How do we learn our history? – part-1

Few weeks back, i participated in a blog discussion on Building Bridges. Due to some obvious reasons, i was requested not to further comment in that post, and that i can post my views in my own blog.  Although, i thought of not further participating in that discussion, i just want to complete my thoughts that was not expressed there..

About the post:

The summary of the posts is about removing hatred, and building bridges among people and communities.  The author quotes various books and sources, and highlights hs point on how the entire community is made to be hated.  And also, he prescribes some practical solutions on how to build bridges in simple ways, like establishing bonds with neighbours, caring for them, etc.

One of the key points the author highlights is that history is a great teacher, and we are poor students of it.  And the discussion got heated up, when one of the commenter venkat, highlighted it and made his views..

And my post revolves around this single topic of “Learning from History”

My Comment on the post as a whole:

In general, the core point that the author highlights is noble, and that he insists on humanity, devoid of all discrimination.

But, i feel, the author has been highly idealistic, that’s far away from the ground realities.  As he said, the history had been a great teacher, but he too failed as a student in this post.  Because, he completely ignored the history of the world, and bypassed important topics.

I do not understand How can we learn from the history by ignoring it. Let alone history… how can we understand anything by ignoring it?

These are questions that are never answered in any of the discussions..

Is Divisions Causing Violence:

Next coming to the other important  point the author dealt with is the divisions as “hindus vs muslims”, maharashtrians, tamilians etc.  He expressed his disgust that people were divided  based on numerous identities that is creating violence and hatred.

I should say, this is yet another idealism far away from the reality.  Without understanding how and why those divisions existed, and without understanding how these differences are causing violence, he has simply dejected over it.

If we want to get disgusted, there are virtually numerous things in this worlds.  Will it solve anything?  Will running away from all these issues solve the core problem?

We do not know the solution.. because we do not have the right understanding of the problem..

Overview of the discussions.

I am now focussing on the core aspect of the discussion..  ie, learning from our history.

Venkat started with his comment, that prior to coming of britishers, there were no such divisions as it existed today. and that concept of minorites and regional identities are british creation.

The post author “Abdul” acknowledged the fact that many of the today’s problems was british creation.

But, the discussion heated up when sukumar commented that caste system was the most discriminatory system in the world, and that vaishnavism and jainism killed each other.

The point he was about to highlight was that india was no greater than british, and in one way, he tried to absolve britishers of india’s current problems.

I will come to this point later on.

Then came vamsi commenting about caste system as systematic discrimination for thousands of years.

This is the point, where i intervened, and placed my counter points… rather sarcastically..

My core point is that there is no proper documented history of Caste system, and that its totally baseless, to attribute current problems of caste system as existing for thousands of years.  In short, this baseless allegations had no substantiation..  since sukumar, vamsi and others often ask for proof, and substantiation, even for histories well documented by the perpetuators, i just countered them asking for substantiation for their allegations against caste system.

I also made counter allegation about the plight of brahmins due to highly sensationalised and highly biased anti-brahminism, and that most of the brahmins migrated from southern districts of nagercoil and kanyakumari.

And came subba with his comments that what i said was false..  but he ignored my point that brahmins were cornered and discriminated by christians.  He further threw allegations about Hindutva, and organisations like RSS, that they were disturbing peace, and that all others were living peaceful.   Again a biased view.. but let me come to this later on..

He also had written a post in his blog commenting on Abdul’s post, but mostly alleging Hindu Organisations like VHP, BajrangDal etc.

Then vamsi further commented that that he was a brahmin, and he never faced any discrimination because he was a brahmin..  probably, he might have forgotten the naked discrimination of reservation, where when a brahmin student gets even high marks, he is denied a seat, just because, he was born in a brahmin family..

But logic here wont work..  only allegations work and most of the times, the discussion ends with allegations and counter allegations..

Ok..  let me come to the core important point he referred..  he mentioned about karanam in Andhra, and how NTR abolished, because of which brahmins suffered..

I replied that even that abolition of karanam itself is a discriminatory thing, ..

But again vamsi replied that why should tax payers money be used to fund a hereditary post..  and why is the revenue department for?

This is another important point to ponder on, which i would come later on..

And finally came sukumar, stating that i am repeating what is said earlier (which i did because of repeated allegations in the earlier comments), and requesting me to post my views in my own blog…  i really admire at the extreme politenes at which he handle issues, which i am trying to learn for long time, with little success…

FIne..  i stopped commenting after that, and hence writing this post as a reply to many of the comments there.

How do we Learn History?

Before i start my own points, let me dwell on how i approach this problem.

1. We cannot bring peace by ignoring problems.  Running away from issues, or disgusting on the issues will only further complicate, as we do not know how to respond when the same issue happens again..

The numerous bomb blasts is just one example..  will deal with it later on..

2. Every man is always associated with identities.  Its whether national, or regional or societal..  a man/woman always feel secured when living under the identity.  But, the core problem is how one uses the identity to establish himself.

The post author abdul has written about rising above all identities..  but, even then, we cannot escape from the identity of human..  and this idealism, could not accomodate other living beings, because there is no explanation on the fact that there were lakhs (may be crores) of bulls/sheeps, butchered for the daily food of humans..  this is in sharp contrast to the true philosophical greatness of indian sages, where samy mahavir took care to not injure even an ant..  this is the true love towards all living beings, not the one exhibited by the pseudo secular journalists of india..  for them, only the lives they like or confirm to the ideals are equal..

