was in Kanpur – I have a Bachelors’ in biology, a Masters’ in English and also an LLB. As far as my worldview goes, over several generations, we have been with the RSS and its organizations. The Bajrang Dal was formed when the Ramjanambhoomi Andolan took off. As young sevaks, we naturally got involved with the movement. If there had been no Sangh, we would not be here in this avatar.

But what about the RSS attracts you? What is this society you want to create?
See, no matter what you say, the basic thing is, Bharat is a Hindu rashtra and because it is a Hindu rashtra, Muslims and Christians can live with such ease here. What Muslims are doing in India today, they will not be able to do in any Christian country. Similarly, what the Christians are doing here, they will not be able to do in a Muslim country. The Sangh is driven by the view that as Bharat is a Hindu rashtra, it should develop in keeping with its culture and tradition. This is very inspirational for many people. Governments come and go, but the issues that face this country don’t get solved. We believe the only way the country will progress is if ordinary citizens are taught to be full of character, to believe in their ancestors and traditions and love their land in a way that they are willing to do anything for it. But we have people who defend terrorists just to boost votebanks. Our point is, youngsters should emulate Maharana Pratap not Jai Chand.

 

What is it you are alleging Muslims and Christians are doing in India?
It is in front of you to see! Under whose shelter are the terrorists in India operating today? Who were the Muslims who gave patronage to the terrorists in Batla House (in Jamia Nagar, New Delhi)? They are not from Pakistan or Bangladesh, they are people born out of this very land. You tell me, why can’t the Muslims of this country forge a collective forum and speak against terrorism? Who is planting Pakistan’s flags on Kashmiri soil? During the Amarnath yatra issue, who were the people shouting, “Jo Bharat ka yaar hai, samjho woh gadaar hai” (Those who befriend India are traitors)? Who are advocating allegiance to Pakistan? Even if the Kashmiris were upset with the Jammu road blockade – I don’t concede it was a blockade – but if they felt it was one, why not march towards Delhi, why march towards Muzzafarabad? I believe Muslims have to come out and take on these questions frontally. Until they do, this question will remain in people’s minds: true, not all Muslims are terrorists, but why are all terrorists Muslim? Read the India Today story where three terrorists were interviewed. Hear the Sahara TV interview with Abu Bashr and note all their talk of jihad. Why do Muslims feel they have to stake all of India and the world with Islam’s flag before they can rest in peace? They have to give up this way of thinking. As Hindus, we tolerate everything. But you tell me, where in the Bible is it written – “Sarve bhavantu sukhinaha” – The universe should be happy. The Bible divides the whole world into believers and non-believers. So does the Koran. But not our shastras.

 

If that is the case, why do you want to change this tolerance among Hindus?
Who is trying to change it? I am saying they can be happy here because Hindus tolerate everything. But they don’t want peaceful coexistence, they want to instate Islamic rule. That is why their community rises up to defend terrorists like they have in Azamgarh and Batla House. See, Hindus believe god can have any name, and the paths to god can vary. We have 32 crore gods and goddesses; it won’t hurt us if one more Mohammaden or Christian is added to the ranks. So what difficulty do Indian Muslims have in saying they are “Mohammamed panthi Hindus” or Indian Christians have in saying they are “Christ-believing Hindus”? After all, this is a Hindu nationality.

They are Indians, they are Bharatiya, why should they have to call themselves Hindus?

What is Bharatiya, what is not – that is a debate I don’t want to enter. What is the difference between being Bharatiya and Hindu? I see no difference.

What is your grouse against Christians?
Conversions. Large-scale conversions. Done through trickery and allurement and huge funding.

You just said another path to god should not bother Hindus. Converting is an act of choice, Christians aren’t forcing it.
Choice? How can there be choice where there is deceit. And, of course, there is force. You tell me, what is so special about Christianity that the entire Hindu population of a district will convert to it? The proof is in your face. When Gujarat, MP, Orissa and Rajasthan brought in the Anti-Conversion Bill, why was there such uproar among Christians? If you are not robbing, why should you fear a law against robbery? People call us communal; it is the Christians who have communalised education, not us. 95 percent of Hindus pay fees and study in missionary schools, but just because the management was Christian, they closed schools across the country to protest the incidents in Kandhamal! Did they ask whether Hindu students wanted that protest?

 

Why should Hindu students not protest the killing of innocent people? What do you feel about Kandhamal?

I am telling you there is no place for violence and taking matters in your hand in a democracy. But sometimes, these things happen spontaneously. Even Mahatma Gandhi who led the most non-violent movement in the world could not stop violence from erupting in places. Sometimes things are not in your control.

But he never justified it as natural. He called for penitence.

If you murder a man like Swami Laxmiananda — who was revered in the region, who worked for 35 years among the poor, ran schools for girls and brought Lord Jagannath into the houses of people not allowed into temples — and it is no ordinary murder, he is shot several times then hacked. The reaction is natural. Things are not always in your control.

But the Maoist commander Sabyasachi Panda claimed that murder. It was not a Christian attack.
It was not the Maoists. Locals were involved; the truth is starting to come out. Why are you insisting so much on the Maoists – does your publication have some relation with them? Panda gave two different statements. First he said they had done it, next he said they were asked by the Christians to do it. We have circulated a resolution from the Betikala Church, which asserts they were going to commit this crime on 23 August. The media is not highlighting this. Why don’t you investigate this?

 

Your youth camps, your rhetoric – it creates a predisposition for violence. As head of the Bajrang Dal, are you saying you don’t have control over your cadres?

What cadres? We don’t have any cadres. All of Hindu samaj is part of us, we are part of Hindu samaj – how can we control everyone? And we train our youth to shoot and fight because physical prowess creates self-confidence. Why don’t you visit one of our camps before you decide what they are about.

But in Karnataka, your convenor Mahendra Kumar proudly claimed the organisations’ attacks on churches.
What organisation was he talking about? He was asked to resign for saying this. He was also arrested. We are not running away from anything.

Did you ask him to resign for claiming the violence or for doing it?
I have already explained to you, violence should not happen, but reactions are natural. They are born out of catalyst actions. The attacks in Karnataka were mainly on prayer halls run by the New Life sect, which is funded 80% from outside and prolifically into conversion. They were circulating a booklet that describes our goddesses as whores. Why don’t you look at that book? It may not upset secular Hindus like you, but it certainly makes the rest of Hindu samaj angry. Things just got out of hand.


What about Graham Staines and his sons burnt alive? There was no provocation there, and no violent reaction from the Christian community .
There could have been a reaction from the Christians. That incident was done by an individual driven by extra zeal. But law has caught up with him. We have not come in the way of his punishment. But even there, the provocation was conversion activity.

Hindu society is so brutal and caste ridden, why should dalits and other castes not want to convert to a religion that gives them dignity?
You are right about the shortcomings in our society. I will not deny that. We do have to fix them, though you are exaggerating its extent. But that is what Swami Laxmananda was doing. That is why he was murdered.

 

What about the latest discoveries? Pragya Thakur of the Durga Vahini and some from the ABVP seem to be involved in the terror blasts in Malegaon. Worse, they apparently put Muslim stickers on the bike to make it look the work of radical Muslims. Earlier Bajrang Dal workers were killed making bombs in Kanpur.
The two who were killed had not been part of the Bajrang Dal for years. Pragya Thakur also has not been part of the Durga Vahini for 10-12 years. She had become a sadhvi. It is you in the secular media that are giving undue focus to this to give Hindu society a bad name. Why don’t you let the investigations finish before you jump to conclusions? Let the ATS (anti-terror squad) give its report. We are not coming in their way either in Kanpur or Malegaon. If these things are proved, I will comment on it then. At any rate, we are not turning Pragya’s house into a pilgrimage point in the way Muslims and you secular lot have turned Abu Bashr’s house or Batla House into a pilgrimage.


Maybe that is because recently it has been proved that too many innocent Muslims are being falsely arrested. But let’s get back to your ideal society. Does it have any place for people of other faith?
I have already told you — we want a society in which everyone is prosperous. Our chant is, may the righteous prevail, may the unrighteous be destroyed. What is the anti-Muslim sentiment in this? Are we saying Muslims or Christians should be destroyed? We are only saying all traitors should be destroyed. Those who live on this land and kick its womb, those who live on this land and praise Sadaam Hussein –

You brought up Kashmiri Muslims leaning towards Pakistan, but that has a complex history. Why mix Indian Muslims with Kashmiris?

It is not at all a separate issue. When the Amarnath land transfer issue came up, did any influential maulvi or Muslim leader issue a statement saying this pilgrimage is a centuries-old tradition going on from a pre-Islamic time, so what is the problem if a mere 100 acres of land is given for two months to build temporary constructions that will make the yatra smoother? And this is not new. In 1996, terrorists had threatened to stop the yatra itself. It is because of the Bajrang Dal’s determination that 50,000 Bajrangis went for the yatra despite that.

But it is local Muslims who help the yatra as well.

What helping! It’s just a source of income for them. If there was no yatra, they would have no income. (Don’t mind me shouting – I am from the Bajrang Dal, so my voice automatically becomes loud.)

I am saying, set aside Kashmir for a moment, it is a complex issue —
No, this is the problem with the secular media. What is so complex about the issue? There was an agreement; Kashmir was given to India. If Nehru had not kept the issue in his hand and had left it to Sardar Patel, there would be no issue today. If these eunuch governments would give up their impotency, there would be no issue today. I am neither concerned about the BJP nor any other party. It is because of the impotency of our political parties that the Kashmir issue is not sorted out and has got so out of hand. Why do they get such a free hand? They go over to Pakistan and make friends with them, and we sit and feed them biryani? They should be crushed, not treated like sons-in-law!

Your party was in power under Atal Behari Vajpayee —

Why do you think Atalji has been left to cool his heels? All I will say is this — it is because of what the BJP government didn’t do that both Atalji and the party are cooling their heels out of power now.

 

What about the excesses of the army?

This is the problem with you secularists! There is no army atrocity in Kashmir; there are no rapes. There may be just a few stray incidents. But terrorists are challenging the country’s security, the army fights to protect the country and you call those atrocities? On the other hand, you protest the killing of terrorists in Batla House? Do you know 70,000 soldiers have been killed defending this country since independence?

 

You keep throwing the word secular as if it is an abuse. By your reckoning, people like us who don’t subscribe to your view aren’t Hindus?
It is a fact. Secularists have a fixed mindset. Even Raja Jai Singh was a Hindu, but he allied with Akbar to fight Shivaji.

So now you are casting us as traitors! This is all very simplistic.
No, we are just talking. But a new trend is developing in the country in the name of secularism, and this disease is affecting every wing of government, even the justice system.

Justice should have no colour. You were saying Muslims should issue fatwas against the blasts. Tell me, even you know innocent Muslims were killed in Gujarat 2002. Why do you not condemn that?
Were the 50 karsevaks who were burnt in the Sabarmati guilty? What happened afterwards was just a spontaneous reaction. Lots of time, even when we know something is wrong, our hands our tied. We have no control.


Just tell me whether it was right or wrong.
It was very unfortunate. It should not have happened. But the people to blame are those who burnt the Sabarmati. You cannot compare action with reaction. Reactions are born out of actions.

