The Greek Philosopher Saint: Apollonios in In India
India influenced
Pythagoras
Philostratos
says Apollonios (6th century BCE) of Tyana thought Indians had influenced
Pythagoras. So going to India was an effort to improve his moral education. He
followed the road of Alexander the great to India, probably entering the country
through the Khyber Pass and going to Punjab, where he met the wise men of India
on a forested hill not far from the Ganges River.
He delighted in their company and their lengthy
discussions.
He said: “I saw the
Indian Brahmins living on the earth and not on it, walled without walls, and
owning nothing and owning everything.”
Clearly, Apollonios was impressed by the
spiritual power of the Brahmins who had foreseen his coming. He spent four
months with them. They lived exemplary lives very close to the gods. They ate
what he ate and shared his love for the natural world.
But what impressed Apollnios the most was the
Indians contact with Hellenic culture. The Indian wise men spoke Greek, and were
well versed in the Greek philosophical tradition and Greek culture. Both the
Indian philosophers and Apollonios worshipped the gods and a supreme god, a
divine being like Zeus, who was the father of the gods and humans. The wise men,
however, described themselves as gods in the sense of being good.
(source:
The Passion of the Greeks - By Evaggelos G. Vallianatos
p. 57).
Christianity and the Rape of the Hellenes: Lessons for Indic Civilization
Why Greece is not Hellas any more
"Religious
intolerance was inevitably born with the belief in one God." -
Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism.
"The
Christians to whom we owe all our misfortunes." "Christianity is a
monstrous lie and legend" -
Julian the Great, in his treatise
Against the Gallileans
""Christianity
was a vampire which sucked the life blood of a society and produced the state of
general enervation against which patriotic emperors struggled in vain."
Ernest Renan
(1823 - 1892) in Marc Aurelle
p. 589.
‘What, after all is the cross of Jesus Christ?
It is nothing but the sum total of a sadomasochistic glorification of pain.’ -
asks Joachim Kahl, author
The Misery of Christianity
***

Evaggelos G. Vallianatos Greek scholar.
He has written with great passion, this impassioned book (The Passion of
the Greeks:
Christianity and the Rape of the Hellen)
recounts with graphic
details the historical “passion” of the pagan Greeks at the crucial time, when
they encountered the fanatic hordes of missionary monks and Christianizing Roman
Emperors. They tried to convert the remaining Greeks too to the new, fanatical,
and fashionable faith at the time, willy-nilly.
This book is unlike
other books, which present the Christianizing of Greece and of the Mediterranean
region as some kind of felicitous meeting and mating of the philosophic spirit
of Hellenism and the prophetic spirit of the new and ecumenical religion of love
and peace. For it chronicles, with boldness and candor, the other and more
hideous side of this tragic story. The meeting of Christianity and Hellenism was
not peaceful and pious, in the eyes of the author, but bloody and brutal, and
has been kept secret and hidden for a long time.
Some excerpts from
his book:
The conflict between Greeks and Christians in
late antiquity from 4th to 6th CBE. Christianity assisted
and funded by the Roman Empire, conspired to kill the Greeks whom it had
dehumanized, branding them as idolaters and pagans. Christianity’s genocidal
policies against the Greeks destroyed their civilization. The Christianization
of Greece was a catastrophe that precipitated the fall of Rome and engendered
the dark ages of Western civilization. The Christians made Greece a cemetery,
which quite unintentionally preserved the aftermath of their murder and
genocide.
In fact, Christianity gave its highest rewards
to those who killed the most Greeks. The Christians made the Roman Emperor
(Flavius Valerius Constantinus) Constantine I, 285-337, who started the war
against the Greeks, a “Saint” and “Great”. The butcher of the Greeks,
Emperor Theodosios I, 379-395, also received the title of
“Great.”
The Monks: Expert Killers of Hellenism
The monks were unmatched in their ferocity
against Hellenism. They became the shock troops for the destruction of Hellas,
and for forcing and savaging people into Christianity.
The monks were the first architects of
globalization – in this instance, spreading Christianity to the end of the world
with all the hatred and violence of a crusade.
The moment the Eastern Roman Byzantium became
Christian, they dropped from the heights of Hellenic culture to the crude,
childish fiction of Christianity. They had to worship a foreign god,
and through
their behavior, they had to show to the state and to the church that they
believed Christianity’s irrational and repulsive doctrine.
Christian Platonists and Aristotelians, however,
were never sincere students of Hellenic culture. Whenever it was convenient,
they would quote Platon and Aristoteles and the Stoics and Neoplatonists out of
context, while they never ceased to believe in the superiority of the
Judeo-Christian tradition.
Tertullian,
160-220, the most eloquent theologian of
the West at the end of the second century, was an outright enemy of philosophy.
He denounced Aristoteles, calling him wretched, cunning and shifty. “What has
Athens to do with Jerusalem,” he says “Platon’s academy with Church.”? The
result was the triumph of Christian fanaticism all over Europe, East and West.
By the 12th century, Western Europe was infected with hatred for
heretics. Church officials called heretics “pestilential people.”
The Theodosian and Justinian Codes cover Roman
laws from the 4th to the late 6th century. They are full
of imperial orders against the “pagans,” Greeks, Jews, and other non-Christians.
The appalling horror of the Inquisition, the vicious witch pogroms, and the
bloody Crusades came out of this theological and political decision to give
Christianity total control of the faithful. It was this violent and undemocratic
tradition, the product of Christianity, which was at the heart of the European
culture down to the 19th century.
The Romans detested the Christians. They
considered them “notoriously depraved.”
Tacitus described Christianity as a
communicable disease, a “deadly superstition” that started Judaea and spread to
Rome.

Statue of Juno Sospita from Lanuvium, wearing a goatskin, holding a shield, and
brandishing a spear as she advances to battle.
The goatskin and stance as a warrior goddess are attributes of the Greek goddess
Athena, rather then Hera (who is generally associated with Juno).
(source: Author's collection of photos from the Vatican Museum).
***
Epiktetos, c. 50-120, a Stoic philosopher who influenced
Marcus Aurelius, had contempt
for the Christians whom he called
Galileans.
He said the
Galileans faced death out of habit. Their marching to death had nothing to do with courage
or reason. Kelsos (Celsus) a Greek Platonic philosopher who wrote a book against
the Christians concluded that the Christians failed to have a more comprehensive
view of the supreme god because of their flesh-and-blood preoccupation with
their salvation, their obsession with the resurrection of the body, which was
intimately related to their worship of a dead man. This dead man, Jesus, turns
Christian away from worshipping the supreme god.

Julian, the
Great (?) and Epiktetos, a Stoic philosopher.
Julian the
Great saw
But he always saw Christianity as “an illegal, treasonous and newfangled cult
and ideology that destroyed Greek culture.”
***
Julian the Great,
as the last great champion of the old Gods (-
4th Roman emperor who famously
tried to halt the spread of Christianity.
A nephew of Constantine the Great, was one of
the brightest yet briefest lights in the history of the Roman Empire. A military
genius on the level of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, a graceful and
persuasive essayist, and a philosopher devoted to worshiping the gods of
Hellenism, he became embroiled in a fierce intellectual war with Christianity
that provoked his murder at the age of thirty-two, only four years into his
brilliantly humane and compassionate reign.
Justinian was a killer, but he was not innovator. He worked within a
well-established Christian tradition that the ends justify the means; the fourth
century historian and lawyer, Sozomen, says that the Christians routinely
destroyed the temples of the polytheists, “thinking that it would not be that
easy otherwise for them to be converted from their former religion.”

Tholos, along with the
temple
of Apollo was eventually destroyed in 390 AD by Christian Emperor Theodosius I in order to
silence the oracle in the name of Christianity.
Delphi at the base of Mount Parnassus was considered the center of the earth by
many ancient Greeks who came to seek advice.
(image source: webmaster's
own collection of photos taken during a visit).
***
Augustine 354-430, a prominent Western father of the church, used all sorts of
sophistic arguments in favor of coercing the pagans of Christianity. He also
sided with repressive legislation that provided that “stimulus of fear”
necessary to shake people of their negligence to seek the Christian lord. In
other words, Augustine and Nestorios, the bishops of both West and East of the
Roman Empire, recommended killing the pagans who refused to convert to
Christianity as proper state policy.
***
The Greek Tragedy of Christian Greece
To be Greek – as
Friedrich Nietzsche understood so well – is to be closely related to
the gods and to strive to be like them in beauty, goodness, curiosity, courage
and freedom. All Greek traditions pulled men and women close to nature,
constructing their homes and altars and temples and theatres and public
buildings and monuments not to obscure or dominate nature but be part of it. In
addition, Greek culture was about the exploration of the inner world of man, the
world of nature and the universe. The Greeks lived mostly in small villages and
larger villages or poleis and tried to put into practice their theories and
create theories from their experience – such was their life.
In contrast, to be Christian is to be a subject
of an empire or an authoritarian state with factory models for religion, work,
science, art, and culture. In other words, Hellenism and Christianity (despite
Christianity’s appropriation of some Greek ideas and rituals) are from two
different worlds. Like oil and water, they don’t mix.

Statue of
Augustus, disfigured - mark of a cross carved on his forehead.
For more
refer to
Cultural Vandalism and
Did Christians Destroy Classical Culture and Create the
Dark Ages?
***
During the bloody centuries it took the
Christian Roman Empire to make the Greeks Christian – and without an option
outside of Christianity open to them save death most Greeks did convert to
Christianity – nothing Greek was left standing. The destruction was so thorough
that the Greek people had to abandon even their name, Hellenes. For about 1,400
years they described themselves as Romans, Greek Christians – very much like the
slaves European planters kidnapped from Africa for their American cotton
plantations – had to relearn who they were and what they could think. They knew
that to admit they were Hellenes meant death. So they had to say they were
Romans who worshipped by only Jesus, the dead Jewish man.
With Christianity, the Greeks lost their
traditional piety and freedom. They were cut off from their ancestors. Their
books were burnt. And instead of Homeros and Platon and
Sophokles they had to drop to the illiteracy and lies of the
Christian legends.
The antagonism between Hellenism and
Christianity is so intense and lasting – because of Christianity’s banning of
Hellenic culture – that to be one is to negate the other. A Greek can only be
Greek. A Christian cannot be a Greek. A “Greek Christian” is an oxymoron. A
“Greek Christian” is a product of the manifest legacy of colonialism, a
schizophrenic state of mind, a tragic contradiction fated to deny his/her nature
and culture.

The Ruins of Zeus temple in Olympia, Greece.
The Christian emperor Theodosius abolished the
Olympics in the late 4th century after its life of 1,169 years. The Hellenes
started the athletic event of Olympics to honor God Zeus, father of both gods
and people. Yet, the people of the West, who now own Olympics have the illusion
that they are following in the path of the Greeks. They are not.
(image source: webmaster's
own collection of photos taken during a visit).
***
Dr. Vallianatos comments on the
imperial order that brought an end to the Olympics, on page 136 as follows:
"Here was a millennial tradition of
athletic competition for arete (courage,
virtue, equality before the law, goodness, manliness, nobility and excellence)
started by Herakles, son of Zeus and the Greeks’ greatest hero, and Theodosios,
thinking like a barbarian, brought it to an end. The Olympic agon (contest)
was much more than a struggle between outstanding men for physical excellence.
It was, above all, a Panhellenic honoring of the gods. It was an extraordinary
effort to rein in the Hellenes’ passions for war and bring them together from
all over the world for the celebration of their common culture. The overwhelming
idea behind the Olympic contest was political. The Olympic contest was an effort
to build a Panhellenic polis and
commonwealth, a united Hellas under
democratic governance. The Olympic agon was
also building better and nobler human beings. And, yet, the Hellenes’ greatest
athletic contest and celebration of national identity were buried…. by a
barbarian king who knew no better than listening to the fanaticism of his
Christian advisors."
The failure of the Christian Greeks to claim
their legacy pleases the Western scholars of the West. They want the Greeks to
remain Christian. That way the Greeks are securely tied to their Christian
overlords, so colonized with foreign ideas, customs, institutions, and, above
all, religion that for all practical purposes, they have become foreigners in
their own land.
The part and parcel of this anti-Hellenic spirit
always blowing in the West is to cover up the treacherous history of
Christianity’s rape of Hellenism. It is simply too embarrassing. The history of
Christianity’s war against Hellenism remains a taboo subject. Christianity made
Greece a palimpsest.
The Christianization of Greece
It was during the time of
Iamblichos, the 4th century, that the Roman Empire
married Christianity and, together, they killed more than the image of
Pythagoras. With dosage of barbaric violence during the bloody course of several
centuries, Christianity leveled Greece, uprooted Greece culture, and exiled
reason and the sciences from the country. Palladas, a 5th century
Greek writer, summed up the genocide of Christianity against the Greeks this
way: “We Greeks,” he said, “are men who have been reduced to ashes. We cling to
the buried hopes of the dead. Today everything has been turned upside down.”
So the Greeks who survived the Christian
genocide remade themselves…and worshipping a dead man as god. Thus, Christianity
became a global force for the annihilation of Hellenism.
(source:
The Passion of
the Greeks:
Christianity and the Rape of the
Hellenes
- By Evaggelos G. Vallianatos
p. 57 and
106-112
and 190 - 203).
Also How Elgin Marbles were stolen -
From 1801 to 1812, Elgin's agents removed about half of the surviving sculptures of the
Parthenon, as well as sculptures from the Propylaea and Erechtheum. The Marbles
were transported by sea to Britain.
Top of Page
Why the notion of ‘Hindu Nation’
alone is chosen for criticism?
So why do media worldwide get so worked up about ‘Hindu fundamentalists’ and a
possible ‘Hindu nation’.
***
If the
critics only imagined what a Hindu nation looks like, they might start
propagating Hindu nations all over the globe. – by
Maria Wirth
I
sometimes wonder who influences whom: the Indian mainstream journalists
influence the foreign correspondents or the other way round, as they always hold
the same view. Or is there even a directive from the top of the media houses
about who must be protected and who can be abused?
Obviously, Hindus can be abused. I was shocked when I recently checked articles
in major newspapers like the New York Times on the appointment of Yogi
Adityanath as chief minister in Uttar Pradesh. Like in the run-up to the general
elections in 2014, when a Modi victory loomed large, the media went berserk. The
gist was: By appointing Yogi Adityanath, Prime Minister Modi has finally shown
his true face of a Hindu fundamentalist who wants to make India a ‘Hindu nation’
where minorities have no place. The articles peddled untruths and drew
unacceptable conclusions. The Swiss NZZ for example wrote that it is hardly
possible for Prime Minister Modi’s government to call itself the representative
of all Indians after appointing a figure like Yogi Adityanath.
A
Hindu nation is projected as the worst possible scenario by the wrongly called
‘liberal’ media. Yet, the same media don’t react when America or most other
western countries are referred to as Christian nations. Nor do they get agitated
about the numerous Muslim nations; not even about those which still have harsh
blasphemy laws. Why are these ok, and a Hindu nation is not ok? They don’t
explain; they just insinuate that minorities (read Muslims and Christians) will
suffer in a Hindu nation.
Maybe
they came to this conclusion because minorities like Jews or Hindus suffer in
certain Christian or Muslim nations though the media hardly pulls those
countries up for it. However, even otherwise, this conclusion is wrong, as
Hindus have a different mind-set. They are open towards other views, unlike
‘good’ Christians and Muslims who feel obligated to make everyone believe what
they believe, if necessary by deceit or force.
Hindus
cannot be put into one single box. There are too many different ways to reach
the goal of life. As it were, there are many minorities within Hinduism. But
they all are based on the Vedic insight that everything, including our persons,
is permeated by the same divine essence which is called by many names but is
ultimately ONE. Our human consciousness (Atman) is one with the cosmic
consciousness (Brahman) and to realize this, is the goal and fulfillment of
life. “Satyam vada, Dharmam chara” the Veda exhorts – speak the truth and do
what is right under the given circumstances. And find out who you really are:
you are not a separate entity but in the depths of your being one with all.

Hindus never fought crusades or jihads to establish their dharma in foreign
lands.
So why
do media worldwide get so worked up about ‘Hindu fundamentalists’ and a possible
‘Hindu nation’.
***
From
this follows that ‘good’ Hindus are those rare human beings whose dharma makes
them regard all others as brothers and sisters. Their dharma makes them further
respect nature and not harm unnecessarily any living being. Hindus do not,
unlike Christians and Muslims, divide humanity into those who are chosen by God
and those who are eternally damned. Hindu children are not taught to look down
on those who are not Hindus, unlike children of the dogmatic religions who are
taught that their God does not love those others unless they join their ‘true’
religions. Hindus are also comparatively kinder to animals. The great bulk of
vegetarians worldwide are Hindus.
Hindus never fought crusades or jihads to establish their dharma in foreign
lands.
So why do media worldwide get so worked up about ‘Hindu
fundamentalists’ and a possible ‘Hindu nation’.
What is wrong with the fundamentals? There is nothing wrong with the
fundamentals. But there is one major difference: For Hindus, the Divinity is in
all and all is in the Divinity, whereas for Christians and Muslims the Divinity
is separate from his creation watching us from somewhere.
The
concept of Divinity is also different. For Hindus the best description for the
absolute truth is sat-chit-ananda (it is true, aware and blissful). The many
personal gods help the devotee to realize the Absolute. Christians and Muslims
perceive Divinity in its highest form as a personal, superhuman entity who is
jealous of other gods. The first commandment in Christianity and a very
important issue in Islam is the claim that nobody must worship other gods except
the ‘one true god’, which both religions claim is only with them.
Hindus
are the exemplary role model for ‘how not to
exclude others’? Where else have religious minorities flourished and grown like
in India? Is not the relative harmony in this amazing diversity in India
generally admired abroad? Media persons need only to look around in the world to
realize this fact.
Why
then are Hindus of all people accused of excluding others?
The
reason may be this: neither the west nor Muslim countries want a strong India.
India was the cradle of civilisation and over most of the known history
economically very powerful. They may fear that based on her ancient culture,
India may rise again to the top. Is it the media’s job to put Hindus perpetually
on the defensive by spreading this bogey of Hindu fundamentalism and prevent a
better education policy which would give India an edge?
“Imagine, India would become a Hindu nation!” the media shout infuriated. The
problem, however, is that they don’t imagine it and don’t ask basic questions.
If they only imagined what a Hindu nation looks like, they might start
propagating Hindu nations all over the globe. One day, when people have become
tired of blindly believing strange things, and when nobody is threatened any
longer with dire consequences if he stops believing in those strange things, the
world may be grateful to Bharat Mata that she has conceived and preserved over
millennia those eternal, precious insights for the benefit of humanity.
(source:
Why the notion of ‘Hindu Nation’ alone is chosen for criticism? - by Maria
Wirth - indiafacts.org).
Top of Page
Nehru's Dismal Legacy
When
Nehru Opposed Restoration Of Somnath Temple
After
India’s Independence and the accession of Junagarh State into Indian Union,
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the then Union Home Minister, pledged that Somnath
will be reconstructed and restored to its original glory. When Patel broached
this subject with Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi endorsed the plan but said that the
contribution for the reconstruction of the temple should come from the public.
Patel accepted this advice.
With the
demise of Patel, the task of the restoration of the temple was ably led by
K M Munshi,
a cabinet minister in then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s government. Munshi
wrote , “I was clear in my mind that the temple of Somnath was not just an
ancient monument; it lived in the heart of the whole nation and its
reconstruction was a national pledge.”
However,
Nehru never liked the idea of restoring this ancient monument, and “more than
once criticised” Munshi for working for its reconstruction. Munshi was referred
to in the Cabinet as someone “connected with Somnath”.
In the
early months of 1951, just few weeks before the temple inauguration, the matter
came to a head. At the end of a Cabinet meeting, Nehru called Munshi and said:
I don’t like your trying to restore Somnath. It is Hindu revivalism.
Nehru had
revealed his cards. He was haunted by the spectre of ‘Hindu revivalism’.
Restoring an ancient monument, a place of immense veneration, which had been
repeatedly obliterated, was according to Nehru an act of Hindu revivalism.
Munshi
was incensed.
Without replying to Nehru’s insinuation, he left the meeting and the very next
day wrote to him a long letter, stating “Yesterday you referred to ‘Hindu
revivalism’. I know your views on the subject; I have done justice to them; I
hope you will equally do justice to mine…. It is my faith in the past which has
given me the strength to work in the present and to look forward to our future.
I cannot value freedom if it deprives us of the Bhagavad
Gita or
uproots our millions from the faith with which they look upon our temples and
thereby destroys the texture of our lives…. this shrine once restored to a place
of importance in our life will give to our people a purer conception of religion
and a more vivid consciousness of our strength, so vital in these days of
freedom and its trail.” Nehru evidently wasn’t too convinced. When the then
president of India, Rajendra Prasad, was invited to inaugurate the temple, Nehru
shot him a letter, admonishing, “I confess that I do not like the idea of your
associating yourself with a spectacular opening of the Somnath Temple. This is
not merely visiting a temple, which can certainly be done by you or anyone else
but rather participating in a significant function which unfortunately has a
number of implications”.
It seems by “number of implications” he meant that Rajendra Prasad inaugurating
a temple would be a challenge to the secular fabric of the Indian Republic.
Rajendra Prasad ignored Nehru’s advice
and added, “I would do the same with a mosque or a church if I were invited.”
So, on 11 May 1951, Rajendra Prasad, while presiding over the opening ceremony
of the temple, gave a stirring speech. He said that the physical symbols of our
civilisation maybe destroyed, but no arms, army or king could destroy the bond
that the people had with their culture and faith. Till that bond remained, the
civilisation would survive. He added that it was the creative urge for
civilisational renewal, nurtured in the hearts of the people through centuries
that had once again led to the praan-pratishta of the Somnath deity.
Somnath was the symbol of economic and spiritual prosperity of ancient India, he
said. The re-building of Somnath will not be complete till India attains the
prosperity of the yesteryear.
Thus, with the devotion of millions, the pledge of Patel, the blessing of Gandhi
and an untiring effort by Munshi, the majestic Somnath temple was restored and a
soothing balm was applied to the unhealed wounds of the nation.
“Many years later, reflecting on the Somnath incident, Munshi, penned the most
devastating critique of Nehruvian secularism. He stated: “In its (secularism)
name, anti-religious forces, sponsored by secular humanism or Communism,
condemns religious piety, particularly in the majority community.”
Munshi said:
“In its name, again, politicians in power adopt a strange attitude which, while
it condones the susceptibilities, religious and social, of the minority
communities, is too ready to brand similar susceptibilities in the majority
community as communalistic and reactionary. How secularism sometimes becomes
allergic to Hinduism will be apparent from certain episodes relating to the
reconstruction of Somnath temple. “These unfortunate postures have been creating
a sense of frustration in the majority community. “If however the misuse of this
word ‘secularism’ continues…if every time there is an inter-communal conflict,
the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the questions; if our holy
places of pilgrimage like Banaras, Mathura and Rishikesh continue to be
converted into industrial slums…, the springs of traditional tolerance will dry
up.”
Written in the Sixties an erstwhile member of Nehru’s Cabinet, truer words were
perhaps never spoken.
(source:
When Nehru Opposed Restoration Of Somnath Temple – by
Manish Maheswari).
Refer to
Nepal had offered to merge with India after Independence. PM Nehru refused
and
US President Kennedy offered to help India detonate a nuclear devise before the
1962 China War. Nehru refused
-
Had India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru accepted US President John F
Kennedy's offer of helping India detonate a nuclear device much before China did
in 1964, India need not have to make desperate efforts to enter the Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG) now, according to former Foreign Secretary Maharajakrishna
Rasgotra. Rasgotra
said if Nehru had accepted the offer, not only India would had tested the
nuclear device first in Asia, before China, but it "would have deterred China.
Top of Page
Academic bullying: Whitewashing Aurangzeb
“Aurangzeb cared for nothing for art, destroyed its
‘heathen’ monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a
century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own.”
-
Will Durant,
in his much acclaimed ‘Story
of Civilization’,
narrates the religious fervour of Aurangzeb that led him to ‘smash every idol’
that his eyes fell upon.
***
Like Truschke herself, I am neither Hindu nor Indian, yet I can read for myself
with what explicit glee the Muslim chroniclers described temple destructions and
massacres of unbelievers. –
Dr Koenraad Elst
Audrey
Truschke
is a Professor of Religious Studies in Stanford, California, and has gained some
fame with her work on the patronage of Sanskrit by the Moghuls. In order to get
that far, she had to toe the ideologically mandatory line: neither in America
nor in India does the
Hindu-baiting establishment
allow a dissident to get
seriously established in the academic world. Predictably, we see her elaborating
the same positions already taken by an earlier generation of academics, such as
whitewashing Aurangzeb.
Not that this was a hard job for her: one gets the impression that she is a true
believer and really means what she says. Then again, she may have done an
excellent job of creating the desired impression all while secretly knowing
better.
Bullying
Her position in the article “The
Right’s problem with history” (DNA, 26 Oct. 2016) is summed up as:
“Unable to defend a fabricated history of India on scholarly grounds, many foot
soldiers of the Hindu Right have turned to another response: bullying.” It would
be normal to compare secularist historians and their Western dupes with people
of the same rank, namely different-minded historians, in this case belonging to
the “Hindu Right”. These are not exactly numerous, having been blocked
systematically from academe by the single permitted opinion in both India and
America, but they exist. Yet, they and their output are absent from her paper.
From a street bully, I would expect a denunciation of street bullies, and from
an academic a polemic against her own peers.
The photograph accompanying the
article tells it all. If
it had been about her own school of history, the picture would have shown
established historians involved in this debate, such as Wendy Doniger or Sheldon
Pollock. But now that the opposition is at issue, it shows a group of
non-historians, not in an air-conditioned college hall but in a street
demonstration exercising their freedom of expression. The reader is expected to
recognize them as representatives of the “Hindu Right”, and as “bullies”.
She
testifies to verbal attacks she herself has endured “from members of the Hindu
Right”, and which she evaluates as “vicious personal attacks on the basis of my
perceived religion, gender and race”. Correction: she could have maintained the
very same religion, gender and race and yet never be attacked by those same
Hindus (indeed, most Jewish female whites have never experienced such attacks),
if she had not belonged to the “scholars who work on South Asia” and who have
earned a reputation as Hindu-baiters. She has been attacked on the basis of what
she has written, nothing else.
From the start, Truschke tries to capture the moral high ground
by citing one of her lambasters as tweeting: “Gas this Jew.” In America, such
reference to the Holocaust is absolutely not done, and Indian secularist circles
adopt the same sensitivities once they see these as valid for the trend-setting
West. To the Hindu mainstream, this hyper-focus on anything associated with the
WW2 is not there, and they had no history with antisemitism; but still this
quote would be unacceptable there, for regardless of what Jews exactly believe,
Hindus tend to respect other faiths.
(source:
Academic bullying
- By Koenraad Elst).
Refer to
Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam - by Koenraad Elst.
Refer to
Aurangazeb’s fan girl Audrey Truschke turns logic on its head!
Top of Page
Truth about Aurangzeb
Islam is always presented as
the one, progressive, emancipatory religion. -
Arun
Shourie in
his book how India's
Eminent historians have
portrayed Islam
***
Aurangzeb did not just build an isolated mosque on a
destroyed temple, he ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi
Vishwanath temple, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism, and had mosques
built on a number of cleared temple sites. Other Hindu sacred places within his
reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them. A few examples:
Krishna's birth temple in Mathura; the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of
Gujarat; the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking
Benares; and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. The number of temples
destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in four, if not five figures.
We want to draw a veil over our
past to appease the Muslims. We have done it for a long time. It is time to
lift the veil. -
Rabindranath Tagore (Patriotism
is not enough - By M.S.N.
Menon).
In one
year (1679 – 80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone,
sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the
site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate
insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faith,
and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his
fanaticism, thousands of temples which had represented the art of India through
a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today,
what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. -
Will Durant.
n his much acclaimed ‘Story
of Civilization’,
Refer
to
The Never-Ending Sanitisation Of Aurangzeb!
Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users
were also wiped out; even his own brother
Dara Shikoh
was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion; Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur
was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced conversions.
Yet, Percival Spear, co-author with Romila Thapar
of the prestigious A History of
India (Penguin), writes:
'Aurangzeb's supposed intolerance is little more than a hostile legend based on
isolated acts such as the erection of a mosque on a temple site in Benares.' L'histoire
de l'Inde moderne (Fayard), the
French equivalent of Percival Spear's history of India, praises Aurangzeb and
says, 'He has been maligned by Hindu fundamentalists'. Even Indian politicians
are ignorant of Aurangzeb's evil deeds. Nehru might have known about them, but
for his own reasons he chose to keep quiet and instructed his historians to
downplay Aurangzeb's destructive drive and instead praise him as a benefactor of
arts.
Since then six generations of Marxist historians have done the same and betrayed
their allegiance to truth. Very few people know for instance that Aurangzeb
banned any kind of music and that painters had to flee his wrath and take refuge
with some of Rajasthan's friendly maharajahs.
Thus, we thought we should get at the root of the matter. History (like
journalism) is about documentation and first-hand experience. We decided to show
Aurangzeb according to his own documents. There are an incredible number of farhans,
original edicts of Aurangzeb hand-written in Persian, in India's museums,
particularly in Rajasthan, such as the Bikaner archives. It was not always easy
to scan them, we encountered resistance, sometimes downright hostility and we
had to go once to the chief minister to get permission. Indeed, the director of
Bikaner archives told us that in 50 years we were the first ones asking for the farhans
dealing with Aurangzeb's destructive deeds. Then we asked painters from
Rajasthan to reproduce in the ancient Mughal style some of the edicts: the
destruction of
Somnath temple;
the trampling of Hindus protesting jaziya tax
by Aurangzeb's elephants; or the order from Aurangzeb prohibiting Hindus to ride
horses and palanquins; or the beheading of Teg Bahadur and Dara Shikoh.
People might say: 'OK, this is all true, Aurangzeb was indeed a monster, but why
rake up the past, when we have tensions between Muslims and Hindus today?' There
are two reasons for this exhibition. The first is that no nation can move
forward unless its children are taught to look squarely at their own history,
the good and the bad, the evil and the pure. The French, for instance, have many
dark periods in their history, more recently some of the deeds they did during
colonisation in North Africa or how they collaborated with the Nazis during the
Second World War and handed over French Jews who died in concentration camps
(the French are only now coming to terms with it).
The argument that looking at one's history will pit a community against the
other does not hold either: French Catholics and Protestants, who share a very
similar religion, fought each other bitterly. Catholics brutally murdered
thousands of Protestants in the 18th century; yet today they live peacefully
next to each other. France fought three wars with Germany in the last 150 years,
yet they are great friends today.
Let Hindus and Muslims then come to terms with what happened under Aurangzeb,
because Muslims suffered as much as Hindus. It was not only Shah Jahan or Dara
Shikoh who were murdered, but also the forefathers of today's Indian Muslims who
have been converted at 90 per cent. Aurangzeb was the Hitler, the asura of
medieval India. No street is named after Hitler in the West, yet in New Delhi we
have Aurangzeb Road, a constant reminder of the horrors Aurangzeb perpetrated
against Indians, including his own people.
(source:
Truth about Aurangzeb - By Francois Gautier - rediff.com).
Top of Page
Cultural Genocide and Atrocity Literature
The Onslaught on Indic Civilization continues...
"Gospel
narratives were a tissues of absurdities"
-
maintained
Thomas Woolston
(1668- 1733)
an English theologian in his six
Discourses on the Miracles of Christ. He was
found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death.
"We
rule India, we are a superior race" " It is a terrible business this living
among inferior races" - remarked
British Viceroy Lord Elgin (1811- 1863)
"Ah how can we (Japanese) prevent the world from
falling prey to the barbarians (Christians)" – Aizawa
Seishisai Yasushi (1782- 1863)
Japanese nationalist thinker of the Mito school during the late shogunate
period.
Monotheism is blind, and determined because it is
blind.
***
"Hinduism is the biggest danger to Christianity as the last of
the major earth-bound nature traditions." -
Sankrant Sanu
***
Atrocity Literature: A Western Recipe to dismantle India and Hinduism – by
Ranjith Vadiyala
Christians like to tout the exceptionalism of
their religion. They are correct in one regard. Christianity is exceptional
among the major religions for beginning with a killing, and for keeping killing
central to the faith ever since. No other religion, for instance, dangles a dead
man from the necks of believers - David Eller,
in the book,
Christianity is not great – Edited by John W. Loftus
p. 87.
***
It is high time that we
take note of such propaganda wars being inflicted on India and Hinduism using
Atrocity Literatures. In 1927, Katherine Mayo
wrote a viciously anti-India and anti-Hindu book “Mother
India”, which portrayed Hindu society as uncivilized, barbaric and
oppressive towards women and children by cherry picking incidents and twisting
the facts to suit the pre-decided agenda[1]. The purpose of this book was to
show to the world that the Indian society was barbaric, which needed to be
‘civilized’ by the ‘civilized white Christian men’ of the British and defend
British rule in India. Gandhiji called this book “a
gutter inspector’s report”. Mayo’s Mother India was perhaps one of
the earliest attempts at creating Atrocity literature against India and Hinduism
and this has continued to this day by various vested interests that are inimical
to India and Hinduism.
What is Atrocity Literature?
“Atrocity Literature” is a
psychological warfare which the West has been using for centuries to subjugate,
control, digest and ultimately destroy native cultures and civilizations. This,
when supported by media can have a devastating, long lasting and sometimes
permanent effect on that target civilization/culture. It is particularly
dangerous, because it makes the people of the civilization, which is being
targeted; believe that those who are trying to destroy them are their saviours.
The West has successfully used this against Native Americans, African Blacks,
Bharath and many other places it colonized and invaded.
Christian Missionaries/Church, NGO’s, Western/Indian
Academic institutions, Private Western Foundations, Human/Animal Right groups,
Media, and Western Governments – have all used Atrocity Literature to undermine
India. In “Breaking India”, Rajiv Malhotra
describes Atrocity Literature as a
“technical term referring to literature generated by Western interests with the
explicit goal to show the target non-Western culture is committing atrocities on
its own people, and hence in need of Western intervention”. The
ultimate aim of Atrocity Literature that is being produced against Bharath is to
demean our culture and religion, specifically Hinduism, and ultimately destroy
it. This strategy is based on a simple fact that every society, civilization,
system, religion, country, community or even artificially formed communities
like labour unions will have members, who do criminal acts/atrocities. This is
also true with social institutions like marriage, joint family, etc.
Is India the Rape Capital of the world?
Ever since Nirbhaya rape incident, there is continued coverage by
both national and international media about rapes in Bharath. At a point of
time, Bharath was called the rape capital of the world. A German university even
rejected admission to an Indian male, citing the security of female students in
the university as a reason[4]. While even a single such incident is shameful to
the entire nation, we also should not forget about the reality.
German professor can’t be blamed. The problem is Atrocity Literature and its
propagation through media, which created an image that “Indian men are rapists”,
though we are lot better than several so called developed countries. This is
despite our inferior judiciary and police, at least in quantity, if not quality.
The rape incidents fit into the pre-decided narrative of
the left-liberals and feminists that – India, especially Hindu society, is a patriarchal society and
women are being oppressed.