3. How we perceive our history is very important, in understanding it..  If we have wrong perception, we end up in wrong understanding..

In one way, there is no accurate perception of history..  because, perception itself is a vague concept..  there can be only accurate data..  but not accurate interpretation, or accurate perception..

In this sense, i could say, that there can be only positive or negative perception of our history..

————————————————————–

So, having said the above, the next important questions is How do we learn our history?

I think, i had already written too much in this post..  i will continue with part-2 of this article later on..

Marc Faber Joke on american economic crisis..

I dont want to be sarcastic..  but i could not resisit laughing, on reading this joke, that i received in mail..

Please read on..

It was said that Marc Faber, concluded on his monthly bulletic (june 2008) as below.

Investment analyst and entrepreneur Dr. Marc Faber concluded his monthly
bulletin (June 2008) with the Following:

”The federal government is sending each of us a $600 rebate.

If we spend that money at Wall-Mart, the money goes to China.

If we spend it on gasoline it goes to the Arabs.

If we buy a computer it will go to India.

If we purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico,
Honduras and Guatemala.

If we purchase a good car it will go to Germany.

If we purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan and none of it will
help the American economy.

The only way to keep that money here at home
is to spend it on prostitutes and beer, since these are the only
products still produced in US.

I’ve been doing my part.’

—————————————————-

Jokes Apart…

Let me get in to the core message that the above brings out..

I am not an economic expert.. infact, i do not know even the basics of accounts..  But, there is a  general sense in everything, that even an ordinary people could understand..  i am just basing myself out of that..

Now coming to the core points of Faber’s joke ..

He just points out, how volatile is the american economy due to unmindful consumerism..  to understand that let me get in to some basics of consumerism and globalisation, which were most fashionable till few months back..

The American Consumerism:

As per my understanding, the consumerism in america has been as short sighted, narrow minded, and extremely selfish..  their consumerism is like, “I dont care anything, as long as i get products cheaply and with quality”..  and there were numerous argument in support of that, in the name of globalisation..

There were talks like, if i get the same product cheaply from foreign country, i am getting benefitted and go with that..  a tendency that as long as individual gets benefitted, and as long as money is saved, everything is ok..  i get this product from china, and that product from mexico and get this service done in india..

This i feel, was the core of the american consumerism..

Unmasking the globalisation:

All the goals of globalisation policies were framed by american controlled IMF and World Bank, keeping in mind, only the money and nothing else.

Also, some of the so called think tanks (Arivu Jeevi’s) in america concluded that only spending will reverberate the economy of a nation..

The following was the result of such a tendency…

1. The savings of the individual declined.

2. The aggressive spending habits fuelled a side effect of “I am ok, if i get the things for me,..  dont care from where it comes”..   as a result, everyone started spending beyond their capability..

3. The entire american foreign pollicy was framed keeping the above in mind..  the dollar value was made high, and all other currencies made low.. so that most of the imports is always cheap in america..

If we just go by common sense, in a nation of 300 million, if all started saving, the net economy would be strong..  people need not go for loans, as they could spend from their savings during difficult times..

But on the other hand, if every one started spending, the result is negative..

So in saving oriented societies, the cumulative effect is positive..  small savings of each people accumulate to large national reserve…

In case of american consumerism, the cumulative effect is negative..  small debts of each people accumulate in to a massive national debt..

And who is going to work for repaying such large nationa debt?

Will the people, who were trained to only spend, for eight years, will be ready to start saving?

The collapse of local economy and Society:

One of the most side effects of globalisation is that many of the manufacturing industry in america is collapsed due to artificially lowered price of products from china..

The joke that i mentioned at the starting is about this concept..

Because its available cheaply elsewhere, america ignored its own industry, based on the principle of free market..

when a typical american spends for toys, shirts, and other utilities, the amount goes to china and india..

And even for doing service oriented works, its passed on to india..

but who is benefitted from that?

Its the americans who stand indebted and the chinese who stand most rich.. and indians who got their own share..

the result, that americans striking the door of the chinese ..

Some other blog posts on the same topic..

http://indiaequity.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/marc-faber-comment-on-us-economy/

http://izquierdaverde.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/marc-faber-says-global-slump-is-inevitable/

A secular protocol – by Tarun Vijay

I could not resist posting it in my blog, for it reverberates the aguish of each every true Hindus.. The points put forth by tarun ji, is a hard hitting nail, which cannot be countered by even the hard core seculars..  sorry , those pseudo secular indians, who call themselves as hindus as per their convenience..

Its really heartening that amidst all those rubbish pseudo secular, TOI is alloting space for the hindus to express themselves..

——————————————————————-

by Tarun Vijay

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/Tarun_Vijay_A_secular_protocol/articleshow/3584631.cms

Patience is the key that defines facilitating others’ survival more than your own. Earth, mother we call her, symbolises that element of life. She lets the barbarian exploit her boons and the bliss, and waits for a millennium to show she is angry.

Indian society, which believes in the values of the civilisational flow so painstakingly preserved and handed over to us, is being subjected the same kind of test of patience by the forces that represent the colors of Roman and Arab ancestry.

Like history can’t be understood through secondary or tertiary sources, original references have to be consulted, watershed incidents in a nation’s life have to be analysed through original events. Hence after Meenakshipuram, the forced exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, Godhra and Kandhmal murders, and its now the turn of Bodo Hindus in Assam to face Muslim attacks.