 

Your action-reaction theory has no end. By that logic, the Muslim girl eve-teased on the platform can excuse the burning of the Sabarmati. And if Muslim radicals are behind the blasts, one can excuse it by saying they are reacting to the Babri Masjid demolition, and Bombay 1992 and Gujarat 2002 riots.
There is a big and fundamental difference between action-reaction at a personal, local level and one that seeks revenge at a national level. If in reaction to what happened in Gujarat, Muslims want to create Islamic rule at a national level, there is a huge difference in the two reactions. The karsevaks were returning home, some locals burnt them, the reaction happened locally. If in revenge you use Pakistani money and guns, there is a huge difference.

 

What is local about Gujarat 2002? If some event happens in Chandigarh and in reaction our families are burnt in Delhi, will we see that as local and justified?
You may not feel that for the death of 59 people, but have you ever felt pain for the 10 lakh people who were killed during Partition? 40,000 Hindu women were raped then.

 

So you are saying Gujarat 2002 was not a local spontaneous response to the burning of Sabarmati but the product of a larger historical grouse against Muslims. In any case, Prakashji, why can’t you see this in human terms? The horrors of Partition visited both Hindus and Muslims.
No, the problem is, you are still weeping for Gujarat, but you have no thought for the way Hindu widows were driven naked out of Kashmir. Tell me, since Tehelka began, have you ever reported on how Pandits are being forced to live?

 

We have in our conferences, and we are also working on a story now.
Only now, driven by some selfish purpose, I am sure.

Just for one second, stop thinking about all this in Hindu-Muslim terms, think in terms of justice. All the Muslims in Gujarat were arrested under POTA —

I am thinking in terms of justice. I have already said what happened afterwards in Gujarat was unfortunate but spontaneous. But isn’t law catching up with that as well? Have we prevented the courts from taking action? We are only defending people within the framework of the courts. In the Afzal Guru case also, the courts let off two of his associates – if that is their decision, so be it. Like that in Gujarat they have let off some, but there have been convictions in the Bilkis Bano case and others. Proceedings are still on. You are only focusing on those who were let off, not on those who weren’t. Who are we to come in the way of the courts? Let them do their work. For Muslims you want proof before they are arrested but with Hindus, if we are let off, we are deemed guilty!

 

Wouldn’t it have been better if the BJP government had responded with a firm hand after the Sabarmati was burnt, prevented the pogrom, and gone after the real culprits instead?
Of course, and in a few days, again we would have been licked by the Muslims, again 60 people would have been burnt alive by petrol, and we would say, it’s good we are being crushed, we have been born to bear things and be crushed. If we so much as react we are offenders, but they can do anything and they will not be deemed wrong. Must we always take a beating? Will a society never get angry? Will its limit never be crossed?

If you continue with these divisive arguments, India will fracture completely. Leave the Muslims aside. How are we to look at the conflicts between Hindus? The MNS politics in Bombay. Bombay only for Marathis, drive the Biharis out. Ditto in Assam.

I am saying it is wrong. It is not good for the country and Raj Thackeray should think of the whole country. Instead of Biharis, we should all focus on driving out the three crore Bangladeshi immigrants that are being used as votebanks. Other than that, Bihar, UP, Maharashtra are all part of India – everyone has the right to travel or live freely.

 

But not Muslims —

How are you bringing Muslims into this? Where have I said Muslims should be driven out of India? Not once have I said that. We are only saying that the Muslims who feel an allegiance to Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden or organize conferences that have AK 47s pasted across the globe or send emails like the Indian Mujadideen should be dealt with so firmly no one will ever dream of betraying the country again. We have never said Muslims shouldn’t pray in mosques or Christians shouldn’t go to churches. We are only opposing certain aspects or actions from them.

But why do you assert your views only in violent terms? If people don’t subscribe to your way of life, you unleash your wrath. Something as silly as Valentine Day couples, or boys and girls in parks —
‘Way of life’ has to emerge from this country’s soil. This soil does not give you permission to roam and dance naked in public.

You spoke with pride about our 32 crore gods and myriad ways of life.
No, no, it is because of conversations like this that our families and values are breaking down. Elopements are on the rise. Licentiousness has never been tolerated in our culture and this holds true for men and women. You talk of Valentine’s Day – do we have to import a foreign concept to teach ourselves how to love? There is love and love and only love everywhere in this country. Mother’s Day! Father’s Day! Are we going to learn how to love our parents from a culture that dumps its parents in old people’s homes?

These are just silly things. You don’t need a stick.
The stick is only used if things get excessive. Our point is, do we want our children to emulate Michael Jackson who gets caught every day in some shameful act, or do we want them to emulate Srawan Kumar who carried his blind parents on his shoulders to every pilgrimage point in India? These things have to be stopped. Do you know what sort of parties go on in hotels? I will tell you of an incident. We were opposing Valentine’s Day in Kanpur and in one hotel room we found a Class 7 girl lying naked. This is Valentine’s Day! This is not just a parental issue, we are part of this society and have an equal responsibility in instilling good values.

According to you India only comprises Hindu culture, but, in fact, it is the product of many historic and cultural layers. You deny this plurality. You even deny the tantric or erotic traditions within our own culture.
No, we don’t, but what is supposed to happen between husband and wife in a closed bedroom cannot start happening in public spaces. That is not our culture. And what are all these influences you are talking about? You must read Indian history through an Indian lens. We can’t make you understand anything because you have read the history taught by the British and your mind is already set.

One can argue for hours about the history you teach. But the VHP just put out an advisory to Hindus asking them to have more children. How can this be good for a nation already suffocating from over-population!
Again this is a natural reaction. The entire demography of the country is changing. We are being pushed down, taught family planning, but other communities don’t have to follow that and can marry three wives! If there was a uniform civil code, the VHP would not need to make such statements. As things stand, there is a insecurity in Hindu society. That is why we tell our people, if you can afford three, have four; if you can afford four, have five children.

Do you have statistics to back your fears? In any case, if you feel you have valid issues, why don’t you raise them outside the vocabulary of violence and hate?
We don’t need statistics, we know what is happening. Why don’t you conduct a survey? You will believe your own findings. As for language, it is because Nehruji spoke the language of appeasement — unke dari sehlate rahein — that we lost over 250 holy places and so much of our land. Why should we still talk the language of appeasement? Why is it that politicians are standing up for terrorists? Why is the Bajrang Dal being compared with SIMI?

 

You should introspect about that.
I don’t need to introspect. I know what the Bajrang Dal stands for and no one’s accusations are going to change that.

Tehelka’s Gujarat investigation exposed that every wing of the state had colluded not just in the riots but in subverting justice afterwards. And the people on our tapes were talking voluntarily –

Everybody has a tendency to exaggerate things. Even we do that —

That is not my question. If you say what happened in Gujarat was spontaneous but regrettable, confronted with our investigation, why did you not want to examine things further? Why accuse Tehelka of a conspiracy? Why does everything inconvenient become a conspiracy?
You can call the Nanavati Report a conspiracy but we cannot call yours a conspiracy?

We back our statements with proof, not conjecture.
I still maintain it is a conspiracy. You skillfully beguiled people into exaggerating. I don’t believe an organisation like the VHP can ever do something like this, but sometimes people do anything for political gain. So let justice take its course. Many have got convicted. We have accepted those judgements. You are selective about the truths you expose. You don’t have the courage to expose the fact that many ordinary Muslims are giving shelter to terrorists today. They have to stop this. We are not opposed to anything else about Muslims.

Let us move away from specific incidents. Which three or four big issues would you pick which, if addressed, would create peace in your eyes?
There is the Ram Janmabhoomi, Krishna Janmabhoomi and Kashi Vishwanath issue. There was a lot of discussion with the Muslims over this. They should have understood then that no Indian Muslims have come from outside of this soil. Several generations back, everybody’s ancestors were Hindu. So Ram cannot be compared with Babur; Krishna and Shiv cannot be compared with Aurangzeb. I think the Muslims squandered a big opportunity to create an atmosphere of goodwill at that time. If they had compromised over these three things, many issues today would have lost their teeth. Of course, we can still discuss things, but do any maulvis have the guts to come out and say vande mataram is not idol worship, merely an invocation to this land, Bharatmata? Do they have the guts to say, what is the need for Islamist jihad? Do they have the guts to say, everyone should respect the Indian flag unequivocally, especially Kashmir which enjoys special status under Article 370? We are ready to meet them halfway. I am ready to invite them to offer namaaz in the most holy temple of India. Our Ram or Krishna will not mind. But do they have the guts to invite us to read the Hanuman Chalisa alongside them reading the namaaz in any of their mosques? Where is the fight? Let them widen their hearts, our hearts are not small.

What are your other issues?
They must not challenge India’s sovereignity. They are welcome to pray and live in any way, but why must Indian Muslims take their directional cues from Arab countries? If Hindus live in America and look towards India for their cues, I will deem that wrong as well. If they are citizens of that country, they must abide by the norms of that country. Why do they revere Osama and Sadaam? Why was the ruling on Shah Bano subverted? All encounters are probed as a matter of routine to find out if the police made a mistake, what was the need to make Batla House a pilgrimage spot?

You are leaping from issue to issue —
My job is to leap. I am from the Bajrang Dal. Don’t mind my leaping.

You keep harping about Partition. Why not let those scars heal? After all you can’t punish the perpetrators, the players are all dead.
In fact, we want the Partition to end. That is why every August 14 we make thousands of youth pledge that whenever we have the strength we will undo the Partition. It was unnatural, illegal and we can never accept it. This may not happen in my generation, it may take many generations more but we will not let go off the dream. If Israel can be born 1,800 years later, then we can also reestablish Akhand Bharat. This is why the political establishments are after us – they know we threaten all their little political shops. This is why they are not afraid of terrorist AK 47s but are scared of our three-and-a-half inch trishuls. They understand that when our youth pick up the trishul, they get connected with a sense of their history.

To shift focus again, your campaign against MF Husain is very misplaced —
If you see nothing wrong in his painting of our devis, we cannot have any conversation! If as a Hindu woman, you can see a naked Hanuman seated on Sita Mata’s crotch and say there is nothing wrong in that, what bigger misfortune can Bharat face? You should join our Durga vahini and become familiar with your own culture. Why should we put up with Husain? Hindu shops were burnt in India because of some cartoons of the Prophet in Denmark, for you that is natural? And we just tear one of Husain’s paintings and we become villains?

We have strongly condemned the Muslim reaction to the cartoons as well as to Taslima Nasreen and Rushdie.
You are just an individual. I am talking of the whole secular spectrum. Tell me, what is wrong in our opposition to Husain? Muslims burn buses demonstrating against Taslima, so you send her out of the country. Why are you defending Husain? What is the need to show Sita minus her clothes? Will he paint Mother Mary naked? Will he paint his own mother naked? I say Husain should be punished in such a way no one in his family will remember how to paint seven generations later. If he ever comes here, I assure you there will be a spontaneous reaction to him.

If you know beforehand it is going to happen, how can it be spontaneous? You have the right to oppose. It is the undemocratic and violent way in which you do it which is the problem.
But this is happening because Hindu society is seeing that when Muslims raise a violent hue and cry about anything, they are not dealt with a firm hand. Everybody falls over themselves to appease them. So Hindu society thinks, this is the route we should also take. Now everyone is shouting for us to be banned. Let the elections come, we will go among the people, then everyone will get their answer. We are going to create such a political change in the country that Hindu sentiment cannot be played lightly with anymore.