Narratives being created
around indigenous practices like Jallikattu, Kerala
Temple elephants, Holi, Deepavali, Dahi Handi, Ganesh Chaturthi, Sabarimala,
etc. all fall under the category of Atrocity Literature.
The modus operandi is same
in each case. Choose an indigenous festival or practice. Then prepare documents
showing that there are atrocities and then demand for a ban. Take the example of
Jallikattu, where you have a large number of bulls participating in the event.
It is obvious that there may be a few incidents of mistreatment of bulls. But,
this cannot be a justification for a blanket ban on the entire event. It is like
asking for a ban on travelling because of accidents. The solution is reform and
tight monitoring and not ban. The real objective behind all the outrage is to
distance the Hindus from their culture and tradition, so that they can be easily
converted.
(source:
Atrocity Literature: A Western Recipe to dismantle India and Hinduism – by
Ranjith
Vadiyala).
Refer to the
Merciless and Cruel Goa Inquisiiton - By Jai Sharma -
indiafacts.org
***
Killing the feminine: Misogyny in Christianity - by Sankrant Sanu
“She can show you the world we come from.
There’s no green there. They killed their Mother, and they’re gonna do the same
thing here.” From the movie, Avatar.
“The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? What
happened to their mother? They killed their mother and now she is a ghost.”
Executive and speaker Jeffrey Armstrong. At
the heart of the civilizing mission and the White man’s burden are the
prejudices coming from Christian theology. Only Christians can be saved, all
others are in the grip of Satan.
Amy
Carmichel, an
early 20th century missionary to India, is quoted here in
“Converting Women: Gender and Protestant Christianity in Colonial South
India.”
"...Our voices grow weary enough,
and our hearts grow wearier still, for it seems like fighting shadows, till the
remembrance suddenly comes - Not shadow, but substance, the great grim substance
of Satanic opposition. And then we take courage for the battle is the Lords."
It is the characterizing of others as Satanic that lead to the unspeakable
crimes of Christianity,
including, by one count, the
extermination of nearly one
hundred million natives in
the Americas. These
prejudices are alive and well and at the heart of exclusive Christianity and its
missionary activities worldwide.
Though liberal Western society is shown up in opposition to right wing
Christianity, the civilizing mission persists in the liberal West with some of
the terminology changed. Orientalist stereotypes of Hindus turn their Satanic
nature into descriptions of culture-blame. Nothing is as important as “saving
their women.”
I had written earlier about the disproportionate
coverage of rapes in
India in Western media and how films and
websites use their alleged “plight” as a fund-raising tool for NGO’s and
evangelical missions.
The Indian elite has been schooled into the idea of Christianity as a benign
force.
The
white man’s burden has become the brown coconut’s burden. So
what if all the people convert? Won’t we become advanced? As per the propaganda
film, Veil of Tears, won’t conversion into Christianity rescue the poor
Indian women?
As it turns out, not quite. As nationmaster.com collates in a helpful chart,
the top 6 countries by rape rate are all
majority Christian.
Far from saving our souls or “rescuing” Indian women, Christian conversion will
have precisely the opposite effect, an increased rate of rape. This may explain
the dramatic difference between the US and Canada as well. The
stridently Christian evangelical US has nearly 16 times the rape rate of its
northern neighbor.
As someone who has lived and studied in the US, I have been appalled at locker
room and dorm talk that looks at women merely as sex-objects, as “whores and
bitches”, a phenomena that is documented in the book “Boys Will Be Boys.” This
is quite different from my experience of college talk about girls among boys in
India, at least 20 or so years ago when I studied there, before the latest
download of American modernity.
In the Catholic Church, the
Pope, literally, the father is the ultimate patriarch and priests held power
over nuns, leading to unimaginable abuse. After,
all entire mankind is cursed because of the sin of Eve.
As
The Atlantic
notes, “many
Native Alaskan children were shipped off to boarding schools—some as young as 6
years old—and many were beaten, sexually abused, and urged to forget their
languages and cultures.” Suits have been filed
“against Catholic priests and church workers for molesting almost an entire
generation of Alaska Native children.”
It is not surprising that this cycle of abuse perpetuates in Alaska as it does
in other Christian societies.
Thus the necessity of highlighting Indian rapes comes from two
important and well-funded imperatives. The first is that Hinduism is “oppressive
of women” and Christianity, or its dual in the White Man’s civilizing burden,
Western liberalism, must rescue these women. Secondly, Hinduism is a
theological challenge and poses a great danger in attracting an increasing
interest from Western women finding their own power through it, exemplified by
the Yoga movement.
Hinduism in the form of the yoga movement is extremely popular
among Western women. Nearly 80%
of yoga practitioners in the US are
women. Many of these have taken in a deeper way to Hindu spirituality with its
empowerment of the divine feminine. The book and movie “Eat, Pray, Love” further
fuelled this movement in recent times, with popular actress Julia Roberts also
declaring her conversion
to Hinduism.
This is extremely
threatening to
Christianity. People don’t get that, unlike Hinduism, Christianity is largely
an institutionalized religion and a very organized force. When a threat like
this is perceived, systematic institutional efforts and strategies are set into
motion to counter it. I have various unconfirmed reports of journalists being
specifically tasked to source rape stories from India that are them amplified in
world media. This serves the dual purpose of culture-blame of Hinduism and
painting India as an unsafe place for Western woman tourists inclined to
undertake the “Eat, Pray, Love” journey into Hinduism. Unfortunately many
deracinated Indian “liberals”, cut off from Hindu traditions are useful idiots,
though some are also likely paid sepoys in this conversion war.
As Maria Wirth, a German native who grew up Christian, points
out, “…the
exclusive focus by the world media on “rapes in India’ is not justified and
raises suspicion of an agenda behind it. Articles appeared now, often written by
Indians with Hindu names, that Indian (read Hindu) culture is to be blamed for
the rapes, because it does not consider women as ‘autonomous entities’, which
probably means that they can’t do what they want. The Washington Post proclaimed
that sexual violence was endemic in India. The Reuters Trust Law group named
India one of the worst countries in the world for women. A Harvard committee
crafted strategies for ‘adolescent education’ to change the Indian mindset about
gender. It was getting a bit much. Don’t westerners look at their own record –
past and present – and compare it with that of India? Are they not ashamed?
Christian evangelism comes from a deeply wounded culture. Every
Christian carries the latent memory and karma of their own uprooting and the
burden of violence inflicted on them in Christianity’s imperial expansion.
Before Europe colonized others, it was itself colonized by Christianity, its
traditions destroyed and its wise strong women burnt at the stake as witches.
This civilization cannot but help inflict violence on others. While we protect
ourselves, we must also help them see light. This has been the role of our gurus
bringing yoga and Indian spiritual wisdom to the West for decades, without
carrying the agenda of religious conversion, to help heal the Christian West
before it destroys itself and others. To help restore their mother, we must
first connect to our own mother traditions and restore the balance of feminine
power.
For the rest of article refer to
link below.
(source:
Killing the feminine: Misogyny in Christianity - by Sankrant Sanu
- indiafacts.org). Refer to
The Church, Popes, Sainthood and their private lives versus
public sermon
- by C I
Issac
Top of Page
A process of
decolonization from a British-Mughal view of Indian history
***
Baahubali 2: India’s Blindfolds Are Off, And It’s a Dazzling Sight Indeed - by
Vamsee Juluri
An Indian Vision of India’s Past
Baahubali is
an audacious celebration of being not just Indian, but being Hindu. Its
popularity has to be understood in relation to not only the timeless tradition
of the
Ramayana and Mahabharatha, but also in relation to a newer pop culture
genre in India of historical fantasies inspired by the epics. The genre stormed
the market in 2010 with the runaway success of the Shiva Trilogy by Amish
Tripathi. The important thing about this genre, and this is evident in Baahubali too,
is the evocation of modern and liberal sensibilities in the social world of
their characters. Women fight, speak up for their rights, and authority is
constantly questioned. Heroes are rarely preordained prophets or avatars, but
ordinary human beings who struggle to earn their place. Critics see this genre
as a right-wing fantasy, but as I wrote some time ago in Foreign
Affairs, that view is shallow, and the popular rediscovery of India’s
civilizational heritage is better understood as a generational process of
decolonization from a British-Mughal view of Indian history.
Baahubali tells
the story of two generations of a royal family set at an unspecified time and
place in India’s past. It is a tale of palace intrigue and war drawing on the
epics as well as a modern Indian cinematic idiom of male-star-worship. But what
sets it apart from virtually any movie made in India is the absolute panache of
its production. The cities and palaces tower up to fill the screen, as do the
gardens and the battlefields. Every one of the hundreds of actors is in
character, and the screen invites you to soak in every frame like a graphic
novel panel (albeit a serious and dramatic one, in the vein of 300,
right down to muscular heroes and villains facing off with chariots and spears
and explosions of splinters and rubble).
The movie is an experience of beauty, most of all, and it marks, in
some ways, a return to Telugu cinema’s artistic roots from an earlier era. But
unlike the older movies, it is not gentle at all, but breathlessly adventurous
and violent. It is so sure of itself, and what it is doing to its viewers, that
the intermission is preceded by a sign saying “let’s give the people of
Mahishmati (the imaginary kingdom in the movie) a chance to breathe.” It takes
absolute bravado to say that, and it is justified.

Baahubali is
an audacious celebration of being not just Indian, but being Hindu.
Baahubali has
been described as the rediscovery of India’s traditional ideal of kshatra, or
warrior-spirit, after decades of its suppression by Gandhian notions of
pacifism.
***
That confidence, in some ways, is part of the desire to
self-represent that Baahubali’s
global Indian audience perhaps wishes to see fulfilled. Unlike most Indian
productions that cut short on detail, Baahubali shows
muscle literally and otherwise in its grandeur and vision. It speaks to and from
an aspirational Indian generation that can announce itself, and say it can speak
to the world on its terms. This is a desire that has been circulating in Indian
media and popular culture since the early years of economic liberalization in
the 1990s, of Indian success, and “arrival” of sorts in the global marketplace.
However, what makes Baahubali important
is the fact that it is explicitly, enormously, and exuberantly Hindu in its
vision and expression. Its popularity topples every chic theory about South
Asian history and cultural politics currently being taught in universities
around the world. It is a non-Hindi, non-hegemonic, South Indian, regional (and
“Dravidian”) language vision of Indian civilization, and it is Hindu. It is as
effortless in its sweeping recognition of diversity as it is of its underlying
spiritual-ethical-cultural architecture.
The cultural tensions between Bollywood and Baahubali are
accurately reflected in a popular
meme going around in social
media that suggests that films that
respect Hinduism will earn a lot more than
films that disrespect Hindus. The image contrasts Baahubali with
an earlier Bollywood blockbuster, P.K.,
a comedy about an alien who mocks Hinduism. In P.K.
the wide-eyed alien (played by activist actor Aamir Khan), who supposedly
exposes the failings of all organized religions
tip-toes around Islam but hits
Hinduism ruthlessly. For example, one scene in P.K. depicts
Hindus mistaking red-colored paint (from chewing paan,
or betel leaf) on a rock for a sacred mark and offering worship to it as if it
were a deity. It is exactly this sort of ignorance about the cosmology,
aesthetics, and practices of India’s largest religion by Bollywood elites that
has turned the loud celebration of Baahubali
into a
representation of an India long mocked and derided by its postcolonial elites.
The nation, it seems, no longer belongs to those who believed they
had a monopoly on its definition.
Baahubali has
been described as the rediscovery of India’s traditional ideal of kshatra, or
warrior-spirit,
after decades of its suppression by Gandhian notions of pacifism. It is that,
and a lot more too. The rest of the world accustomed to dogmatic and dated
textbook theories and pop culture stereotypes about what the Hindus are supposed
to be like might find it hard to get used to or understand at first. But in the
end, it has to return to the inevitable, to the vision of the infinite that has
sustained the life of a people threatened with extinction more than once before
in history only to find the people and their lives surviving, and rising, again
and again.
(source:
Baahubali 2: India’s Blindfolds Are Off, And It’s a Dazzling Sight Indeed - by Vamsee Juluri).
Top of Page
Native Americans say Junípero Serra enslaved them; Pope Francis says he saved
them. Lessons for Hindus

Yes if you go to polytheistic cultures, India or Japan, and you say 'I don't
believe in God', they say, That's fine, which one don't you believe in? There
are plenty around, you can have others.' And of course I think the original
meaning of atheism maxims apply to Christians, because they refused to accept
the Roman Pantheon. The Romans offered, 'We can include you in the Roman
Pantheon, we've included other people.' 'No, no, our God is the only God, the
others aren't God at all.' And so they were call atheists.-
John Gray, English philosopher and author of
Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia
-
"‘It
is imperative [Pope Francis] is enlightened to understand that
Father Serra Junipero was responsible for
the deception, exploitation, oppression, enslavement and genocide of thousands
of Indigenous Californians, ultimately resulting in the largest ethnic cleansing
in North America,’ a MoveOn.org petition read.” – Jack Jenkins
Pope Francis has been widely lauded as a champion of the oppressed, advocating
for the victims of war and passionately
declaring that
“to discriminate in the name of God is inhuman.”But
in September, the pontiff is planning to canonize, or declare a saint, a man who
some Native Americans say not only discriminated in God’s name, but also
subjugated thousands of Indians along the West Coast using missionary tactics
that effectively enslaved his Christian converts.
A saint who beat Native Americans? Credited with baptizing around 90,000 Indians
during his lifetime, there is wide agreement among historians that Serra’s
evangelism tactics were harsh by any modern standard. George Tinker, Professor
of American Indian Cultures and Religious Traditions at Iliff School of Theology
and author of Missionary
Conquest: The Gospel and Native American Genocide,
described to ThinkProgress what he called the “almost slave-labor conditions”
that Native Americans were subjected to under Serra’s leadership. Citing
accounts from Serra’s own lieutenant, Tinker said the Franciscan priest
prohibited converts from leaving his Christian compounds, often called missions,
and forced them to endure grueling labor on Spanish-run farms. Any attempt to
flee was met with brutal reprisals. “The army would round the person up, bring
him back to the mission compound, and then the person is punished,” he said,
“The mission compound was run kind of like a military boot camp.”
“Indian people had little free choice,” he said. “Conversion [was] almost a last
desperation in order to stay alive.”
Indian people [of the time] would agree that they were better off dead than
living under a Franciscan rule. “Indian people [of the time] would agree that
they were better off dead than living under a Franciscan rule,” he said. “How is
that better than what the Puritans did? It’s the same results. Invariably,
mission work was a component of colonization, either explicitly or implicitly,
and in the case of Serra it was inordinately explicit.” “This [was] an act of
pure colonialism, of nailing down territory.”
Pope Francis’ saint
Whatever the reasoning for Serra’s sainthood, however, the controversy largely
centers around one question: should the pope elevate a man who played a key role
in a colonial campaign that harmed Native Americans?
“It
legitimizes the conquest,”
(source:
Native Americans say Junípero Serra enslaved them; Pope Francis says he saved
them – By Jack Jenkins).
The Edict of Thessalonica and attack on Hindu traditions
"If Church wishes to harvest souls, let it sow
seeds of faith in Christian Europe. The fields there are lying fallow, uncared
and untended." - Kanchan Gupta in his
article
Christianity withering away in Christendom
"Opium and Christianity are harmful to the state
and need to be stopped." -
Hibino Teruhiro,
a Japanese sojourner in conversation with Hua Yilan in
Maiden Voyage by Joshua A. Fogel.
"Christianity may be considered a religion, but it was actually developed and
used as a system of mind control to produce slaves that believed God decreed
their slavery." -
Joseph Atwill, author of a book entitled 'Caesar's
Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus',
asserts that
Christianity did not begin as a religion, but was actually a sophisticated
government propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire.
***
Theodosius was labeled “The Great” by Christian historians for his attack on
pagan Roman and Greek traditions. That “next civilization” is India.
“When Barbarians seize another people’s land,
they first seize their minds.” – Takasugi Shinsaka,
(1839-1867) a Japanese samurai quoted in
Maiden
Voyage by Joshua A. Fogel.
***
After
Jallikattu, Sabarimala, Shani Shignapur, Kerala Temple
elephant ban and Ganesh Chaturthi, Dahi Handi is the latest Hindu
tradition to be attacked by an NGO-PIL system in conjunction with the able help
of the Indian judiciary. This is not an accident. Rather, this is aligned with
an evangelical strategy of death by a thousand cuts. While the verdict is still
out on the specific actors behind Dahi Handi, it is worth understanding the
historical erasure of pagan traditions and how this has been critical to a
monopolistic establishment of Christianity. These attacks cannot thus be
separated from evangelical interests in the Conversion War.
When the Roman Empire turned Christian: Banning the
Olympics
In 380
CE, the
Roman Emperor Theodosius declared Christianity to be the official
state religion of the Roman Empire. His “Edict of Thessalonica,” also called the
“Cunctos Populous,” declared all those who didn’t believe in the Nicene Creed to
be “heretics” and subject to both “earthly and heavenly” punishment. Everyone in
the empire shall be part of the religion that believes in God as a single Deity
of Father, Son and Holy Spirit – the Holy Trinity, as taught by St. Peter to the
Romans, and now taught by Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria. Only those
following this rule shall be called “catholic Christians.” Meeting places of
those who follow another religion (including heretics of a Christian variety)
shall not be given the status of churches, and such people may be subject to
both divine and earthly retribution.
Tragic and despicable Cultural
Vandalism of Greece and Rome

Emperor
Theodosius and Temple of Zeus
Theodosius, Emperor from 379-395 AD, took it on himself to
suppress Paganism for good by persecuting the few remaining Pagan leaders of
Rome and making Pagan worship punishable by death. He banned the Olympic games
and stopped all Pagan worship. Mobs of Christians looted Pagan temples and
destroyed temple libraries. Many fine Pagan buildings were also destroyed.
Christians were responsible for putting a stop to the original Olympic Games, of
which they disapproved. The famous statue of Zeus at Olympia, wrought in gold
and ivory, one of the seven wonders of the world was carted off to
Constantinople where it was later destroyed.
Refer to
Cultural Vandalism and
Did Christians Destroy Classical Culture and Create the Dark Ages?
***
Theodosius also embarked on a persecution of the pagan rituals and festivals,
including banning the Olympic Games that were seen to be associated with the
Greek gods and seen to be “too pagan.”
This is a quote from Christianity Today:
“Under the emperor’s direction,
fanatical Christians closed and later tore down ancient wonders of the world,
most notably the Temple of Zeus
built in Olympia and the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria…Theodosius’s
successor, Theodosius II, ordered his Roman army in 426 to demolish the
impressive stadium of Olympia, which could accommodate more than 40,000
spectators at its peak.
I
deliberately use the Christian site “Christianity Today” for the quote above,
since they later proffer apologia for this behavior of Theodosius and his
successor. The games needed to be banned because they were violent and they
injured Christian sensibilities by paying respect to the Greek gods.
“That
feast, held on the third day of the Games, was marked by a procession—priests
scooped up glowing embers from the fire of Hestia, goddess of the hearth, then
carried those embers past spectators singing a hymn to Zeus.”
According to Christianity
Today,
the banning of pagan
rituals was due to the Bishop Ambrose’s influence on Theodosius, which “fanned
the flames of Theodosius’s Christian faith and conscience.” And what does this
Christian faith and conscience make Theodosius do?
“And
so, on February 24, 391, the emperor began issuing a series of decrees that
effectively outlawed Greco-Roman paganism and all the rituals that accompanied
it. First, he prohibited pagan sacrifice, including—for the first time—the state
ceremonies still practiced in Rome. Then came the closing of all shrines and
temples: “No person shall approach the shrines, nor walk through the temples,
nor revere the images formed of mortal hands.” Next came a law forbidding
apostasy from Christianity to paganism, and finally, on November 8, 392,
Theodosius declared all sacrifice and divination punishable by death. That meant
destroying private altars, domestic idols placed in hearth and kitchen, hanging
garlands, etc.”
It is easy to map this to Hindu rituals, murtis placed in the
home, garlands of flowers at the entrance, the temples and shrines and use of jyotishya (“divination”).
Theodosius outlawed all this on the penalty of death, destroyed the temples, and
banned the festivals and sports associated with paganism.
Xavier and after
In
the 16th century, the Catholic Saint, Xavier
undertook a similar exercise, when he called upon the
Inquisition under Portuguese rule in Goa, which led to killing,
torturing and skewering of both non-Christians, who had not submitted to the
Christian faith, as well as Christians, who still continued some Hindu pagan
festivals or kept murtis at home. The Inquisition killed thousands, many with
brutal torture, including burning at the stake. Hundreds of Hindu temples were
destroyed and many Hindu practices prohibited, including “greeting people
with Namaste, wearing sandals, removing of the slippers, while entering the
church, and growing of the sacred basil or Tulsi plant in front of the house.
Fast forward
another few centuries. In 1894, Canada passed an amendment to the Indian act,
criminalizing many native festivals including the ceremony of the
potlatch.