So far 40 Hindus have been reported killed and 76,000 people have left their villages out of fear and taken refuge in 32 state government camps in Udalguri and Darrang. Twelve villages have been burnt. In Jhakuapara village the gaon budhaa (village head) was burnt alive along with his mother and sister. It all began after local Hindus resisted the forcible occupation of their lands by Muslims. The area has suddenly seen Bodo Hindus reduced to a minority and a spurt in the activities of the All Assam Minority Students Union (AMSU), SIMI, All Assam Muslim Chatra Parishad and Muslim Students Association (MUSA). Now, having burnt Hindu villages and forced them to flee, Muslims are occupying the villages vacated by Hindus.

The Assam United Democratic Front (AUDF – Badruddin Ajmal’s Muslim Political Party) MLA Rasul Haq Bahadur and AAMSU president Abdul Aziz have been demanding a separate autonomous area for the Muslims in lower Assam. The recent violence is considered as a ‘warming up’ exercise’ to chase away Hindus from their traditional hamlets.

Saw any report or interviews of the victims or front page ’shame’ editorials condemning the roasting alive of Hindus, or making them refugees in their own land? Got any call from Vatican or admonishment from Paris? Sorry, the victims happened to be Hindus so we can devote our space and time on matters more earthly like ICL cricket and red alerts in the stock exchange.

Hate sells. The more you add poison to it, the more you get elevated on the scales of leadership and fame. They say terrorism is the main issue. But do you think any one wants to fight it? All that appears on the list are a few ghastly pictures of the terror-struck common people, a few ‘good’ slogans, emotional lines of poetry and the election plank is ready. Greed, intolerance, revenge and bigotry of the secular kind have taken centrestage to constitutionalise a hate regime that thrives on disrobing India of her unique characteristics. Anything that defines that uniqueness is under assault and like a colonial dispensation; this has become a business of profit and comfort. Grants, awards and fellowships are reserved for those who yield and say yes to the secular protocol that defines India as a non-Hindu entity, using terms like ’shackled in the old’, ‘outdated’, ‘obscurantist Brahmanism’ and ‘weird ritualism which makes the practitioner rigid, backward looking’ and ‘pot-bellied, unintelligent creature with a tuft’.

The sultans of this secular protocol define an assertive Hindu as anti-women, anti-minority (read Muslims and Christians), Hindi chauvinist, having a fossilized vision that tries to revive a dead language like Sanskrit, worshipper of snakes, rats, cow, phallus, trees, who uses cow urine, cow dung for various purposes including medicine. They light fire and throw some herbs to please gods, who are elephant-shaped, and use peacocks, oxen and owls as their vehicles. They have to be civilized. And to do that they get grants from the ministry of culture.

From the Germans and Dutch.

The contemporary seculars use exactly the same language and show identical concern as was used and shown by the British when they urged the Christian missionaries to civilise the Hindu savages a hundred years ago.

In 1913, British forces under Major Hamilton shot dead 1,500 Hindu Bhil freedom fighters who had waged a struggle under the leadership of a great reformist, Govind Giri, a disciple of Swami Dayananda. Having performed this act of “valour”, Major Hamilton invited the church to start work amongst the Bhils to “give them the divine message”. He made the following appeal to Rev. D.G. Cock of the Presbyterian mission, Neemuch: “Against my wishes, I ordered police to fire on the innocent persons. Knew and loved them for years together.

Really it was a sad experience of my life. You go there and do work which I could not do for them. Their hearts have broken. Give them divine message. I want to do something and I know the best one will be to establish a mission centre.” (Planting a mission among the Bhils of south Rajasthan’, in man and Life, vol 10, pp 77-96).

Fifteen hundred innocent Bhils were killed. And the British officer asks the Church, almost as an order, to go and work among them. First physical annihilation, then organizing efforts for disrobing them of their culture and religion.

And they are the adorable icons of the contemporary secular.

Hindus, medical doctors, MDs, law graduates, IITians,MBAs, working among tribals to help them get better education never finds a place of honour or even a mention in the passing. Because they preserve the culture and indigenous traditions. In secular protocol, only those who dispossess Hindus of their identity are eligible for enlisting.

Hence converting tribals to Christianity is acceptable, preserving their culture is not. An assault on a nun is deplorable; a murder of a lady Hindu monk is no news. Burning alive of Hindu Bodos finds a brief mention, burning alive of non-Hindus deserve a front page editorial. Post Godhra, Kandhmal, and Mangalore, Hindu symbols like Trishul must be turned into symbols of ‘Hindu terrorism’.

Post 90s till this date, jihadi symbols like crossed rifles in the backdrop of Koran or a jihadi killing infants or a NSCN activist in Nagaland demanding Nagalim for Christ, must not be used as symbols of hate because that’s against secular tenets.

It’s a universally accepted norm of the secular fraternity. Have you ever, anywhere seen a jjhadi’s barbaric face as a symbol of terrorism? The only face you might have seen shows a Muslim tailor with folded hands, a Hindu “goon” with a saffron headband, a trishul terrifying the minorities. Even the Maoists are never depicted as barbaric goons who have killed more than 12,000 Indians so far and government has to set up a special cell in the Ministry of Home Affairs to tackle the left extremism problem. They are seculars, hence can’t be depicted as terrorists.

Recently I saw a magazine depicting Jesus crucified on a trishul .

Even if for the sake of argument one may say some Hindus are indulging in such activities which these seculars find bad, is their depiction of a Jesus crucifixion on a trishul to convey their dismay and disapproval acceptable and responsible behavior? Do they think the trishul is the sole property or the patented symbol of the kind of Hindus they despise? What about those Hindus who do not vote BJP or support Bajrang Dal? Do they all belong to a non-Trishul order of faith?