Whenever something doesn’t please you, you threaten that people will get an “answer”. Is this your euphemism for violence?
No, we are not promising only violence. I will give you an example. During the Amarnath yatra issue this time, lakhs of people signed up voluntarily to go to jail. Jammu was closed for 41 days; the movement went on continuously for 63 days. One and a half lakh youth, four and a half lakh women volunteered arrest. These are not small numbers. When I say “we” will give an answer, I mean Hindu samaj — I don’t mean any organisation. Awakening Hindu society is our only job.

How do you justify your demographic insecurities? We are a billion plus. Minorities barely make up 18 percent. Orissa has 95 percent Hindus –
Don’t look at it at a national level. Go to the particular district and see. There used to be a few thousand Christians there, now there are several lakhs. Why did only particular portions of India become Pakistan and Bangladesh? Because they were Muslim majority areas. Why are there secessionist movements in Christian dominated regions of the north-east? In the future, there might be fresh talk of partitions. They will raise their populations then ask for partitions. You will not understand these things. We do not oppose Muslims per se, we only oppose statements like Abdullah Bukhari who said recently that they will create such a movement, things will be worse than 1947.

These are extreme views. Statements like his are criticised by everybody.
No. Read the history of the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. Read what Muslim leaders said on the discussion table. They said what proof do you have that this is the birthplace of Ram? What proof do we have that our fathers are who we think they are? For centuries we have believed that Ayodhya is Ram’s birthplace and Muslims can have the courage to ask us for proof of that! One of them said that if tomorrow my wife delivers a baby in a Boeing 737, am I going to take the Boeing? This is the level of conversation there was. Despite the fact that you and I are hostile to each other and think so differently on things, we have been able to talk for a couple of hours. You have been able to question me on everything. I can guarantee you will not be able to have such a conversation with a Muslim leader. If you do manage such a conversation, I will accept I was wrong and start listening to what you say. I do not want to criticize the Koran, but if they say that the Koran teaches that kafirs should be defeated and this will be rewarded with heaven, shouldn’t Muslims themselves debate this? You asked why there can’t be discussion instead of violence — why don’t people like you debate these things? Today every Muslim looks suspect to me and to others. Why is this the case? Because one does not see openness and a desire for discussion among them. There may be a few who want to debate and discuss, but largely Muslims themselves are not ready to talk about all the secularism you are talking about.

Many influential maulvis have recently put out a fatwa against militant jihad.
That is just drama! It is too little too late.

What can one do if you denounce even positive things?
That is because one does not see a genuine change of mood and desire for dialogue among ordinary Muslims. We might have different mothers and cultures, but why can’t they accept the three big important cultural references of this land – the cow, the Ganga, and the motherland Bharatmata as motherland as being a part of their lives? These could have a common sanctity between us.

Why must you insist on these things? Every culture has its own beliefs. There are other ways of coexisting. All this divisive talk has no end. Hindus, Muslims, Gujjars, Meenas.
There is a big difference between different Indians fighting domestically over a share of the State’s pie and those who challenge the very sovereignity of India.

With regard to Muslims also, it is a question of equal opportunity. The Sachar Committee report —

 

No, no, please don’t compare the two. Don’t compare the desire for jihad and Islamic states with fights over domestic government handouts. I come back to the simple point I made earlier: I am ready to invite Muslim maulvis to read the namaaz five times in the most revered temple in Kanpur. Are they ready to let us read the Hanuman chalisa just once in the Jama Masjid or any of their mosques? The uncomfortable truth you don’t want to face is that they are not open. On any issue, let Muslims take the initiative, every road will open up. Go back to the Ramjanmabhoomi movement itself. You will find the only reason the talks broke down so totally is because Shri Shahbuddin made that incendiary statement: “What proof do you have Ram was born here?” If you question our very identity, the basic fount of our culture — Did Ram exist or not — what discussion can there be? Let them take the initiative on anything. Let them amicably give us the three birthplaces, and there will be no more fight. Does any Muslim leader have the courage and statesmanship to initiate talk on this?

 

with SANJAY DUBEY

October 28, 2008

Dying Pope Admits Christianity is a Fraud

Filed under: Christian Missionaries, Sonia gandhi — truecongresspolitics @ 3:55 pm

http://www.elroysemporium.com/news/popeconfession.html

 

Dying Pope Admits Christianity is a Fraud

by Elroy Willis — April 1, 2005

 


VATICAN CITY (EAP) — In what appears to be a final act of admission or confession by Pope John Paul II on his death bed, the Holy Pontiff Maximus said yesterday that he wants to come clean and admitted that Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church are nothing more than a fraud that got out of hand caused by the greed of the church.

“I’ve felt guilty about it for the last 20 years, and it’s time that everyone else knows,” he confessed to two different archbishops inside the Vatican who visited his bedside during the past week.

“He told us to spread the word, and that he wishes the Vatican to sell off everything it owns to help feed the poor and destitute, just like Jesus said to do in Matthew 19:21,” said one of the archbishops who had second thoughts about revealing the truth, but decided to come clean following the lead of the sickly pope.

“I know it means the end of my job and faith, but I feel like honesty is the best policy,” he said.

The net worth of the Roman Catholic Church is reported to be nearly 40 billion dollars according to conservative estimates, and that will help to feed and clothe a lot of hungry and homeless people.

“Neither Jesus nor His Father or Mother Mary have stepped in to help cure me of my Parkinson’s disease, so I want part of the money made from selling off the Vatican treasures to go towards scientific research for an actual cure for the disease, not towards encouraging more people to utter useless prayers like I did,” the Pope said.

“This probably won’t go over very well with the faithful, and it might even cause a worldwide panic, but the truth should prevail in the end.”

October 27, 2008

Indian Conservatives Struggle to Build Alternate Media

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2308&page=1

Indian Conservatives Struggle to Build Alternate Media

Dr. Richard L. Benkin
02 Aug 2008

Amitabh Tripathi is convinced his nation of India is under attack; so he did something few people are willing to do.  He abandoned a promising freelance career with India’s mainstream media (MSM), so he could he could write openly as a conservative about Indian leftists, Islamists, and government policies that play into their hands.  

“You cannot write about the leftists,” he told me, “because the Congress [Party] government is dependent on them”; and if you identify the terrorist threat as Islamist, “you are called anti-Muslim and a racist.”  But, Tripathi said, that is not what worries  him the most.  “The major threat to Indian sovereignty is government policies that are based on pseudo-secularism and Muslim appeasement.”  For journalists, that translates into a rigid political correctness that forces them to adhere to the MSM’s left-wing bias or look for employment elsewhere.

“After meeting Dr. Daniel Pipes and Dr. Richard Benkin,” Tripathi said, “I came to know the gravity of the Islamic threat, what the whole world is facing, and the ignorance people have about the Israel-Palestine struggle.  India is entering the most critical period in its history and that the current government and other elites are handing our enemies a victory.”  Since most of what we hear about the world’s largest democracy centers on its new role as an economic giant, its nuclear status, and perhaps its ties with Israel, we might think Tripathi is exaggerating; but there is a great deal that our own MSM does not report.  

I was in India for the better part of February this year, when almost every day saw radical action:  “road strikes” where separatists and other protesting radicals closed major thoroughfares; a thwarted cyber-terrorist attack by Islamists; communist agitation and demonstrations against India’s proposed nuclear deal with the United States; and a military operation by Maoist terrorists against a police station that killed dozens.  

Islamic radicals are flexing their muscles, too, building radical madrassas (or Islamic schools) throughout the country, especially in Muslim-dominated villages.  Darul Uloom Deoband, the seminary that produced the Taliban’s Mullah Omar, is located less than 100 miles from the capital and continues to issue regular fatwas.  Muslims are demanding autonomy in several areas; and three Indian states have communist governments.  The most entrenched of them, West Bengal, sits less than 15 miles from a barely-patrolled border with China.

 

So Tripathi started Lokmanch, a Hindi-language web site that features frank criticism of what he and others call the government’s “ostrich-like behavior.”  He also has translated articles on Israel, the US war against Islamist terror and extremism, Barack Obama, and other topics.  They provide Indians with information that their media simply does not report.  Quietly, Tripathi is attracting more and more Indian journalists, including bona fide members of the MSM.  Several of them offered me their candid opinions about the media’s leftist bias, the center-left government, and the severity of the Islamist threat facing their country.  They work for major newspapers and broadcast channels; English and Hindi-language outlets, purely Indian companies, and some with an international reach.  Their concern was genuine; their passion intense. 

But because, they told me, they “would surely be sacked” if their editors or colleagues heard those candid opinions, we met in out of the way hotels, coffee shops, and other inconspicuous places.  So concerned were they that only some agreed to let me tape our conversations.  And all of them-with the exception of Amitabh Tripathi-agreed to speak openly only so long as they remained anonymous.  They hoped our interviews would garner support for their cause, especially in the United States.  “At the very least,” one told me, “perhaps it will help people know just how dangerous things here are.”

 

“India is regarded as a very soft state.”

 

Every journalist echoed the sentiments expressed by this one.  “The US and India are two great democracies.  We [India] must support the US War on Terror.  It is the only thing we should do!”  They are frustrated and concerned, however, at India’s reticence to do so whole heartedly.  The ruling parties “fear a negative response from Muslims [and a loss of votes even though] more people believe India should openly ally itself with the US in the war on terror…the politicians are afraid to be seen as anti-Muslim.”  

Muslims make up about 20 percent of the Indian population, and their interest groups and organizations are united and vocal.  In the media, reports must adhere to a certain formula “because they feel that these kinds of [anti-terror] reports will build up feelings against Muslims.”  Thus, they attribute things to generic “terrorists, but they are not terrorists.  They are Indian Muslim institutions getting money from the Saudis…to create mosques that look like five-star hotels.”

 

In the lead up to this year’s Indian budget, Muslim groups rolled out statistics showing their constituents lagging behind in education and income and demanded subsidies and government commitments.  No one challenged their assumption that the lag was due to prejudice or that the Indian taxpayers had to shoulder the burden.  They simply caved and acceded to most of the demands.  Hence, the budget contains large sums for Muslim pilgrimages to Jerusalem’s Al Aqsa, but not a penny for stateless Hindu refugees from Islamist terror in Bangladesh.  “If you are pro-Hindu, you are called a racist.”

 

India’s parliamentary system also complicates things.  The ruling Congress Party had to ally itself with Indian Communists (CPIM) to oust the right wing Bhatariya Janata Party (BJP).  The CPIM is part of the ruling coalition and holds the balance of power.  “If they believe their demands are not being met, they can bring down the government.  This is why India still has not ratified the nuclear deal with the US.”  Many Congress leaders recognize its critical security role and want to sign it, but their communist partners have made the deal’s rejection key to their remaining in the coalition.  This also helps explain India’s puzzling reaction to the recent Maoist takeover in neighboring Nepal.  Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukharjee hailed the communist victory as a new era in South Asian politics even after the new Nepalese commissars vowed to end “Indian dominance” in Nepal.  “He comes from West Bengal…and cannot represent his state without support of communists,” which drives Indian foreign policy.

