|
Towards
Balkanisation, Part I
Towards
Balkanisation, Part II
Towards
Balkanisation, III: Missionaries
In May, the UK-based Market
& Opinion Research International published a poll which indicated that 61%
Kashmiris wanted to remain Indian citizens while 6% wished to be Pakis. Although
Lord Eric Reginald Avebury, the man behind the poll, has been known for his
strongly pro-Pak tilt, Pakistan still called it India's "PR ploy" -
which is a perfectly understandable reaction from the US's newly annexed
territory. But, what would you call those Indian citizens who took umbrage at
these findings...?
Take a look at these snatches:
"Unfortunately, the unpublished fact was that only 9% of the people in
Srinagar thought so, while 13% preferred a Pakistani citizenship. The happier
figures came from Jammu... Many questions remain about the survey, including the
one as to who financed it. Mori does not do things for free. Their interest at
all times, it makes clear, are commercial... Interestingly, there is no record
if Mori ever conducted a similar survey in PoK... [MORI's Indian partner]
has reason to keep that matter confidential. The report sent by PTI and used by
the India media patriotically, has larger dimensions than the ones
published."
The question that pops up is: even
if 80% of Srinagarvasis want to go with Pakistan, why is the
non-publishing of that statistic "unfortunate"? Are we to understand
that the people of a tiny part of Jammu & Kashmir must control the destiny
of the entire State...? As my friend Subhash Kak put it: "Would it be right
for the entire State of Michigan to be granted independence if the
African-Americans of the greater Detroit region should agitate for it? Or,
should just Detroit be granted independence if the African-Americans of the city
start a violent campaign for it? Would it be appropriate for the US to grant
independence to Miami, or allow it to become a part of a greater Cuba, just
because it has a Hispanic majority?" Would any country in the world allow
such a scenario to be translated into reality...?
Nope, the writer casting suspicion
on MORI is not a pinko but an entity just as foul: John Dayal, national
secretary of the All India Catholic Union and national convener of the United
Christian Forum for Human Rights. Dayal's essay on the MORI survey is available
on the website of the All
India Christian Council and -- of course -- those of "dalitstan"
and "khalistan." Such, then, is the role of the Catholic Church in
India...
In truth, I'd have tackled a
different subject this week -- but for the abusive messages from Catholic
readers, who wanted it known that the Adventists, or Protestants, or Baptists,
or Mormons, or whatever, are the bad guys. Which is quite hilarious. For, why
would it matter to a Hindu which sect of Christianity was implicated in the
latest act of poaching when ALL of them do it on a regular basis -- and
Catholics, since before the others arrived?? In fact, John Dayal and his
Catholic cohorts are the worst act I've ever seen! Far worse than the Muslim
Board, which enters my crosshair only when its dicta on legal issues goes
contrary to the Constitution. But Christian activists are a different breed -
they aggressively seek to weaken Hindu society in terms of numbers as well as
space.
Still, the emails went on and on
about "the percentage of Christians in India still remains 2.5-3% of the
Indian population" and why an 85% majority shouldn't be worried about
conversion... I ask you, what's this "majority"?? Today, my mother,
brother and I occupy a 3-bedroom apartment. Tomorrow, if Martians took over two
bedrooms while one of them shared the single room left to us, we'd be a majority
in that reduced space -- an artificially compressed majority. Once upon a time,
Hindus were a majority in a far larger Hindustan. Therefore, today's
"85%" not only means shit, but should also be an impetus to ensure
that this space does not shrink any further. So stuff that "majority"
argument where the sun doesn't shine.
Christian leaders in India have
always gotten away with a lot: While Bukhari & Co get showered with scathing
editorials for far less nonsense, various Bishops and Reverends don't get even a
fleeting mention. Possibly because most writers come from Christian schools.
Take, for instance, the July 2000 ruckus between the National Commission on
Minorities and the Catholic leadership: The NCM had investigated relevant cases
and affirmed that the attacks on Christians in UP and Haryana were isolated
incidents, with commission member John Joseph saying that Christian militants,
too, were active in Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and the North-East.
Was that, is that, a lie? Or even
an exaggeration? Yet, the Catholic Bishops Conference of India and the All India
Catholic Congress demanded Joseph's expulsion for having "deliberately
derogating Christian churches and threatening them." Truth is the one thing
that our "secularists" cannot face. Hence, no op-eds.
The Parivar-atrocities-on-Christians
bit, I thought, had worn thin by now. That is, before I read last week's mail on
raped nuns. I don't get it: Did the "secularists" and Christian
fundamentalists renounce newspapers after the initial reports on the rapes at
Jhabua...?
- Investigations by the police
-- controlled by the Congress government of MP -- revealed that all the 24
rapists of Jhabua were Bhils, 12 of them were Christian, and none was
associated with the Parivar.
- While Jhabua was a half-truth,
Jhajjar was a total lie. One newspaper, on the authority of our favourite
Catholic propagandist, reported that nuns in Haryana had been raped by
you-know-who. But investigations by another newspaper revealed that a mahila
mandal had shouted at them for interfering in local politics - and that is
all. There was no case for the police.
- So also, the nun of Baripada,
Orissa. Forget about signs of rape, the doctors couldn't find signs even of
struggle -- the marks on her body were reported to be "superficial and
self-inflicted." And guess what -- the police were told that all the
clothes she'd been wearing were burnt immediately after the assault. How
convenient.