Depicting and institutionalizing the trishul as a hate symbol is acceptable behavior for the secular. What about the cross of the separatists in Nagaland who kill and maim non-conformists? And the two AK-47s around the Koran used by terrorist groups? Has any one; any secular, journalist, leader or human rightists ever used such symbols to depict bloodthirsty aggressors?

A subservient media, a colonized mindset, a “manageable” pen – this is all that is needed to clothe a secular protocol.

It’s a protocol that directs them to bury and subvert the truth. When the killers of Swami Lakshmananada were arrested, the news was filtered and published in a muffled way. Only in one newspaper did I see a statement that pointed towards Christian involvement in the ghastly murders. Maoist leader Sabyasachi Panda admitted to a group of media persons that “it is a fact that Christians form the majority in our organisation. Our supporters in Rayagada, Gajapati and Kandhamal also belonged to the Christian community”. According to him, Saraswati was killed because he did not pay heed when the Maoists’ warned him to end his anti-Christian activities.

Anyone condemned the confession?

This secular protocol insults a police officer even in death, humiliates his family in grief, reinstates a teacher involved in the attack on Parliament, demand a ban on Hindu organizations without any proof or court order, but comes out on the streets seeking freedom for a terrorist sentenced to death by the highest court of the land.

The secular protocol accepts permissiveness and exploitation of women as acceptable smart behavior; opposition to sex in Meerut parks was booed as “moral policing”, “they” were dubbed anti-environment and as consuming more and conserving nothing. This protocol is anti-family values – it turns homes into serais by legitimizing ‘live-in’ relations, it is anti-societal stability – which rejects institutionalised relationships, replacing them with discount coupons of pleasure trips, likes to invest in old age homes rather take care of parents. (So much power this secular protocol has wielded that the state felt compelled to make a law to punish children who do not care for their parents). It supports gay marriages as a mark of human advancement and abhors the only institution that has sustained global societies – motherhood, as a symbol of women’s slavery.

Having done that, it organizes seminars on the fall in civility and ethics.

They love to say they are not Hindus but ‘humans’ and when it comes to making profit they are in the forefront to sell Hindu songs and bhajans .All those media houses who love to deride Hindutva as a house policy, do not hesitate to make millions by selling Sanskrit mantras, bhajans, kirtans, in CDs and VCDs, and present the same dramas they deplore as “mythological” called Ramayana and Mahabharata, to increase TRP ratings. They are the same seculars who had opposed such Ramanand Sagar serials during the 90s, saying “such mythological dramas” helped fan the flames of the Ayodhya movement, which was, in their eyes, anti-minority.

When it comes to lucre and power sharing and a good berth after life, everyone comes closer to the forces representing Rama’s side. So not a single secular Hindu would say he should be buried after death and no Sanskrit mantra be chanted because it’s a dead language of deplorable Brahmins. So a sense of personal profit, here or after life, makes them to protect and support a Hindu character. If votes too begin flowing to their boxes this way, they, and not the BJP, would be the first to build Ram temple at Ayodhya.

That’s the moral of their secular protocol.

Dont Convert!- A rejoinder

Dr. Mrs. Hilda Raja is a Retired Professor of Social Science from “Stella Maris College”, Chennai. She regularly writes Letters to the Editors and occasionally writes Columns too. Apart from being a practicing Catholic Christian, she is a true nationalist, who values the cultural heritage of this great country and respects the Hindu tradition too.

She has posted a rejoinder to the article “Dont Target Converts” by Michael Pinto in Times of India.

I need not say anything about it..  because, its an excellent counterpoint, i am posting it here..

—————————————————————-

‘Don’t target Converts ‘by Michael Pinto (TOI 8th OCT) poses many questions than it answers. No amount of provocation can justify violence is easily said but humanly not easy to follow. All are not Gandhians or Jesus to show the left cheek when slapped on the right. Some countries follow a justice system which is based on ‘eye for an eye’. Aggressive policy of conversion followed by some fundamentalist churches and fundamental Christians cannot justify taking law into one’s hand and no amount of provocation can justify violence is correct theoretically and logically. But if such logic rules the hearts and minds of men/women why is there so much of violence in the world? Why do countries violate the rights of other countries? Why do law makers turn into law breakers? Why do those in the Khaki who have to operate the law on the streets become violators of human rights? In the midst of such oppression, exploitation can we expect the people to meekly be submissive and subservient? Or is the author’s theory held good only in the provocation rising in the business of conversion?

When Indira Gandhi was assassinated why thousands of Sikhs were butchered in the capital? Was it not justified by the Congress party? When the Brahmin pundits were killed and chased away from their homes in the Valley and forced to become refugees in their own country under ethnic cleansing no voices were raised against such an abuse and violation? When a holy man held in great reverence was brutally murdered with his three disciples in his own ashram will the author’s theory be strong enough to hold back the emotional, social, and religious upheaval of the hurt psyche?

Every action has a reaction. When a nun is raped then all hell breaks loose-Daily children are sexually violated and raped and murdered, no protest voice is heard -no church rallies are held, no Archbishop/bishop rebukes Chief Ministers and express pain and anguish. And no EU raises the issue with the PM in a foreign land. So Christians have global brokers and Christian lives become sacred and the PM is accountable to foreign powers for their safety.-the lives of others can be snuffed out without even a whimper. What is the root cause of this warped perception but religion? This is not to down play the rape of the nun but to point out that it is a harsh world we are living in and to high light the discrimination in our perception. Does a crime become more heinous because the victim belongs to a particular religion?