“Israel is our role model; America is our ally.”

 

The wedge issue separating the Old Left elites from today’s Indian conservatives is Israel.  The MSM reports Israel as the villain in the Middle East and the Palestinians as victims.  For the first half century of their existence, India and Israel did not even have diplomatic relations.  It was not until the 1990s that common security concerns prompted a thaw; and relations did not really take off until 2003 with a visit by then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.  

Previous Indian politics built on the late Jawaharlal Nehru’s union with Yugoslavia’s Josip Broz Tito and Egypt’s Gamal Nasser to form the non-aligned bloc of nations.  The anti-US and anti-Israel course they charted set the basis for the UN’s endemic hatred of both nations and dominated Indian policy for decades.  That is why, one journalist told me, “there is something of a generation gap between the [established and generally older] editors and publishers” and people today.

 

Media coverage remains biased, which is why, according to Tripathi, it came as a tremendous surprise to many Indians when they saw evidence that Israelis were the victims of Arab terror.  They began wondering at MSM condemnation of actions that were no less self-defense than their own.  “We must give people the real picture of Israel-Palestine struggle” as parallel to our own struggle for existence.  “The network of madrassas and imams in India, holds that the entire subcontinent was once under Muslim rule and still would be were it not for the British.  That is how they look at Israel, as darul Islam“; that is, as a land once under Muslim hegemony and so by rights always under it.  They opposed Indian partition in 1947 and the partition of Palestine in 1948, because it would recognize the legitimacy of the non-Muslim state on land they consider their own.

 

Many Indians “are enraged” by their nation’s “soft policy” and have begun holding up Israel as a role model publicly.  They also point to Israel’s development in areas like agriculture and defense.  “Despite adversities, Israel progressed a lot but we Indians were far lagging behind.”  “Without a doubt,” another said, “if Israel did not say to hell with those who wanted it to be soft, it would be gone.  And if India does not do the same thing, it will be gone because the official philosophy of the [Muslims] is the same.”

 

A couple days after Tripathi and I parted, I found myself addressing a journalism class at the University of Lucknow in Upper Pradesh province.  I spoke about the role of journalists, the war against Islamist terror, and about Bangladeshi Hindus living in India-victims of ethnic cleansing.  The students were lively and engaged on a variety of topics, but their eyes really lit up when I mentioned that I am a Zionist and had been to Israel.  Their thirst for knowledge and analysis seemed unquenchable; their questions non- stop.  “How has such a small country like Israel been able to defeat all of the Arabs and their terrorists?”  “How can we [India] be more like Israel?”  Even the one student who took a vocal, anti-Israel position addressed admitted to the class that “I have to do more work to check my information.”

 

“Axis of evil and axis of terror in this world are Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran”

 

“There is not a single democracy between Tel Aviv and New Delhi, and if we keep taking the road of weakness, our enemies could easily defeat us…Our foreign policy is to have friendly relations with our neighbors.  But our neighbors are all radical Islamists and dictators.”  These journalists freely admit that they are not “completely objective, but at least we say so” in contrast to the MSM.  They believe that the vast majority of India’s 1.1 billion people see things the way they do but that their nation has been hi-jacked by “leftists, weaklings, and corrupt people.”  For instance, one said, “it’s a crime that the communists are still in power.  They use intimidation and voter fraud, but Congress lets them because they want to stay in power.  If BJP and Congress would come together and force a fair election, the Communists will lose.”

 

Providing Indians with good information, uncensored by a fearful and rigid MSM is what Amitabh Tripathi hopes to accomplish with Lokmanch.  “The web site is only the first step,” he said.  “Small, local papers publish in huge numbers and they are not part of the mainstream media.  They are just as frustrated with things as we are.  We want to channelize (sic) them to become an alternative media.”  He estimates it will take “two to three years perhaps” to build a news network and mobilize opinion makers in India.  Several small papers already have joined Tripathi’s network.  We can help by providing them with access to news and opinion and original articles (much as I did with Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury in Bangladesh).  And like all such endeavors, this one is struggling to find funds, as well.

 

Mandhol Kalan is a small village about 50 miles from Delhi where Deoband imams banned television, radio, photography, even singing.  One Hindi TV network did a story exposing it, which forced the government to react.  But instead of addressing the issue it raised, the Ministry responded by distributing new television sets.  Not surprisingly, the Deobandis returned, confiscated the TVs, and re-instituted the ban.  But now, the government does not return calls, and networks have not returned to Mandhol Kalan.  Thus, just outside the Indian capital is a village that makes Afghanistan look like Las Vegas.  Worse, said one of the journalists involved in the original report, the media’s silence “allows [the Islamists] to impose their views exclusively and produce more terrorists.”

No Outrage over Ethnic Cleansing of Hindus

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2500

No Outrage over Ethnic Cleansing of Hindus

Dr. Richard L. Benkin
16 Oct 2008

Chicago, USA:  There have been several attempts at genocide since the middle of the last century.  European Nazis murdered six million Jews in the 1940s.  In the1960s; and later in that decade, Fulani-led Nigerians slaughtered around a million ethnic Ibos who formed the Republic of Biafra.  Three decades later, majority Hutus murdered almost a million Tutsis in Rwanda; and Serbs did the same to about 10,000 ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.  Ethnic Arabs are still killing non-Arab Sudanese; so far over half a million.  These crimes grabbed the world’s attention—albeit too late and only after the bodies were piled too high to ignore.  The United Nations (UN) issued proclamations and sent aid through its human rights and refugee organizations.  Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others loudly condemned the perpetrators, documenting the atrocities and raising money for their aid programs.  Several international celebrities took on highly visible roles, and were massive protests worldwide gave vent to peoples’ outrage.

 

Yet, a case of ethnic cleansing, a-genocide-in-the-making, with numbers that dwarf these crimes that has been proceeding for decades with little more than the occasional whimper.  When Bangladesh won its independence from Pakistan in 1971, Hindus made up almost one in five of its citizens.  Today, they are less than one in ten. Demographers and others estimate that approximately 20 million Bangladeshi Hindus have disappeared.

Twenty million people missing, at least that many more at risk; but no George Clooney or Angelina Jolie; no declarations from the UN, despite its mandate to stop such atrocities and help victims of the attempts.  Its largely misnomered human rights organizations ignore the matter.  Even the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) has never helped the victims, though several organizations have documented their suffering.  Earlier this year, I visited almost two dozen of their extra-legal camps in West Bengal, India, and saw their need for help.  The international human rights industry, too, has been silent.  Amnesty International (AI) has devoted pages upon web pages to the United States and Guantanamo and spends a high percentage of its resources criticizing Israeli democracy.  Its current cover story is about Shia Muslims being “treated like second class citizens.”  But to date it has shown no stomach to oppose what could be the worst case of ethnic cleansing in our time.  The last time AI or Human Rights Watch gave the Bangladeshi Hindus even passing mention was in 2006. 

 

This is not the first time the world has ignored mass murder in South Asia.  Towards the end of the Bangladeshi war of independence, Pakistani troops and their Islamist allies slaughtered between two and three million mostly Hindu Bangladeshis; noncombatants,  women, children, the elderly.  All manner of brutality from mutilation to ritualized gang rape accompanied the carnage, but the world still remains silent even while the victims’ descendants cry out for justice.  NATO sent troops into Kosovo when thousands were at risk but did nothing to save millions in East Bengal. Hindu refugees flood West Bengal and live in semi-legal squalor, but the UNHCR refuses to recognize them as refugees.  Several refugees and others attribute this disparity to religious bias.  Fear of terrorist reprisals, the lure of petrodollars, and a rigid political correctness prevent many from taking a stand against Islamists, according to one Indian activist.  But he and others blame “our own nature” that mitigates against activism and tolerates corruption.

 

As I told Indian journalists, “Everyone in India seems to know about the Bangladeshi Hindus, but no one is doing anything about it.”  The action of Bangladeshi Islamists while atrocious is not unexpected.  Imagine, however, refugees barely escaping with their lives, leaving murdered loved ones behind.  They described crossing into the largest Hindu nation in the world; but found no welcoming arms of co-religionists.  Instead, they were “treated like trespassers”; given no aid, no shelter.  They reported being forced into camps where captors took advantage of then no less than did their Islamist tormentors.  In West Bengal, refugees testified that local let them squat on some land; in exchange, they would be forced to attend Communist rallies.  They would get vote cards only to be told that officials of the Communist Party of India/Marxist (CPIM) would fill them in for them.  But if anyone else desired the land, the refugees would be ejected; something I observed first-hand.

 

Today an economic and military powerhouse, India has yet to advocate for the thousands of victims streaming across its borders.  It has never pressed the case of the Bangladeshi Hindus before any international body.  If it has protested the ethnic cleansing to Bangladesh, it has done so meekly.  Moreover, this great nation seems content to cede the integrity of its borders.  Several refugees testified that even now Islamists from surrounding villages and from Bangladesh attack them with the knowledge of West Bengal officials.

 

Once the CPIM got wind of my visits to the camps, we would alter our itinerary to arrive before the local commissar intimidated refugees into silence about anything that might embarrass the CPIM government.  In one camp, their tactic appeared to work.  We were about to leave when one elderly women stood up with a commissar looking on and said, “I’m not afraid of anybody,” and began to talk about the ongoing attacks.

 

Is the Indian government’s silence little more than a ploy to keep votes, a reflection of its pseudo-secularist policy?  If it is, that does not explain the silence of those parties that have no chance of gaining significant numbers of Muslim or Communist votes, such as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other right wing parties.  Why are they not championing the Bangladeshi Hindus, and using it as a rallying point for all Indians who recognize the immorality of remaining silent while others were oppressed?  Similarly in my travels in West Bengal, when I offered to act with others to protest what is happening there, the response almost always was “people are afraid.”  That made sense when we were speaking with refugees who have known nothing in the way of protection or the law.  But this was the answer of Indian citizens; often people whose organizations claim to be working for the refugees.  Thus in my advocacy for the refugees in the West, I encounter skepticism from those who question India’s silence if things are so dire; who question why there are few public protests and little follow when they do occur; who ask after hearing about attacks inside India, why none of the 800 million Indian Hindus have traveled to these camps to defend the victims against Islamist aggression.

 

[For more information about how people can help the Bangladeshi Hindus in India and elsewhere, they should contact Dr. Benkin via email:   drrbenkin@comcast.net.]

Congress Christian politics

Filed under: Christian Missionaries, Communists, Hindu, Indian congress, Islam, Muslims, Sonia gandhi — truecongresspolitics @ 1:50 pm

http://bihartimes.com/viewersvoice/2008/Oct/vv92.html

 

(Bihar Times)Change of any kind is always met by resistance of various kinds across the civilisation and period. It is logical  to ascertain all pros and cons of new status as all change is not productive and conducive. Same is the case with conversion from one religion to another as is the case with change all conversion is not out of conviction of faith but many other materialistic reasons and disguise. Conversion is quite old phenomena across globe and also in India. It  is history that Islam and Christanity in India is result of Hindus getting converted in to respective religion and there are various reasons which fuel this process over the period of time. One of the foremost reasons was governance. During the rule of  Mughals and Muslim large number of population got converted to Islam. Similarly during the  era of British large population got in to fold of Christianity. This indicates that ruler encourages people to follow religion of its own to rule longer without much hassles hence ruler to patronises the act of conversion. In modern India theory of governance remains the same where as different political ideologue supports and patronize particular caste and religion to create its own vote bank.  

