Death of a
Missionary
By Rajeev Srinivasan
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/jan/29rajeev.htm
None of us can help but condemn,
in the strongest possible terms, the recent burning of an Australian Christian
missionary, Graham Stains, and his two small sons, in a remote Orissa tribal
area. There is no greater fundamental right than the simple right to life; and
it is unpardonable to deny this to anybody, especially two little boys. Stains'
skin colour, his nationality, and his profession are immaterial -- no one
deserves to die this way.
I
mourn the death of Graham Stains just as I mourned the deaths of Christian
Ostroe, a Norwegian tourist, beheaded by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir; the
anonymous Hindus periodically massacred, also in J&K; the victims of the
Ranbir Sena as well as the People's War Group; the tiny casualties of
infanticide in many parts of the country; the women murdered in instances of
'dowry deaths.' They were all killed because of what or who they were.
I object on purely humanitarian grounds to murder; and
I also object on the basis of enlightened self-interest. I recall the words of a
German priest which went roughly thus: "When the Nazis came for Gypsies, I
did not speak up, for I was not a Gypsy; when they came for Jews, I did not
speak up, for I was not a Jew; when they came for homosexuals, I did not speak
up, for I was not a homosexual; and when they came for me, there was no one left
to speak up for me."
Therefore, I speak up for Stains, and I condemn this
brutal act. Just as I spoke up for the Muslims killed in Mumbai in 1992, the
Sikhs killed in Delhi in 1984. The rights of every one of us are diminished when
the rights of any one of us are diminished.
Moreover, I speak up for Stains, for he appears,
according to reports, to have been an earnest humanitarian, not some
fly-by-night evangelist-businessman who is in the conversion business purely for
profit.
There
is, however, a very relevant question as to who committed this offence, and why
at this particular time. It is inappropriate to assume a priori (it
must be so proven) that it is the work of Hindu extremists confident of the
support of a BJP-dominated central government. The BJP-led government has, after
all, been in power for some time.
No, this has to be seen in the prism of the recent
gains by the Congress in the assembly election, and the widespread speculation
in the English-language media that there was a Sonia Gandhi wave in the making.
She has, without entirely convincing evidence, been anointed as the Great White
Hope; as the brains and the Great Helmswoman behind the imminent comeback of the
Nehru dynasty to power at the Centre; and the prime-minister-to-be any day now.
This is a splendid example of the "manufacturing
of consent" by the allegedly balanced, self-righteous English-language
media. A case can be made, as Rajakrishnan pointed out alliteratively in the
Malayalam daily, the Kerala Kaumudi, that it was palli then,
and ulli now -- mosque and onion -- that led to victories for the BJP
and the Congress in the last two elections. Not necessarily the result of Madame
Gandhi or anyone else's leadership or persuasive powers.
In any case, a number of people have become convinced
that Sonia Gandhi will be the prime minister of India very soon. What is the
relevance of this political matter to the timing of these troubles surrounding
Christians in India now?
Only
this -- that Sonia Gandhi made a major tactical blunder, perhaps a Freudian slip
that makes her appear to be a borderline Christian fundamentalist. Perhaps she
thought nobody would notice, but people did. Now Madame Gandhi is backpedalling
furiously, visiting Tirupati and the Ramakrishna Mission, and (mis)-quoting
Swami Vivekananda. She has also been reticent about the Christian-related
incidents. She wants to avoid alienating Hindu voters.
What Madame Gandhi committed was an act of political
naivete: she surrounded herself, as soon as she became Congress party leader,
with a clique consisting only of Christians -- eg. Vincent George, Tom Thomas,
Tommy Thomas, Margaret Alva, Ajit Jogi, Purno Sangma. I am told she has always
been an avid church-goer, named her son Rahul John Paul Gandhi (presumably after
the most fiercely fundamentalist Pope in recent times), made sure her daughter
married a Catholic; and, in general, made no bones about her strong preference
for Christianity.
Political correctness aside, as the saying goes, the
Caesar's wife has to be beyond reproach. It is inappropriate for an aspiring
leader of this pluralistic country to be perceived as religiously biased,
whether or not she is. No wonder she is scrambling for photo-opps at Hindu
temples -- I don't know if she used to do this before, or whether it is
new-found tactical zeal.
The
Hindu right-wing noticed; and so did the missionaries. For the former, this
meant fear, and a short window of opportunity to warn Madame Gandhi to be
circumspect. For the latter, it meant joyous tidings -- the prospect of a
no-holds-barred assault on Hindus to convert them, with tacit support from a
Sonia Gandhi-led central government, and all this conveniently timed to coincide
with certain Christians beliefs about the world coming to an end in 2000 CE and
some Biblical prescription to make everyone on earth a Christian by then.
It may be a combination of these two factors that led
to the recent confrontations in the Dangs area in Gujarat and elsewhere, as
reported by reliable Gandhian witnesses: Hindus taking out a show-of-strength
procession, being attacked by Christians, resulting in the latter's shacks and a
Hindu's jeep being torched; Christians urinating in a Hanuman temple, and
breaking a Hanuman idol and throwing it into the river. Both groups have thus
become more belligerent.