‘Terrorists do not belong to any one community knows no religion’, pontificates our political leaders. Is this again reserved only when it comes to the terrorists of the Minority community? It must be said that violence is nurtured within religious ghettos, madrassas, and only religions/beliefs are strong enough to provoke and sanctify spilling of the blood of the innocents. It is in the name of religion that the world had witnessed violence, genocide, torture and oppression and a Talibanism justifying the imposition of religious domination and curtailment of the rights of humans.

It is a utopia that Michael Pinto is envisaging when he states that no amount of provocation can justify violence. This is armchair wistful thinking. When the Christians were oppressors this theory vanished. The tables are turned and when there is an assertion of the Hindus to retain their culture, their religion and their heritage then the drum beating of the Constitutional guarantees is heard. It is the right of the Hindus to protect the Hindu ethos of this country which they feel is threatened. Was Art 30 not enacted to ensure the Right of the Minorities to establish manage and administer institutions to safeguard their ethos?

It is shocking that politicians are equating the Bajrang Dal and the VHP with the SIMI. The latter is a terror outfit with its branches now functioning in new names. The suspects belonging to these outfits are involved in serial blasts all over the country, they are trained in Pakistan and in POK .These are anti national outfits. What is the purpose/aim of these serial blasts-killing of innocent people who are about their daily business? The aim is to destabilize the country, create panic and insecurity and unrest within the country. Why was Parliament targeted? And who were behind it? But the same cannot be said of Bajrang Dal and the VHP. They are nationalists-they may be attacking a particular community for reasons of their own- the root cause being forced conversion and a reaction to the denigration of the Hindu gods and goddesses. Those involved in such violence and criminal activities must be apprehended and brought to justice. But where is the justification to demand a ban on such outfits? This is indulging in vote bank politics. Till date not a single terrorist has been brought to justice. The reality of wars, underworld dons killing, custodial deaths, political bosses unleashing terror against their opponents are all part of the harsh reality of today’s world.

Conversion from time immemorial has a concomitant-violence. Indian history is replete with it. The oppression, force, torture, massacre of the Indians to convert them to Islam, and Christianity is not a fable. The Inquisition and all that it wrought is world record. Again it is in the name of religion. What you sow you reap. Violence begets violence-this is nature’s order. In ‘don’t target converts’ the author finds it strange that converts are targeted in a country which constitutionally upholds the right to preach and propagate one’s religion. But then to preach and propagate one’s religion does not mean to force and use fraudulent means to pressurize people to change from one religion to another. I am shocked that in this context the author compares inducements like ‘buy one and get one free’ in the market of commodities, to faith changing. If the market goods can be sold with inducements why not it be extended to faith and belief changing is the author’s argument. Can faith and belief be brought to the market level of sales of commodities? By this analogy the author accepts that there is inducement. Money is flowing from foreign based churches and the gods of these churches need recruits-the greater the strength the greater the power of these gods and hence the brokers of these gods are all out targeting the poor. The inducement-a plate of rice, a loaf of bread to the hunger, shelter for the homeless, and also the promise of the green pastures in the next world-The strategy has first an entry point-first denigrate, abuse, degrade and demolished their gods and icons. Second instill in these victims the doubt that their gods are false and then promise to lead them to the true god. A vulnerable victim, with a vacuum inner self is then ready for the initiation into a “New Life”/to be “Born Again”. The false propaganda is vicious because of its attack on another religion. This kind of provocation is not easy to overlook because human nature is to refute and repel this atrocious slander/blasphemy.

What will the author say if one prints pamphlets that the mother of Jesus was a prostitute and Jesus’ birth was not a virgin birth? That after her marriage Joseph found her pregnant and toyed with the idea of putting her away. Only the intervention of an angel restrained him from taking such a drastic action. This is what the bible narrates. Will the Catholic Church and other fund churches sit back and humbly submit to such provocation? When posters depicting Jayalalitha as a Virgin Mary appeared in Chennai there were massive rallies and protests. But if Madhuri Dixit is depicted as Durga and the goddess is painted nude it comes under the freedom of expression of a painter. Only difference is that the same painter will not dare to let his artistic acumen and constitutional right to freedom of expression to depict Allah even in the best form. This is how we perceive the operation of guarantees/Rights enshrined in our Constitution

If opting for a “New Life”/ “Born Again”, demands discarding of one’s culture, social practices, adapting a western life style and adapting western forms of worship then the convert becomes an alien to the Indian/Hindu ‘ethos’, and is sucked into a process of alienation. This has other ramifications. Why did East Timor break away from Indonesia when its Christian population swelled to 27percent just in a matter of ten years? Similarly in our own context the partition of India was based on the theory that two religions-Islam and Hinduism cannot co-exist as a nation-that was the contention of then Muslims leaders. World history and Indian history is replete with the experience that ‘peace cannot co-exist with conversion. The reason being conversion has an inbuilt violence: physical, psychological, social and cultural. It may even abet one to be anti-national.

At times church laws and rules are in variance with national rules and laws. The Christians and the Muslims have their own Personal laws. Whom will the Christians take orders from-their respective church leaders or the government of India when it comes to a national decision? When loyalties of a person are divided and clash then the likelihood of becoming a victim to schizophrenia. A leader from Kashmir proclaimed on the floor of the Parliament that he is a Muslim and an Indian. No Muslim/Christian will state, ‘I am first an Indian and then a Muslim/Christian’. One can change one’s religion but not one’s nationality into which one is born. Politicians too have abetted this by not addressing citizens but focusing on communal/caste/religious divide.