Recently there has been incidence of attack on churches in those parts of the country which has seen large scale conversion which has got weeks and weeks of coverage in newspaper and news channel without counting on cause of such mass upheaval. The reason that is propagated for violence is Sangparivar and specifically Bajrang Dal and not cold blooded murder of Saint Lakshman Das and his disciple and if you want to ascertain that check with people around you who will be aware of attack on churches but have not even heard of name of saint, forget the killing. This is happening because neither it  serves the vote bank politics nor  their purpose to become bigger and better secularist than others. To understand this nepotism from state and its bandwagon we need to understand the psychology of people who is ruling the nation since independence and their interest. They have created a platform under the banner of secularism where every act of getting there is considered as legal and morally correct and rewarded by state and rest are considered as sin and faces brutality of state. This over a century or so has created anger among Hindus who is felt left out in running the country on just principals. Hence anger is manifested in way of violence and is increasing every day because if you don’t give them space and redressal they chose alternate method of redressing their grievances and easiest way out is violence. At the same time the appeasement policy of state towards few on name of minoritism and secularism pampers them up to a level of making  brat out of them who wants everything which is suited to them whether it is due or undue. The reasons for fueling disintegration among Hindus in so many classes is to feed the same ruling class to reach to power and any act which is perceived as disturbing the equilibrium is met vehemently. You will observe the same political class which has created OBC, MBC, SC, ST further  differentiated on line of Sikh, Buddhist and Jain  etc among Hindus will oppose any bifurcation among Christians and Muslims because if they are divided in same way the Hindus are;their whole purpose of getting unified vote from those religion will be defeated hence they treat Muslim and Christian as single entity respectively. Thus purpose of their opposition is not violence but violence against their interest if violence would have been the cause then killing of saint along with many other Hindus would have also seen same emotions expressed by concern people. This is the trend for all the issue whether it is Godhra train carnage followed by Gujurat riots, re-conversion of converts to Hinduism, infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims followed by reaction of aborigines of Assam, stoppage of Amarnath yatra and many other such incidences. Hence the attack on Christians in Orissa , Karnataka and other part of the country is vent to anger against governance and evangelist who lure week and poor in to conversion. If you dig deep in to it you will find violence is not initiated by Hindus but by perpetrators of conversion who killed holy soul in Orissa for his service to mankind which unfortunately not serving the interest of them. In Karnataka numerous booklets have been circulated among people which de-generate Hindu tradition and almighty to infuse inferiority complex among not so enrich Hindus and it has been resisted by mass upheaval. Blaming sangparivar or even thinking of banning it will be adding fuel to fire as it is treated as the only nationalist organization working for betterment of nation. The irony is that the reason given for conversion is not pursued for re-conversion and all hue and cries happens when they see people going back to their forefather’s religious fold . That’s the prominent reason of killing the torch bearer of Gharwapsy (Reconversion) at many places in country. There are schools and a colleges run by missionaries openly serves beef to Hindu student without giving them option. Can they do same with Muslims by serving pigs? The reason is that they are bigger vote bank than them and hence will get support from same political class who supported them against Hindus.  

We can have numerous intellectual discussions on violence and can send umpteen company of paramilitary but will not be successful to quell that because no amount of security personnel can fight with mass. The risk is if you continue to do that security personnel will turn towards mass as they also come from same society with same emotions and feelings. Eg: Mumbai riots and Gujurat riots. To deal with situation one need to understand the ground realities and can’t allow conversion without hassles and ban or discourage re-conversion by creating numerous hurdles. Though you can win many or most of the debate in your respective intellectual circles but can’t pause the violence at the ground level as common people may not have opportunity nor ability to shut debate but have enormous ability to change the ground realities and continuance of same will force majority towards defiance which we are observing in way of violence. Isn’t it duty of state to stop infiltration across border and if people or organization has taken the responsibility of state why is unwarranted ? Though state could catch some and prosecute few on the name of minority appeasement but will not be able to save their life from majority for long. We need to think what could be logic of not having uniform civil code even after half centuary of independence to eradicate religion personal code which is heavily lopsided towards minorities.  

The tradition and culture of this land which is one of the ancient and valuable than other will extinguish with unmindful conversion of Hindus in to others as conversion changes the whole perspective of individual towards civilisation that carried by their forefather with so much pride because the religion which is not indigenous to land will carry its own fancies from land of its origin. Do we allow that ? The question which haunts one is  how come  organisation or person who is serving converts to re-convert in to its original religion could be termed as enemy of nation ? The logical answer probably will be in not but where logic and vested interest precedes the national interest that is in our country will be yes.  

The message to the state is that you can beat the drum of minoritism in your own den but will be hardly successful in quelling the violence if your acts and principals are not convincing enough to mass. One needs to see the people of all religion with one eye and credit should be given to majority in case of India Hindus for their brotherhood treatment towards other religion because facts and figures of approach of other religion is starkly opposite to Hindus in their own land of origin or acquired. Ponder a bit on few incidence of near past where state and PM of country ashamed and lost sleep on backlash towards Christians and arrest of individual from Muslim community in foreign land but have stomach full of sleep and pride on Hindus not allowed to wear turbans ,nose rings and drove from their home by  propagators of same communities who are majority in those land .  
In case we don’t stand on the face of conversion be prepare for facing situation where you will be drove from your own towns , villages, societies and homes.
 
 Message is equality for all appeasement to none. 

 


October 24, 2008

Truths about christian nun’s rapes in india and CNN-IBN, NDTV, Congress and Churches

Filed under: Christian Missionaries, Communists, India, Indian congress, Sonia gandhi — truecongresspolitics @ 3:29 pm

 An incident occurred on 8 December, 1998. Tribals attacked the police station at Udaygiri, stormed the jail, dragged two under trial prisoners out, and lynched them to death in front of the police station. After that, they burnt houses belonging to members of a particular caste, Pana. The incident too was projected as a Hindu-Christian encounter. It was nothing of the kind. The tribals were being harassed by criminals who happened to be from the Pana caste. The police had been doing nothing. One day the criminals robbed tribals of all their cash as they were proceeding to seek employment. That ignited the flash. But a Hindu-Christian clash it became! That is one lesson, and Justice Wadhwa draws special attention to it: the press should not rush to conclusions before it has investigated the facts. The facts he has recorded urge that the caution be made specific: the press should be particularly wary of going by allegations of communalism-mongers. 

 Additional D. G. P. John Nayak reportedly said that the communal angle to the attempted rape and murder could not be ruled out….” “A certain political party even blamed the State and Central Governments,” Justice Wadhwa recalls, “and stated that the inaction of the State Government in the Manoharpur missionary killing incident (the killing of Staines and his sons) and the alleged rape of the nun in Baripada encouraged miscreants to commit yet another crime in Kandhamal.” “In short,” he concludes, “as per various reports that appeared in the newspapers, the incident was taken as an attack on the Christians. And what turned out to be the truth? “Ultimately investigation revealed that the crime was committed by a relative of the victims who was also a Christian,” the Commission notes. 

 B. B. Panda, Director General of Police, stated that the ‘rape of the nun’ case was projected and highlighted all over the world and was also projected as an attack on Christians when in fact it was not true, and the case turned out to be false. It is the duty of the Government to verify the virginity of this nun and publish a report and then demand an apology from the christians of India. The christians of Kerala is of low morals and this was one reason for their great progress in the Gulf countries. The Hindus should file a PIL to demand compensation from the christian church for the defamation. A second incident of murder of two kids 10 and 19 years happened on 7-2-1999. “This incident again attracted a great deal of publicity in the media, including electronic media,” writes Justice Wadhwa. “Newspapers came up with the headings, ‘Two Christians killed, one injured in Orissa,’ ‘2 tribal Christians done to death in Kandhamal,’ and ‘Orissa hunts for Christians’ killer’. 

 All these rape stories were based on the statement of a christian pastor. The statements to the press by the pastor of the Church highlighted the role of some Hindu fundamentalist organizations. Electronic media was not far behind. The rape was highlighted as an anti-Christian attack. Newspapers quoted teachers of a Christian convent school saying, “A communal conspiracy is suspected to be behind the rape.” There indeed was a conspiracy, and a communal one at that. The whole thing was a conspiracy by the Christian church. The christians in India have an agenda to paint Hindus as communalists on the rampage. The christians wanted to paint the RSS, BJP etc. as organizations which are orchestrating a “pogrom”. Investigations revealed that what Sister Mary said in the FIR was not true, and was a made up story reports Justice Wadhwa. Investigations found that there was in fact no rape of Sister Mary. 

 The criminalized christian church of India is seen stooping so low in morality that they are willing to claim rape of the christian nuns to defame the Hindus of India. These dastardly christians are a threat to India.and they were working as a fifth column community in BritishIndia. From Kerala this christian missionary virus has spread to Orissa and what we read about rape of a nun was from the imagination of the Kerala christian virus. How low these cretins can go to further the conversions was revealed in the fake rapes of the christian nuns in Orissa. Rape of Sister Jacqueline Mary on 3 February, 1999 was a bogus story by christian church and the christian pastor misguided the media. The media headline later declared “Orissa nun raped in moving car,” Next was “Orissa’s second stain: nun raped,” shouted the Indian Express, “Nun gang raped by men in sari in Orissa,” hollered The Telegraph. The village “has become the rallying point of Christians of the area,” the papers procl 

 Sr. Anjo a 22 year old nun of SH Convent, who was donated to the church when she was a child by her poor christian parents, wanted to give up the veil and wanted to become an ordinary citizen. But the convent refused and she ended her life by hanging on a ceiling fan on 29th December 2003. Sr. Ancy, 32, of Bethany Convent of Ranny-Perunnadu was the next victim in the well of the convent. On 23rd June 2006 Sr. Lisa of Saint Francis Clarist Convent of Iravuchira, Kottayam, was found dead after consuming poison. More than a dozen such murders have taken place in the last 20 years and every murder was covered up. 

 Rome admitted on 20-3-2001 that it is aware priests from 23 countries have been raping nuns. Priests are vowed to celibacy in Christianity as thet consider sex as dirty. Priests frequent prostitutes and with AIDS they are raping nuns to avoid Aids. Priests demand sex in exchange for favours, such as certification to work in a given diocese and many a time nuns became pregnant and had abortions. Sex priests are moved or sent away for studies, the women are chased out of church. Nuns are then either too scared to return to their families or are rejected by them. and often end up as outcasts, or, as prostitutes, making a meagre living from an act they had vowed never to do. In one case when sister died during abortion and her rapist priest led the funeral mass. 29 sisters from the same congregation became pregnant to priests in the diocese. Many incidents of sex by priests on nuns took place within the Vatican walls. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n14367971 

 Mostly the rape and murder of nuns are committed by the priests. Many nuns posted at distant villages claim fake rape to show that they are being attacked by other communities. Two weeks after the rape and murder of Sr. Abhaya by the priests, another nun Sr. Mercy was found dead in a waterless pond in the compound of the convent at Mukkootuthara in the Kottayam district. Murder became drowning in the hands of Christian policemen.. Next convent-death was Sr. Paulcy of the Snehagiri or Hill of Love Convent of Palai near Kottayam. On 17th May 2000. she was murdered by poisoning after she had seen the details of foreign remittance flowing in to the convent. No other inmates of the convent is affected with food poison. After a couple of months, the body of Sr. Sofi, a 27 year old nun of Velliyappally Valakkattu Convent of Palai was found in the well of the convent. 