The potlatch was seen as a key target in assimilation policies and agendas.
Christian Missionary William
Duncan wrote
in 1875 that the potlatch was "by far the most formidable of all obstacles in
the way of Indians becoming Christians, or even civilized". Thus in 1884,
the Indian
Act was
revised to include clauses banning
the Potlatch and
making it illegal to practice.
For more
refer to
Cultural Vandalism and
Did Christians Destroy Classical Culture and Create the
Dark Ages?
***
“Every Indian or other person who engages in or assists in celebrating the
Indian festival known as the “Potlatch” or in the Indian dance known as the
“Tamanawas” is guilty of a misdemeanor, and liable to imprisonment for a term of
not more than six nor less than two months in any gaol or other place of
confinement; and every Indian or persons who encourages, either directly or
indirectly, an Indian or Indians to get up such a festival…shall be liable to
the same punishment."
By the 19th
century, even though the suppression of native festivals was due to Christian
theological fixations of other religions being Satanic, it started being couched
in more secular reasoning.
While Christian
missionaries were often at the forefront of banning these festivals, secular
administrators were not far behind, often using the argument of progressive
values. But, haven’t Christians changed now and acknowledge they were mistaken
in the past? As I write in “Dead
Peoples Tell no Tales”,
Western scholarship about Native Americans starts to be more favorable only
after they have been practically eliminated:
“The interesting point is when does “oops we were
mistaken” scholarship emerge. It emerges when the civilizational
genocide of Native Americans is complete. Christianized, confined to reservation
and dis-armed the Native American poses no threat. There is no danger in
extolling his civilization. In fact, praising him helps in reinforcing the
self-image of the contemporary enlightened non-prejudiced liberal academic, no
longer
consigning the other as Satanic. Except for the next
civilization that is not yet quite dead.”
Contemporary India: The Joshua Project and Project Thessalonica
Why did we go
on this journey into Christian history? Whatever does this have to do with the
Dahi Handi restrictions or with Jallikattu or Sabarimala entry?
We have to
understand two things. Firstly, India is the biggest target of the Christian
conversion war in contemporary times. It is the only non-Christian society that
is open, plural and allows unhindered access to missionaries at this scale.
Further, it is a key strategic and civilizational target. The Joshua
Project
aiming at the 10/40 window is part of the
overt plan for Christianizing the world with billions of dollars of resources
deployed to target India. If you think any of this is a “conspiracy theory,” I
would urge you to visit the Joshua Project website first.
Lesser known, and far more secretive than the Joshua Project, is Project
Thessalonica.
Recall that the emperor Theodosius’ edict, aimed at destroying pagan Greek and
Roman temples, rituals and festivals was called the “Edit of Thessalonica.”
Modern day missionaries have the same aim but their methods are more varied. In
India, in states like Nagaland, where they are in the majority, they can indeed
work by edict and ban and destroy native
traditions and temples (with
not a peep from Indian mainstream media). In other parts that have an
unconverted majority, they have to use more stealth. Let us first look at
Project
Thessalonica (PT).
Just like the “Edict
of Thessalonica”
attacked Greek and Roman pagan festivals and traditions, PT aims to do that in
contemporary India.
“Project Thessalonica aims to stop or limit Hindu activity by converting people
who form the pillars of Hindu culture, festivals, traditions and activity…
Missions want to ensure that no new temple construction activity starts. With
this objective they are converting masons, craftsmen and others involved in
temple construction activity. The First Baptist Church of Nashville, Tennessee
adopted towns where the annual Kumbh Mela takes place and has been actively
converting the locals so that visitors face extreme hardship during their next
visit trying to find services and supplies. Another mission group is adopting
boatmen of Kasi where Hindus drop rice balls in river Ganges as an offering to
their forefathers. The boatsmen are being trained in other fields so that they
abandon this profession.
They are making environmental groups raise the voice so that Ganesh processions,
Kumbh Melas and Jagannath Rath Yatras are limited.
Why are these Christian organizations so keen to “save” Indian women, especially
when Christianity itself has a horrendous track
record of misogyny?
Some decades ago, evangelicals identified Hindu women, who were seen as
upholding the Hindu traditions, as the major obstacle to conversion. Thus, a
conscious process was put in place to attack their links to the culture using
the “feminism” trope, the same feminism that many of these conservative
Christian organizations opposed in their own countries.
Male-god Christianity, using
a secular cover of feminism, could thus attack the Hindu traditions of the
Divine Feminine with impunity.
As in the
entire history of Christian persecution of pagan festivals, the fig-leaf reasons
given for the bans are absurd. Jallikattu is apparently “cruelty to animals”, never
mind that unlike bull-fighting, animals are not killed, but
merely wrestled with and far more cruelty happens in the killing of animals for
meat which evangelicals sometimes forcefully
feed beef for conversion.
Jallikattu bulls are also raised with care, like family, and support an
ecosystem of local breeds. There is news though that after the “Hindu”
Jallikattu being banned, a Church sponsored event is starting to take its place,
much like the pagan feast of Mithra was replaced by “Christmas” and passed off
as the day of Jesus’ birth.
The non-legislative way starts first and foremost with a massive awareness
building. The attacks on the Hindu traditions are not unrelated. They form part
of a systematic strategy being executed on a war footing. Unfortunately, only
those attacking know that a war is even going on. If the other side doesn’t wake
up from its slumber, it is unlikely to offer any resistance to this cultural
genocide.
(source:
The Edict of Thessalonica and attack on Hindu traditions - By Sankrant Sanu
- indiafacts.org).
Top of Page
Targeting Hindu Festivals:
Anti-Pagan hatred that animates the new-found ecological concerns.
"And in those
days [the reign of Theodosius] the orthodox inhabitants of Alexandria were
filled with zeal and they collected a large quantity of wood and burned the
place of the heathen philosophers." -
John, Bishop of Nikiu, Chronicle (LXXXIV.45)
***
At Another Time, In Another Place, A Community Was Similarly Targeted For Its
Festivals
This is not the first time in the history of the world that a community is being
shamed for celebrating its festival.
Deepavali comes and also comes with it voices of ‘concern for the environment’
from a section of media and intellectuals. Suddenly Hindus are made to feel that
the way they have been celebrating Deepavali for generations is actually a grave
sin. 'Do not use crackers' is the bottom line as crackers have become the
defining character of this festival of light in India. This strange campaign is
done to remove as much as possible from the public celebration of a Hindu
festival. However, this is not the first time that such an agenda is afoot.
Shaming Hindus to abandon the public exhibition of their festivals has been done
in a sustained and systematic way from the colonial period.

And it goes on today. There have been protests against fireworks during
Deepavali. Bans have been effected on Jalli Kattu during Pongal (Makara
Sankranthi) in Tamil Nadu. Overt Hindu practices like fire-walking and
hook-swinging have been decried constantly as barbaric and every year petitions
are filed to stop them. Come Durga Puja or Navratri, outdated racist
interpretations based on pseudo-scientific theses get peddled in a section of
media.
Of late this has almost become a media ritual. Any popular Hindu festival is
targeted along with its public manifestation. Either the festival is demeaned or
its public exhibition is curtailed or both. Not the first time in the history of
the world.
At another time in the past, in another place, a community was similarly
targeted for celebrating its festivals. David Baile, Professor of Jewish History
at the University of California, traces how political antisemitism and animal
right concerns colluded to create a discourse against Jewish culture:
The attacks on Jewish ritual slaughter originated in animal rights campaigns
starting in the 1850s that had little to do with the Jews. It was only with the
rise of political antisemitism in the 1880s that humane slaughter activists
turned their wrath on the Jews or, more commonly, that antisemites exploited the
new language of animal rights to attack Jewish practices. (‘Blood
and discourses of Nazi Antisemitism’ in ‘Varieties of Antisemitism: History,
Ideology, Discourse‘,
2009)The campaign was effective. Switzerland banned the Jewish ritual in 1893,
Norway and Bavaria followed suit in 1930 and in 1933 even before the Nazi
ascendancy, entire Germany banned the Jewish ritual. It was in Poland, with the
largest Jewish population, that the campaign became fierce. Top ranking Catholic
clergyman Monsignor Stanislaw Trzeciak claimed that the ritual was not required
by Mosaic Law.
The Catholic Church was arrogantly arrogating to itself the control of the
religious narrative and authority over the cultural life of another religion.
Rev. Trzeciak
declared that the ritual was not only a 'concoction' of the rabbis
but that it was 'a relic of eastern barbarism from the dark ages'. The Catholic
Church suddenly exuded a new found mercy for the animals. The official organ of
the Archdiocese of Warsaw called for action to end 'the barbarism properly
described as the ritual murder of animals'. Prof. Ronald Modras, in his in-depth
study ('The Catholic Church and Antisemitism', 2005) points out that the
Church-catalyzed campaign also had the economic aim of removing Jews from meat
industry.
In India the cracker-less Deepavali campaign coincides with the aggressive
expansion of the market by Chinese cracker industry. Maybe a destruction of
domestic market for Indian cracker industry can eliminate for the Chinese a
potential competitor in the international cracker market.
What now?
Regardless, it is time
Hindu scholars, like their Jewish counterparts, start
studying academically these hate campaigns against their festivals and cultural
practices the same way anti-Semitic propaganda had been studied and documented.
Perhaps time has come for Hindu academics to run a peer-reviewed journal on
anti-Hindu hatred and study the tactics as well as psychology of these
hate-peddlers: a journal of anti-Hinduism or to borrow
Rajiv Malhotra’s
terminology, a ‘Journal of Hinduphobia in media, academia and social campaigns’.
Crackers have emission standards and decibel controls. If the norms are not
followed then the problem lies elsewhere.
Hindus need to understand the anti-Pagan hatred that animates the new-found
ecological concerns. The string-pullers behind the campaign for cracker-less
Deepavali do not really love birds and animal rights.
(source:
At Another Time, In Another Place, A Community Was Similarly Targeted For Its
Festivals - by Aravindan Neelakandan).
Top of Page
How being anti-Hindu became fashionable among India's middle-class
Despite the chilling brutality of the Islamic State (ISIS), the harsh laws of
Sunni Saudi Arabia and the hate speeches of mullahs from Tehran to Islamabad,
the more extremist strains of radical Islam receive less criticism than they
deserve. Few want to meet the fate of the journalists and cartoonists of Charlie
Hebdo, murdered by Islamist terrorists, or Kamlesh Tiwari, still languishing in
jail nearly a year after his allegedly derogatory comments on the Prophet.
Islamaphobia is rightly condemned. Hinduphobia though is acceptable in living
rooms across upper middle-class urban India where secular poseurs are many in
number.
In India it's kosher, even fashionable among the nouveau elite, to be
anti-Hindu.
Pathology
We'll come to the pathology of this curious phenomenon in a bit but first a look
at
The Economist's
story on Muslims in India whom it calls 'An Uncertain Community'. The magazine
grudgingly concedes that 'India's Muslims have not, it is true, been officially
persecuted, hounded into exile or systematically targeted by terrorists, as have
minorities in other parts of the subcontinent, such as the Ahmadi sect in
Pakistan.' The Economist has displayed poor editorial judgement so often (it
backed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003) that its insight on secularism in India
is predictably myopic.
And yet, the patronising, all-knowing tone it adopts towards India's secular
ethos echoes the position of India's Hinduphobes.
Most Indian Hinduphobes are, strangely, Hindus. They call themselves secular but
are often not. Secularism requires religion-neutrality. They lack that. Bias
colours their views. So why are sophisticated, educated Hindus who aspire to be
secular so Hinduphobic?
Because
they completely misunderstand what real secularism means.
As I wrote in my book
The New Clash of Civilizations,
'Influential sections of especially the electronic media, suffused with hearts
bleeding from the wrong ventricle, are part of this great fraud played on
India's poverty-stricken Muslims - communalism with an engaging secular mask.
'The token Muslim is lionised - from business to literature - but the common
Muslim languishes in his 69-year-old ghetto. 'It is from such ghettos that raw
recruits to the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and the Indian
Mujaheedin (IM) are most easily found.
'India's religious diversity though is deeply embedded. Six of India's highest
constitutional functionaries have recently been Sikh (prime minister), Christian
(UPA chairperson), Muslim (chief election commissioner), Parsi (chief justice of
India), Dalit (speaker of the Lok Sabha) and Hindu (president). 'There is no
other country in the world with such breathtaking plurality at the highest level
of leadership.
'Consider Britain: only Protestant (not Catholic) Christians can be monarch.
'In Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, minorities (including Muslim Ahmadis) have
severely restricted rights.
'Unlike burqa-banning Western democracies such as France and Belgium, Indian
secularism does not separate church from state.
'It allows them to swim together in a common, if sometimes, chaotic pool.'
Atrocities
Politicians are the worst offenders. Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee turns
a blind eye to atrocities by Muslims against Hindus.
In a brazen exhibition of communal politics, she does so in order to secure
Bengal's 27 per cent Muslim electorate that, along with a small slice of the
Hindu majority, can guarantee her over 40 per cent of the vote-share and a
near-landslide in a four-cornered contest with the Left, BJP and fr-enemy
Congress.
This sort of communal polarisation suits the BJP. The rise of majoritarianism
has underpinned its success in states like Assam.
The biggest loser has been the Congress, the original communal polariser in the
1985 Shah Bano case. It is now reaping the ill wind.
The rise of Hindu extremist fringe elements is a direct consequence of decades
of political parties pandering to minorities in the name of a fraudulent
secularism.
Meanwhile, the 'mild', everyday Hindu, inured to caste stratification, fatalism,
karma and centuries of Islamic and Christian-British subjugation, is an easy
target for Hinduphobes.
Uncertain
The Economist's piece on Indian Muslims - 'An Uncertain Community ' - ends with
a quote by a veteran Muslim voice: ' 'They called it a secular state, which is
why many who had a choice at Partition wanted to stay here,' says Saeed Naqvi, a
journalist whose recent book, Being The Other, chronicles the growing alienation
of India's Muslims. 'But what really happened was that we seamlessly glided from
British Raj to Hindu Raj.'
This is misleading for two reasons. First, it is of course a misnomer to call
the British occupation of India the British Raj.
That
connotes a benign presence which the occupation was not.
Second, India is hardly a 'Hindu Raj' given the fact that
Muslims, Christians, Parsis and others have their own personal laws
and, bar isolated incidents, are safer in India than virtually anywhere else in
the world.
While Hinduphobia is a psychological affliction, countering it with Hinduphilia
is hardly the answer. The RSS is wrong to call for a Hindu Rashtra. It should
instead work for a
Bharat Rashtra.
Confine religion to your home. It has no place in public discourse. Secularism
is not top-down but bottom-up. No number of laws can guarantee religious
tolerance as the examples of France, Belgium and the United States demonstrate.
It is the inborn secularism of Hindus that makes India secular.
(source:
How being anti-Hindu became fashionable among India's middle-class - by
Minhaz Merchant - dailymail.co.uk).
Top of Page
Hate Hinduism industry flourishes in the Western media and
Academia
***
Hindus certainly need to tackle privilege and caste-based discrimination, but
not on the terms set by Western media and academia.
It’s a shame that many good people don’t understand the reality of anti-Hindu
fanaticism. It is one of the slimiest, nastiest, persistent, violent and
intolerant hate-industries in history and yet people don’t even know how to see
it, name it, or fight it. Worse, some people even actively deny it, even as they
profess their dedication to fighting Islamophobia and the like. Some people deny
it so much they abhor saying they are Hindus (preferring to call themselves
South Asian, or “born into a Hindu family” and the like). There are others who
call themselves Hindu, but that doesn’t equip them to see that there is such a
thing as anti-Hindu prejudice and hate either. They merely become pawns in
perpetuating it.
Anti-Hindu hatred is not a matter of explicit religious hatred between one group
and another, as it was in the medieval or colonial era when Muslim and Christian
imperialists sought to conquer and convert the non-Muslims and non-Christians of
India (of course, there were some non-imperialist Christians and Muslims already
living in India at that time, but unfortunately, their legacy of coexistence and
love pales before the destructive effects on economy, culture, education,
families, animals, nature and virtually every sphere of life in India by the
imperialisms). It is more complex.
There is some debate these days in academia about the nature of imperialism’s
impact on India. Postcolonial scholars agree European imperialism was real and
devastating. Most of them look away from Islamic imperialism though, and prefer
instead to argue that even the most ardent and militant Islamic crusaders in
India such as Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan were acting non-religiously while
ordering mass slaughters of Hindus and destructions of their most sacred spaces
of civic, spiritual, and economic life.
These scholars have retreated somewhat in the last few years on this last point.
They no longer insist openly that India was invaded by Hindus/Aryans who
massacred and colonized the natives. They say instead that there was an “Aryan
migration,” and then proceed to ignore every bit of fact and truth expressed by
dissenting scholars to go on doing what the openly racist and religiously
intolerant colonizers were doing a few generations ago: hating Hinduism and
making up completely false stories in order to destroy it.
First of all, as scholars like
S.N. Balagangadhara
have argued, it doesn’t make
sense at all to reduce Hinduism to a “religion” in the Western sense. It is a
historic fabrication. However, since we live in a deeply interconnected
postcolonial global culture, it is perhaps impossible to escape the use of a
non-Hindu notion like “religion” to identify, self-represent, and indeed,
survive. And survival is still a concern given that for centuries the original
self-proclaimed “Religions” denied even the right to exist for people they
sneered at as “unbelievers” (okay, we must grant that after several centuries of
only partly successful if enormously destructive attempts, the
believer/unbeliever dichotomy-makers now grant that everyone else is a
“believer” too; not unlike how in the age of the colonial “civilizing mission”
the dichotomy was civilized Europe versus the primitive or savage other, but now
academia and media speak commonly of “civilizations” in the plural).
So, if Hinduism is not even a religion in your sense of the word, why do
self-identifying Hindus even go along with this inaccurately self-relativizing
“every religion has a dark side and this is mine” modus operandi? It makes sense
for members of religions that have been at the heart of global imperialisms and
violent conquests driven by their religion’s clearly stated, organized, and
practiced theologies of conversion. Unless you believe that Hinduism too is a
“religion” in the same sense, right down to messianic founders, civilizing
missions, conquest-management institutions, and most of all, blood on its hands
and its books, why would you go along with such a delusion? Do you believe,
still, that Hindus are fair-skinned Aryans from Eurasia who invaded and enslaved
Dravidians in 1500 BCE after destroying the Indus Valley Civilization, and
therefore that you must chirpily rise up and denounce your non-existent invading
class of religious zealots?
And even granting that Hindus have an obligation to denounce caste-privilege and
oppression (which I agree with), why would you do so on the false terms set by
colonial propagandists and not on your own? And most of all, is the media
environment in which you denounce Hinduism for its dark side presenting an equal
set of arguments from other religionists about their “dark side”? I only see
writers from and about other religions arguing about how they invented
civilization, science, math, astronomy, justice, law, all that is great, while
the poor self-flagellating Hindu denounces himself without a clue.
The evidence of this trauma may not be obvious to you on the face of it. But if
you look, you will see it. It is there, everywhere, from the destroyed ruins of
a Hindu temple lying around the Qutub Minar in Delhi, to the ravaging of one of
the greatest art treasures of the world in Hampi. It is also there in Kashi, the
City of Light, currently being smeared as the “City of Death” by CNN
(incidentally, I wonder if we will get to see Reza Aslan standing in front of
the Kashi Vishwanath temple and saying “my religion has a dark side” and
admitting that it destroyed this holy shrine and built a gigantic mosque that
hulks over it to this day).
(source:
Hate Hinduism industry flourishes in the Western media and
Academia - by Vamsee Juluri
-
swarajyamag.com).
Top of Page
What is Christian – by Joachim Kahl (excerpt from the book, ‘The
Misery of Christianity’)

Joachim Kahl
(1941 - ) is
a German freelance philosopher whose work focuses on the criticism of religion,
ethics and aesthetics and written the book, The Misery of Christianity.
Christian politicians are in the habit nowadays
of evoking, with excessive emotion, the ‘great social and moral values of
Christianity’ which, they claim, ‘cannot be abandoned’ and which alone can
preserve us from the evil arch-enemy from the East. Similarly, Christian
theologians are in the habit of tracing almost all the advances made in history
– including, for example, the emergence of the natural sciences – back to an
‘ultimately Christian origin.’
The Church as Slave owner
The New Testament has many harsh things to say
against illicit sexual intercourse, against homosexuality and against the
wearing of long hair by women. The parables which Jesus told according to the
gospel presuppose slavery. Paul, too, not
only accepted slavery as a matter of course, but even affirmed it explicitly. He
sent
Onesimus,
the runaway slave whom he had converted back to his master,
Philemon. This is what Paul had to say to
slaves in his household codes: submit yourselves voluntarily to your masters in
a spirit of humble obedience, so that the name of God and the teaching may not
be defamed.’ I have given all these quotations to prove that early Christianity
was guilty of being the agent of a repressive society.
The New Testament is a
manifesto of inhumanity. It is mass deception planned on a large scale. It make
people stupid instead of making them aware of their own objective interests.
What, after all, is the cross of Jesus Christ? It is nothing but the sum total
of a sado-masochistic glorification of pain. The early Church
retained the New Testament attitude to slavery. From the very beginning,
Christian preaching stabilized the practice of slavery. Augustine showed what
excellent oil the new religion was for the machinery of the masters in society
when he called on those who were not slaves to give thanks because Christ and
his Church did not make free men of slaves, but good slaves and bad slaves.
The Church’s adaptation to the social and
political power structure of the state – an unhesitating act of opportunism –
took place at last in the 4th century. As the exponents of the Roman
feudal class, the emperors raised Christianity to the level of the state
religion. Constantine began this process in
AD. 313 and it was completed in 380 by Gratian and
Theodosius. Slavery continued throughout the whole of the
Christian Middle Ages and was defended by leading scholastic theologians such as
Thomas Aquinas, Albert the Great and Duna Scotus.
Popes and bishops, prelates and superiors of monasteries had control of
thousands of male and female slaves who had the task of cultivating the enormous
farm lands. Those who ran away were relentlessly pursued, caught and brought
back. As fugitivi, an iron ring with
Christian symbols was then put round their necks. Cannon law treated all slaves
as objects and classified them under the heading ‘church property’ (human
material). In 1179, at the Third Lateran Council,
all those who opposed the Roman papacy were threatened with slavery. Even though
the punishments could not be carried out, the popes imposed slavery on Venice in
1309, 1482 and 1506, on Florence in 1376, and on the whole of England in 1508.
The
slave trade was given a new lease of life at the end of the Middle Ages by the
Spanish and Portuguese conquests and colonization in the New World. In his bull
of 1454,
Romanus Pontifex, Pope Nicholas V
gave his blessing to the practice of enslaving all conquered peoples.
In
1487, Innocent VIII accepted, as a gift from Isabella
of Spain, a large number of slaves from Malaga. In 1493, Alexander VI
divided the world between Spain and Portugal and sanctioned the normal practice
of forced labor, declaring it to be quite lawful. In 1548, Paul III granted to
all men and to all members of the clergy the right to keep slaves. Papal galleys
set out to catch men and many fervent prayers of thanksgiving rose up to heaven
whenever a rich catch of ‘tools with souls’ was made.
Christian theologians seriously discussed the
‘problem’ of whether a pocket mirror was a just price for a negro.
The Jesuit College in the Congo owned 12,000
slaves in 1666 and the popes rejoiced in their services until the end of the 18th
century in the Papal States. Even at late as 1864, there were slaves in the
service of the Church – owned by the Benedictines in
Brazil. After Luther had justified serfdom and slavery, Protestantism
followed the same course. The missionaries gave theological approval to the
slave trade and it was consequently practiced with a clear conscience by the
Protestant states until far into the 19th century.
Whenever men become dissatisfied with their
state of life (as they sometimes do during or after a war), Christian
theologians are still not at loss and can use the doctrine of creation with
shallow rhetoric. This smokescreen is mad thicker by the Christian use of the
doctrine of sin, according to which all conflicts between men and all abuses are
a consequence of man’s disobedience to God’s holy commandments. Since Adam’s
fall, all human beings have been living in a ‘state of corruption’. They are
evil. This situation will last until the end of the world and cannot be done
away with because of the fact that evil in inherent in man. Every Sunday, people
are chastised in sermons in which they are told that they are sinners, worthless
and cringing creatures without freedom. In fact they are, as such, extremely
useful to the social elite, the ruling classes, who can only survive and prosper
s long as the great masses of the people remain helpless and lacking in
self-confidence.
Persecution of Pagans
The whole of the New Testament resounds with
extreme aggressiveness towards everything which deviates only very slightly from
the Christian norm.
The 4th century marked the end of
religious toleration and freedom of rights both of non-Christians and of
non-Catholics Christian minorities were systematically curtailed. From the time
of Constantine, every Roman citizen had to be an orthodox Christian. Practicing
a pagan religion or heresy was regarded as committing a crime against the state
and visiting a pagan temple or offering a pagan sacrifice was punished by
banishment or death. Christian mobile detachments, monks, bishops, and laymen,
stormed and plundered pagan places of worship. Huge numbers of art treasures of
immeasurable value were destroyed and most of the pagan literature was burnt.
The process of Christianization within the Roman Empire was ultimately concluded
in the 6th century during the reign of
Justinian I (527-565), who imposed compulsory baptism, renewed the
death penalty and outlawed all pagans and non-Catholic Christians. The marked
the completion of the setting up of a totalitarian system which was to have a
deep impact on the Christian centuries that followed including the Crusades.
Contrary to what many people, in their unsuspecting innocence, imagine, the
crusades did not end with the close of the Middle Ages – colonialism and
imperialism, the characteristic activities of modern age, also flourished under
the banner of the Christian faith.
Anyone who has read the unforgettable account of
the devastation of the ‘West Indian’ countries published by the
Dominican Bartholome de las Casas, will know
what was done in those countries during the Golden Age of Spain and Portugal –
in a word, the mass murder of 20,000 Indians. Those who were not massacred at
once died later in the gold mines, the pearl fisheries and the plantations.
There were an endless succession of the most horrifying crimes. Indians were
impaled, hanged or slowly burnt alive, or had their hands, feet, ears and other
parts of their bodies cut off.
What did the Catholic priests who came with the
colonists do while this was going on? They gave them absolution and the body of
the Lord and assured them that He would bestow His grace and favor on them.
The
predominantly Protestant Christians – mostly Congregationalists – who brought
the faith to North America were no less cruel. The conquest of New England and
the extermination of its Indian inhabitants was accomplished according to the
pattern of the occupation of idolatrous Canaan by the Israelites. This was the
will of the Father of Jesus Christ and those who clung stubbornly to the worship
of the false Indian god Manito, had to experience it.
Even more recently, in the 19th
century, colonial exploitation and the preaching of the gospel went hand in
hand. A good example of this is the opium war in China (1840-1842). Opium was
forbidden in England as a narcotic and it was also a punishable offence to take
opium in China. Imperialist Britain
therefore unleashed the opium war – her motives were purely and blatantly
economic – and forced China to allow the drug to be imported. The Peace of
Nanking, concluded in 1842, opened the Chinese ports to opium and, at the same
time, to Christian missionaries. Just as no representative of the Church had
raised his voice in protest against the unscrupulous sale of alcohol, hitherto
unknown to the Indians, by Christian merchants in North America, so too no
Christian objected publicily to the open crime of the
Opium War. On the contrary, the missionaries rejoiced – their God,
who was not averse to using crooked ways, was clearly opening a door to admit
the gospel into pagan China.
As the Protestant pastor
Karl Gutzlaf wrote, ‘Now that the way to
China lies open, my heart has begun to beat with joy.’
The missionaries often followed trade. But it
often happened the other way about, the exploiters following the Christian
missionaries and fleecing the newly-won converts mercilessly. ‘Gospel-financial
exploitation-political subjection. This was touchingly expressed by a
Maori: ‘While we (under the influence of the mission)
were looking up to heaven, your (that is, the missionaries) brothers came and
took our land away from us.’
Is this only something
that took place in the past? I know it is not. Colonization by Christian nations
is still going on, but it now more cunningly camouflaged (as ‘help for the
underdeveloped countries’) and brutality and violence are less clearly visible.
The German Confessing Church and the Catholic Church both supported the Second
World War as a crusade against the godless Bolsheviks and, quite recently, the
American Cardinal Spellman, who dies in
1967, defended the war in Vietnam as a war for the Christian faith. It is
possible to glorify any war with the equipment provided by theology.
(source:
The Misery of Christianity - By Joachim Kahl
p. 1 -95).
Top of Page
Regarding Compassion
International: A Christian Charity in India
We have had enough of 'service'
Dear
lawmaker,
Recently, 107 of you (members of the US Congress, both
Republicans and Democrats) wrote to the Indian Home Minister, Rajnath
Singh to allow the American charity, Compassion International (CI) to continue
it's work in India.
Your
missive opens on a warm note: ''As the largest and oldest democracies in the
world, India and the US share bonds rooted in political pluralism and respect
for the rule of law." The subsequent sentences, reveal your real intent. "It is
with this in mind that we write to express our deep concern over the lack of
transparency and consistency in your government's enforcement of the Foreign
Contribution (regulations) Act."
"The
ongoing case of
US-based Compassion
International, which will have harmful consequences for many
Indian children, has caused serious concern within the US Congress."
Dear
US lawmakers, on the face, your letter is touching, full of concern for the
unfortunate destitute children of a faraway developing country. But are you sure
that CI's activities are motivated purely by compassion for the underprivileged
children of India? Is there no hidden agenda? What has been the record of CI
since it started its operations in India in 1968?