Another aspect to be noted in the business of conversion is that conversions are made even in proxy. A few years ago in Trichy district of Tamilnadu a whole list of names were produced in paper and the bishop of that evangelical church baptized them in absentia! Would this qualify as conversion? I belong to the Catholic Church and my understanding of conversion is that it is a process-a life long search for truth. Conversion is a private affair and not a street tamasha-neither is it an activity intended to swell numbers. It is not that conversion is from one religion to another the Fundamentalist churches poach on the grounds of other Christian sects. So the Jesus of one church is different from the Jesus of another. This creates also distrust and disharmony among the Christian community. Freedom is always accompanied by restrictions. Freedom is restricted when it encroaches the freedom of others and of a whole society. Rights are not hierarchically.

When conversions are a threat to peace then it needs to be banned. Like the curfew order-the ban to strike etc. The million dollar question is why conversion? Is it a prerequisite for development work? Why are the foreign agencies funding conversion activities? It is strange that the fundamental Christians and the churches to which they belong do not turn their attention and energy in this salvation ensuring business to the Muslims. Development and upliftment of the poor is the camouflage of evangelization all the more why the need for the churches to work with the Muslims. Because according to Sachar report the Muslims are the lowest in India-both economically and educationally. Is it not strange that not a single Muslim has been converted? According to Michael Pinto the Christian population has fallen from 2.6 percent in 1971 to 2.3 percent in 2001.This does not mean that lakhs are not converted by the hundreds of fundamental churches that have mushroomed in the country. Today we are one billion so what does the 2.3 indicate in absolute numbers? When one reviews numbers a few other indicators must also be listed-Christians follow Family planning, the celibacy of nuns and priests, and the fact that most of the converts for the sake of reservation and other benefits retain the religion and the caste in which they were born on records.

Conversion has been commercialized by the Fundamentalistic churches. The number of converts is co-related to the quantum of funds that flow in. This must not be overlooked. Why not ban foreign funds and watch how evangelization evaporates? All laws have their accompanying lacunae/loopholes and difficulties in implementation, do we on such grounds fight shy of enacting laws? Conversions must be banned to ensure peace and harmony. Let us give peace a chance-for peace and conversion cannot co-exist.

Dr Mrs Hilda Raja,

(Former member of the National Advisory committee of the CBCI)

Spare the ’sinners’!

Yet another splendid article from T.R. Jawahar, the chief editor of newstodaynet.   Not to mention, he had choosed an appropriate title for his post.

—————————————————————–

By: T R Jawahar

trjawahar@vsnl.net

http://newstodaynet.com/col.php?section=20&catid=30

As a columnist I have a marked distaste for back-to-back sequels. But with bouquets and brickbats flying thick and fast over last week’s article on religious conversions, the Pandora’s box will perforce have to remain open this week too.

I am grateful for the bouquets but the brickbats will naturally merit most attention.The reactions on that count vary from the extremely violent to soft censure to righteous indignation.For some I dont have answers and rue my limitations. Yet, that does not in anyway dilute the basic assertions: Conversions are a mass endeavour, all denominations indulge in them with varying degrees of success, the convertors derive divine sanction on the basis of a superior god and a super salvation, huge funds that can pale MNCs are at their disposal and the methods are by no means fair and by all means foul. And the unkindest cut comes when the predators in search of prey preach from the pulpit, delivering secular sermons to the truly tolerant. For, if the ‘targets’ were communal they would have given the boot to the evangelists who claim an exclusive franchise to faith and God, long before the Bajrang Dals were even born. If saying this is to fuel ‘communal fires’, well, the original sin of starting it all, at least, does not lie with me. Now over to the devil’s advocate.

Many have blamed the overzealous evangelists. But I sincerely believe there is scriptural sanction to convert too. In any case, that’s how the high priests down the ages have interpreted the word ‘propoagate’. The insistence on religious freedom in non-Christian lands is only a ruse to usher in the ‘true faith’. And this not just a Protestant ploy as some others have suggested. The urge to convert transcends denominations. Many would not know Robert Di Nobili. He was a medieval Roman Catholic who set shop in Madurai. Having failed to make even a dent in that seat of Hindu religiosity he hit upon an ingenious, albeit evil, project. He sported a sacred thread with a cross dangling from it, raised a tuft (kudumi) and announced himself as a Roman Brahmin. He even forged a document to ‘prove’ that he was a descendant of Brahma and claimed that the Bible was the fifth Veda! The imposter soon flourished and was said to have converted over a lakh. And the Pope of his time blessed him, notwithstanding the liberties with morality of means!

The spirit of Nobili is still alive and kicking. Four hundred years hence, in 1969 the Catholic Bishops conference of India sent a proposal to the Vatican seeking to include Hindu religious practices for worship by the newly enrolled faithful. The Vatican not only put the seal of approval but even issued detailed guidelines. Some samples: genuflection may be replaced by the profound bow with the anjali hasta, folding of hands …footwear may be removed also … kissing of objects may be replaced by touching with one’s fingers or palm of one’s hands and bringing the hands to one’s eyes or forehead …angavastra could replace the traditional vestments of the Roman rite…the corporal can be replaced by a tray or Thamboola thattu…oil lamps can replace candles …single aarti, washing of hands can be used to welcome… All these pass under lofty labels like Inculturation or Indigenisation for what is essentially impersonation. That Christianity would become more heathen than even the heathen seems to be of no concern. But if the idea is to project that faith as totally Indian with its own hoary Indian history and Indian flavour, then why claim minority status?