October 18, 2008

Christian War on India and hindus

Filed under: Christian Missionaries, Hindu, India, Indian congress, Sonia gandhi — truecongresspolitics @ 4:31 pm

Watch how christians and their missionaries are destorying India and Killing Hindus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71O8LzOWaWo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0drCTLO5hWA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thkV58mr8VE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrmeOCAZFKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jCikMspfM8

October 17, 2008

truth about indian media cnn-ibn ndtv etc..

Filed under: Christian Missionaries, Hindu, Indian congress, RSS, Sonia gandhi — truecongresspolitics @ 11:04 pm

Who are raping christian nuns?

http://indiainteracts.com/utilities/printpage.php?source=blogcontent&id=2290&postid=39

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCEO4Rw9Zd8

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FNQqFs1pRw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZl3VefPtCw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvNf_TudjEk

Truths about sonia gandhi and rahul gandhi

Filed under: Christian Missionaries, Indian congress, Sonia gandhi — truecongresspolitics @ 10:59 pm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4429400474217380163&ei=eYfySPCNJaO2qAPJu9CQDg&q=subramanian+swamy

 

http://www.janataparty.org/sonia.html

October 9, 2008

The Ethics of Religious Conversion by christian missionaries

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — truecongresspolitics @ 2:39 am

The Ethics of Religious Conversion

 
PRAJNA JOURNAL
APRIL – JUNE 1999
VOLUME 3 NUMBER 2
 
The Ethics of Religious Conversions – Dr. David Frawley
 
Conversion has always been a topic that arouses, if not
inflames our human emotions. After all, the missionary is
trying to persuade a person to change his religious belief
which concerns the ultimate issues of life and death, the very
meaning of our existence. And the missionary is usually
denigrating the person’s current belief, which may represent a
strong personal commitment or a long family or cultural
tradition, calling it inferior, wrong, sinful or even
perverse.
 
Such statements are hardly polite or courteous and are often
insulting and derogatory. The missionary is not coming with an
open mind for sincere discussion and give and take dialogue,
but already has his mind made up and is seeking to impose his
opinion on others, often even before he knows what they
actually believe or do. It is difficult to imagine a more
stressful human encounter short of actual physical violence.
Missionary activity always holds an implicit psychological
violence, however discreetly it is conducted. It is aimed at
turning the minds and hearts of people away from their native
religion to one that is generally unsympathetic and hostile to
it.
 
In this article I will address conversion and missionary
activity mainly with regard to Christianity, which has so
commonly employed and insisted upon the practice. Indeed it is
difficult to imagine the Christian religion apart from
missionary activity, which has been the backbone of the faith
for most of its history. Christianity has mainly been an
outward looking religion seeking to convert the world. In this
process it has seldom been open to real dialogue with other
religions. It has rarely examined its own motives or the harm
that such missionary activity has caused, even though the
history of its missionary activity has been tainted with
intolerance, genocide and the destruction not only of
individuals but of entire cultures.
 
But much of this discussion applies to Islam as well, which
shares an agenda with Christianity to convert the world to its
particular belief. As an American raised as a Catholic and who
attended Catholic school and then later adapted Hindu-based
spiritual teachings, I can perhaps provide another angle on
this topic that hopefully will give ground for new thinking. I
had to break through much religious intolerance and prejudice
to make the changes that I did.
 
Conversion and the Missionary Business
 
First let us define what we mean by conversion. Let us
immediately clearly discriminate between conversion or change
of beliefs that happens in free human interchange in open
discussion as opposed to organized conversion efforts that
employ financial, media or even armed persuasion. That certain
individuals may influence other individuals to adapt one
religious belief or another has seldom been a problem. There
should be open and friendly discussion and debate about
religion just as there is about science. But when one religion
creates an agenda of conversion and mobilizes massive
resources to that end, targeting unsuspecting, poor or
disorganized groups, it is no longer a free discussion. It is
an ideological assault. It is a form of religious violence and
intolerance.
 
Organized conversion efforts are quite another matter than the
common dialogue and interchange between members of different
religious communities in daily life, or even than organized
discussions in forums or academic settings. Organized
conversion activity is like a trained army invading a country
from the outside. This missionary army often goes into
communities where there is little organized resistance to it,
or which may not even be aware of its power or its motives. It
will even take advantage of communities that are tolerant and
open- minded about religion and use that to promote a
missionary agenda that destroys this tolerance.
 
Such organized conversion efforts often go by the name of
evangelization. The Catholic Church uses this term for its
long-standing conversion efforts. Fundamentalist Protestant
Christians call their movement the evangelical movement.
Evangelization sounds nicer and more ennobling than
conversion. But let us be clear about the matter. The
Evangelist aim is to convert the entire world to the Christian
faith, which naturally implies the rejection of other
religions. Such evangelical movements have world conversion
strategies and programs to target India and Hindus state by
state, tribe by tribe, even village by village. They keep
track of the numbers of converts and mark them in the win
column as gains for Christ. Organized conversion and
evangelical efforts are not interested in dialogue or in
learning from other religious groups. Such organizations have
their mind made up that theirs is the true faith and they are
unwilling to grant equality to any other belief. Real dialogue
is only possible when there is equality and open-mindedness.
This cannot occur between a missionary faith and the faith
that it is targeting anymore than it can happen between a
hunter and his prey. If missionaries initiate dialogue it is
either to promote conversion or to protect their converts. The
missionary is not about to change his mind, believe that he
might be wrong about something or accept any other point of
view that might compromise his conversion agenda.
 
The missionary business remains one of the largest in the
world and has enormous funding on many levels. It is like
several multinational corporations with the different
Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical groups involved. There
are full-time staffs and organizations allocating money,
creating media hype, plotting strategies and seeking new ways
to promote conversion. The local native religion has about as
much chance against such multinational incursions as a local
food seller has if McDonald’s moves into his neighborhood with
a slick, well-funded advertising campaign targeting his
customers. Yet while many Third World countries have
government policies to protect local businesses, they usually
do not have any safety mechanism to protect local religions.
 
In fact, missionary activity is like an ideological war. It is
quite systematic, motivated and directed. It can even resemble
a blitzkrieg using media, money, people and public shows to
appeal to the masses in an emotional way. Therefore, with
missionary activity we are not talking about unplanned,
spontaneous or isolated events. We are talking about a
religious effort towards world conquest that is quite happy to
put an end to other religious traditions, that looks to
establish one particular religion for all human beings in
which the diversity of human religions is discredited and
forgotten.
 
Regions where missionary activity has been successful have
seen their older traditions demoted or destroyed, whether it
is those of the pagan Europeans, the native Americans, or the
pre-Islamic Arabs. Hinduism would likely fall along the same
wayside should it lose the battle against missionary
religions, just as Hinduism in Islamic Pakistan has all but
disappeared.
 
Missionary activity and conversion, therefore, is not about
freedom of religion. It is about the attempt of one religion
to exterminate all others. Such an exclusive attitude cannot
promote tolerance or understanding or resolve communal
tensions. The missionary wants to put an end to pluralism,
choice and freedom of religion. He wants one religion, his
own, for everyone and will sacrifice his life to that cause.
 
True freedom of religion should involve freedom from
conversion. The missionary is like a salesman targeting people
in their homes or like an invader seeking to conquer. Such
disruptive activity is not a right and it cannot promote
social harmony. In fact, people should have the right not to
be bothered by missionaries unless they seek them out. Those
of us in the West are irritated by local missionaries like the
Jehovah’s Witnesses that often come soliciting at our doors.
Can one imagine the distress or confusion they could cause to
some poor person in Asia? Once let into the door, it is hard
to get them out.
 
Religious freedom should not be a license for one country or
one community to wage religious war against another. Even if
this conversion battle is softened by charities it is still
hostile in its intent and destructive in its action.
 
History of Conversion
 
Let us look at the history of conversion, how it arose and
what it has become through time. Organized conversion on a
mass scale hardly existed anywhere in the world before the
advent of Christianity some two thousand years ago. It became
particularly strong after the Roman Empire became Christian in
the fourth century. This resulted in a Roman or Imperial
Church that used the resources of the Empire, including the
army, to promote the religion, which was a state institution.
Church and state became closely tied and one was used to
uphold the other. This alliance of church and state occurred
well into the Middle Ages and into the nineteenth century
throughout much of Europe.
 
In the seventh century, Islam brought about a religion in
which church and state, or religion and politics were not
simply allied but became the same, with the Caliph functioning
as both the religious and secular head of the Empire. This
non-division between religion and politics continues in most
Islamic countries today, including Pakistan, which has gone so
far recently to proclaim the Koran as the supreme law of the
land, though it is not a secular law book or any kind of law
book. Can one imagine a Western country proclaiming the Bible
as the law of the land? Yet the church dominated the laws of
Europe for centuries.
 
Prior to adapting Christianity, Rome had its state religion
but this existed largely as a show for political purposes –
the worship of the Emperor. Rome tolerated all other religions
as long as they gave a nominal and political support to the
state religion. The Romans persecuted Christians not because
they were intolerant of religious differences but because they
expected all religious groups to at least afford this nominal
recognition for the state religion, which the Christians
refused to do.
 
When Christianity became the state religion, because of the
belief that it alone was the true religion, this tolerance of
other religions came to an end in the Roman Empire. Pagan
temples and schools were closed, if not replaced by churches
or even destroyed, including the closing of the great Platonic
Academy in Athens in the sixth century. Paganism in all of its
forms was eventually banned as not only false, but also as
immoral and illegal. Pagan, or even unorthodox groups,
continued to be oppressed in Europe up to the witches of the
Middle Ages, which resulted in the deaths of millions in the
name of religion and protecting the church.
 
In the colonial period, Christian missionary activity spread
throughout the world and brought with it a great violence and
intolerance that continued the anti-pagan crusades as part of
colonialism. Missionary efforts in the colonial period, with
some exceptions, contributed to, or even brought about, the
tremendous genocide of native populations not only in America
but also in Africa and Asia. Native peoples had their
religions banned, their holy places destroyed or taken over by
the Christians. The history of the Spanish in Mexico and Peru
in the sixteenth century is comparable to the Nazis of this
century, if not worse, pillaging and plundering a continent in
the name of and with the blessings of the church. This process
of missionary colonialism reached its zenith in the nineteenth
century, in which Native Africans were the main group subject
to genocide, and it is only now slowly declining. However,
missionary groups have done little to apologize much less to
atone for the violence and hatred this five hundred years of
colonialism created, and which destroyed many traditional
religions and cultures.
 
In fact colonialism has not truly ended but has recently taken
a more economic rather than military, form along with the
Westernization along economic lines. As Christianity is the
dominant Western religion, it continues to use the current
economic expansion of Western culture to promote its
conversion agendas. The greater financial resources and media
dominance of the West affords Christianity a great edge in
religious and social encounters throughout the world. Even
when it is a question of a Christian minority in a land
dominated by a non-Christian religion, the non-Christians are
often at a disadvantage in terms of money and media through
the Western support that the Christian community has,
particularly in regard to its conversion activities.
 