Nevertheless, all these cases were
circulated at the international level by the Church and thugs of the Sabrang/Sahmat
variety. As were the bomb blasts that rocked AP, Goa and Karnataka: The Sangh
Parivar was promptly pronounced guilty by the media, till the Bangalore police
-- controlled by the Congress government of Karnataka -- found it to be the
handiwork of the ISI-backed Deendar Anjuman.
It's plain as pike why pinkos and
Christians have been taking these fabrications to town since 1998: "With
the BJP in power, Hindu extremists are able to assert themselves more stridently
than ever... For years, the VHP has been organizing 'reconversion' camps. That
campaign has lately been stepped up in MP, which has a large, partly Christian,
tribal community" (Asiaweek, October 30, 1998). For the
missionaries and the pinkos, it was essential then -- just as it's crucial now
-- to totally discredit any Hindu agency that works towards getting people back
into the Hindu fold. Hence the attack on the IDRF
at the Congressional Committee on International Religious Freedom. (BTW, do read
Ramesh Rao's article
on the conspiracy against the IDRF for details on fund distribution.)
Now for some Q&A that should
shed more light on my stand:
Reader James: "Do you
actually think this is a laudable goal, to ensure that people do not attempt to
stray from the groups into which they were born? To presume that all choices
made by people in difficult circumstances are ipso facto the product of
coercion?"
I'm not against conversion per
se. If people absorb and thus prefer another religion, by all means, let
them convert. My objection is to the deceptions missionaries use to attract the
poor of Third World countries: Bribery is not OK. As Yvette Rosser writes,
"Many unethical methods have been used to 'save the souls' of these simple
rural folk. One tactic is to throw a stone statue of the God Hanuman in a pond
along with a wooden crucifix. The Adivasis are told that the Christian God is
more powerful because he floats to the top and Hanuman sinks to the
bottom." All those who've reconverted say the same things -- we were
promised free education and jobs if we converted, but we followed the old way
all along. What sort of "soul-saving" is this? Worse still,
missionaries don't tend the flock forever: It's just a numbers game -- as in
"Go 1 million."
"On a higher level, it is too
bad that you seem to feel like Hinduism is not robust enough to survive the
minor -- indeed 'trivial' -- challenges it now faces from Christianity. It has
managed to survive thousands of years, despite VASTLY more concerted historical
efforts by Islamic and Buddhist attempts to proselytize Hindus."
Hinduism's surviving the past is no
guarantee that it can withstand the present (there were no pinkos then). For
centuries, Pakistan and Bangladesh were a part of India; only in the last
century, that changed. What's the guarantee that a "Christistan" won't
be carved out over the next 50 years...? Technology, reach, market, ethics --
everything has undergone a quantum change. A new age requires a different
thought -- for Hindus, one VASTLY different from simply wishing troubles away.
Why would I passively watch the way of my forefathers become a minority religion
in the land of my forefathers?
Reader Soumya: "Which
individual does not want social equality, religious, social and economic
freedoms? If the other Hindus would unite to help them obtain what should have
been provided to them in the first place, the missionaries would take their
business elsewhere. No sense in blasting the missionaries if we cannot clean up
our own back yard first."
I agree -- we should clean up our
backyard first. However, when some of us begin to do that by opening schools and
hospitals for and giving jobs to Dalits and Adivasis, the
"secularists" raise Cain over "Hindutva laboratory." What
else are "secularists" but pawns in the hands of pinkos and
evangelists?
Secondly, is social equality
granted to Christian converts? If so, why did John Dayal oppose the Census 2001
form with: "A Scheduled caste, or Dalit, Indian citizen is being forced to
chose only between the Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist faiths, and is not allowed to
claim that he belongs to the Muslim, Christian, animist, indigenous, agnostic,
or no-faith categories." If conversion to
Christianity certifies social equality, why would there be a "Dalit
Christian"? As for guaranteeing economic freedom, don't make me
laugh.
"Along with opening schools
and giving jobs to the people (which is very commendable and should be
supported), the Sangh Parivar has been known to promote Hindu pride by
encouraging intolerance towards non-Hindus, and denigration of their religion.
There is a big difference between promoting pride in Hinduism by educating
children and raising people's awareness of the religion."
Your opinion has been formed by
"facts" reported by the left-leaning media. "Secularist"
opinions, I reject. And anti-Hindutva "reports," I verify. How many
urban people have personal knowledge about this promotion of hatred? Why are the
findings in the vernacular press different from those in the English
counterpart? Instead of giving in to prejudice, it's better you ponder the cause
and effect of such reports.
However, I must clarify: Since
January 1, 2000 -- the day after Vajpayee, Advani & Co released Masood Azhar
to the Pakis -- my support for the Sangh Parivar is entirely issue-based. The
Parivar is suffused in some awful evils -- but "Hindutva laboratory,"
I'm afraid, is straight out of Antonio Gramsci. To wit: "Members and front
organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics.
When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or
anti-Semitic... The association will, after enough repetition, become 'fact' in
the public mind."
Alexander
Solzhenitzyn, after his stint in the gulag, realised, "To destroy a people,
you must first sever their roots." And Hinduism is the lifeblood of India.
Towards
Balkanisation, V: Adivasis
|