We have had enough of such "service" after the Portuguese landed in Goa in the
15th century and also when the Church secured the inclusion of a clause in the
East India Company's charter Act of 1813 that opened the doors of our country to
British missionaries.
For more
refer to
Funding Evangelism through ‘Compassion’- A report on
Compassion International-I
- indiafacts.org
***
If
compassion for the destitute kids was the core of the organisation's operations
in India, it has a lot of work cut out for it in the US itself. In 2011, child
poverty in the US reached record-high levels with 16.7 million children living
in insecure households, about 35 per cent over the 2007 levels, the second
highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world. According to a 2016
study by the Urban Institute, teenagers in low income communities are often
forced to save school lunches, sell drugs or offer sexual favours because they
couldn't afford food. Refer to a 2014 report by the National Center on Family
Homelessness on homeless children in the US. Along with poverty, children in
your country suffer in broken families as well. There is a divorce every 36
second. That is nearly 2,400 divorces per day, 16,800 divorces per week and
8,76,000 divorces a year. As a result, only 46 per cent of the children are
living with two parents who are both in their first marriage. While in the early
1960s, babies typically arrived after a wedding, today four in ten births in
your country occur to women who are either single or live in with a partner.
Honourable US lawmakers, you will agree that a secure home and strong family
help a child cope up with poverty better. In your country, a large number of
children suffer double disadvantage. They need enormous emotional support from
the society to make up for broken homes, apart from monetary assistance. But
CI's heart does not bleed for these hapless American children. It spends around
$50 million annually in India as "humanitarian aid". Why?
Because, CI has souls to save for the Christ in India and the US does not
offer any such opportunity, since the destitute there are already Christians.
Dear
US lawmakers, CI has been duly investigated by Indian
officials, within the framework of our legal system, accountable to our
Parliament and Judiciary. Is it fair on your part to interfere in our
affairs? CI operated through Caruna Bal Vikas Trust in India. Its child
"welfare" activities included holding Christian prayers on a daily basis,
celebrating only Christian festivals, offering prizes for recitation of Bible
verses and holding "Compassion Young Adult Meet", where a person gives Christian
inputs. Are the CI's objectives not clear?
We have had enough of such "service" after the Portuguese landed in Goa in the
15th century and also when the Church secured the inclusion of a clause in the
East India Company's charter Act of 1813 that opened the doors of our country to
British missionaries. In the name of "service", missionaries broke families,
divided communities and alienated converted individuals from the land of their
birth. In the 1857 war of independence, the community of Indian Christian
converts was the only one to remain loyal to the British in the areas that
revolted. Are you caught in a time warp? We are in the 21st Century, but a part
of you lives in 18th, wherein western Christian missionaries and organisations
took upon themselves the "noble" task of shouldering the "white man's burden" of
saving the souls of heathens and civilising them.
(source:
We have had enough of 'service' - By Balbir Punj
-
newindiaexpress.com).
Top of Page
The Barbarity of the Goa Inquisition: No Apology from the Catholic Church
"At
least from 1540 onwards, and in the island of Goa before that year, all the
Hindu idols had been annihilated or had disappeared, all the temples had been
destroyed and their sites and building material was in most cases utilized to
erect new Christian Churches and chapels. Various viceregal and Church council
decrees banished the Hindu priests from the Portuguese territories; the public
practices of Hindu rites including marriage rites, were banned; the state took
upon itself the task of bringing up Hindu orphan children; the Hindus were
denied certain employments, while the Christians were preferred; it was ensured
that the Hindus would not harass those who became Christians, and on the
contrary, the Hindus were obliged to assemble periodically in Churches to listen
to preaching or to the refutation of their religion."
"A
particularly grave abuse was practiced in Goa in the form of 'mass baptism' and
what went before it. The practice was begun by the Jesuits and was alter
initiated by the Franciscans also. The Jesuits staged an annual mass baptism on
the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul (January 25), and in order to secure as
many neophytes as possible, a few days before the ceremony the Jesuits would go
through the streets of the Hindu quarter in pairs, accompanied by their Negro
slaves, whom they would urge to seize the Hindus. When the blacks caught up a
fugitive, they would smear his lips with a piece of beef, making him an
'untouchable' among his people. Conversion to Christianity was then his only
option."
The
Goan inquisition is regarded by all contemporary portrayals as the most violent
inquisition ever executed by the Portuguese Catholic Church. It lasted from 1560
to 1812. The inquisition was set as a tribunal, headed by a judge, sent to Goa
from Portugal and was assisted by two judicial henchmen. The judge was
answerable to no one except to Lisbon and handed down punishments as he saw fit.
The Inquisition Laws filled 230 pages and the palace where the Inquisition was
conducted was known as the Big House and the Inquisition proceedings were always
conducted behind closed shutters and closed doors. The screams of agony of the
victims (men, women, and children) could be heard in the streets, in the
stillness of the night, as they were brutally interrogated, flogged, and slowly
dismembered in front of their relatives. Eyelids were sliced off and extremities
were amputated carefully, a person could remain conscious even though the only
thing that remained was his torso and head.
Diego de Borda, a priest and his advisor
Vicar General, Miguel Vazz had made a 41
point plan for torturing Hindus. Under this plan Viceroy Antano de Noronha
issued in 1566, an order applicable to the entire area under Portuguese rule:
"I
hereby order that in any area owned by my master, the king, nobody should
construct a Hindu temple and such temples already constructed should not be
repaired without my permission. If this order is transgressed, such temples
shall be, destroyed and the goods in them shall be used to meet expenses of holy
deeds, as punishment of such transgression."
In
1567 the campaign of destroying temples in Bardez met with success. At the end
of it 300 Hindu temples were destroyed. Enacting laws, prohibition was laid from
December 4, 1567 on rituals of Hindu marriages, sacred thread wearing and
cremation. All the persons above 15 years of age were compelled to listen to
Christian preaching, failing which they were punished.
A
religious fatva was issued on the basis of the findings of Goa Inquiry
Commission. It stated, "...Hereby we declare the decision that the conventions
mentioned in the preamble of the fatva as stated below are permanently declared
as useless, and therefore prohibited."
Prohibitions Regarding Marriages
The
instruments for Hindu songs shall not be played.
While
giving dowry the relatives of the bride and groom must not be invited.
At the
time of marriage, betel leaf packages (pan) must not be distributed either
publicly or in private to the persons present.
Flowers, or fried puris, betel nuts and leaves must not be sent to the heads of
the houses of the bride or groom.
Gotraj
ceremony of family God must not be performed.
On the
day prior to a wedding, rice must not be husked, spices must not be pounded,
grains must not be ground and other recipes for marriage feast must not be
cooked.
Pandals and festoons must not be used.
Pithi
should not be applied.
The
bride must not be accorded ceremonial welcome. The bride and groom must not be
made to sit under pandal to convey blessings and best wishes to them.
The
poor must not be fed or ceremonial meals must not be served for the peace of the
souls of the dead.
There
should be no fasting on ekadashi day.
Fasting can be done according to the Christian principles.
No
rituals should be performed on the twelfth day after death, on moonless and full
moon dates.
Hindu
men should not wear dhoti either in public or in their houses. Women should not
wear cholis.
They
should not plant Tulsi in their houses, compounds, gardens or any other place.
Following the law of 1567, orphans were kidnapped for converting them to
Christianity.
On
September 22, 1570 an order was issued that:
The
Hindus embracing Christianity will be exempted from land taxes for a period of
15 years.
Nobody
shall bear Hindu names or surnames.
In
1583 Hindu temples at Esolna and Kankolim were destroyed through army action.
"The
fathers of the Church forbade the Hindus under terrible penalties the use of
their own sacred books, and prevented them from all exercise of their religion.
They destroyed their temples, and so harassed and interfered with the people
that they abandoned the city in large numbers, refusing to remain any longer in
a place where they had no liberty, and were liable to imprisonment, torture and
death if they worshipped after their own fashion the gods of their fathers."
wrote Sasetti, who was in India from 1578 to 1588.
An
order was issued in June 1684 eliminating Konkani
language and making it compulsory to speak Portuguese language. The
law provided for dealing toughly with anyone using the local language. Following
that law all the symbols of non-Christian sects were destroyed and the books
written in local languages were burnt.
The
Archbishop living on the banks of the Ethora had said during one of his lecture
series, "The post of Inquiry Commission in Goa is regarded as holy." The women
who opposed the assistants of the commission were put behind the bars and were
used by them to satisfy their animal instincts. Then they were burnt alive as
opponents of the established tenets of the Catholic church.
The
victims of such inhuman laws of the Inquiry Commission included a French
traveller named Delone. He was an eye witness to the atrocities, cruelty and
reign of terror unleashed by priests. He published a book in 1687 describing the
lot of helpless victims. While he was in jail he had heard the cries of tortured
people beaten with instruments having sharp teeth. All these details are noted
in Delone's book.
So
harsh and notorious was the inquisition in Goa, that word of its brutality and
horrors reached Lisbon but nothing was done to stop this notoriety and
escalating barbarity and it continued for two hundred more years. Nobody knows
the exact number of Goans subjected to these diabolical tortures, but perhaps it
runs into hundreds of thousands, may be even more. The abominations of
inquisitions continued until a brief respite was given in 1774 but four years
later, the inquisition was introduced again and it continued un-interruptedly
until 1812. At that point in time, in the year of 1812, the British put pressure
on the Portuguese to put an end to the terror of Inquisition and the presence of
British troops in Goa enforced the British desire. Also the Portuguese power at
this time was declining and they could not fight the British.
The palace of the Grand Inquisitor, the Big House,
was demolished and no trace of it remains today, which might remind someone of
inquisitions and the horrors inside this Big House that their great saint
Francis Xavier had commenced.
Dr.
Trasta Breganka Kunha, a Catholic citizen of Goa writes, "Inspite of all the
mutilations and concealment of history, it remains an undoubted fact that
religious conversion of Goans is due to methods of force adopted by the
Portuguese to establish their rule. As a result of this violence the character
of our people was destroyed. The propagation of Christian sect in Goa came about
not by religious preaching but through the methods of violence and pressure. If
any evidence is needed for this fact, we can obtain it through law books, orders
and reports of the local rulers of that time and also from the most dependable
documents of the Christian sect.
(source:
The Goa Inquisition - By Dr. T. R. de Souza).
Top of Page
Western Media Hinduphobia: Spinning the same tired stories about Hinduism
"If Christianity
had been checked in its growth by some deadly disease, the world would have
become Mithraic,"
- speculates the 19th century
historian
Ernest Renan.
(Refer to Franz Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman
Paganism p. 60).
"The pagan gods, even the gods of mysteries are not
jealous of one another," explained historian and anthropologist
Walter Burkert quoted in -
Jonathan Kirsch,
God against Gods:
The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism.
p. 111
***
The above Guardian article is mostly about
how a group of American Hindus is supporting Donald Trump and how this reeks of
the so-called Hindu supremacist agenda rather than simply being a political
inclination. It might carry an iota of truth. I personally know people who
support Donald Trump simply because he sounds anti-Muslim although, just as it
used to happen with Narendra Modi, I’m pretty sure that lots of his utterances
are twisted or quoted out of context by a very sophisticated propaganda
machinery controlled by the leftist intelligentsia.
The writer talks about Hindus and Donald Trump lighting lamps and celebrating
Dussehra. Then she talks about how festivals like Dussehra and Diwali are mostly
upper-caste Hindu festivals. She quotes someone called Soundararajan, a Dalit
American artist and activist who says that:
"Celebration of Diwali suggested that attendees were mostly upper caste (Hindus),
thus excluding South Asian communities who have been marginalized by the caste
system, which places people into a hierarchy based on birth and has been used to
oppress lower caste and Dalit communities in India and the diaspora.
The
same person then says: Diwali and Dussehra are both upper-caste (Hindu) holidays that celebrate the
death of tribals and the ascent of Aryan culture over Dravidian culture… In many
ways Dalit communities do not celebrate this event is literally about ‘the
killing of our people’.
There are two possibilities: this, the so-called artist and activist either has
never visited India or is completely bullshitting because such liars are given
lots of leeway in the Western media simply because they are badmouthing about
India in general and Hinduism in particular. There is nothing upper caste about
Diwali and Dussehra. Wherever these festivals are celebrated. I wouldn’t claim
to know that they are celebrated across India they are celebrated by
everybody. Rich and poor and middle class, everybody celebrates Diwali and
Dussehra. In order to know this, you have to be in India during these festivals.
There is nothing upper caste about Diwali and Dussehra.
Wherever these festivals
are celebrated I wouldn’t claim to know that they are celebrated across
India they are celebrated by everybody. Rich and poor and middle class,
everybody celebrates Diwali and Dussehra. In order to know this, you have to be
in India during these festivals.
And Diwali and Dussehra are not about Aryans celebrating the
death of tribals. What is this, Game of Thrones? Rawan, the king of Lanka,
presided over one of the most affluent kingdoms in the world. Rawan, who was the
ultimate asur (demonic person) of that time, was in fact, a Brahmin. The tribals,
in the form of the Vanar Sena, if you really want to draw comparisons, actually
were the primary force that helped Ram. What does it tell you? It tells you that you become an asur not by birth but by your
actions. Wherever Rawan went he spread hatred and misery. He was an egoistic
asshole who, by worshipping Lord Shiva for thousands of years, had gained the
blessing of immortality. Thinking that he couldn’t be killed, he laid waste
everything he came across. Even after killing Rawan, Ram stood at his feet
because of the knowledge that he possessed. Anti-India forces that want to
divide the country have turned epics like Ramayana into Aryans versus Dravidians
tales simply because the main villain lives in the South. Had the main villain
lived in the East, or the West or the North, they would have found another
version. Maybe then the Aryans would have wanted to eliminate the Nagas, or the
Tibetans. Who knows? Maybe even the Punjabis. Go in any direction and you will
find someone Aryans could be fighting against.
Another fact that journalists like Rashmee Kumar will never talk
about (purposely) is that most of the famous saints in India were non-Brahmins.
Valmiki, the original author of the Ramayana, was a Bheel (a tribe that still
exists). Just imagine, the holiest book of Hindus has been written by a person
of the so-called lower caste. Ved Vyas, who wrote the
Mahabharata, was the illegitimate child of a fisherwoman. Again, the
Mahabharata, that includes the holiest of holy, Geeta, was written by a person
of low birth. If upper caste Hindus were so intolerant why would they consider
the Ramayana and the Mahabharatha, one written by a lower caste and another
written by a
person born out of wedlock from a fisherwoman’s womb (again,
lower caste), their holiest books? Beats every contemporary logic, doesn’t it?
There are numerous such examples these authors and writers are
too scared to mention because then it would change their narrative. These people
are so anti-Hindu that they will twist facts belonging to even recent history.
This Guardian journalist writes:
In the 1990s, about
100,000 Hindu Pandits in the Muslim-majority
state of Kashmir fled from a separatist uprising in response to frustrations
with the Indian government’s treatment of Kashmir and its people.
So
the Hindus fled because the Muslims of the state mistreated them because the
Muslims of the state were frustrated with the Indian government. What sort of
twisted logic is this? The reality is that Kashmiri pandits (whom she writes
Hindu pandits) didn’t flee, they were forced out of their ancestral land with
blatant intimidation and slaughter. Kashmir is a Muslim-majority state now but
these Kashmiri pandits and their ancestors had been living in Kashmir for the
past 5000 years. In broad daylight Kashmiri pandit women were abducted and raped
and Kashmiri pandit men and children were slaughtered in broad daylight in the
streets. All over Kashmir threatening messages were written on the walls that
Kashmiri pandits should leave the valley immediately, overnight, or the men
would be killed and the women would be kept as sex slaves and wives. But no,
Hindus should never, ever be depicted as victims otherwise the narrative will
have to be changed. When it comes to dealing with Hindus, even perpetrators
should be shown as victims, and the victims should be shown as perpetrators
because they are Hindus, and if they happen to be pandits, it’s icing on the
cake.
These atrocious commentaries go unabated in the Western media (at
least in India they are sometimes countered) in the name of activism and pro-minoritism.
Racism still exists in the
Western world that supports the so-called Indian activists and Dalit champions
who, going by such writings, are nothing but peddlers of falsities and
charlatans. They need to be exposed, and they need to be exposed constantly.
(source:
An example of lies about Hinduism being propagated in Western media
- by Amrit Hallan).
Top of Page
The Sati
Strategy: How Missionaries Used An Extinct Practice As A Rallying Point To
Christianize India
Book Review: Dr.
Koenraad Elst (excerpts)
"The open-mindedness of the pagan
Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (c.
345 – 402) was a Roman statesman, orator, and man of letters,
who allows that
there are many roads to enlightenment and salvation,
Bishop Fulgentius (486-533) insists that only a single narrow path
leads to the Only True God." " The good bishop also insisted that "Of this you
can be certain and convinced beyond all doubts not only all pagans, but also all
Jews, all heretics and schismatics will go into the everlasting fire which has
been prepared for the Devil and his angels.
-
Jonathan Kirsch,
God against Gods:
The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism
p. 10
***
Prof Meenakshi Jain adds to her reputation with the present hefty
volume Sati
- Evangelicals,
Baptist Missionaries, and the Changing Colonial Discourse (Aryan Books International, Delhi 2016).
In it, as a meticulous professional historian, she quotes all the
relevant sources, with descriptions of Sati from the ancient through the
medieval to the modern period. She
adds the full text of the relevant British and Republican laws and of Lord
Wiliam Bentinck’s Minute
on Sati (1829), that led to the
prohibition of Sati. This book makes the whole array of primary sources readily
accessible, so from now on, it will be an indispensable reference for all
debates on Sati.
But in the design of the book, all this material is instrumental
in studying the uses made of Sati in the colonial period. In particular, the
missionary campaign to rally support for the project of mass conversion of the
Indian Heathens to the saving light of Christianity made good use of Sati. This
practice had a strong in-your-face shock value and could perfectly illustrate
the barbarity of Hinduism.
The issue of Sati was used as the most vivid proof of the need
for this radical remaking, but it did not take into account the changing
political equation during the centuries of gradual European penetration.
In the 17th century, European traders and travellers mostly joined the
natives in glorifying the women committing Sati, whereas, by the 19th century,
they posed as chivalrous saviours of the victimized native women from the cruel
native men. This
was because they were no longer travellers in an exotic country and at the mercy
of the native people, but had become masters of the land and gotten imbued with
a sense of superiority.
Then again, it is, of course, interesting to realize the
continuity between the present-day interference in Indian culture by leftist
scholars like
Wendy
Doniger and Sheldon Pollock and that of the British colonialists: “We
know best what is wrong with your traditions and we have come to save you from
yourselves.”
In this respect, the changes in the Western attitude to Sati run
parallel to that regarding caste. Until the early 20th century, caste was seen
as a specifically Indian form of a universal phenomenon, viz. social inequality.
Nobody was particularly scandalized when in 1622, the Pope gave permission to
practise caste discrimination between converts inside the Church. Around the
time of the French Revolution, the idea of equality started catching on, but
only gradually became the accepted norm.
.jpg)
Women, who once enjoyed an honored position and
are found in the Upanishads conversing freely with men upon the highest
philosophical topics.
Seventeen of the seers to whom the hymns of the
Rig Veda were revealed were women — rishikas and brahmavadinis.
***
Evangelisation
In this case, an extra factor came into play to effect a change
in British attitudes to Sati. In Parliamentary debates about the East India
Company charter in 1793, there was no mention yet of Sati though it had been
described many times, including by Company eyewitnesses. But by 1829, Sati was
forbidden in all Company domains. This turnaround was the result of a campaign
by the missionary lobby. Ever since the missionaries set out to convert the
Pagans in India, they made it their business to contrast the benignity of
Christianity with the demeaning atrocities of Heathenism. This was an old
tradition starting with the Biblical vilification of child sacrifice to the god
Moloch by the Canaanites.
The practice was also attested by the Romans when they besieged
the Canaanite (Phoenician) colony of Carthage. The Bible writers and their
missionary acolytes present child sacrifice as a necessary component of
polytheism, from which monotheism came to save humanity. And indeed, we read
here how Rev. William Carey tried to muster evidence of child sacrifice too (but
settled for Sati as convincing enough, p.178).
This way, Sati came in very handy to justify an offensive in India. Mind you, in
a military sense India had partly been conquered already, and British
self-confidence at the time was such that the complete subjugation of the
subcontinent seemed assured. The
offensive, in this case, was not military, its target was the Christianization
of the East India Company, to be followed by the conversion of its subjects.
Around 1800, the Company was still purely commercial and even banned
missionaries for their religious zeal might create riots, and these would be bad
for business. So, the Christian lobby had to convince the British
Parliamentarians that the Christianization of India was good and necessary, and,
therefore, worthy of the Company’s active or passive support, namely to free the
natives from barbarism. To that end, there was no better eye-catcher than Sati.