There is also this familiar argument that it is the rigid and oppressive caste system that feeds the evangelists and fetches them the converts. Well, the other side is not greener either. Sample this letter to the editor written by a Dalit woman and published in a super secular newspaper over a decade back: ‘Anyone who is aware of the rural social scenario will agree with me that Dalit Christians get the same treatment as Hindu Dalits. Adding salt to injury, they are also looked down upon in their own religion … Is it proper that few upper caste communities corner all the benefits under the pretext of minority rights and corner power? Is it proper to seek funds from abroad under the guise of evangelism and social uplift by selling Dalits’ shame and helplessness in the West? Is it proper to attach caste surnames to their Christian names and identify more with caste than Christ? Is it proper to allot separate places in the Churches…’ The litany of woes is long!

The cold fact is converts to Christianity continue to be ‘caste’ in the same mould. However,  I won’t say Christianity has failed them. But, nevertheless, it is a fact that the original promises were downright fraudulent. Really, there is a crying need for reform in every religious society, nay the whole of humanity, which wallows in discriminations of all kinds. But conversions are not the solution, for it could only be a jump from the frying pan to the fire. Also, I would not want someone, whose own house is in disorder, to try and set my house in order. Particularly when his motive is to benefit from my disarray, like that proverbial monkey and two cats. Indeed, with four fingers pointing inwards, it is better if every religion addresses its ills.

My own instinctive revulsion to conversion, be it individual or mass and be it owing to conviction, for convenience or for cash, stands undiminished. I have my grouses with my god, but I find no reason to shift loyalties, certainly not for better material prospects. My understanding of religion precludes that. Religion is premised on the existence of a higher power and guides one in realising and understanding it. It is an intensely personal affair and there could be as many paths as there are humans. Therefore, despite my own theological convictions, I have no problems when a neighbour worships a different god. Nor is my God worried either. He is not jealous but self-confident enough to say that ‘in whatever form you worship me, I will be there’. If still one loses faith in that higher power, one can become an atheist at best, the only conversion that looks logical. Also religion being a personal pursuit of truth it cannot be held accountable for the State’s failures on the social and economic front, as well as one’s own follies. Again, for one to lose faith and reject, he should have studied his religion first. And for him to embrace another, he should have studied that too. How many have that mental faculty? Is one lifetime enough to fathom the Vedas and the Bible? Indeed, most, if not all conversions are knee-jerk!

Let me assure critics, I am not alone in this, er., communal outlook. Conversion is resented by most, though they may not say so out of courtesy. But that courtesy should not be mistaken for consent. The provocations are dire, the hurt is deep and the repercussions could be damning. Hindus have been slapped on both cheeks and have no more cheek to spare. In fact, it is time conversion too is added to the list of sins that the Vatican releases from time to time. For, instead of loving, it hurts ‘thy neighbour’ who loves his own God! And no more sequels …for now!

Invasion Through Conversion – Excellent Video

Just happened to see the videos on Conversion..  Its an excellent and presents the real danger of conversion.

Invasion through Conversion: Part-1 of the video

Invasion through Conversion: part-2 of the video

Live Debate with Proletysing christians in AP:

The following video is in Telugu.   The translation to english is also given below.

The summary of the Dailymotion video is as follows:

It is announced on the loud speakers in Telugu language that “they (Christians) want to give auspicious news. If you all accept Jesus Prabhu or recognize the love of Jesus, you will have good future.”

Sri Kamal Kumar Swami who was going through this village said to the Leader of the group that you should have the discipline and courtesy to recognize the value of other religions. You come to this country and criticize our gods and say that our gods are demons and sinful. You say that these gods should not be worshipped.

Kamal Kumar said that religion is not a marketable commodity. You do not advertize the gods alike a commercial commodity. God is not like a soap to be advertized. How can you market your god in the streets?

People in India intelligent and genius compared to many people in the world. We know more about Jesus and we know more about other religions also. By converting people into Christianity you are creating problems among people and also in the community. He pointedly asked the Leader of the group “why do you criticize our Gods?”

The leader of the group says the “God (meaning Jesus) has so much love for all the people.”

Sri Kamal Kumar said; “How come you God would not love us?” The he continued “Do you agree that all the religions are same?”

The leader not able to answer to any of the questions, he said if you not want us to make announcements publicly, we don’t want to do.” Then they dispersed.

Thou shall not convert – T R Jawahar

An excellent article by Jawahar..  Another case point against conversion..

I am framing a new phrase against conversion..

Embracing is Love.  Conversion is Prostitution

it means, that when one embraces a new faith out of his own will, its love..  and when some one converts a person, by means of  lurement, brainwash and other emotional means, its nothing but prostitution..

————————————————————————-

By: T R Jawahar

trjawahar@vsnl.net

A Christian once approached the Kanchi Paramacharya and expressed his wish to embrace Hinduism. The acharya advised him to stay put in his present path; in the revered seer’s world view, one does not have to switch faiths to attain God and can very well achieve the objective through one’s own religion. That in a nutshell is what Hindus call secularism and tolerance. Sadly, they have no reciprocal S & T coming their way. Forget a pastor, even the Pope would find it difficult to pass up such an opportunity to add a soul to his kitty. For that is their worldview, ordained by the Book and its authors.