This may explain the timing of Stains' murder; but who
might have committed it? The usual suspects, say the pundits: the Hindu extreme
right-wing. However, as Sherlock Holmes might say, we have to consider the
possible culprits and eliminate the less likely ones. And the possible villains
would be the set of all who stood to gain from this ghastly deed.
Eyewitnesses say Stains' attackers conducted an operation with military
precision -- obviously pre-meditated -- and then, before they left, they shouted
pro-Bajrang Dal slogans. That last, however, is very suspicious. If it were
pre-meditated and skilfully executed, why on earth would they leave their
visiting card, as it were? Unless it was someone else pretending to be the
Bajrang Dal, surely?
Who might that someone be? Who might be motivated?
Perhaps someone who wanted to malign the Bajrang Dal and remove Stains as a
competitor simultaneously? May be an impatient rival missionary group (probably
American) which believes in quick-fix conversions as opposed to Stains who, it
is reported, ran a lepers' home for the last 34 years?
There are other potential suspects too: whoever stood
to gain. Surely, non-Christian Congress politicos who had a magnificent
opportunity -- make the BJP look like dangerous murderers and at the same time
gently nudge Madame Gandhi away from her coterie of Christians? And all this at
no risk to themselves, as they shed large crocodile tears in public...
Who
else might gain from this grisly murder? Of course, Pakistan's ISI is always
fishing in troubled waters, but I am not convinced of their ability to actually
execute -- the Indian press gives them too much credit; after all, why should
they be better than India's own ineffectual intelligence services?
Then there are the inevitable American covert services.
Now that Strobe Talbott is coming to India for yet another round of an exercise
in futility, and the Indians do not appear to be caving in on the CTBT as
quickly as expected, why not turn up the heat a notch? What better than some
atrocity that will really put the Indians on the defensive? Remember, the
Americans are good negotiators.
Therefore, if the US government or the Australian
government were to -- as they are wont to -- now accuse India of acts against
religious minorities, I would like to suggest that the Government of India not
repeat its usual shrinking-violet act and get weak-kneed and apologetic. India
should ask pointed and rude questions of them, for they are hypocritical and
motivated in their queries.
Of the US, I would ask:
* Exactly what business is this of
yours? None of your citizens are involved. Where was your sense of moral outrage
when Hindus were massacred by your ally Pakistan? When Tibetans were gunned down
by your ally China? When Hindu shrines were torched by Christian fanatics in
Fiji? Since you chose to be silent then, kindly stay silent now.
* Secondly, could we get an official
explanation from you about why you did not protect the fundamental rights of
your own citizens in the following instances of violence against your religious
and ethnic minorities? These were atrocities perpetrated by your government
forces.
1. The black group MOVE that was
incinerated in an attack in Philadelphia in the '80s in a Vietnam-style
helicopter gunship attack, in a joint state and Federal operation.
2. The Christian cult, the Branch Davidians of Waco, Texas that
was burnt alive in the '90s by a combined team from various Federal agencies
such as the BATF.
3. The Tuskegee experiment in the '50s where blacks infected
with syphilis were observed and monitored, but intentionally left untreated by
government doctors.
4. Charanjit S Aujla, a US citizen or resident of Indian
origin, who was murdered on December 4, 1998, in Jackson, Mississippi, by six
sheriff's deputies who shot him in the back of the head in the liquor store
where he worked (see www.iacfpa.org for details).
* Thirdly, could you give us an
official explanation about why you failed to protect the human rights of the
following minority US citizens or residents who were brutally attacked and
murdered on your own soil?
1. Feroze Mody, a US resident of
Indian origin, who was beaten to death in Jersey City/Hoboken, New Jersey, in
the 80's, for being a 'dot-head' (a derogatory name for Indians).
2. James Byrd Jr., a black resident of Jasper, Texas, who was
chained to a pick-up truck and dragged to his death by racists in 1998.
3. Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, civil rights activists, a
black and two Jews, who were murdered by racists during the 1960s Civil Rights
movement.
In fact, India should set up a Commission for the
Global Protection of Religious Minorities of all types -- and demand
investigations, for example, into the following allegations:
1. The harassment of the Rajneesh/Osho
community in Antelope, Oregon by the US FBI.
2. The harassment of the Rev Sun Young Moon's group by the US
Internal Revenue Service.
3. The harassment of L Ron Hubbard's Scientologists by the US
federal government.
Of the Australians, I would enquire:
* How many aborigines have you
massacred lately?
* How many of the 5,000 children who have died in Iraq in the
last five years can be traced back to your diplomat, the UNSCOM man Richard
Butler, running in effect a spy ring for the US under the pretext of a UN
mandate?
These
are fighting words, and I only use them to illustrate a technique the Chinese
have mastered: when accused of wrongdoing, they shout from the rooftops the sins
of their accusers; whereupon said accusers withdraw. Agreed, two wrongs do not
make a right. The intent is for India to set her own house in order with out
interference from unhelpful foreigners.
Going back to the question of who did it, it is true
that by the use of Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is that of Hindu
right-wing guilt; however, they must not be presumed guilty until and unless
proven so beyond reasonable doubt.
In any case, the killing of one man, as Josef Stalin
infamously said, is a tragedy; but the death of a thousand is a mere statistic.
Graham Stains' death is a tragedy; I wish all of us who shed a tear for him will
also shed a tear for the thousand mere statistics murdered by fanatics of all
religions in India for all the wrong reasons.
|