After
the Subjgation of the subcontinent of India,
its
target was the Christianization and
Sati came in very handy to justify an offensive in India.
Refer to
British Colonization of India – By
Shrinidhi Rao
- indiafacts.org
***
Here I will skip a large part of Prof Jain’s research, namely
into the details of the specific intrigues and events that ultimately led to the
success of the missionary effort. While these chapters are important for
understanding the Christian presence in India, and while I recommend you read
them, I have decided for myself to limit my attention to colonial history as it
is presently eating up too much energy, especially of the Hindus. The
study of colonial history is instructive and someone should do it, but for the
many, it is far more useful to study Dharma itself, to immerse yourself in Hindu
civilization as it took shape, rather than in the oppression of and then the
resistance by the Hindus. India is free now and could reinvigorate Dharmic
civilization, which is a much worthier goal than to re-live the comparatively
few centuries of oppression.
Let us only note that the missionaries are responsible for
associating Hinduism with Sati much more prominently than would be fair. The
missionary assault on Hinduism dramatized the practice of Sati, which had been “an
‘exceptional act’ performed by a minuscule number of Hindu widows over the
centuries”, of which the occurrence had been “exaggerated
in the nineteenth century by Evangelicals and Baptist missionaries eager to
Christianize and Anglicize India”. (p.xix)
Sati was not confined to Hindu civilization. It existed
elsewhere, both in Indo-European and in other cultures. Rulers in ancient China
or Egypt are sometimes found buried with a number of wives, concubines and
servants.
Among the Germanic people, a famous case is that of Brunhilde and
her maidservants following Siegfried into death. Yet Indian secularists
preferentially depict Sati as one of the unique “evils of Hindu society”.
Naïve readers may not have noticed it yet, but here we are
dealing with an instance of a widespread phenomenon: the crass manipulation of
the term “Hindu”. Every
missionary and every secularist does it all the time: calling a thing “Hindu” when
it is considered bad, but something (really anything) else as soon as it is
deemed good. Many Hindus even lap it up: it is “instilled,
albeit inadvertently.”
Thus, whenever Westerners show an interest in yoga, the secularists and their
Western allies hurry to assure us: “Yoga has
nothing to do with Hinduism.” (It
is like with Islam, but inversely, for whenever Muslims make negative-sounding
headlines, we are immediately reassured that these crimes “have
nothing to do with Islam”.) There
may be books on “Jain
mathematics”, but never about “Hindu
mathematics”, for a good thing cannot be Hindu. If the topic cannot be
avoided, you call it, say, “Keralite
mathematics” or fashionably opine
that it “must
have been borrowed from Buddhism.” So,
yoga cannot be Hindu when its merits are an issue. However, when it is presented
as something funny, with asceticism and other nasty things, then it can be
Hindu, and even used as a middle term to equate something else (something nasty,
of course, like Sati) with Hinduism. So: Sati is Hindu!
In this case, the poor hapless secularists are even right.
Sometimes even a deplorable motive, like their single-minded hatred for
Hinduism, makes men speak the truth: Sati is Hindu.
But Sati is not Brahmanical: the Rig-Veda enjoins continuing life
rather than committing Sati, and most of the Shastras either don’t mention it or
prefer widowhood, for which they lay down demanding rules.
The rest of this book, 500-something pages, is designed to stand
the test of time.
It will survive the flames that tend to engulf its topic:
the brave Sati.
(source:
The Sati Strategy: How Missionaries Used An Extinct Practice As A Rallying Point
To Christianise India - by Koenraad Elst).
Top of Page
The Defamation of Sexuality and of Women in Christianity -
by Joachim Kahl (excerpt from the book, ‘The Misery of
Christianity’)
The
ideological basis of the hostility of Christian ethics towards the sexual
impulse, which has been and still is so disastrous in its consequences, is to be
found in the New Testament. Paul also demanded that ‘those who have wives’
should live as though they had none (1.Cor.vii, 29). Marriage for the Christian
then, was a joyless brothel in his own home, a situation which
Tertullian, faithful to Christian tradition,
attempted to correct by insisting on the renunciation of marriage since it was
based on the same act of harlotry.
The defamation of sex inevitably leads to the
defamation of women, who tend to be regarded as inferior beings.
‘Let a woman learn in silence with all
submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is
to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived,
but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved
through bearing children…’ (I Tim. Ii, IIff).
The New Testament is the work of neurotic philistines, who regarded human
sexuality not as a source of joy, but as a source of anxiety; not as a means of
expressing love, but as a means of expressing sin. Sometimes overtly, but
sometimes in a more concealed manner, the New Testament writers outlawed
everything to do with man’s body.
Jerome,
(347 - 420) who was responsible for the Latin translation of the Bible, the
Vulgate,
wrote:
‘Women is the gate of
the devil, the way of evil, the sting of the scorpion, in a word, a dangerous
thing’. It is therefore hardly surprising that Jerome, who would have liked most
of all to have shaved off the hair of women, was later made the patron saint of
misogynists!
Despite all the claims
made by Christian apologists that womankind is ennobled by the example of Mary
as the antitype of the sinful Eve, the cult of Mary undeniably dishonors women.
Mary has, after all, been venerated since the second century as semper Virgo –
always a virgin – in other words, as a woman who never experienced sexual
intercourse either before or after the birth of Jesus, since this, as
Pope Siricius (384-399)
stated, would have defiled her. The cult of the blessed Virgin is the product
and the expression of an infantile and mutilated sexuality, of a mother fixation
or psychological virginity. Sin is inherited physically, by the way of sexual
act. This is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin.
At a Lenten synod in 1074,
Pope Gregory VII made celibacy obligatory. There was no end to the
succession of scandals in monasteries and nunneries. In his De contemptu mundi –
‘Contempt of the World’ – Pope Innocent III complained about members of the
clergy who embraced Venus at night and worshipped the Virgin Mary in the
morning.
Medieval
theology was characterized by a brutal hostility towards woman. As early as the
6th century, the bishops attending a synod in Macon (Gaul) had
earnestly debated whether woman was really a human being after all and later, in
the Middle Ages, the ‘angelic’ teacher,
Thomas
Aquinas, defamed her by calling her a ‘failed
man’ (mas occasionatus) and by insisting inflexibly that she should
not be permitted any equality in the Church or in civil society.
This deep hostility reached a horrifying climax
in the Christian witch-hunt, which resulted in several million women being
tortured and burnt at the stake from the 13th until the 18th
century. The early Church must have been swarming with demons, because there was
a special office, that of exorcist, to deal with them. There were devils at work
everywhere and holy water, prayers and exorcisms were helpful in warding them
off. The longer Christianity existed, the deeper became men’s fear of occult
powers. Thomas Aquinas taught that the rain, hail and wind were caused by
demons.
Gregory IX
(1227-1241) was the first pope to instruct the
Inquisition to take legal action against witches and the first trail
was held in his pontificate near Trevers.
The second call to hunt witches was made by Pope
John XXII in his bull, Super illius specula, of 1326, and other official
documents were published by the Church in 1374, 1409, 1418, 1437, 1445, and
1451. Three years later, the infamous ‘Witches Hammer’
(Malleus
maleficarum) appeared. This disgraceful concoction was the
work of two Dominicans, Heinrich Institoris and Jakob Sprenger, and had been
reprinted 29 times by 1669. Later popes, such as Alexander Vi, Julius II, Leo X,
Hadrian VI and Clement VII, also called upon Christians, in various bulls, to
murder innocent women and leaders of the Reformation did exactly the same. In
the sermons that he delivered in Wittenberg, Luther again and again urged his
followers to hunt and torture witches, and Calvin, without doubt one of the
greatest sadists who ever lived, constantly advocated mass executions in order
to exterminate witches (extirper telle race).
Witches were burnt all over Europe. The flames were rising everywhere and it
seemed as though they would never be put out. Everyone was being burnt – men and
women, Catholics and Protestants, idiots and scholars, four-year-old children
and 80 year old women. Everyone was being sent indiscriminately to the stake and
burnt to ashes.
In 1678, The Archbishop
of Salzburg sent 97 women to the stake because so many cattle were
dying of disease. Bishop Fuchs von Bornheim of Bamberg
had some 900 witches and sorcerers put to death round about the year 1630 and
his victims included the five burgomasters of the town.
Bishop Adolf von Ehrenberg of Wurzburg also sent about 1200
witches and sorcerers to the stake at about this time, but had the kindness to
endow masses to be said for the repose of their souls. Archbishop John of
Trevers had so many witches burnt in 1585 that there were only two women life in
each of the two villages.
Witch hunting reached its peak during the
Thirty Years’ War. The last witches were
burnt in Switzerland in 1782 and drowned at the witches’ ordeal near Danzig in
1836.
The hostile attitude towards sexuality that has
characterized Christianity throughout history is basically unchanged today. Let
me give one example to prove my point, that of the Vatican castrati. Until as
late as 1920 or thereabouts, many members of the choir of the Sistine Chapel
were men who had been castrated simply for the sake of church music. 230 Popes,
beginning with Sixtus V, who died in 1590 had men mutilated because God could be
praised more sweetly by eunuchs.
Christianity
has never accepted man’s sexual urge as valid human impulses in the good sense.
Very physical act of love has always been shrouded in a darkness and has only
been permitted by the Churches as a means of begetting children.
English historian
William E H Lecky, (1839 - 1903) has said, namely that it is no sense
an exaggeration to say that the Christian Church has
caused a greater measure of undeserved human suffering than any other religion.
(source:
The Misery of Christianity - By Joachim Kahl
p. 1 -95).
Sermons on
Equality and Women from the West to India?
Pope Francis says women will never be Roman Catholic
priests
Pontiff’s reply
to journalist asking about church’s position is not change in stance, but will
disappoint advocates of change has ruled out a woman
ever serving as a priest in the Roman Catholic church.
The declaration is not a change in stance for the Argentinian pope, who has
always said the door was closed on women being ordained as priests. But when he
was asked and then pressed on the matter by a Swedish journalist during a press
conference onboard the papal plane, Francis suggested the ban would be eternal.
“Saint Pope John Paul II had the last clear word on this and it stands, this
stands,” Francis said in his initial response, referring to a 1994
document stating
that women could never join the priesthood.
Women have been barred from the priesthood for centuries. Under current rules,
deacons are ordained similarly to ministers, and are men. While they cannot
celebrate mass, they are allowed to preach and conduct some ceremonies,
including baptisms, wakes and funerals.
The issue of women’s
inequality in
the Catholic church remains a hot topic among activists, despite Francis’s
position. At a recent gathering, representatives of Catholic priest movements
and international lay organisations called for reform on issues including
equality for women and LGBT rights.
In a statement released by organisers, Kate McElwee, the
co-executive director of the Women’s Ordination Conference, said: “In this
space, we wrestled with the damaging effects of oppressive structures, knowing
that patriarchy and hierarchy hurt us all. “We discovered, time and again, that
by sharing as equals and asking hard questions, we can transform ourselves, our
church and our world.”
(source:
Pope Francis says women will never be Roman Catholic priests -
guardian.com).
Top of Page
Why Mother Teresa’s Success Is A Reflection Of The Wounded Civilisation That Is
India
Anjezë
Gonxhe Bojaxhiu arrived in Darjeeling during the British Raj as a teenager in
1929. She became a nun in 1931 and began
her missionary work in India shortly after India became independent.
The
Second World War consumed the early part of the tumultuous decade of the 1940s,
and the nation became independent immediately in its aftermath. The
Bengal famine of 1943, which historians have recently shown was worsened
because of British
Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s deliberate decision to hold back food
supplies to India, killed up to four million people, or more than five
percent of Bengal’s population, at the time and ruined communities across the
region. Moreover, communal tensions surrounding the Partition of India had torn
Kolkata apart through the late 1940s, with thousands more killed. It was in this
context that Bojaxhiu, who is today known as Mother Teresa, set up the
Missionaries of Charity.
Independence did not bring much respite for Bengal, as militant trade unionism
and communist state governments destroyed local industry over the decades. By
the turn of the century, Kolkata, which had once been the commercial and
political capital of India, become an also-ran, as cities like Hyderabad,
Bengaluru and Pune raced ahead. It was over these same decades that Teresa built
her operation, with the destitution and hopelessness enveloping the city
providing the raw material for the missionary machine. It is no coincidence that
the rise of Teresa coincides with the socio-economic ruination of Kolkata and
Bengal.
Dissenting views on Teresa’s contribution and work are not new, the works of
Christopher Hitchens and Aroup Chatterjee being the most prominent. As a devout
Catholic, Teresa saw personal suffering as a service to Christ. As a missionary,
Teresa came to India to convert Indians and did it with success. This is the
reason why the Catholic Church has decorated her with its highest title. Let’s
just say that the Church is not known for bestowing the title of Saint on those
who are not believers.
It is
well-established that Teresa frequently denied scientific treatment to the
ailing, preferring to glorify
human suffering as an end in
itself.
As
Aroup Chatterjee has recorded, Teresa would
baptise the dying, and openly accepted this fact when speaking at the Scripps
Clinic in California on 14 January 1992, when she exulted that “29,000 have
died…from the time we began the work in 1952” and “not one has died without
receiving “ticket for St Peter”…we call baptism “ticket for St Peter”.”
What
does it say about Teresa’s personal ethics that she sought to convert the
infirm, who came to her seeking care and comfort, on their deathbed, at a time
when they may not have been in the mental and physical state to make considered
choices?Robin Fox, writing in the medical journal The
Lancet in 1994 after a visit to
Teresa’s home for the dying in Kalighat, observed “systematic approaches are
alien to the ethos of the home. Mother Theresa (sic) prefers providence to
planning; her rules are designed to prevent any drift towards materialism; the
sisters must remain on equal terms with the poor.”
Commenting
on the ability of the sisters to mitigate pain, Fox wrote, “I could not judge
the power of the spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that the
formulary includes no strong analgesics.”
By the
1990s, Teresa was an international figure and had raised millions of dollars in
donations. If her home for the dying did not even provide basic pain management
medication, how and where was the money being spent? Fox’s observations are a
troubling indictment of Teresa’s approach of prizing faith and religion above
science in the treatment of those who came to her for care. As she often
eulogised suffering, it would not be uncharitable to say that Teresa’s faith
prevented her from provisioning relief to the helplessly poor who came to her,
even though she had the means to do so.
Teresa
railed against the rights of women to choose what they do with their bodies.
Delivering the Nobel
Peace Prize acceptance speech in
1979, Teresa proclaimed “the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion.”
This was at the height of the Cold War when the world was on the brink of a
nuclear catastrophe. “We are fighting abortion by adoption”, Teresa had said
then.
It is
a little-known fact that Teresa
supported the Emergency imposed
by Indira Gandhi in 1975. “People are happier. There are more jobs. There are no
strikes,” she said blithely, even as tens of thousands were jailed and Indira
Gandhi wielded dictatorial power. After she had been awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize, Teresa was given the Bharat Ratna by the Indian government in 1980. An
official biography of Teresa was published in 1992, written by the
infamous Navin Chawla, who went on to become chief election commissioner
under the UPA government in 2009.
Chawla is a long-time
courtier of the Nehru-Gandhi family and was
particularly close to Sanjay Gandhi during the Emergency. The Shah
Commission that investigated the dictatorial government’s actions during the
Emergency observed in its report that Chawla was “unfit to hold any public
office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others” and
said that Chawla had been authoritarian and callous, grossly abusing his powers
in “cynical disregard of the welfare of citizens”. In a 2007 article,
Observer Research Foundation distinguished fellow Ashok Malik recorded in more
detail some of Navin Chawla’s cruel actions during the Emergency. Chawla had
supported the construction of jail cells with asbestos roofs to “bake” inmates,
prevented student-prisoners from taking their exams to punish them and came up
with a scheme that gave prisoners freedom if they agreed to be sterilised.
It was
this man who was picked by Nobel Laureate and Bharat Ratna Mother Teresa to
write her authorised biography when she could have selected practically anyone.
What does this choice say about Teresa’s values, allegiances and personal
character?
Despite this mountain of uncomfortable facts, Teresa enjoys a cult following
among Indians, and people from Kolkata in particular. It would be simplistic to
say that Teresa’s reputation persists because of ignorance – there is something
deeper at play.
The
identity of Kolkata and its residents has become enmeshed with Teresa. As people
who have little to be proud of about their city, given its ruinous trajectory
over the last several decades, they are inert to any honest discussion about
Teresa because they see her as among the few icons they can take pride in.
Teresa’s success is ultimately only a reflection of the
failures of India’s society, and of the defeated spirit of India’s wounded
civilisation. Joining the bandwagon lionising Teresa is a quick and
cheap way to rid oneself of any personal guilt at not having done something to
address dehumanising destitution. In Teresa’s misguided efforts, we all take
succour and seek emancipation that at least somebody tried.But Teresa and her
institution stand against practically every single modern value that we hope to
see India embrace. She celebrated suffering and promoted superstition rather
than seeking out science-based medical solutions with the substantial donations
she amassed. She glorified poverty rather than finding ways to ameliorate the
downtrodden. She practised and preached intolerance towards women while being
one herself.
This
is not to suggest that the Indian government should cripple or persecute
Teresa’s organisation. They should be allowed to preach and practice what they
please. After all, there is a difference between the values of the free Indian
Republic and the fanatical dogma of missionary institutions out to harvest
souls.
The correct way to tackle elements like Teresa is to reduce her customer base,
to use a corporate analogy. Building an India that offers opportunity and
uplifts all citizens is the surest recipe for ensuring that the twenty-first
century does not see the emergence of another such person, and that project is
well underway. The day India eradicates mass poverty, no Teresa will ever rise
again.
(source:
Why Mother Teresa’s Success Is A Reflection Of The Wounded Civilisation That Is
India
- by Rajeev Mantri).
Top of Page
The Bizarre
Hoax of Mother Teresa:
Kolkata will take a century
to recover from Mother Teresa
If Mother Teresa, to be canonised at the Vatican today, is to be named a patron
saint of anything it should be for “misinformation”. In the last 20 years of her
life, truth became an unknown entity to her. The media aided and abetted her
lack of integrity and in a way she cannot be blamed for believing in her own
lies. Intellect was not her strong point and, for someone like her, to be
surrounded by hordes of sycophants who were telling her if she said black was
white then that had to be true, it became intoxicating. The media did spread the
mega-myth about her, but she herself was the source. She repeatedly told the
world she went around the city 24x7 “picking up” destitute from its squalid
“gutters” (she did not), that she fed up to 9,000 in her soup kitchens (she did
not), she never refused a helpless child (she did as a rule), that the dying
destitute in her so-called home for the dying, Nirmal Hriday, died a “beautiful
death” (they were treated harshly and often died a miserable, painful death).
Mother Teresa was an ultimate politician who worked on behalf of the Vatican.
No, she was not an “agent” as that would be conspiratorial. She did not have to
do much subterfuge or skulduggery in India itself, as Indians, particularly the
media, were in awe of her and connived with her.
I do not blame world media as much as I blame Indian and particularly the media
in Kolkata. There she was, a jet-setting celebrity — although appended with the
epithet “of Calcutta” — spending six to nine months in a year in Europe and the
United States, making strange claims about her work and about the disgusting
state of the city, but never to be seen in the city’s disasters — major or
minor.
Why was she not asked why she re-used needles on her residents in Nirmal Hriday
(it was official policy) when she herself received the finest care in the
world’s best hospitals? Even after her death, the Indian fear of blue-bordered
saris continues. On August 1, 2005, UK TV showed a child tied to a cot overnight
in her orphanage — one Kolkata newspaper grudgingly reported the matter with
lots of “alleged”. During her lifetime, even that would be unthinkable. She was
white, she hobnobbed with the then US president Ronald Reagan, and oh yes, she
had the Nobel — so she had to be divine.
Opposite metaphor
Did no one know that she hobnobbed with the Duvaliers of Haiti whose brutality
was unsurpassed (whose opponents were often cut up and fed to dogs)? No one in
India wanted to know. For the western media, she was a metaphor, a set-piece, a
stratospheric certainty of image in an uncertain and changing world. Conversely,
Kolkata was the opposite metaphor of absolute degradation.
It was beyond the West’s interest, energy or remit to robustly challenge these
wrong stereotypes. But did Indian journalists not know that her main bank was
the Vatican Bank, a dark cavern of corruption, intrigue and murder? Before she
died, it was well known that she had accepted millions from Charles Keating, the
notorious American swindler, but no one in India cared.
Bengalis showed some rare guts when she was beatified through a “miracle” in
2003. Doctors, and even the then state health minister, made statements that
Monica Besra was cured by prolonged treatment, and not by an aluminium medal.
Even Besra herself periodically said her cure was not a miracle. But the Vatican
treated Indian opinion with the contempt it always has and proceeded with
canonisation. But what is so great about Catholic saints? People should realise
a Catholic saint does not have to be saintly or nice in the secular sense, but
has to be pure to Catholic dogma. Jose Maria Escriva, a Fascist, is a Catholic
saint; another Fascist, Cardinal Stepinac, is a “blessed”.
If one looks around Mother Teresa’s homes in Kolkata today, one would find many
of them acceptable. But one must not forget that this comes after 25 years of
campaigning by me, and also persistent global criticism from Hemley Gonzalez,
the American former volunteer who in 2008 was so utterly disgusted by what he
saw that he founded the Stop the Missionaries of Charity movement and founded
his own Responsible Charity. Moreover, in the last six months, the order has
spruced up a great deal, preparing for the canonisation on today. And yet, the
Indian government is dutifully sending a delegation to the ceremony in Rome. Be
that as it may, my own wish would be to reclaim Kolkata/Calcutta from Teresa —
to sever the automatic connection of the two names as the whole wide world sees
it. Kolkata’s image under the yoke of Mother Teresa will take a century to
recover. In the last 50 years, the city has lost an unimaginable amount from the
loss of international business and tourism and will continue to do so. But let
the people at least loudly, proudly proclaim that they have nothing to do with a
medieval creature of darkness — not anymore.
(source:
Kolkata will take a century to recover from Mother Teresa - by Aroup
Chatterjee - gulfnews.com).
The Destruction
of Library of Alexandria and temple of Serapis: Lessons for Pagans
Hypatía of Alexandria - Pagan philosopher, scientist, mathematician, and civic
leader. Assassinated in 415 by Christian zealots
" 'Paganism'
to the pagan never existed," explained historian
John Holland Smith
in The Death of Classical Paganism.
"It is not far from the truth to say that before Christianity invented it, there
was no Roman religion but only worship, expressed in a hundred-and-one different
ways."
"Monotheism, by contrast insists that only a single deity is worthy of worship
for the simple reason that only a single deity exists." -
Jonathan Kirsch, God against Gods.
p. 9
***
In 390, for example a mob of
Christian
zealots attacked the ancient library of Alexandria,
a place where works of the greatest rarity and antiquity had been collected.
Here were preserved the oldest manuscripts – pagan texts were even more ancient
and even more abundant, some 700,000 volumes and scrolls in all. The whole
collection of parchment and paryi was torched, the library itself pulled down,
and the loss of Western civilization is beyond calculation or even imagination.
The
next year,
Theodosius I
ordered the destruction of the Serpaeum,
a magnificent temple that served as the principal shrine of
Isis and
Serapis
and “the most important monument in the Empire after the Capitol in Rome.
The order was carried out with ardor by the Christian patriarch of Alexandria –
his name was Theophilus, and he is memorably described by
Edward
Gibbon
as “a bold, bad man, whose hands were alternately polluted with gold and with
blood.” Pagan diehards fortified the shrine, but they were overwhelmed by the
Christian attackers, and the Serapeum was left in ruins. Meanwhile the
Christians delighted when they broke up a wooden statue of Serapis and
discovered that it was infested with vermin.
“The Egyptians’ god had become an apartment-block for mice!” exults the ancient
Christian historian Theodoret. “So they broke him into pieces and fed them to
the flames. But the head they dragged through the whole city, so that his
worshippers could see it, and with it the impotence of the gods they prayed
to.”
The most poignant incident of all, however, took place in 415. A pagan woman
called Hypatia, who is recalled as both beautiful and brilliant, succeeded in
scandalizing the Christians of Alexandria, not only because of her faith but
also because of her gender. She participated in the study of the old pagan texts
on astronomy, mathematics and philosophy, and she did so alongside the otherwise
male faculty and student body. But Hypatia inspired only contempt and disgust in
the zealous
Archbishop Cyril of Alexandria, a nephew of
Theophilus,
and he prevailed on the “men in black” to do something about the vile woman. So
it was that a “wild black army,” as the English novelist
E.M.Forster
describes the mob, followed her carriage as he headed toward the hall where her
students were waiting – they dragged her out, carried her into the convenient
darkness of a nearby church, stripped her naked, tortured her with broken shards
of pottery and finally hacked her body into pieces. Then they put her butchered
body parts on public display and, finally tossed, her remains on a bonfire.”
(source:
God against the Gods – By Jonathan Kirsch
p. 276 – 277).
Death of Hypatia by Christian zealots:
Suppressed History
Excerpted from "War Against the Pagans," in Secret History of the Witches
... The Roman state gave free rein to Christian extremists who destroyed pagan
shrines and images, or who committed violence against pagan leaders. They
attacked people at pagan services and destroyed their temples. Arson was a
favorite tactic. From the late 300s on, monks stand out as the primary
aggressors in the battle to suppress pagans in the east. Even Christian
documents describe them as violent and crime-prone, beating people they
considered sinful, stirring up sectarian strife.
The pagan Eunapius remarked that these monks looked like men but lived like
pigs, "and openly did and allowed countless unspeakable crimes." He added
bitterly, “For among them, every man is given the power of a tyrant who has a
black robe and is prepared to behave badly in public.” Some were not above
murder. One target of the fanatical monk was Hypatia, an astronomer,
mathematician and philosopher of international reputation. Socrates Scholasticus
wrote that "she far surpassed all the philosophers of her time,” and was greatly
respected for her “extraordinary dignity and virtue.” Hypatia's house was an
important intellectual center in a city distinguished for its learning. Damasius
described how she "used to put on her philosopher's cloak and walk through the
middle of town" to give public lectures on philosophy. [Life of Isidore, in the
Suda]. Admired by all Alexandria, Hypatia was one of the most politically
powerful figures in the city. She was one of the few women who attended civic
assemblies. Magistrates came to her for advice, including her close friend, the
prefect Orestes. [Damasius, Socrates Scholasticus] In the midst of severe
religious polarization, Hypatia was an influential force for tolerance and
moderation. She accepted students, who came to her "from everywhere," without
regard to religion.
Hypatia was a Neoplatonist.
The sacred books of the Neoplatonists were pagan—Orpheus,
Homer, the Chaldean Oracles—and
they embraced “the esoteric doctrines of the mysteries.