Clearly, the twain shall never meet. It naturally follows that those faiths that aspire to survive, with their religious places and practices intact, will necessarily have to evolve ways to protect themselves from such predators and their natural instincts. The historic track record however is that, barring Hinduism and Buddhism, scores of faiths and civilisations have been run over by Christianity and Islam, with nary a trace today. Of course, methods vary from visibly violent jihad to virulent but invisible evangelism, but the motives and mindset shine forth like neon signs. To miss it is to have the intellect of a sheep, and incidentally that’s what the ‘targets’ are referred to as.

But to the basic question: How do Hindus who want to remain Hindus respond? Some tips are on offer from various vested interests. Needless to add, the captains of the conversion brigade would want no response but simple surrender. Secular politicians, for instance, would prefer Hindus to have more doses of the tranquiliser called tolerance and remain sedated so that they, the politicos, that is, can build up their minority vote bank, the only bank that never fails. For much of the media and intellectual elite, primed by McCaulay, even the slightest resistance to conversions is a betrayal of their liberal character even if their conscience, if only rarely, tells them otherwise; they feign sleep without sedation. And for most of the educated middle-class of Bharat conversions do rile and revolt; but coy inhibitions rule and in any case, who has the time and mind to speak up or act?

Let down by the State and ostracised by society, it is the poor Hindus who are most vulnerable; while many gullible ones do ‘cross’ over, the multitudes, though mute, have remained immune to missionary mischiefs and stuck to their traditional gods. And of course, the other extreme response is what we are witnessing now in Orissa and elsewhere; the Bajrang Dal brand that none can subscribe to. Apart from the incongruity of their acts with the law of the land, burning down churches is a futile exercise. They simply can’t keep pace with the planting that’s going on and also the media multiplier effect would make even one ravaged prayer hall seem like hundred, in Basha style.

Convert me if you can, challenged Gandhi. Swami Vivekananda’s well thought out and well articulated arguments against conversions will sadly be deemed communal rantings in today’s milieu, but their relevance is most striking. To get more contemporary, Swami Daya-nanda Saraswati treats conversions as the worst form of violence; In his view, you cannot convert someone without belittling his faith and that cuts at his core being. He also dubs conversions as a human rights violation as it interferes with an individual’s right to ‘continue’ practising his own, natural religion. But let’s not invoke such profound beings to fell a petty albeit potent mentality. There are enough arguments within the realms of elementary common sense to effectively counter, both intellectually and at ground zero, the scourge of conversions.

The biggest cover for conversions is the Right to Religious Freedom enunciated in the Constitution. But by elementary English grammar, the right is for ‘me’, in first person singluar; now how can an evangelist exercise my right? But their flippant claim is that right to convert ‘others’ is Constitutional. The misinterpretation and misuse of the Constitution is not just on that count. The Constitution categorically says that the right to religious freedom is subject to ‘morality and public order’. The assumed right to convert all and sundry would fall flat on these counts too. Conversion disturbs all the ‘order’ that a peaceful land and a peace loving person would value: the social order, the demographic order, the political order, the family order and of course, law and order! An individual too goes completely out of order, with his self, with his near and dear, his ancestry and his own lifestyle, all in turmoil. One cannot find a more disruptive phenomenon of life and community, nay, the country itself, than conversion.

We move on to morality, the bedrock of the Bible. Now is it moral to employ questionable means like lures and inducements to bring in the crowd? Again, the preachers claim Christianity to be true religion and the only path to salvation. Can’t a such ‘truth’ to stand alone without the aid of merchants of faith scouring and scavenging the earth for vulnerable folks in distress? Does it have to be purveyed in the market as a sin-cleaning soap to be dumped on unsuspecting soul-sellers? Hinduism too preaches but the idea is not to get converts. Again, conversion by a process of evaluation, which is perfectly fine, is very rare. The evangelists smartly claim that most conversions are voluntary. But mass conversions do happen. Now how is it that a few hundred people have a conscience upheaval at an appointed time? It is also no coincidence that only the poor, the sick and those in the lower rungs of society are ripe targets for conversion. Obviously the inducements and indoctrinations are camouflaged well to skip the law’s eye but obvious enough to catch the potential convert’s! The reality is that evangelism is big business today. There’s nothing even remotely secular or spiritual about it. But to cut a long story short, conversions can be deemed unconstitutional! And even if granted, the right to preach and poach cannot be superior to the target’s right to protect and preserve his beliefs.

Then there is this bogey of minority rights. Does it not offend common sense to say that the minority has the right to become the majority, which in effect is what the vociferous and articulate Christian clergy is claiming through the right to convert’? Again, how can they claim to be minorities when the entire might of global Christianity, its organised international institutions, endless funds and now the European Union itself is sponsoring them? Also, the converts in India have Hindu ancestry and are very much sons of the soil. Granting that one can change one’s faith, can one also convert from being a majority to a minority suddenly? Again, attacks on any place of worship have to be dealt with under law; the crime does not get any worse just because the target is a minority place of worship. But such perversions of minority rights are rampant.

Guess what’s the Pope’s biggest bother today? Christians converting to Islam in Europe! To hear some eternal pearls of wisdom on the ills of conversion one can just tune in to him. The hypocrisy would be apparent. For while the resourceful reverends would happily harvest neighbours’ fields, its taboo for others to graze on their own pastures.

I rest my case. Amen!

http://www.newstodaynet.com/col.php?section=20&catid=30