Though most countries in the world today are secular, this
still has not created a level playing field in the area of
religion. Western religions are still taking an aggressive,
intolerant, if not predatory role toward non-Western beliefs.
They are using financial and media advantages, including mass
marketing, to promote their agenda of conversion. Though
missionary activity became less overt after the end of the
colonial era, it still goes on. And we cannot forget the
bloody history of missionary activity or its potential for
disruption, violence and destruction should the circumstance
again arise.
 
The main reason that there is secularism and religious freedom
in the West is not because of Christianity but owing to an
older secular Greco-Roman tradition that was pagan in nature
and managed to reassert itself against Christian intolerance
after the Renaissance. Unfortunately, Western countries are
far less discriminating of Christianity for export and its
missionary aggression than they are of its actions in the
West. While Christianity is largely subdued in the West, where
few people are pious or take religion seriously, its old
medieval aggression and intolerance easily comes out in
missionary circles overseas.
 
The Motivation Behind Conversion
 
What is the motivation behind conversion activities? Why
should one person want to convert another to his or her
religious belief? In a pluralistic world, such as we live,
there are many different types of culture, art, language,
business and religion that contribute much to the richness of
society. Why should we demand that everyone be like us in
terms of anything, including religion? Isn’t this diversity
the very beauty of culture and our greater human heritage?
 
Clearly the missionary seeking converts must believe that
other people cannot find their goal of life by any other
religion than the one that he is propagating. Otherwise there
would be no need to convert anyone. And generally, the
missionary is not simply announcing that he has something good
or better, like someone who has invented a better light bulb.
He is usually claiming that his religion is the one true faith
and that the others are either inferior, out of date, or
simply false.
 
One could argue therefore that the conversion mentality is
inherently intolerant. If I recognize that many religions are
good and religious belief should be arrived at freely and
without interference, then I will not create a massive
organization to convert other people to my belief and get them
to renounce what they already have. Only an intolerant and
exclusive religious ideology requires conversion or funds it
on a massive scale.
 
In short conversion activity is anti-secular. It does not
tolerate the religious differences that must exist in a truly
secular society but aims at eliminating them. The irony is
that secular law provides the religious freedom that allows
conversion activity to go on. The very missionaries that once
used colonial armies to promote their conversion agendas are
now maintaining them in the post-colonial era under the guise
of freedom of religion. The very groups that denied or limited
religious freedom when they were in power in the colonial era,
now use freedom of religion to keep those same missionary
activities going! This is both ironical and hypocritical!
 
Generally, missionary efforts are stronger to the degree that
the missionary is opposed to the religions that people already
follow. The old dominant Christian strategy, which many
Protestant groups still promote, is to denigrate non-Biblical
beliefs as heathen, or the work of the devil. Evangelical
missionaries still identify Hinduism with devil worship. Pat
Robertson and Jerry Falwell, two of the most influential
American evangelical leaders say this repeatedly, as do their
followers, and they are sponsoring missionary activity in
India as well. Naturally this gives a missionary much zeal and
intensity, saving souls from the clutches of evil and driving
out demons.
 
Such a zealous missionary inevitably spreads misunderstanding,
venom and hatred in society. If I am promoting the idea that
your religion is a work of the devil, can I be regarded as a
friend or well-wisher to your community? Can such views help
your community to understand itself or reconcile community
differences?
 
Today it is illegal in most countries to promote racial
hatred, to call a person of any race inferior or the product
of the devil (which white Christians used to call the blacks
until recently). But Hindus can still be denigrated as
polytheists, idolaters and devil-worshippers. This is
tolerated under freedom of religion, though it obviously
breeds distrust, if not hatred and itself is prejudicial.
Prejudicial statements that are not allowed about race are
allowed about religion, and missionaries commonly employ these
derogatory remarks.
 
In fact most Christians view Hinduism like the pagan religions
that the early Christians had to overcome, the Roman, Greek,
Celtic, Egyptians and Babylonian religions, which do have much
in common with Hinduism. Equating Hindus with Biblical
idolaters promotes the history of missionary aggression and
religious conflict. Most such Christians have never seriously
or open-mindedly studied Hinduism or other pagan beliefs. They
know little of Yoga and Vedanta or the great traditions of
Hindu and Buddhist spirituality. They prefer to highlight the
Hindu worship of God even in animal images like Hanuman as a
form of superstition or evil.
 
The Catholic Church is a bit more diplomatic these days. It is
now telling Hindus that their religion may have some value but
that Christianity is even better! Such a view is a bit more
tolerant but cannot be called sincere either. If Catholics no
longer believe that Hinduism is a religion of the Devil, as
they were promoting until only recently, they ought to
apologize to Hindus for their mistaken notions and the
problems that these must have caused.
 
Discriminating Hindus can only look upon this more tolerant
Catholicism of the post-colonial era as an attempt to maintain
the edge of the Church in a less politically favorable era.
The Catholics say they respect the spiritual philosophies of
India, which they for centuries failed to note, but still feel
it necessary to convert Hindus to their religion. What kind of
respect is that?
 
The Ideology of Conversion
 
Conversion reflects a certain ideology. In fact it mainly
involves getting people to change beliefs, ideas or ideology.
Conversion demands that we follow a certain ideology and
reject others. The dominant ideology behind organized
conversion efforts is that of an exclusive monotheistic
religion. There is only one God, one book, one saviour, one
final prophet and so on. Most Christian missionaries try to
get people to accept Christ as their personal saviour and
Christianity in one form or another as the true faith for all
humanity.
 
A religion that is pluralistic in nature like the Hindu cannot
have such a conversion-based ideology. Hindus accept that
there are many paths, so naturally they will not feel
compelled to get everyone to abandon their own path and follow
the Hindu path instead. In fact there is no one Hindu path but
rather a variety of paths, with new paths coming into being
every day.
 
It has long been the dominant belief of Christians and Muslims
that only members of their religion go to heaven, while
members of other religions go to hell, particularly
idol-worshipping Hindus and other pagans. This promise of
heaven and threat of hell has long been used for conversion
purposes and is a prime part of the ideology and its
propaganda. Christians have often been motivated by this
medieval heaven-hell idea in their conversion efforts. The old
nineteenth century idea was a Christian missionary going to
Asia to save the pagan babies from the clutches of hell.
 
This eternal heaven-hell idea does arouse a certain passion as
well as intolerance, but one can hardly call it enlightened.
In fact, it causes emotional imbalance in people, which many
Christians, particularly Catholics, have sought psychological
help to overcome.
 
A God who has created heaven for his believers and hell for
those who follow other religious beliefs is a recipe not only
for missionary activity but also for emotional turbulence and
violence. In fact, this promise of great rewards and threats
of great punishment is the basis of most forms of
conditioning, brain-washing and hypnosis. It is the dominant
strategy of all mind-control cults.
 
Conversion, Charity and Social Upliftment
 
Many missionaries claim today that they are not seeking
converts but merely doing charity, trying to help the
downtrodden in life. Given the mentality behind conversion
efforts and its history, one can only greet that statement
with skepticism, though in a few isolated instances it may be
true. The very missionaries that only recently used colonial
governments and armies to their advantage cannot be regarded
as suddenly without any overt conversion motivations.
 
However, if missionaries simply want to bring about social
upliftment, then why don’t they just open up a hospital or
school and give up all the religious trappings about it. As
long as the religious ornaments are there in these charitable
institutions they are still seeking converts. Once you give
your charity or social work a religious guise, the conversion
motivation must be there and communal disharmony is likely to
be promoted even by your charities.
 
If missionaries want to uplift society they can do that
through education or economic help on a secular level. There
is no need to bring religion into it. That is how societies
have uplifted themselves throughout the world, whether it is
the United States or Japan. It was not religious charity that
raised up these countries economically. In fact bringing
religion into social upliftment confuses the issue. Converting
people to an exclusive creed does not eradicate poverty or
disease, much less promote the cause of religious harmony.
 
The Philippines, the most predominant and oldest Christian
country in Asia, is one of the poorest countries in the
region. Conversion to Christianity did not raise the country
economically. Central and South America, which are much more
staunchly Catholic and religious than North America, are also
much poorer and have a lower level of education. In fact, the
more evangelic and orthodox forms of Christianity are more
popular in poorer and less educated groups in the West.
Fundamentalist Christianity is more common in America with
farmers and those who did not go to college. Educated people
in the West are less likely to be staunch Christians, and many
of them look to Eastern religions for spiritual guidance.
 
In India, Christians claim that by eradicating the caste
system they are helping people and raising them up socially.
They could do this easier by helping reform Hindu society
rather than by trying to destroy or change the religion.
Clearly they are using, if not promoting, caste differences as
a conversion strategy. Christian cultures still have their
class and other social inequalities, particularly in Central
and South America, but Christians do not see that the religion
has to be changed in order to get rid of these.
 
The desire to help people in terms of social upliftment and
the desire to change their religion are clearly not the same
and can be contradictory. Changing a person’s religion may not
help them in terms of health, education, or economics.
 
A similar argument is that the conversion effort is part of
service to humanity, that the missionary is motivated by love
of humanity. This is also questionable. If you are motivated
by love of humanity you will help people regardless of their
religious background. You will try to help people in a
practical way rather than aim at getting them to embrace your
religious belief. You will also love their religion, even if
it is an aborigine worshipping a stone. You will give
unconditional love to people, which is not the love of Jesus
or the Church, but universal love. You will not condemn any
person to hell for not following your particular belief. You
will not interfere with that person’s religious motivation and
seek to convert him to your belief. You will honor the Divine
in that person and in his belief.
 
Such social work born of love is hardly to be found in
missionary Christianity, though it likes to pretend that this
is the motivation. If one were truly motivated by love of
humanity and the need to serve humanity, one would not promote
massive conversion agendas. In fact, one would regard such
practices as inhumane, which they are.
 
Conversion and Cults: Religious Freedom in the West
 
In the West there is a cry against cults, which any religious
movement out of mainstream Christianity can be called. There
is a tendency to regard Hindu-based religious movements in the
West as cults. Under the guise of being a cult, a religious
organization can be sued for millions of dollars if even one
disgruntled or disappointed former disciple can be found who
feels that they were taken advantage of. Many Hindu-based and
yoga movements in the West have been sued as cults.
 
The criticism against cults is that they are outside the
cultural religious norm, that they are intolerant of majority
religions, that they divide families and turn individuals
against their upbringing. Precisely the same charges can be
levelled against missionaries all over the world. The early
Romans, for the same reasons, regarded Christianity as a cult.
 
People in India may believe that, in America, all religions
are treated equally. Certainly the law requires that, but this
is not the fact of life. For example, it is still very
difficult for Hindus to build temples in the United States,
particularly in areas in which fundamentalist Christians are
strong, like the Bible belt of the South. To put it in
perspective, one would say that it is over ten times harder in
America to build a temple than it is to build a church. In
many areas, temples must not outwardly look like a temple, but
should look like a school or church, or the local governments
would not approve of them. While there are a few Hindu-style
temples in America these are exceptional and took special
efforts to be allowed.
 