Hypatia, one of the last
great thinkers of Alexandria. On the streets of Alexandria, Hyptia was dragged
and butchered by Christian zealots.
The intolerance of Christians is illustrated by the plot by Cyril of Alexandria
to murder the fashionable and virtuous Neoplatonist philosopher and daughter of
the “last member of the Library of Alexandria”, Hypatia. It is the Cyril who
succeeded Theophilus. He ordered a gang of monks to murder her by hijacking her
carriage, mercilessly killing her then stripping her naked body of its flesh
using broken tiles or oyster shells—a monstrous deed even Christians cannot
deny.
The final
death blows to Pagan culture however came from Justinian the Great, Emperor from
527-565 AD. He is considered great because he persecuted the pagans.
For more on Hypatia refer to
the book,
Euclid and Jesus - By C K Raju
and watch movie
Agora
(source:
Smithsonian.com).
***
Hypatia's father
Theon
was an astronomer and mathematician who was devoted to divination and astrology
and the pagan mysteries. He wrote commentaries on the books of Orpheus and
Hermes Trismegistus and poems to the planets as forces of Moira (destiny).
Nothing indicates that Hypatia departed from her home culture. The Chaldean
Oracles and Pythagorean numerological mysticism figured in her teachings, as the
letters of Synesius indicate. Like her father, she saw astronomy as the highest
science, opening up knowledge of the divine.
The surviving fragments of Hypatia's teachings indicate a mystical orientation.
Glimpses of her spiritual views survived in the letters of her disciples, which
speak of "the eye buried within us," a "divine guide." As the soul journeys
toward divinity, this "hidden spark which loves to conceal itself" grows into a
flame of knowing. Hypatia's philosophy was concerned with the "mystery of
being," contemplation of Reality, rising to elevated states of consciousness,
and "union with the divine," the One. Her disciples certainly regarded her in
the light of a spiritual leader.
She
spoke out against dogmatism and superstition: “To rule by fettering the mind
through fear of punishment in another world, is just as base as to use force.”
Unquestionably, Hypatia's teaching represented a challenge to church doctrine.
The apparent destruction of her philosophical books underlines the point. Her
mathematical works survived and were popular into the next century. Damasius
wrote that “The whole city rightly loved her and worshipped her in a remarkable
way...”
Her popularity galled Cyril,
the new bishop of Alexandria,
who “was so struck with envy that he immediately began plotting her murder...”
The bishop's enmity was also fueled by political motives: the politics of
religious intolerance and domination.
When Cyril became bishop in 412, he began pushing to extend his power into the
civic sphere. His enforcers were the
parabalanoi,
strongmen who had been the shock troops of bishop Theophilus' war on pagans and
Jews.
Accusations of Witchcraft
Realizing that he was losing on public relations, the bishop changed tactics.
Now he attempted to turn the people against Hypatia as a powerful woman by
accusing her of harmful sorcery. A later church chronicler, John of Nikiu,
explained that "she beguiled many people through satanic wiles." In March of
415, Peter the church lector led a mob in attacking Hypatia as she rode through
the city in her chariot.
Socrates Scholasticus
wrote that "rash cockbrains" dragged her into the Caesarion church, stripped her
naked, and tore into her body with pot-shards, cutting her to pieces.
Cyril prevailed, and his parabalanoi were never punished for killing Hypatia.
The bishop covered up her murder, insisting that she had moved to Athens.
No one was fooled. Our nearest contemporary sources agree that the bishop was
behind the witch-rumors and the killing, and that his men carried them out.
Hypatia was not targeted only as a pagan.
It is clear that Hypatia's femaleness made her a special target, vulnerable to
the accusation of witchcraft. Her courage in opposing the escalating anti-Jewish
violence and her moral stance against religious repression were factors as well.
In defending the assault on the philosophical tradition of tolerance, Hypatia
had everything to lose, yet she acted boldly.
Later in the century, her male counterparts also came under attack. By the
mid-400s, pagan professors were being sentenced to death in Syria. Sometime
after 480, an Alexandrian Christian society called the Zealots hounded the pagan
prefect and his secretary from office and into exile.
The Zealots
capped their triumph with the burning of "idols."
The cultural repression used to Christianize the Roman Empire was unprecedented
anywhere up to that time, in extent, duration and geographic scale.
(source:
Hypatía of Alexandria - suppressed histories.net).
Top of Page
The Sheer
Intolerance of Monotheism
How Diwali is portrayed by Christian Missionaries in United Kingdom
As the children sit by their shrines to the elephant god in classrooms up and
down the land, their parents won’t be told that Rama, according to the Hindu
scriptures, went on to marry many other women as well as Sita, mutilated and
tortured women, called his father a fool and an idiot and burnt the Dravidians
of Sri Lanka alive. So much for peace and happiness.
Hinduism’s social darkness
Nor will they be told, as their children paint red tilak dots on each others’
foreheads, about the Hindu caste system which keeps millions of families in
permanent bondage, about dowry murders of young brides, about female infanticide
nor about the ritual slaughter of buffalo and horses to appease the Hindu
goddess Durga.
In all the talk of light, no school will own up to the darkness of Hindu
violence over the thousands of Dalits (or ‘Untouchables’) converting to
Christianity nor about how the idea of reincarnation and ‘karma’ means that
beggars must be left to suffer for their sins in a previous life.
But we’ll tell
you, in Diwali – a parents’ guide.
We’ll give you all the background to the Diwali festival, set out the Hindu
belief system with its demonic ‘trinity’, explain how the caste system keeps one
racial group in permanent ascendancy, and show you how the Hindu faith works out
in practice.
(source:
Diwali - a parents guide -
christianvoice.org.uk).
Christianization of
history and Racism -
excerpts
from C K Raju's book
Euclid and Jesus
Questioning the West is taboo for the
indoctrinated colonized minds produced by Western education.
Throughout the Roman Empire, in the later 4th
century, Christian mobs had smashed “pagan” temples, and seized their
accumulated wealth. As historian Edward Gibbon described it:
“In almost every province of the Roman world, an
army of fanatics, without authority and without discipline, invaded the peaceful
inhabitants; and the ruin of the fairest structures of antiquity still displays
the ravages of those barbarians.”
By the end of the 4th century most
pagan temples in the Roman empire were gone – destroyed by rampaging Christian
mobs. For these tasks of spreading Christianity by smashing pagan deities, the
church later declared Theophilus a saint, a perfect example of how to spread the
doctrine of love! This event continues to be celebrated today by
Encyclopedia Britannica as a great triumph: “The destruction of the Sarapeum at
Alexandria by the patriarch Theophilus and his followers in AD 391 signaled the
final triumph of Christianity not only in Egypt but throughout the Roman Empire.
The Dark Ages
The Dark Ages began with the complete
destruction of non-Christian books in Christendom, during the first religious
war which the church fought against the pagans, in the 4th and 5th
century.
The priest themselves owned slaves and
participated in this big business. For example, the Archbishop of Cantebury
owned the Codrington plantation in Barbados from 1710. Conditions on the
plantation were so bad that 4 out of 10 imported slaves died within three years;
it was more profitable to work slaves to death, and replace them, than to feed
them or take minimal care of them. Being the Society for Preservation of the
Gospel, they branded the word “Society” on the chest of their slaves.
From the 15th to the 18th
century, the priests extolled the institution of slavery, and profited from it.
They pointed out that slavery was mentioned and accepted in the Bible, in both
the Old Testament and the New. The bull Romanus Pontifex, not withdrawn to this
day, directs Christian kings to turn the non-Christian “Negro” into slaves.
A difficulty developed later on when many of the
slaves converted to Christianity. Could a Christian enslave another Christian.
This presented a moral problem for the priest who saw no evil in the notion of
slavery, or a sadistic hell for non-Christians, or the persecution of
non-Christian “pagans” or the Crusades against Muslims, or the Inquisition
against Jews and Muslim converts, or the genocide in the Americas against
non-Christian “Injuns”.
The priest spoke of civil property, not civil
rights. For example, Thomas Sherlock, later Bishop of
London, assured the planters that “Christianity and the embracing of
the Gospel does not make the least difference in civil property.”
However, theologically speaking, the priests
produced two broad questions of Christian slavery. The first to point to the
“curse of Ham” meaning black, was a reference in the Bible to the ancestors of
Egyptians. Thus, the story went, God had cursed blacks to slaves. The second
answer was that blacks (and reds, browns, and yellows) were such a deprived and
savage lot that slavery or other form of white domination were actually a matter
of advantage for them. The false history that all intellectual achievements were
the work of Christians (or their friends, the early Greeks) was used to justify
this racist answer.
Traditionally, false history has been an
essential element in the arsenal of the church. The church carries out
conversions by attacking the self-esteem of the individual: the stock tactic is
to use false history to denigrate the group to which the individual belongs.
This allows the church to establish its superiority. The church employs
thousands upon thousands of people who incessantly recite a litany of these
lies. No marketing company today, no TV channel, nor even an entire nation can
compete with such propaganda. The propaganda is drummed into the heads of people
from childhood through “education” – controlled by the church. Naturally
European intellectuals were supporters or victims of this propaganda.
The leading intellectuals of the time used false
history to justify racism. The philosopher John Locke,
a champion of liberty had invested heavily in the Royal
African Company. He helped to draft the constitution of Carolina,
which stated “every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority
over his negro slave of what opinion or religion soever.”
The philosopher David
Hume wrote in a 1753 essay, “I am apt to suspect the negroes and in
general all the other species of men to be naturally inferior to the whites.
Hegel proposed the negro race as the antithesis
of the white race. Samuel Johnson’s
biographer Boswell wrote a long poem (with footnotes!) in favor of slavery, and
addressed it to plantation owners.
“Noodles, who rave for abolition
Of th’African improv’d condition…
Don’t rob from pure humanity.
Thomas Carlyle
(1795 - 1881) Scottish philosopher and writer,
ranted against “niggers” “sitting there, up to the ears in pumpkins, and doleful
whites, sitting here, without potatoes to eat.”
Today, the usual apologia for this rabid
moralizing is that these thinkers were products of their times which left no
European untouched by racism and deep-seated belief in inequality. But to
overlook the root cause of their attitude – the false history created for church
propaganda – which cause persists till today. This belief in white supremacy was
but a slight modification of the earlier church belief in Christian supremacy,
adapted to suit the then-current economic reality that European prosperity
depended upon the labor of blacks in America.
Earlier, the church had maintained that all
ingenuity in science and technology was the work of Christians and friends.
During Inquisition, and the related religious intolerance in Europe, this myth
blossomed because individual Europeans were terrified of acknowledging any
non-Christian sources. Thus, two supposedly most creative scientists of Europe
were Copernicus and Newton, today credited with the “Copernican revolution” and
the “Newtonian revolution.” In fact, today we know that all that Copernicus did
came from Islamic sources, which he merely translated, without full
understanding. Likewise, the calculus attributed to Newton came from Indian
sources, brought from Cochin by Jesuits in the 16th century and used
by Europeans who lack a proper understanding of it to this day. The astronomical
model of Tycho Brahe came from India, as did the “observations” fudged by the
half-blind) astrologer Kepler. Thus the claims of Christian/White/Western
inventiveness were based on theft and appropriation, just like European
prosperity, and it is curious how one sort of theft (of ideas) was used to
morally justify another.
Black Athena
While false history led to racism, there is no
doubt that racist historians deliberately falsified history even further. With
the persistence of racist attitudes, from the late 18 c. onwards, the
Hellenization of history received yet another boost at the hands of racist
historians. Martin Bernal explains in the first volume of his Black Athena: The
Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985 how racist historians in the past couple
of centuries systematically suppressed references to Egypt because its
inhabitants were black.
(source:
Euclid and Jesus - By C K Raju p. 140 - 144).
Top of Page
Why Does The Left Ignore India’s Indigenous Intellectual Traditions?
India
has one of the greatest intellectual traditions in the world and it has nothing
to do with modern Indian leftist scholars and writers. It is the tradition of
numerous yogis, sages and seers going back to the Vedas, extending through
Vedanta, Buddhism and related dharmic traditions to their many exponents today.
Dharmic traditions teach us how to develop the mind in the highest sense of
universal consciousness, not simply logic and conceptual thought. India’s great
minds, centuries ago, produced the many paths of yoga and the largest variety of
exalted spiritual philosophies and psychologies in the world. And their
teachings remain alive and vibrant even today, spreading globally.
Yet, India’s dharmic tradition has not just addressed consciousness and
spirituality, but has also produced a vast literature on art, science, medicine,
mathematics and politics – all the main domains of thought and culture.
At the
turn of the twentieth century, Swami Vivekananda
transformed world thinking, introducing yoga,
meditation and higher states of consciousness at a time before Einstein had
discovered the relativity of time and space and the illusory nature of physical
reality, something long taught in Vedanta and Buddhism.
Sri Aurobindo unfolded the idea of a higher evolution of
consciousness in humanity and produced Savitri,
the longest blank verse poem in the English language, revealing transformative
yogic secrets that the West had yet to conceive. Yet, many of these great Indic
thinkers wrote in Sanskrit or regional languages of India and have not been
properly noted, much less studied. Vedantic teachers like
Swami Chinmayananda and Swami Dayananda have guided India in
recent decades, commenting on cultural as well as spiritual affairs, using
English as their main language of expression, so that the modern audience can
easily understand them. Ram Swarup and Sitaram Goel
produced excellent critiques of communism and Western religious fundamentalism.
New Yoga teachings have come out from India’s modern gurus, too numerous to
mention, and there is now a detailed modern literature on Ayurvedic medicine in
English. New books on India’s past have been written by important archaeologists
and historians, uncovering the depth and antiquity of India’s many-sided
civilisation.
Meanwhile, there is a dynamic new generation of insightful and articulate Indic/dharmic
writers with new books and articles, and active in the social media, including
Sanjeev Sanyal, Hindol Sengupta, Vamsee Juluri, Tufail Ahmad, and Amish Tripathi.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been an important part of this
intellectual/media awakening of pro-India scholars and writers, who honour the
profound traditions of the country going back to ancient times.
The Left’s
false claim to intellectual superiority
India’s Left has long claimed that Hindus are not intellectual and are
unscientific, mindlessly repeating old racist colonial and missionary
propaganda. Yet the Left has not produced any original thinkers, much less
sages. It hasn’t even understood India’s own vast culture, which is the saddest
commentary on its endeavours. India’s leftist scholars are largely
Lord Macaulay’s children, promoting Western
thought, disowning India’s older and more extensive cultural heritage. India’s
Left has no understanding of higher states of consciousness, as clearly
explained in the dharmic traditions, or any interest in exploring them. It is
wedded to gross materialism and physical reality, preferring to write about sex
and politics, not anything transcendent. While traditional Hindu thought
recognises seven chakras from basic human urges to the highest cosmic
consciousness, leftist writers are happy to wallow in the lower one or two, as
if they were contributing something exalted to the world.
While
modern physics is embracing the idea of cosmic consciousness and great
physicists like Oppenheimer have quoted the
Bhagavad Gita, India’s Left is firmly caught
in the outer world of maya, which it does not question. It has little sense of
cosmology and not much vision beyond political propaganda. Yet, India’s
scientists honour their own spiritual traditions like Subhash Kak and George
Sudarshan, who are not products of the Left.
India’s leftists seldom learn Sanskrit or study the great philosophers, thinkers
and poets of the country. While they can quote Shakespeare they deem it’s
beneath their dignity to honour Kalidas. They cannot examine the Ramayana or
Mahabharata except in terms of Marxist or Freudian theories. They may discuss
women’s rights but have no experience of India’s powerful traditions of Goddess
worship. They are like the children of the old British Raj for whom anything
Indian, particularly Hindu, is primitive superstition to be frowned upon. Indian
immigrants now make up the highest strata of Western society in terms of
education and affluence, comprising doctors, engineers, scientists, and software
developers, most of who are respectful of India’s spiritual traditions. They are
not products of the Left either. India’s
leftists, meanwhile, take academic posts both in India and the West, from which
they can take potshots at their own culture and pretend to be wise while drawing
comfortable salaries from the very governments they like to criticise. They
would never practice yoga, mantra or meditation, as the people in the West are
now doing more and more – including many thinkers and innovators. Note the
example of Steve Jobs of Apple Computers, who carried Paramahansa Yogananda’sAutobiography
of a Yogi with him, and
probably never heard of Romila Thapar, Ram Guha or
Irfan Habib.
Intellectual
arrogance of the Left
The
problem is that India’s leftist intellectuals are products of the ego-mind, what
is called the rajasic buddhi in yogic thought, which is marked by intellectual
arrogance. Without first learning deep meditation, one cannot go beyond the
prejudices of the outer intellect and its attachment to name, form and
personality. One needs to become silent and receptive within in order to truly
know oneself and the universe. This teaching has been clearly articulated since
the ancient Upanishads did so in a series of inspired dialogues and debates over
3,000 years ago. It is time for India’s leftist intellectuals to honour their
own profound dharmic traditions. Then they might be capable of something more
original and transformative than to imitate the superficial views of the western
leftists, which is their current state of affairs. It might give them better
ethical rules of behaviour to emulate as well.
The
role of India’s true intelligentsia should be to sustain India’s cultural unity,
spirituality and creativity, for the nation and the world – not trying to
replace their own venerable traditions with worn out leftist agendas that have
failed everywhere they have been implemented.
(source:
Why Does The Left Ignore India’s Indigenous Intellectual Traditions? - By
David Frawley).
Top of Page
The great Hindu revival has begun - and we must celebrate it – by Sunil Rajguru
Red is dead.
Saffron is on.
When the Mughals started ruling India, the land’s long-standing Hindu culture
was already thousands of years old. Aurangzeb tried to destroy it in its
totality, but ended up destroying his empire instead. The British followed and
continued with the suppression of Hinduism, but couldn’t finish the job because
they had to leave in 1947.
One would have thought that the great Hindu revival would finally begin that
year, but it didn’t because of a certain gentleman called Jawaharlal Nehru who
became our first Prime Minister. Nehru was a closet communist and that ideology
believes in suppressing whatever culture a country has.
Mao Zedong taught his people to be ashamed of the glorious Chinese culture,
which was thousands of years old. British and American communists are ashamed of
Christianity, whiteness and their respective empires.
So in India, we were taught to be ashamed of Hinduism while the Mughal and
British cultures were eulogised. If you don’t believe me then just go back to
your school days and remember the history books which just went on and on about
the Mughal dynasty, the communist revolutions and the many great benefits of
British rule.

Hinduism was something that had to be kept at home and not to be displayed in
public else you were branded a communal bigot.
***
The Cholas ruled the entire eastern coast of India along with Sri Lanka, the
islands of Maldives and invaded areas of Malaysia and Indonesia. We are taught
of the virtues of Mughal centralisation, but they did it hundreds of years
before. Yet most history books in India reduced the Cholas to a mere paragraph
in some cases. All our founding fathers, especially Mahatma Gandhi, promised to
implement a permanent and total cow slaughter ban across India and abolish
English as the official language by 1965. Yet, nothing of the sort happened. If
anything, we became more British than the British.
Hinduism was something that had to be kept at home and not to be displayed in
public else you were branded a communal bigot. The RSS were a bunch of
untouchables. The BJP due to its Hindu heritage couldn’t rule on its own and had
to be “kept in check” by allies.That was the case till 2004 and Atal Bihari
Vajpayee couldn’t change much and was happy to be part of the system. He was
even dismissed as a “Congressi” by many hardline RSS supporters.
Sonia Gandhi
through her 10-year UPA "rule" took it to greater heights after that. She was a
Roman Catholic who hired a Sikh prime minister, a Christian defence minister and
a Muslim foreign minister. While there’s nothing wrong with that, her hatred
against Hinduism showed in more ways than one.
Right To Education is virtually a “Reservation in Hindu Private Schools” Act.
She tried to introduce the Communal Bill which demonised Hindus. There was a
further revision in history books and school textbooks which took Nehruvian
ideals further. #AdarshLiberals and the Left lobby were encouraged to criticise
and even abuse Hinduism in louder and louder voices. Even in Bollywood there was
a crackdown on scenes that merely criticised Christianity and Islam while Hindu
abuse was cleared without a murmur.
However, all that changed overnight in 2014.
Narendra Modi is the first prime minister who proudly
wears his Hindu nationalism on his sleeve.
Modi doing a
Ganga aarti
at Dashashwamedh Ghat in Varanasi
celebrating his victory was symbolic in more ways than one. They say “Jaisa
raja, waisi praja” (the people will be like the king). Well, more and more
Indians are now wearing their Hindu nationalism on their sleeve and are no
longer ashamed of their religion. The RSS, hitherto a pariah confined to the
Hindi heartland, is gaining more and more acceptance and is even spreading to
areas in the south such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu along with the east and
north-east. Now, more and more RSS members are holding key posts of the
government.
It all culminated with the elevation of Yogi Adityanath as Uttar Pradesh chief
minister. If Modi’s rise was considered next to impossible, then a saffron
robe-wearing Mahant heading India’s most populous state was plain impossible.
But it happened!
Pre-2014, Communism was mainstream and Hinduism the fringe. Post-2014, Hinduism
is mainstream and Communism the fringe.
(source:
The great Hindu revival has begun - and we must celebrate it – by Sunil
Rajguru).
Top of Page
Anti-Hindu Media Fueled By Bigotry is a Growing Problem in India
Indian’s take pleasure in the fact that India is renowned as the world’s largest
democracy. However under the disguise of being massively populated yet governed
democratically through a transparent electoral process, lies the truth: India’s
democracy runs at the cost of Hindu rights. This is the case due to the
enactment of ongoing government policies related to actions of constant
appeasement to minorities—the Muslims and Christians of India. In other words
it’s a form of reverse discrimination but to a degree that has become utterly
unacceptable.
Primarily, this form of appeasement is seen through the biases in media that
have become so prevalent that even an ordinary news reader, lacking any
professional, analytical skills can point them out. Take NDTV for example.
There will not be a day that goes by on this website, where an anti-Hindu
article is not posted on the front page headlines. Sadly it’s a good day for
Hindus, if only one hateful headline is posted since it has become the norm to
bash Hindus daily through a multitude of articles.
Furthermore, when there is major headline news such as the Mumbai attacks of
November 2008, news reporters on sites such as NDTV write with the utmost care
to not point out whether a Muslim might have been involved in the attacks even
though the evidence of the crime proves guilty. Contrary to this, when a Hindu
person is mentioned even as a possible suspect, news reporters in India have no
shame or reluctance in typing negative headlines that defame Hindu’s across the
country and world—when nothing has been proven. The question is why is this
being accepted by a majority in India? If India comprises the world’s largest
Hindu population then why are people not speaking out about such an injustice?
The pattern and consistency of this bias is clearly evident, yet people choose
not to question such forms of abuse. Just because a majority exists in a
country, does not mean that they deserve constant criticism for merely being a
majority because it is obvious that in India’s case, the voice is not of the
Hindu’s. In the desperation to appease and prove oneself to be a democratic
country to the outside world arena, India’s government and media have forgotten
to represent the Hindu majority of the country. One may say, that how can such
a misrepresentation be possible in a country that is presumably very transparent
in its governing practices? It is important to note that a large portion of the
Indian population is made up of people living in poverty. When a large number
of people are poverty stricken, it is easy to manipulate this population to
follow any hidden agenda that a person running for office might have. So
although at the surface the process seems clean and mildly bureaucratic, it is
at the grassroots level that the corruption can be seen. How does this all
relate back to the biases of Indian media?

Anti-Hindu media bias is evident from this
cartoon
***
(NDTV and CNN-IBN are claimed by many readers as 2 of the most known Anti-Hindu
Media channels in India)
The media cannot get away with portraying Hindu’s as the so called “bad guys” or
“villains” while others are always portrayed as the victims plainly because of
their numbers. The reality is that the Hindu population is decreasing in India
while the Muslim and Christian populations are growing in their respective
majority-based countries. Hindu’s need to start paying attention to the
inappropriate and unnecessary bias displayed in media and fight for what is not
fair. If we do not help our own kind then no one else will until it is too late
and there is no turning back to recuperate what has been lost.
(source:
Anti-Hindu Media Fueled By Bigotry is a Growing Problem in India
- chakranews.com).
Top of Page
The Beauty of
Greater India:
The Majapahit Empire
13th-Century Relics from Malaysia's Majapahit Kingdom Found Beneath Malacca
River
Relics possibly dating back to the 13th-century Majapahit empire are believed to
have been found along a 1.25 mile stretch beneath the Malacca river. Two weeks
ago, a group of professional divers apparently discovered parts of a Hindu
temple and a fort-like structure. They believed that these ancient finds could
point to a submerged city that existed even before Parameswara founded Malacca
in 1400.
Chief Minister Datuk Seri Idris Haron, when
contacted, acknowledged that he had received a report about the sighting of the
relics. "But we have yet to get an in-depth report. "The finding is still vague
until archaeologists from the Heritage Department make their conclusions," he
said.
The Majapahit Empire was centralized in east
Java and was a vast archipelagic kingdom during its peak between 1293 and 1527.
Malacca was once an important town for Majapahit's palace officials and soldiers
who made the town their maritime headquarters.
(source:
13th-Century Relics from Malaysia's Majapahit Kingdom Found Beneath Malacca
River -
straitstimes.com).
Mosaic distinction
- excerpts
In India, what passes for debate and discussion on this issue in
the public sphere has so far been high on politicisation and wanting in
scholarship. In academia, however, ironically even the Western variety that many
Indian traditionalists like to ignorantly scoff at, there have been some
articulate expositions of why the Abrahamic religions are fundamentally
different from and unequal to the faith systems of the cultural Indosphere and
elsewhere. The argument runs that the differences between the two groups are not
simply about what to call the sine
qua non (G-d) or even if
it is indeed sine
quibus non (many gods) but
involve a radical difference in views on the political order as well.
How Many Gods?
Theo
Sundermeier, professor of theology at Heidelberg University, makes an
insightful distinction between religions in his Was
ist Religion? Religionswissenschaft im theologischen Kontext between primary and
secondary religions. The former, Sundermeier explains, developed over hundreds
if not thousands of years, usually within a single culture, society, and
language with which the religion is inextricably intertwined.
These would
include the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions as easily as Hinduism.
The latter category of religions are those that originate from an
act of revelation or foundation and are monotheistic, universal, and of the
Book. Secondary religions denounce primary religions as paganism, a collection
of superstitions, and idolatry. The three Abrahamic faiths fit this description
well. This seemingly obvious categorisation holds an evolution of great import –
from primary to secondary, religion changes from being a system that is
irrevocably embedded in the institutional, linguistic, and cultural conditions
of a society to become an autonomous system that can transcend political,
ethnic, and other boundaries and transplant itself into any alien culture.
As
Jan Assmann, an Egyptologist at the University of Konstanz, describes in his Die
Mosaische Unterscheidung: oder der Preis des Monotheismus, this change, which he calls the Mosaic distinction, is hardly
about whether there is one god or there are many gods but about truth and
falsehood, knowledge and ignorance.
Monotheistic
faiths rest firmly on the distinction between their true god and the falseness
of other gods; their truth does not stand in a complementary relationship to
other truths but relegates any such claims to the realm of falsehood.
They are
exclusive, antagonistic, and explicitly codified and clearly communicated. As Assmann explains, the truth to be proclaimed comes complete
with an enemy to be fought – only they know of “heretics
and pagans, false doctrine, sects, superstition, idolatry, magic, ignorance,
unbelief, heresy, and whatever other terms have been coined to designate what
they denounce, persecute and proscribe as manifestations of untruth.” Secondary religions do not evolve from primary religions –
rather, the emergence of the former represents a revolution, a rupture with the
past that uncompromisingly divides the world between “Jews and Gentiles,
Christians and pagans, Christians and Jews, Muslims and infidels, true believers
and heretics.”
Such orthodoxy was unknown to the followers of primary religions and they found
secondary religions intolerant.
Before
the Mosaic distinction, knowledge and faith were not separate concepts. Pagans
knew their gods but did not believe in
them for they were not objects of faith; like myths, they were unverifiable to
science but not necessarily devoid of knowledge. Before the Mosaic distinction,
there were four kinds of fundamental truth: experiential (water is wet),
mathematical (two plus two is four), historical (the life of Mokshagundam
Visveswaraya), and truths conducive to life (ethics). The Mosaic distinction
cleaved faith from knowledge and installed the former as a fifth truth that
claimed knowledge of the highest authority even if it could not be verified on
scientific grounds. The psychological and social impact of this differentiation
is most visible in how Greek or Hindu science never conflicted with its
philosophy, myths, or religious practices – each operated in their own domain.
In fact, there are several anecdotes of highly acclaimed Hindu scientists
subscribing to superstitions – S Ramanujan’s belief in astrology and CV Raman’s
concern about the ill-effects of a solar eclipse come most readily to mind. But
the monotheistic preoccupation with untruth in conjunction with faith-as-truth
caused much acrimony in Christendom and the dar
al-Islam.
In contrast, Christianity and Islam excluded the pagan rather
than themselves. The Great Commission of Christianity and the Islamic obligation
of da’wah not
only excludes the pagan but directly puts them on a path of conflict. This
intolerance stems from the absolute certitude that faith brings to Christianity
and Islam. As Assmann points out, it makes no sense to talk of tolerance in
pagan systems because there is no notion of incompatibility: one can tolerate
something that is incompatible and irresolvable with one’s own views but how
does one tolerate something that is not so steadfastly oppositional?
Translatability
Among the practitioners of primary religions, there has always
been a translatability of divinity – the cosmology of different communities was
believed to be compatible with each other. In a practice that has been the norm
since at least Sumerian times, pagan communities sealed contracts upon oaths to
their gods – for example, if the Akkadians wanted to consecrate a treaty with
the Egyptians, the former would swear by Utu and the latter by Ra, the solar
deities of their respective civilisations. There was no question of the
falsehood of the other’s cosmology. The worship of each others’ gods was not
unknown either – the Egyptian goddess Isis had a popular cult in Rome and the
Syrian Atargatis and Phrygian Cybele and followers all around the Mediterranean.
Usually, these gods would travel to foreign lands with traders and with
increasing commerce and familiarity, would be established in the local pantheon
as well. In the Indian context, the spread of Vedic Hinduism in India occurred
along similar lines. The philosophical precepts of the Vedic Hindus were laid
over the beliefs of the local communities and their gods were integrated into
the Vedic pantheon. Many temples in Indian and Sri Lankan villages are dedicated
to gramadevate –
village deities – the legends behind whom trace their lineage back to a Puranic
deity.
Disenchanting the World
Another reason monotheism stands as the Other is that unlike
polytheistic faiths, it disenchants the world. Pagan myths usually involved
humans cavorting with the gods, in war as well as in love. This entanglement
gives structure to the cosmos, describing its oppositional and synergetic forces
in a manner that can be easily grasped by all. Furthermore, the gods bring order
to society: with each trade, settlement, and resource associated with a patron
deity, a network of duties and obligations is created. Each cult, so to speak,
must be balanced with others in the greater community. As Assmann argues, this
can even be extended to human destiny in that the stories of the gods give
meaning to human relations as well. “By telling stories about the gods, myths
bring order to human life.” Polytheism is synonymous with cosmotheism, and the
divine cannot be divorced from the world. It is this theology that monotheism
attacks. The divine is liberated from its ties to the cosmos, society, and the
people, and in its place is the relationship of the individual with a divinity
that stands outside the world, time, and space. Monotheism changes not only the
image of god but man’s image of himself as well; instead of being in a seamless
and symbiotic relationship with nature, he now stands alone but above it, to
rule over it freely and independently, subservient only to a true god. To
secondary religions, divinity is transcendent whereas for primary religions, it
is immanent.
Were the rejection of Christianity and Islam by Indian
traditionalists merely a matter of geography, it would be silly. Yet the grounds
for suspicion and Otherness are twofold – a predatory
proselytism of exclusive monotheisms and the
entire cosmology of secondary religions. Neither of these traits have mellowed
over the 1,000+ years secondary religions have been in India, and until they do,
the two religions will remain outsiders to the Indosphere.
(source:
Mosaic distinction
- jaideepprabhu.org).
Top of Page
Let Women Fight Feminist Propaganda Against Hinduism
In April 2015, the Dravidar Kazhagam had organized a thaali (called mangalsutra in
some parts of the nation) removal festival in Tamil Nadu. Dravida Kazhagam,
started by Periyar (EV Ramaswamy), the patriarch of the Dravidian movement,
considers the thaali a
symbol of slavery. The members of this ‘rationalist’ organization opined that thaali symbolized
a woman’s bondage to husbands through the medium of caste and religious belief
and they were doing away with the thread. A group of women took off their thaalis
in a gesture they termed as “emancipation of womanhood from the shackles of
existing social system”.
The Hindu Makkal Katchi amused the believers by countering the protest through
distribution of thaalis,
vermillion and turmeric to women in temples. The thaali holds
a powerful sentiment among Tamil people. Until recently, thaali was
a powerful tool in the hands of film makers to whip up audience emotion.
As the contentious topic was raised in social media, human rights activists and
scribes left no stone unturned to conclude that the thaaliis
just another chain/thread. To wear or remove the mangalsutra is
an individual choice!
The propaganda is nothing but an orchestrated attempt that betrays a
condescending attitude of half-baked intellectuals towards things that are
Hindu. Misinterpreting a ritual out of ignorance of its history or, even,
twisting the facts to suit a certain brand of politics is a standard operating
procedure in this trend.
Mantras play a significant role in traditional Hindu wedding.The sacred hymns
for wedding ceremony are mostly from Rg Veda.The priest chants the mantra
mentioned in Rg veda 10th mandala. Vak
daan,kanya daan, vara prekshan,mangala snanam,mangalya dharan, pani grahan and saptapadi are
the steps followed in Vedic wedding. Prior to mangalyadharan,
the thread is prepared by chanting Surya Vivaha Sukta (Rg
Veda 10-85-47) summarizing the values of marriage. According to the Hindu
belief, the mangalsutra is
neither a thread of control nor just another chain.Before chanting the mangalyadharan hymn,
blessings of Soma, Agni and Gandharva are invoked to bestow strength, beauty and
youth upon the bride. During the mangalyadhaarana ceremony,
the groom chants the shloka:
“maangalyam tantunaanena mama jeevana hetunaa/ kanthe badhanami
subhage sajjeeva (or tvam jeeva) Saradaa Satam“
[This is a sacred thread; this is essential for my long life. I tie this around
your neck, O maiden with many auspicious attributes! May we be happily married
for a hundred years!]
Alas, what doesn’t fit into a predetermined script is opportunistically ignored.
Over the past few years, there has been an orchestrated attempt to portray
Hinduism as anti-women; the gratuitous attack has gathered momentum recently.
Ironically, the poor depiction is backed by activists who have no knowledge of
the subject. Manusmriti comes
in handy to corroborate their half-baked knowledge. It is a tragedy of the
discourse on the religious aspect of Hinduism that people (and not least the
media) hear only what they want to hear; the folks who complain about Manusmriti have
successfully positioned themselves as pro-emancipation, pro-liberalism, their
perfidious behaviour notwithstanding.
The scriptures of this land comprising the Ramayana, Mahabharata, 18 Puranas, 4
Vedas, numerous Upapuranaas, 251 Upanishads, Dharmashastras and Agamas are kept
obscured in debates on religion that are fuelled by the champions of liberal
causes. Both pop spiritualists and revolutionaries need to understand the
context, history and gist while commenting authoritatively on the subject.
If Hinduism had been anti-women, how did the Vedic period witness women
intellectuals in numerous spheres — particularly in the spiritual field? The
position of women in ancient Hindu society was unarguably an enviable one. In a
debate between Shankaracharya and Mandana Mishra, the latter’s wife Ubhaya
Bharathi was appointed to be the judge purely based on her scholarship, superior
knowledge and spiritual attainments.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad contains verses which describe Maitreyi opting for
Brahmavidya rather than wealth and worldly pleasures. During a philosophic
debate, Gargi challenged Yajnavalkya with a volley of questions on aatman that
baffled the learned scholar. The eminent women in the field of learning and
scholarship who opted for Vedic studies were known as “Brahmavadinis”.
In the contemporary era, women scholars are conspicuous by their absence in
theological discussions. No wonder, the systematic attack on religious Hinduism
to illustrate the faith, any sect thereof, its followers and traditions as
anti-women has escalated in the recent past. The reason to invoke the glorious
chapters of Hindu scriptures has, therefore, arisen henceforth.
There are innumerable women in Hindu community with intense enthusiasm to learn
and understand the scriptures. Women interested in the subject (irrespective of
castes) should be groomed as experts in shashtrs,
puranas, agamas so on and so forth. Make women participate fully in
the mainstream of
Hindu theological conferences. It would puncture the lies and the hit-and-run
job carried out by the Breaking
India forces can be dealt efficaciously. For example, the exiling of
Sita in the Uttara Kanda of the Ramayana should be defended not by the pontiffs
of Kanchi or Sringeri mutts, but by women scholars. This would set a new
precedence in debates and will bring a new dimension to the discourse on rituals
and traditions. Also, the deliberate attempt to portray Hinduism as anti-women
will fall into disuse.
It is time we did away with pop spiritualists and politicians who act as
mediators on issues related to shastras
and agamas.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad contains verses which describe Maitreyi opting for
Brahmavidya rather than wealth and worldly pleasures. During a philosophic
debate, Gargi challenged Yajnavalkya with a volley of questions on aatman that
baffled the learned scholar. The eminent women in the field of learning and
scholarship who opted for Vedic studies were known as “Brahmavadinis”.
In the contemporary era, women scholars are conspicuous by their absence in
theological discussions. No wonder, the systematic attack on religious Hinduism
to illustrate the faith, any sect thereof, its followers and traditions as
anti-women has escalated in the recent past. The reason to invoke the glorious
chapters of Hindu scriptures has, therefore, arisen henceforth.
There are innumerable women in Hindu community with intense enthusiasm to learn
and understand the scriptures. Women interested in the subject (irrespective of
castes) should be groomed as experts in shashtrs,
puranas, agamas so on and so forth. Make women participate fully in
the mainstream of
Hindu theological conferences. It would puncture the lies and the hit-and-run
job carried out by the Breaking
India forces can be dealt efficaciously. For example, the exiling of
Sita in the Uttara Kanda of the Ramayana should be defended not by the pontiffs
of Kanchi or Sringeri mutts, but by women scholars. This would set a new
precedence in debates and will bring a new dimension to the discourse on rituals
and traditions. Also, the deliberate attempt to portray Hinduism as anti-women
will fall into disuse.
Indeed, the Gita, shrutis, shaastras, sutras, puraanas, agamas
describe the essence of Hinduism. The need of the hour is a counter-narrative
lead by Apalas, Gargis, Ghoshas, Lopamudras, Indranis, Maitreyis and
Ubhayabharatis of the modern times. The moment has come. Let the women take the
mantle of leadership of Hinduism for its resurgence with the glory that once was
associated with the culture of the land to the east of River Sindhu.
(source:
Let Women Fight Feminist Propaganda Against
Hinduism
-
sirfnews.com).
The Intolerance
of Monotheism
Colombia's
Indigenous Wiwa Fight Back Against Jehovah Witnesses
"The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven
The Bible is a product of man, my dear, Not of God
The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds" - Leigh Teabing,
character in Dan Brown's
Da Vinci
Code
***
In an act of self-determination, the Wiwa tribe expelled the religious
organization for contributing to their “cultural and spiritual extermination."
The Wiwa Indigenous community in Colombia has expelled a group of missionaries
from a church built by Jehovah's Witnesses inside their territory, which had
been perceived as a threat to the culture, traditions and beliefs of the group.
The Wiwa have internal counselors called "mamos" who have deep influence in
their communities and decide on relevant matters affecting them,
including religious groups that may threaten local beliefs and customs.
Jose Gregorio Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the community, said the Wiwa are
worried about religious organizations wanting to indoctrinate them.
"Religion advances in our territories, our children are losing our customs, they
don't want to hear about our traditional law," Rodriguez said in an interview in
September for RCN.
The Wiwa are mainly located in the northern states of the country and the name
means "warm," which in "damana," the group's language, is used to describe those
who come from Colombia's warmer lowlands.
The group ritually use coca leaves as a means of purifying the blood and
increasing energy levels throughout the workday. Both religious groups ousted
from the territory claim the tradition "abhorrent" and "satanic."
In 1998 the Wiwa expelled a group of evangelicals after they set up a Protestant
church on their land in the 1950s, aggressively teaching the community to stop
following their traditional deities and embrace the Christian faith.
The United Pentecostal Church of Colombia, who have also been expelled by the
Wiwa, also targeted the area and began a program of indoctrinating the
Indigenous population.
The Wiwa mainly work in agriculture and grow and harvest cassava, yams, taro,
bananas, corn, beans, sugar cane and coca for family consumption. Coffee is
their main source trade.
(source:
Colombia's
Indigenous Wiwa Fight Back Against Jehovah Witnesses)
Top of Page
British
Colonization: Enslaving the Indian Mind
The
British had a clear goal: to westernize and Christianize India, using all
possible means.
One of
the main reasons for the Europeans to sail the oceans was to find new trade
routes to Asia, especially, to India. The adventure was inevitable as the land
route to Asia was now held by the Ottoman Empire since 1453 CE (In 1453 CE,
Constantinople was captured by the Ottomans, which led to the fall of the
Byzantine Empire) and an alternative trade route had to be discovered, for the
sake of trade and profits. But, besides monetary prospects, another significant
reason/motivation for all European colonisations in different parts of the world
is almost always ignored. It was an inherent ideology of “western supremacy”.
This idea is often referred to as “the white man’s burden”: a self-proclaimed
responsibility of the west to subjugate and civilize any other person, who does
not fall under the category of the “west”.
Accordingly, the Europeans, who “discovered” India had both intentions in mind.
But, it was the British, who were the most successful among them. They not only
succeeded in controlling most of the Indian Territory, but also successfully
colonized various aspects of the Indian society like culture, politics, economy
and education. They have since become an inseparable part of our history. Hence,
in their conquest of India, two important objectives of the British emerge:
Profit and spreading civilization among Indians. This article briefly examines
how the hostile and atrocious policies of the British, intended to achieve the
above mentioned objectives, systematically impoverished the Indians, both
physically and mentally.
Financial atrocities
It
should be noted that the British, during the 16th and 17th centuries, were in a
bad shape. In the sixteenth century, “England was a backward country”,
says Robertson. In the early 17th century, says Mill, Britain
was, “oppressed by misgovernment or scourged by civil war, (with) affordable
little capital to extend trade, or protect it”. [Lajpat Rai]
Specifically, from the available data, the GDP of Britain was only $2,815
million (in 1990 international $, same unit until otherwise specified) in 1500
CE and $10,709 million during 1700 CE. [Angus Maddison] On the other hand, India
was the richest country on earth until early periods of the 2nd millennia.
Accordingly, India’s GDP in the year 1000 CE was approx. $33,750 million. Later,
in 1500 CE, it was $60,500 million. During 1700 CE, it was $90,750 million.
[ibid] India was also one of the major trading nations in the 18th century. In
fact, India had a monopoly in the supply of high quality finished textiles and
spices. In 1750, her trade amounted to about 24.5% of the total world trade.
India and China (whose contribution was a little over 32%) together contributed
to more than half to the total world trade. [David Clingingsmith &Jeffrey G.
Williamson]
In the
early second half of the 18th century, England witnessed a tremendous change in
its economy and society. The phenomenon was called the Industrial revolution,
which brought in dramatic improvements in working culture, people’s Income and
their health and lifestyles. This in fact spread all over continental Europe
within the next few decades. While, it is true that the industrial revolution
gave a big push to Britain’s economy, a major portion of the huge capital
investments that was required for the success of the revolution was itself
supplied by India. Moreover, the hostile financial policies of the British like
ruthless taxation, discouraging Indian industries like textile and ship
building, trade restrictions, etc. significantly contributed to the downfall of
the Indian economy. The British (both under the East India Company and the
British crown) simply shipped away huge amounts of wealth with practically no
returns to India. In the words of Macaulay,
“……Treasure flowed to England in oceans; and what was lacking in England to make
the fullest possible use of the mechanical inventions made by Watt and others
was supplied by India. The influx of Indian treasure added considered to
England’s cash capital………” [Lajpat Rai]
In
fact, trade with India opened the doors of fortune to the East India Company.
According to Macaulay, the company’s shares, which was priced 245 in 1677 almost
reached 500 in the later years [ibid].
“……Even as we look on, India is becoming feebler and feebler. The very life
blood of the great multitude under our rule is slowly, yet ever faster, ebbing
away…..” [Hyndman]
But,
this deterioration in people’s welfare did not curtail the loot carried on by
the British. This loot: the outflows of huge amounts of cash and kinds of
monetary value from India to Britain during the colonial periods, are often
referred to as a “drain”. Though, the exact amount of “drain” may never be
known, many economists have given varying, but reliable estimates of this loot
after examining the issue in depth. In all, the total outflow of wealth (in the
form of taxes, tributes, profits, etc.) from India to Britain was estimated to
be approx. £6,080 million (for the period till the end of 19th century only) by
Mr. Digby. However, Hyndman, writing in 1906, puts the figure at £40 million
per annum, while Mr. A.J. Wilson fixed it at £35 million per annum. [Lajpat Rai]
On the other hand, Mr Shashi Tharoor, MP in Rajya Sabha, in a recent debate at
the Oxford University, vehemently argued that the British loot of the Indian
treasure escapes the imagination and amounts to a total of approx. 3.4 trillion
pounds sterling.
Adding
to this loot was the immense pain inflicted upon India, by the British, directly
or indirectly, by caring little for the lives of millions of Indians. While
violent crushing of hundreds of freedom fighters was almost a routine, an
estimated number of deaths due to famine in India, since 1770 till independence,
stood at over 25 million people. However, these deaths were not due to the lack
of production of food. The available food was either shipped away or was sold at
outrageous prices, which almost always forced the already poverty stricken
population to starve and die.
Seeing
the then situation of the people, Sir Wilfred Scawen
Blunt says,
“Though myself a good conservative….. I own to being shocked at the bondage in
which the Indian people are held….; And I have come to the conclusion that if we
go on developing the country at the present rate, the inhabitants, sooner or
later, will have to resort to cannibalism, for there will be nothing left for
them to eat ” [ibid]
It
should also be noted that the Indian economy, which contributed 23% of the world
economy during the 17th-18th centuries was down to around 4% in 1947. Such was
the loot conducted by the British for most of their period in India. This,
however, does not capture the exact picture of the sufferings of the then
people. We can only imagine the poor conditions of the people for generations
after generations. Moreover, this was not the only tool used by the British to
break the Indian people. The financial atrocities caused physical damage, but
the British wanted to influence the minds of the Indians too.
English education: A tool of mental subjugation
The
British found out that the best possible way to enslave the minds of the Indians
was through the introduction of the English education. The indigenous education
system, which was referred to as “A beautiful tree” by Mahatma Gandhi was
dismantled and destroyed. A strong emphasis was given to teaching the Indians
about European literature, western art and languages, so as to make the English
speaking Indians alien to their own culture and traditions. Thomas Babington
Macaulay famously (or infamously rather) argued in his “Minute on Indian
Education” (2/2/1835) delivered in the British parliament that the British had
to do their best to create a class of individuals in India, who would be Indian
in blood and colour, but English in tastes, opinions, morals and intellect. He,
after discounting Indian culture, arts, languages, etc. as primitive and
useless, declared that an entire library of eastern literature is equivalent to
just one shelf of English literature. It was vastly argued by many like Carey
and Wilberforce that the barbarity in which the Indians lived was bitter and the
only cure for this was to cut them off from their Indian-ness. The British also
believed that the presence of westernized Indians would facilitate in the smooth
function of the Raj.
Swami
Vivekananda rightly observes on the issue of English education that,
“The
child is taken to school and the first thing he learns is that his father is a
fool, the second thing that his grandfather was a lunatic, the third thing that
all his teachers are hypocrites, the fourth that all his sacred books are a mass
of lies. By the time he reaches sixteen, he is a mass of negation, lifeless and
boneless.”
Christianity and Conversions
Another method used by the British to civilize Indians was to Christianize them.
They believed that the religion of the Indians, i.e. Hinduism was the root cause
of all the evils that was prevalent in India.
Alexander Duff, a Scottish missionary and leading educator had opined that the
Indian philosophy, in essence, conveyed vain, wicked and foolish conceptions
only. For him, Hinduism was utter darkness and the Christian task was to somehow
do everything possible to demolish this gigantic fabric of idolatry and
superstitions. When the East India Company was at the helm of affairs in
India, many thinkers such as Edmund and Burke had started to argue that the
company has to consider and take care of its moral responsibilities. In his
personal capacity, Charles Grant, a junior officer in East India Company even
drafted a proposal for the mission in 1786-87 and conducted a vast campaign for
years for its implementation with no real gains however. In 1793, William
Wilberforce, influenced by the work of Charles Grant moved his famous resolution
known as the “Resolution on Missions”.
It was
argued that the Christianization of the Indian people would bring them at par
with other subjects and also increase their loyalty to the masters in England.
Claudius Buchanan, a loyal and devout
Christian missionary voiced the opinion that God has laid upon the Britain the
solemn duty of evangelizing India and the government, instead of hesitating,
must fully support the cause of Christian education and the war on Hindu
superstitions.
After,
the changes made in 1813, the missionaries started coming to India in large
numbers declaring that the solution for the Darkness of the Indians was the
introduction of “light”. In 1853, the Queen proclaimed that the equality, which
the Indians would receive with their other counterpart subjects of the crown
would breathe a sense of religiousness, generosity and benevolence.
These
developments made the missionaries an important hand of the British
administration in India. It also led to an unholy nexus wherein the missionaries
and the colonial masters implicitly (sometimes explicitly) supported each other.
The missionary writers through their over-exaggerated, one-sided atrocity
literatures propagated around the world that, if not for the British, India was
on the brink of falling into the grasp of barbarity and backwardness. They were,
as Mahatma Gandhi called Catherine Mayo, professional drain inspectors. The
poverty, diseases, etc., many of which were the direct results of British
policies were projected to be the effects of “Hindu Superstition”.
In a
speech delivered at the Baptist Missionary Society in London, Sir Richard Temple
said that it is a duty of every Christian to spread their religion, and that
Hinduism and Buddhism is dying and the special focus of missionaries must be on
tribals.
Furthermore, it is a well-established fact that the missionaries took great
advantage in situations like famines and disease to lure innocent people to
convert. In 1923, a publication from America named “India and its Missions”
discussed the advantages of famines and diseases to Christianity. It says,
“The
famine has wrought miracles. The catechumenates are filling, baptismal water
flows in streams and starving little tots fly in masses to heaven.” [Ram
Swarup].
The
British had a clear goal: to westernize and Christianize India, using all
possible means. Though, the British were not the first foreigners to rule over
us, they had an important distinction over their Islamic predecessors. While the
Islamic invaders caused much violence and immense physical damage and reduced
Hindus to second class citizens at many places, the distinction of enslaving the
Indian mind goes to the British. The British, in many ways, are solely
responsible for the mental self-alienation and physical deprivation of the
Indian population, whose deep effects are visible even today. India is free
today, but the Indian mind is still colonized.
(source:
British Colonization of India – By
Shrinidhi Rao
- indiafacts.org).
Top of Page
Colonialism: A Criminal Enterprise
The History Thieves: how Britain covered up its imperial crimes
This
engrossing study identifies secrecy as a ‘very British disease’, exploring how,
as the empire came to an end, government officials burned the records of
imperial rule Britain’s retreat from empire is remembered in a popular
iconography that contains only a little violence. Gandhi goes on hunger strikes
and performs acts of passive resistance; the Suez debacle calls time on our
pretensions as a world power; Macmillan heralds the wind of change in Africa.
All is done and dusted in the space of 15 years. For a postwar generation like
mine, too young for national service and a troopship to the colonies, most of it
happened inside the local Regal or Odeon. Movietone footage would show Princess
X or Prince Y standing on a podium to witness a ceremony of national
independence, smiling at the native dancers as fireworks explode overhead. This
book supplies a more troubling image: as the sun sets on the greatest empire the
world has ever seen, long columns of smoke fill the tropical skies. In a
thousand bonfires, Britain is burning the historical evidence.
At first, the process was rather carefree. When Britain quit India in 1947, a
colonial official noted that “the press greatly enjoyed themselves with the pall
of smoke which hung over Delhi with the mass destruction of documents”.
"...in
1961, the colonial secretary Iain Macleod laid down some ground rules for
British territories preparing for independence. No documents should be handed
over to the successor regime that might embarrass Her Majesty’s Government or
its police, military and public servants; or that might compromise its sources
of intelligence or be used “unethically” by the country’s new government.
Bonfires alone were too blunt a method of concealment. A newly liberated country
might wonder why it inherited so few archives, while Britain might need to
retain, for sentimental or other reasons, documents that in the wrong hands
could damage its interests. The Colonial Office devised a system known as
“Operation Legacy” that worked on the principle of parallel registries. Reliable
civil servants, which in the government’s eyes meant only those who were
“British subjects of European descent”, were given charge of identifying and
collecting all “sensitive” documents and passing them up the bureaucratic chain.
This meant that when the moment of independence came, if not before, they could
either be destroyed on site or removed (“migrated” became the official term) to
the UK. As to the so-called “Legacy” files that the colony’s new government
would inherit, it was important that they gave an impression of completeness,