Most Americans believe that Hinduism is a religion of cults.
Organized Christian cult-busting legal groups, with dozens of
lawyers and budgets in the many millions, go around
systematically encouraging suits against Hindu or Indian
religious groups. Such groups as the Hare Krishnas (ISKCON),
TM, Ananda (a Yogananda group), the Himalayan Institute,
Rajneesh and the Sikhs under Yogi Bhajan, to mention a few,
have had to face such suits and sometimes settlements in the
millions against them. These actions are religious bullying by
Christian groups, not a form of justice.
 
What Christians in America cannot do overtly because of
religious freedom in the country, they are still managing to
do covertly through the legal system. Any prominent
Hindu-based teacher in America, particularly one who is
working with the general American public or bringing people
from Christianity to Hindu-based teachings, remains under a
severe legal threat. Should any Hindu-based group, like the
Hare Krishnas, actively seek converts in the West, they are
likely to face severe litigation on many fronts. On the other
hand, Christian missionaries in India do not have to endure
those types of legal threats or legal suits that can put them
out of business, even if their proselytizing efforts are much
more aggressive.
 
Meanwhile Western textbooks and the Western media routinely
portray Hinduism as cults, idolatry, or even as eroticism.
Such negative portrayals of Christianity would not be allowed
in the Indian press. These views contribute to anti-Hindu and
pro-missionary attitudes. Even in the universities,
discussions of world religions often leave Hinduism out,
precisely because it is not a conversion-seeking religion,
even though it is the third largest religion in the world!
 
So let us not pretend that the West is enlightened or tolerant
about religion. The legal secularism of the West still hides
much religious prejudice. We also note that the West
politically will defend Christian interests overseas and
criticize alleged discrimination against Christians. However,
it will ignore discrimination against non-Christians,
particularly if done by Christians. Recently the Russians
criticized the Mormons, an evangelical American Christian
group, as a cult. The American government lodged a protest to
protect the Mormons and their missionary activity in Russia.
No Indian government so far has made any such protest to
protect Hindu groups in the West.
 
And let us not forget the religious intolerance of communists
and Marxists historically, though in India these days it is
fashionable for Marxists to portray themselves as defenders of
religious freedom. Stalin was perhaps the world’s greatest
destroyer of both churches and mosques but his pictures adorn
the government buildings of Kerala and Bengal.
 
The Destructive Effect of Missionary Activities in Tribal
Cultures
 
The history of missionary activity is one of intolerance and
violence, with only rare episodes of love and charity. This
comes out particularly when the missionaries come into a
primitive or tribal culture.
 
There is a beauty in tribal cultures, like the beauty of the
wilderness itself. You know that wherever the developers go,
the wilderness is destroyed and many species perish. So too,
wherever missionaries go, tribal cultures are destroyed and
much of human heritage goes with it. What missionary honors
the non-Christian cultures of the world or seeks to protect
them? On the other hand, Hinduism does not interfere with
native and tribal beliefs but seeks to share with them and
learn from them.
 
There is a beauty in non-Biblical beliefs like Hinduism,
Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shinto and the many native
beliefs. The old pagan religions of Europe had their beauty
and profundity. This is lost on the missionary mind that only
sees potential converts held in the clutches of false beliefs.
 
Followers of missionary religions must recognize that their
religion is hostile to other religions like Hinduism, even if
it has good feelings for the people following that religion.
Yet other religions also represent people and their sincere
beliefs. To target religions is to attack people as well. To
attack Hinduism as a religion is to insult and attack Hindus
as human beings.
 
The Ethics of Conversion
 
Conversion efforts do have their ethics, which are the ethics
of conversion. The ethics of conversion is not secularism. It
is not religious freedom, religious tolerance or honoring
religious pluralism. The ethics of conversion is saving souls,
generally saving souls from damnation. The ethics of
conversion follows an exclusive belief system, a one true
faith. After all, if people are really likely to suffer
eternal damnation for their wrong beliefs, the sincere
missionary must do whatever he can to stop it. The missionary
views the non-Christian as a person who is deluded or even
under the influence of a demoniac force, not simply someone
who has a valid but different opinion about life than he does.
 
This ethics of conversion can override other human ethics in
missionary activity. In order to save souls, which is the
highest missionary ethic, missionaries historically have
resorted to various forms of enticement or even force to
arrive at the desired result of new converts. While these
practices appear intolerant or dishonest in a secular society,
in a religious or colonial society they appear moral. To the
sincere missionary these can appear as necessary indiscretions
to save unwilling souls.
 
Please note that I do not doubt the sincerity of the
missionary in all this. No doubt the missionaries who allowed
the massacre of Native Americans were also sincere in their
beliefs, just as were the white slave-holders in nineteenth
century America. The problem is that they are sincere about a
belief that easily promotes intolerance and harms those of
other beliefs.
 
Therefore, one could argue that conversion is inherently an
unethical practice and inevitably breeds unethical results.
The missionary ethics of saving souls is so compelling to the
missionary that it can easily cause him to compromise the
human rights or integrity of his potential converts. Certainly
the long history of conversion is a history of every sort of
crime, whatever good may have been done along the side.
 
On a spiritual level, one could argue that conversion efforts,
particularly for an exclusive belief, are unspiritual and
unethical. Conversion is a sin against the Divine in man. It
refuses to recognize the religion of another as valid. Above
all, the organized conversion business is one of the meanest
and most underhanded activities of the human being, on par
with war. It seeks to undermine and discredit the natural
faith of people. As we move into a global age, let us set this
messy business of conversion behind, along with the other
superstitions of the Dark Ages.
 
We are all God. There is only one Self in all creatures. Who
is there to convert and what could anyone be converted from?
The soul is Divine. It is not Christian, Islamic or Hindu or
anything else. The soul cannot be saved. It is beyond gain and
loss. We can only understand ourselves. The real goal of
religion is to discover the light of the soul that is not
bound by time, place, person or belief. True religion is to be
true to one’s nature and to respect the nature of others. What
missionary has this attitude or has discovered this truth?
 
Backlash Against Missionaries
 
In recent times there have been some violent backlashes
against missionaries or their religions, which is regrettable.
This has occurred not only in India but also in many other
parts of the world, like Africa or Central America. But given
the intolerance of the missionaries, it is understandable and
cannot be looked at in isolation. You cannot century after
century trash or even destroy the culture and religions of
people in the name of your God and expect that they will just
politely let you go on with it. Particularly if they are poor
or backward people without the financial, legal or government
resources to protect themselves, they may resort to a more
primitive response.
 
Yet the violence of this backlash is minuscule compared to the
physical and psychological violence that the missionaries have
brought about and continue to perpetrate. The anti-Christian
activities in India recently must be viewed in this light.
 
Recently Sonia Gandhi, the head of the Congress Party in
India, though still a member of the Catholic Church which has
yet to renounce its claims as the only true faith or to stop
its missionary efforts against Hindus, quoted Swami
Vivekananda as a spokesperson for true religion. Let us
remember what Vivekananda said to the Americans and in many
other instances about missionary activity:
 
“Whenever your missionaries criticize us please remember this.
If all of India stands up and takes all the mud that is at the
bottom of the Indian Ocean and throws it up against the
Western countries, it will not be doing an infinitesimal part
of that which you are doing to us.”
 
Mahatma Gandhi was also a fierce critic of the missionaries.
Yet, strangely, today it is the Congress Party of India and
various leftists that are defending Christian missionary
activity and painting a picture of Hindu intolerance, ignoring
the whole history and motivation of these massive conversion
efforts against Hindus.
 
Let us also remember the latest word from the Pope in the
“Coming of the Third Millennium”:
 
“The Asia Synod will deal with the challenge for
evangelisation posed by the encounter with ancient religions
such as Buddhism and Hinduism. While expressing esteem for the
elements of truth in these religions, the Church must make it
clear that Christ is the one mediator between God and man and
the sole Redeemer of the world.”
 
In other words all the greatness of Buddhism and Hinduism does
not alter the basic view of Christianity that Christ alone is
the supreme religious figure. No Buddha, Krishna, Ramana
Maharshi or Sri Aurobindo can compare with him. What are the
elements of truth that the Pope is speaking about? If he does
not credit either Buddhism or Hinduism with anything equal to
Jesus, he probably does not give them much credit for their
ideas of karma, dharma or rebirth, their practices of yoga and
meditation, or their entire seeking of enlightenment and
Self-realization that is not defined in terms of Jesus.
Clearly such a statement is condescending. It has abandoned
the old heathen-pagan-idolatry charge but the goal is still
conversion, not respect.
 
Religious Dialogue
 
As a final note, being opposed to organized conversion does
not mean that one should be opposed to discussion and even
debate on religious matters.
 
Missionaries usually target the uneducated and work behind the
scenes. They do not try to create a fair exchange of ideas or
even a debate. They are afraid of being exposed. In fact such
a debate on religious issues is necessary to deal with the
problems caused by missionary activity. The missionaries
usually avoid facing a fair debate on religion and target
those who are not well versed in their own beliefs.
 
More than anything today we need a real religious dialogue, so
that religious conflicts, which have such a potential for
violence, do not occur. This dialogue should be a quest for
truth. It should not aim at proving one religion to be supreme
but at examining the ultimate issues of life. What is the goal
of life? What is the nature of immortality? Is there a
permanent heaven or hell? Is there Self-realization or
Nirvana? What is enlightenment? What is karma? Does the soul
have one or many lives? What is the highest state of
consciousness and how can we achieve it? What practices are
necessary to change human nature from the egoistic to the
Divine? Can mere belief transform us or is knowledge and work
also necessary? Are special psycho-physical techniques
helpful? How do the different religions view such issues?
These are the real issues of religious dialogue.
 
Merely getting a person to change their belief does not
address these complex and profound issues. True religion
requires profound work and examination, particularly of our
own minds and hearts. It is not a matter of mere names,
slogans or labels.
 
In one way, Hindus do lose a lot by converting to a religion
like Christianity or Islam. Hinduism has a much broader scope
of spiritual and yogic practices, philosophies and mystical
teachings than does Christianity. Should a Hindu become a
Christian they lose these and enter into a much more limited
and outward form of religious belief? Hindu teachings of
higher consciousness, self-realization, karma, rebirth,
chakras, and kundalini are almost unknown in Christianity or
rejected as the work of the devil. That is why so many
Americans seeking a spiritual path are attracted to
Hindu-based teachings and leave orthodox and mainstream
Christianity behind.
 
In fact Christianity continues to decline in the West. Very
few new people are taking up the roles of priests and nuns in
the Catholic Church, for example. Partly to replenish their
ranks, the Catholic Church has targeted Asia and, particularly
India, for conversion because Hindus are quite devotional and
easily take up priestly or monastic roles. Meanwhile the
Evangelical Christians are targeting India to counter the
influence of Hindu-based teachings in America, which they find
so threatening as to frequently denounce Hinduism and Hindu
gurus as the religion of the devil.
 
So let us not be naïve about conversion. It is not about
freedom of religion or about social upliftment. The main
conversion activities in the world are part of organized and
well-funded strategies to conquer the world for a single
religious belief that would end religious freedom and
diversity. In this situation it is easy to identify the
predators and the victims. Which are you likely to be and
which are you likely to give your sympathy to?

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.