either by creating false documents to replace those that had been weeded out or
by making sure there was no reference to them in the files that remained.
This
purging of the record happened across the world, in British Guiana, Aden, Malta,
North Borneo, Belize, the West Indies, Kenya, Uganda – wherever Britain ruled.
In the words of Ian Cobain, it was a subversion of the Public Record Acts on an
industrial scale, involving hundreds if not thousands of colonial officials, as
well as MI5 and Special Branch officers and men and women from army, navy and
air force. All of them, whether they knew it or not, were breaking a legal
obligation to preserve important official papers for the historical record, in
the expectation that most would eventually be declassified. The British
government took extraordinary measures to make sure that the fate of these
papers remained a secret, whether they had been “migrated” to the UK or
destroyed abroad.
According to official instruction, the waste left by bonfires “should be reduced
to ash and the ashes broken up”. If burning was thought to be too difficult or
unsuitable, then the sea offered an alternative.
Why
were British governments so determined to obscure and bowdlerise their country’s
colonial record? Some reasons are understandable: to spare individuals from
embarrassment or prosecution; to help secure the loyalty of successor regimes
during the commercial, military and political competition of the cold war. But
Cobain goes further: Operation Legacy was intended to ensure that “the British
way of doing things” would be remembered with “fondness and respect” – that the
conduct of its imperial retreat would be seen as exemplary. To go to such
lengths of deception for something as intangible and imponderable as a place in
history’s good books may seem unlikely, but it was surely for these reasons,
rather than any security concern, that, for example, British officialdom asked
its servants to destroy or return to Britain any papers that “might be
interpreted as showing religious intolerance on the part of HMG” as well as “all
papers which might be interpreted as showing racial discrimination against
Africans (or Negros [sic] in the USA)”.
(source:
The History Thieves: how Britain covered up its imperial crimes -
guardian.com - Book review).
Selective Shaming Of Hindu Festivals Must Stop
- by
Shefali Vaidya
Criticising Hindu festivals has become the new
‘liberal’ sport in India. Stop this tyranny and reclaim your festivals.
As a child, I would know Deepawali is around the
corner when the bazaars would one day, magically, be full of make-shift stores
with rows upon rows of twinkling, brightly lit Akash-Kandils - traditionally
made paper lanterns that adorn every house in Goa and Maharashtra during
Deepawali.
Deepawali meant the twinkling, diffused light of
the Akash-Kandils, the appetising smell of sweets and savouries being made at
home, shopping for new clothes, getting small but meaningful gifts like books
and toys, the smell of a brand new Moti sandal soap, a gentle oil massage, a few
fireworks and the amber-coloured, flickering flames of a hundred clay diyas!
Deepawali signifies dispelling the bleak
darkness of winter with the warmth of light. The humble clay diya is a metaphor
for the light of knowledge within that destroys the ignorance. It is a reminder
of the importance of knowledge, self inquiry, and for getting rid of the evil in
and around us. When we share gifts and sweets with our neighbours, friends and
loved ones, we understand the joy of inclusiveness.
Deepawali is a festival that is not only special
for the Hindus, but it is a festival that is celebrated by all Indic faiths with
equal fervour.
Nowadays though, I know it is Deepawali when I
start seeing obnoxious posts on social media about ‘how we should not light
crackers during Deepawali because it is not kind to animals’ or how ‘Deepawali
is full of cheap display of materialism’. The same people who gloat about how
they love their ‘beef steak, juicy and dripping with blood’, are advising Hindus
to not burst firecrackers because it is ‘not kind to animals’. Self-proclaimed
‘liberals’ who routinely travel business class to attend international
conferences and who work and live in an AC environment 24/7, want Hindus to ‘not
burst crackers, because it is oh-so-bad for the environment’.
This hypocrisy is not just displayed during
Deepawali, it is a behaviour pattern repeated before every major Hindu festival.
#FestivalShaming of Hindus has become the new
‘liberal’ sport in India!
Sanctimonious Hindu-hating ‘elite’ have
systematically tried to diss, dissect and disrespect Hindu traditions and
festivals with a monotonous regularity in the last few years. When it is Holi,
they get out of their Olympic sized swimming pools and tell us to save water.
When it is Karwa Chauth or Vat Savitri, they tell us how the festival is a
symbol of ‘patriarchal oppression’. When it is Ganesh Chaturthi, they give us
lectures about not ‘polluting’ water, even as they open their bottles of Evian
sparkling water. During Navaratri, as the average Hindu is getting ready to
worship the manifestation of feminine strength in the form of the Devi, these
people come up with articles about how to do an ‘alternative reading’ of
Mahishasura.
Every single Hindu custom, belief and festival
has come under a savage attack from the ‘opinion-makers’. They mock our
festivals and deride our customs using the yardstick of ‘environment
unfriendliness’.
Truth is, all Hindu festivals are about
respecting nature. Our ancestors understood the changing cycle of seasons and
devised a festival calendar that would understand, respect and celebrate nature.
Holi marks the beginning of spring, hence the playing with colour. Ganesh
Chaturthi is a festival to celebrate the harvest, and to remind us that just
like the clay Ganesh Moorti, we too are born from the five elements, and must
return to them some day. Deepawali marks the beginning of winter, hence the
first symbolic oil bath and the spreading of warmth and light by lighting diyas.
Sanatana Dharma has been the most eco-friendly
faith ever. Traditionally, we ate our meals on plantain leaves, our diyas were
made by local potters, and we used locally grown fruits and vegetables as
offerings to the Divine.
Of course, with time, people have changed their
way of celebrating the festivals, and yes, some course correction is definitely
needed. But the course correction has to come from within the faith.
We, the practising Hindus are the custodians of
our faith, not some sanctimonious self-proclaimed ‘liberal’ for whom a Hindu
festival means little more than an opportunity to #FestivalShame Hindus!
Hinduism has always been a dynamic faith, a
faith that has always adapted to the changing demands of desh-kaal-paristhiti (place,
time and situation). We are like the flowing waters of the great Ganga, ever
flowing, ever-changing, and yet, eternal.
If there has to be any change in the way we
Hindus celebrate our festivals, it has to come from within.
I am a proud practising Hindu. I respect and
celebrate my traditions. I have adapted my festivals as per my sensibilities. My
Deepawali is about spreading the light of joy. I buy and light locally made clay
lamps during Deepawali. I buy firecrackers made in India. I help social
organisations working for the underprivileged and my children spend their
Deepawali holidays making a mud fort from scratch - an enchanting local
tradition.
I know of several housing societies in my city,
where people gather during Deepawali, pool their money and have a common
fireworks show at designated times. They organise donation drives to include the
underprivileged in their celebrations. This year, I have seen people asking for
‘made in India’ labels when they were buying the fireworks or electrical
supplies.
As a practising Hindu, one has every right to
wish to change the way a festival is being celebrated, but don’t let anyone
disrespect your way of life.
Next time someone tries to #FestivalShame you,
don’t accept the insult with a bowed head. Fight back against this ridicule,
this subtle way of making you ashamed of your traditions. Let us reclaim our
festivals!
(source:
Selective Shaming Of Hindu Festivals Must Stop
- by
Shefali Vaidya -swarajyamag.com).
Top of Page
Worship and the Holy Dogs of modernity – by Sankrant Sanu
One of
the biggest strikes of the Christianity and Islam against pagan and dharmic
traditions is that of “blasphemy” or “shirk.” No bigger shirk than having
companions for Allah or that of “idol worship”—that is of worshipping something
other than the “One True God.” Worship is reserved for the “True God”, who is
transcendent and must not be represented in physical form. The heathen, the
kaffir, errs in precisely this—“worshipping stones” or “but
parasti.” In
the more fundamentalist variations, a whole host of behaviors natural to dharmics are
rendered shirk, including touching the feet of one’s elder, saying “bharat mata
ki jai,” and so on. The worst part is the heathen, in his blindness, takes the
idol to be the Supreme Creator, and doesn’t know the difference. Thus,
liberating the heathen from the worship of false gods becomes a holy war for
Christianity and Islam.
There
is a Hindu tradition of astra-puja, or ayudha-puja, translated as “worship of
tools.” Tools are placed on high, vermillion is placed on them, hands are
folded, mantras are
chanted. Is this worship? From the Abrahamic point of view, it is, and is both
shirk and foolish. Heathens are so stupid that they worship inanimate tools; and
they mistake the tools for the Creator. Touching the feet of parents is
similarly rendered problematic. However, kissing the
black stone in the Kaaba is apparently not “worship”, since worship
is reserved for the creator in Islam, and therefore that act isn’t worship. But
they know that
Hindus bowing to a black stone is worship. Since worship is a theological
concept, this difference is inaccessible to the pagan. But if not worship, what
is she doing?
Ashtavakra Gita, for instance, says
“everything that exists is Brahman.” Advaita implies that there are “no two.”
That is, the sacred and the profane, the world and Brahman, the Self and the
Paramatma are not “really” distinct. In that sense, the tools, one’s parents,
the earth, the sun, a river, a tree, are all part of the divine and one can
“worship” them just as one would worship the divine. That which is life-giving,
life-supporting, is pujaniya,
worthy of puja. The tree gives shade and fruit, the river brings life-sustaining
water and carries away pollution, a cow gives milk, and even its dung is useful
in the agrarian ecology. A cow is like the member of the family, much more
important than the “pet” in modern life. It is honored, respected and loved. It
is decorated and protected. Yet the “Holy Cow” is mocked as the
“liberal-secular” ethos extends Christian theology in its distaste of “worship”
of an animal. But the cow, like everything else, is also part of the divine, and
as a life-supporting essence is worthy of honor, respect and love.
The
modern paradox is this. While modernity mocks the Holy Cow, its action towards
“pets” is similar. A pet dog is treated as a family member in modernity, often
kept inside the house—even “Holy Cows” rarely get that honor in India. Dogs and
cats are cuddled and kissed, decorated and doted upon and special beds and
cushions (altars?) are kept for them. For pagan eyes, it is no different from
acts that are labeled “worship.” Hindus have “Holy Cows.” The West has “Holy
Dogs.” In the West, the human worshippers of the Holy Dog even follow the regal
canines around scooping up holy shit—dog poop—so it can be properly disposed of.
If an alien observed the behavior of rural Indians collecting cow-dung and a
Westerner picking up dog-poop, their behaviors would be difficult to
differentiate, except that the cow-dung is much more useful, while dog-poop is
just thrown away.
Just
as cow-meat jolts the sensitivity of many rural Hindus, dog-meat, cat-meat or
horse-meat often disturbs Western sensibility. Thus, we have the “modern
liberal” Indians, often just ‘mini-me’s of Western pop-culture, lead campaigns
against the Chinese Yulin dog-meat festival, while turning their nose at the
“backward” Hindus protesting the killing of cows. This liberal is not
liberated, but an automaton following certain imported ideas, with little
independent insight. They wouldn’t be able to explain why their sensibility gets
exercised on dog-meat, but not on cow-meat, for instance. It just is.
If
we use the pagan notion of “honor and respect” to replace “worship” we can have
a fresh understanding of what pagan “gods” are. “Gods” are what that native
culture honors and respects. This turns Christian and Islamic evangelism and
expansion into a destructive force for native societies. Native rituals are
attacked as “worship of false gods” and these must be denigrated and destroyed
in the conversion process. But, what a native culture honors and respects, their
“gods”, are intrinsically linked to native relationships, ecology, family and
society.
Abrahamic conversion disrupts this ecology
and then aims to replace it with its “theologically correct” artificial
institutions. The greater the disruption, the more the “service” provided by
these institutions. This is perceptively captured in remarks
by Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s first
Zulu president:
“As
Africans, long before the arrival of religion and [the] gospel, we had our own
ways of doing things,” he said. “Those were times that the religious people
refer to as dark days but we know that, during those times, there were no
orphans or old-age homes. Christianity has brought along these things.”
Secular modernity, an expansion of Christian theology, has a similar impact. The
liberal state must protect individuals and make human relationships- sons taking
care of parents, parents looking after children- more and more redundant. The
state must step in to ensure child support, prevent child abuse, provide old age
homes and so on. Extended joint families also mean fewer houses to build and
fewer gadgets to sell, so “freedom” must favor nuclear family and even further,
single-parent families. Baby-sitters must replace mothers & fathers, who need to
work outside. Parenting does not count towards GDP growth, atomized
single-parent families do. And as natural relationships disrupt, a Westernized
modernity hangs on even tighter to the one thing they can count on and worship.
Their Holy Dogs.
(source:
Worship and the Holy Dogs of modernity – by Sankrant Sanu
- indiafacts.org).
***
Colonial Legacy:
Demonizing Indigenous religions in Africa
'Jesus Hasn't Saved Us': The Young Black Women Returning to Ancestral Religions
Michelle Yaa does not feel she converted to Comfa, the
Afro-American religion practiced in Guyana. "I call it an awakening." she says.
"It's just waking up."
Yaa, like increasing numbers of the African diaspora, decided to
stop practicing Christianity in favor of a religion of African heritage. Raised
a Seventh Day Adventist, she spent her childhood questioning Christian doctrine.
When she didn't receive the answers she sought from church, she stopped
attending. It wasn't until the end of university that Yaa reconnected with any
form of religion. One day, she says, she began hearing voices. Rather than call
her doctor, she called on her ancestors, writing down the names of those she
could remember and surrounding herself with the slips of paper. She claims that
this took place before she knew what the practice of ancestral worship was.
For hundreds of years, colonialism saw Africa—the planet's second largest and
second most populous continent—robbed and ruled by a handful of European
nations. The only countries considered not to have been colonized are Ethiopia
and Liberia—and even they were briefly occupied by others. No African nation
hasn't been shaped by the process in some way. Despite attempts to undo
colonialism's effects on the black psyche, the colonial stigma against African
religions seems to be hardest to shake off. That's partially because of how
aggressive the campaign to wipe it out was—a large part of the colonial defense
of slavery was the onus on Europeans to save the so-called African savages,
preaching about the blood of Jesus as they gleefully spilt other races' in the
pursuit of land and resources.
Indigenous religions were not only outlawed but literally demonized not just on
the continent but across the entire black diaspora. In 1781, for example, the
Jamaican Assembly passed a law calling for the death of the practitioners of
Obeah, a religious practice originating from West Africa that bears similarities
to Haitian vodou, known more commonly as voodoo.
Sanctions such as these left later generations wary or outright
terrified of their own cultural practices. "It's a direct colonial legacy that
we've held on to." Spence-Adofo says. "That we're not good enough in our in our
natural form and we have to conform to everyone else's ideology." Many slaves
that were shipped to the Americas continued their practices in secret, but over
time syncretized and fused with Christianity so that they could practice openly
under colonial rule.
"We can go to any church and you'll see an altar with a candle on
it and Jesus's photo and no one says a word. But when Africans do it—it's
witchcraft, it's devil worship, it's evil," says Spence-Adofo.
(source:
'Jesus Hasn't Saved Us': The Young Black Women Returning to Ancestral Religions
).
Christian missionaries bizarre
obsession to convert to One God
Mother Teresa’s Secret China Missions: Full Disclosure
Mother Teresa’s “last and only unfulfilled wish” was to bring her
work to China, Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, postulator of her cause, told the
Register at a canonization-weekend symposium dedicated to the saint’s work in
Asia.
This remains “work to do in the future” for the Missionaries of
Charity (MC), said Father Kolodiejchuk, a Missionaries of Charity Father,
following the panel discussion “Mother Teresa: Mercy for Asia and the World” at
the Pontifical Urban University sponsored by AsiaNews.it.
Sister Prema told the Register her sisters could start charitable
work in China “in no time,” adding quietly, “We are ready for the signal.”
Mother Teresa’s three visits to China were “heartbreaking”
experiences, as she was successively denied permission to initiate work, despite
well-prepared ground in Beijing (1985), Shanghai (1993) and Hainan (1994).
“Reconciliation between China and the universal Church was a dream
of Mother Teresa’s, and she made sacrifices for it,” said Father Worthley, who
described her three disappointments as “holy sacrifices.”
(source:
Mother Teresa’s Secret China Missions: Full Disclosure).
Secularism in Bharat: How it works!
What
is intriguing is why always when
there is an assertion of Hindu Dharma-Hindutva or for that matter any utterance
of Hindu religion immediately ‘secularism’ is being called upon.
If one says that this is a Hindu country then again it is against secularism.
Teesta Setalvad
and theatre activist and author Shamsul Islam and senior
journalist Dilip Mandal had urged the Bench to check the ‘devastating
consequences’ of the 1995 judgment which according to them caused Hindutva to
‘’become a mark of nationalism and citizenship’’.
Time and again Hindutva and Hindu Dharma become a bone of contention and it is
being held out to contend that this is against ‘secularism’. So the latest we
have is that the TMC will oppose amendment to Citizenship Act 1955 because it is
against ‘secularism’. Let us for a moment be objective and analyze the swearing
on secularism by the political parties and netas opposed to the BJP. First
and foremost why is secularism being used as a whip against the Hindus? Is
secularism valid only for the Minorities. Why was it that the Founding Fathers
had not clearly included that word when the Constitution was drafted? Why was it
later inserted by Indira Gandhi-the one who imposed Emergency and called for the
‘committed’ judiciary?
To be honest I think that the very Minority-Majority divide is based on
religion. Is there anything in this country which is not communal? Be it
Reservation, Minority Rights ,et al. these are based on religion. How
can a secular country extend privileges to some adhering to particular religions?
Is this secularism? The basis of Minority Rights is ‘unsecular’. So for those
swearing by the Constitution it would be good to reflect on this. If religion is
“evil”, then why use that as a yardstick to confer privileges?
Is it secular to allow the Minorities to manage and administer their own
institutions run on the taxpayers’ money? What
is the rationale? Is it secularism that Rights become exclusive for some on the
basis of religion – Is this secularism? Hence we have even places of worship
earmarked in government offices for prayers for a particular religious
community. Is this secularism? We have the Wakf board –permitting properties and
funds to be owned and controlled by the Muslims –similarly the funds of the
Christian churches are controlled by Church leaders. But
the temple lands and the temple monies are controlled by the government. Is this
secularism?
Freedom of speech becomes very exclusive and of course a fundamental right when
it is used in the most undemocratic way by persons of particular religions.
Hence a former IAS
man Christudoss can
without any qualms use the TV channel to use derogatory words and even abuse the
Hindu gods. It is strange that in this country we have Hindu Gods and Christian
gods – and your gods and my Gods. One who is an atheist must know that there is
only God – so this former IAS man stated that he has the right to beat Lord Rama
with slippers. This is according to him his right. Now is this right only for
this former IAS individual because he belongs to a minority religion?
What happens if a Hindu adherent repeats the same and claims that he/she has the
right to beat the ‘gods’ of the Christian and Muslim faith? Will the assertion
of Christudoss not amount to creating enmity – hurting the religious sentiments
of the Hindus and does it not justify him to be hauled up for not just using
unparliamentary words but also because he had incited enmity and hostility
against the majority people-not against gods. Because if gods are gods then they
cannot be hurt or harmed!
If the former
PM of UK
David Cameron says that the UK is a Christian country, it is not faulted.
If we refer to the Middle East countries and refer to them as
Islamic countries,
it is not faulted.
But
if any one says that this is a Hindu country then all hell breaks loose.
This is exactly why individuals of a minority religion could blaspheme Lord Rama
and get away with it.
Similarly there is mass conversion in Tamil Nadu and in the NE States-but then
it becomes a matter of ‘Rights’ to follow a religion of one’s choice. It is
interesting to note that often these conversions are based on enticements –
economic, social benefits. ‘Force’ need not be physical force, but there is
psychological force. There is the simple basic need survival compulsion. So for
a bowl of rice, for a job, for other benefits – conversion has been and is being
carried on. So what is forced conversion? I
strongly advocate the banning of the flow of foreign funds – if this is done
then Evangelization will simply evaporate. But
when there is reconversion to Hindu Dharma (Ghar Wapsi) then it becomes a heated
topic for debate.
We must realize that from the very beginning conversion was resorted to by the
Christians and the Muslims. This was not through choice but through force.
Hindus did not lead crusades for conversion, Hindus did not block the inflow of
peoples of others faiths driven from their own countries on the basis of
religions into this country. They were all welcomed and allowed to propagate
their own religions and follow their own way of life. But
then it should not become like the story of the camel which after being
sheltered in the tent drives out its occupant to monopolize the whole tent. This
is what one sees in this country.
It is yet another ‘right’ not
to sing the
national anthem. But they want this land, its monies, the subsidies, its
protection et al yet do not want to follow the common laws. The netas do not
hesitate to swear by Dr. Ambedkar when it suits them to garner votes. But they
use selectively what is relevant. Did not Ambedkar ask the Muslims to leave this
country if they were going to demand Partition? Why is his stand on this not
being quoted and followed? Each and every action and inaction in this country is
based either on creed and or on caste. Yet we relentlessly use the Constitution
and swear by the Rights enshrined in it.
In implementation of these Rights we are biased – partial and ‘unsecular’. How
does the triple talak empower women?
Christudoss boasted that from his Muslim wife he learned
what equality is all about. Why doesn’t he share with us his education on
equality followed in Islam and educate us especially in the present context of
triple talak?
To me it seems that the Hindus have become second class citizens of this
country. They
must act with restraint and not invoke their gods, their religion and their
beliefs. One can identify how every aspect, every programme, every
interpretation of the Constitution and its invocation is discriminatory. It is
based on religion, caste and communalism. After 60 years of being in power the
Congress is the main culprit to have kept the various group in poverty.
But if one speaks of nationalism, patriotism and Hindutva then it becomes a
singular case for Teesta and the likes of her to approach the Supreme Court.
Then religion becomes ‘evil’, not when it is used to disburse subsidies, when it
is used to extend the reservations, when it is used to allow minority
universities to function, when it is used to create tensions when a minority
dies. But when hundreds of the majority people are harassed, denied their
rights, it is the fashion of the day. Is this democracy?
This is exactly why universities like the JNU run on the tax payers money have
become a den of upstarts. Effigies of the PM are burned within its campus and
yet it is seen as a right of Expression.
(source:
Secularism in Bharat: How it works!
- by Dr. Hilda Raja).
Top of Page
Tageting and attacking Hindu Festivals and Rituals
Diwali is near. Await the
‘Green-Diwali‘ campaign from the usual suspects soon. Brace yourselves, the #SayNoToCrackers brigade is coming soon to teach us how to celebrate our age old
festivals. Don’t cave in. It is undoubtedly so much fun to burst crackers and I
have since childhood known bursting crackers as an integral part of Diwali
celebrations.
“Happy
Diwali, but no fireworks”
is a classic urban (diesel
guzzling), the so-called ‘secular-liberal’ hypocrisy, after their lifestyle has caused huge pollution to the rural
people.
Our Lifestyle (including theirs) is based on 365 days usage of polluting coal
power, but ‘secular-liberals’ preach us against Diwali crackers for 3 hours! On
an every day ride, the internal combustion causes 1000 times more pollution. To
watch a TV debate on global warming, sitting in the AC rooms we (including them)
burn thousands of watts of power, causing lung/liver/heart sickness to people
near coal plants. But they only want a Green Diwali.
Power consumed by malls, the meat produced for your kebab and steak, power
consumed in a stadium during the 4 hours of carnival called the Indian Premiere
League, causes months of pollution to village children near coal plants. But
they only want Green Diwali.
One small Air Conditioner consumes 1500 watts per hour of energy, which is
enough energy for 4 rural houses. Those who use severely pollution causing Air
Conditioner, petrol/diesel guzzling SUVs, meat-steak, coal burnt power for 365
days, want to stop 3-hours of Diwali crackers. Amazing hypocrisy!! If you stop
people from having once a year fun for a few hours, they would most likely get
back to their living room and consume more coal burnt electricity. Clueless
liberals!
56% of India’s power is from coal that causes smog, soot, acid rain, global
warming & toxic emissions 365 DAYS! And you want Green Diwali?
Check out the environmental impacts of coal power here: Coal
Power Pollution.
Having said that, let us ask ourselves a genuine question hoping a genuine
answer. Do I like fireworks? Yes! Do I like overuse of fireworks? No!
I can assimilate the religious significance of lighting the lamps and welcoming
the brighter aspects of life along with other narrations as well. But given the
pollution levels that choke our cities currently and the massive expenditure
involved, I feel this should be handled in a mature way. An absolute ban is
impractical; at least the reduction could be and must be propagated in a mature
way and by sensible environment concerned individuals and bodies, not by
hypocrites.
Let us not shy away that it is necessary to have crackers & fireworks. Across
the world, hundreds of millions enjoy such fireworks and pyrotechnics shows
without unfortunate incidents and much fuss.
Be it the July 4 and New year fireworks in the US,
Montreal Fireworks Festival, World Pyro Olympics, Philippines, Celebration of
Light, New Year’s Eve fireworks in Sydney Habour or London’s Wembley Stadium. It
is always an amazing experience.
Does it pollute? Of course, it does. So does the fire-crackers during Diwali. We
all do feel a little sorry when we wake up the next morning and the fresh
morning air is replaced with smoke and the smell of gunpowder. Every human
celebration does. But what bad could my little innocent ‘Chakris’ & ‘Anaars and
a little naughty seven-sounds have done? I am of the strong opinion that we must
try to minimize the damage without eliminating the fun. Fight the overuse of
crackers [causing both air and sound pollution] and it would be considered
legitimate. The problem is in eliminating it and robbing the children and adults
their day of fun calling for a “fireworks free Green Diwali.” Show your overall
Eco-credentials instead of just an activist fighting against the celebration of
Diwali. If you are not a routine Eco-activist who fights a range of
environmental issues and just crop up around Diwali time, you will be labeled as
a Hinduphobe.
Get to specifics. The Supreme court rulings are quite specific, that is no
crackers at midnight. Fight against specific type of crackers (with Sulphur and
other damaging elements) which are the worst and people will give ear to those
razor focused concerned activists. But if you are instead fighting for a
“fireworks free Green Diwali,” you are likely to be labeled as a clueless
party-popper. And everyone ignores a hypocrite. What is required is a sustained
awareness is ingrained in our minds. The message should be that it does add on
to the existing pollution (both air and sound). It is also torturous for
animals, old people, patients, and infants. On top of that it is an industry
which employs mostly children in unimaginable work conditions. These must be the
cause of concern and the knowledge of this would help people minimize the
damage. But the awareness is spread by modes of preaching without any desired
effect because the preacher himself doesn’t practice it. This is why I say that
Hinduphobia
has moved on from academia to Main Stream
and now also on the Streets! Small school children in Delhi taking out anti
cracker campaign ahead of Diwali festival, clueless what are they up to. That is
how indoctrination takes place right from impressionable age. Who sends their
kids to school to participate on the whims and fancy of the activist teachers?
The past practices suggests that most of these marches and activism are part of
an agenda to attack Hindu culture and rituals. I am not at all advocating that
since it is part of our religious, cultural function, it is okay. The nature
would get back to all of us, giving a damn which religion one follows. What is
bad for the environment is bad for the environment.
The fact is Industrial pollution is a problem, vehicular pollution is a problem,
processing meat and beef creates problem and bursting crackers is also a
problem! No point drawing a bigger line to make the other line look small.
Honestly speaking, Hindus inherently conserves nature, have high guilt/sense on
their Eco-activities. The secular Media uses this guilt to engineer Green Diwali,
because for them every Hindu festival is a polluting, noisy and irritating
tribal affair. Our secular friends have problem with one day of Diwali and half
day of Holi.
But the civilizational ritual such as Diwali means a lot.
Diwali is the festival of lights. Diwali marks the return of Lord Rama after
defeating demon king Ravana. It marks the victory of good over evil. People
clean and whitewash their homes, do Puja, illuminating Diyas and also burst
crackers to celebrate Diwali.
As for fun, once a year when the family is together, friends are around, with
such tasty food, pretty clothes, gifts and festive spirit, fun is guaranteed!
You only need crackers to add some spice. It should not become a way to show off
how much money one could afford to burn with the night long fireworks. My
friends, this Diwali, gift a sapling, plant a tree. Let’s ensure a safer, less
polluting Diwali by using the lovely earthen Diyas and try minimizing
firecrackers (not cracker free).
Bursting crackers on Diwali is a grand tradition, and we must preserve it.
Say NO to #NoCrackers,
but please be safe.
Happy Diwali!!
(source:
The hypocrisy of “Happy Diwali BUT No Fireworks”).
Top of Page
Did You Know?
The Brisbane pagoda -
The word Pagoda.
The world "pagoda" is derived from "bhagavati". This is not a joke.
The Pagoda in Brisbane which is copy of the
Pashupatinath Temple.
Even
though the pagoda form of the temple arose in India, one pays little attention
to it in its native setting. An old theory sees the word pagoda derived
from the name of a gold coin that was current in India in the 18th century.
On one
side of the coin was the form of the Goddess, Bhagavati,
and on the other the shape of a terraced temple. The Austrian missionary and
Sanskritist Paulinus of St. Bartholomew (1748-1806), who lived in Southern India
during 1774-1789, informs that the coin was called Bhagavati. Specifically, it
was a Durgi, for it had the image of Durgā.
The
name of the coin in rapid colloquial speech sounded like pagode or pagoda to
the Europeans but they wrongly associated it with the shape of the temple. In
time, other gold coins issued by various Indian kings were also called pagoda by
the Europeans, although their local names were determined by the imprint like
Rāma, Varāha, Matsya, Venkateśvara, and so on and their value varied based on
the purity of gold. Col Thomas Munro writing in 1806 about the Bellary district
observed that there were 32 kinds of pagodas and 16 kinds of rupees (silver
coins).
Paulinus, the first European to notice that Sanskrit and European languages
belonged to the same family and publish a grammar of Sanskrit in Europe, lived
in India around the time that the term pagoda came into European usage.
James
Prinsep (1799-1840) is responsible for popularizing the erroneous view that the
term pagoda is derived from the shape of the pyramidal temple depicted on one
side of the coin. The common Tamil name for the gold coin was Varāha from the
imprint of the boar on the obverse side of the most popular coin.
The
pagoda form, with its tiered roofs, is believed to have evolved from the stupa.
I particularly like wooden pagodas with their multiple eaves and simplicity of
conception. The ancient Pashupatinath Temple on the Bagmati River in Kathmandu
is an early example of the wooden pagoda. According to historians, the pagoda
form was taken from Nepal to China in the seventh century from where it spread
to the other eastern countries. The Malla kings built some of the greatest
pagodas in Nepal.
The
pagoda is now associated more with China than India. It is amusing that another
common word associated with China, mandarin,
comes from the Sanskrit for minister or official, mantrin.
The Indian interlocutors told the Portuguese that the Chinese officials they
wished to meet were mantrin and
the word stuck and eventually became the name of the influential variety of the
Chinese language that the officials spoke.
(source:
The Brisbane
pagoda – by Subhash Kak -
coldnoon.com).
Top of Page
|