|HOME | NEWS | COLUMNISTS | VARSHA BHOSLE|
|August 26, 2002||
Towards Balkanisation, III: Missionaries
On Wednesday, Tarlochan Singh, vice-chairman of the National Commission for Minorities, wrote to the presidents of the Catholic Bishops Council of India and the National Council of Churches in India, citing incidents in Punjab, Bhilai and Jharkhand where "Christian missionaries fully supported with medical teams have been going around in many villages alluring poor Sikh families to adopt Christianity." Directing the Christian leaders "to desist from this activity" he wrote, "I have been approached by a large number of Sikh organisations to take up this matter. I request you to... adopt a policy not to make further attempts of converting Sikhs through any means."
It's good to know the NCM supports a group that's opposing the Church's nefarious activity; and comforting that it's the Sikhs who are rejecting conversion. After all, if the pinkos' schemes succeed, the remaining Hindus -- as per Sikhism's foundation charter and Hindu "tradition" (read, cowardice) -- can once again fall at Sikh feet for protection.
Christians fanatically evangelize. Muslims aren't into conversion anymore but want Islam to rule all polities, and we know what that entails. Ditto, the Communists with their creed. Ask a Gay his thoughts on the "curing" of nascent homosexuals via psychotherapy, and he, too, will flare up in anger. But the Hindu is the *only* species that not only watches benignly as his own kind diminishes, but also blocks those who resist conversion...
As my friend Amberish Diwanji once put it: "If one converts because doing so accords him respect and gives him a sense of identity and belonging, where is there the question of forcible conversion. If one chooses to follow the faith of those who have helped and are helping him the most, as opposed to those who torment him, can he be faulted? If there are Hindus who are worried by conversions, they should try and redeem Hinduism, go out and serve the tribals and Dalits and the poor. Make the lowest believe that Hinduism too provides balm for the soul, for a poor has little else to ask for."
That was in 1996. And Amberish didn't question the "respect" and "sense of belonging" that "Dalit Christians" and "Dalit Muslims" feel. A minor oversight?
But observe the change of tune by "secularists" now: "There is a boy, orphaned since the age of five, who is housed, fed and schooled here just outside New Delhi, free of charge... The school is part of a network of social service organizations that cater to indigenous people and 'dalits,' or those on the lowest rungs of the Hindu caste ladder... Across remote villages, it dispatches so-called barefoot doctors armed with first-aid kits and drugs to combat dysentery. It sets up orphanages for the abandoned and hostels for children who must travel long distances to go to school" (The New York Times, May 13). Actually, this article, "Hindu Right Goes To School To Build A Nation," written by a Bong, is one bashing the RSS for serving the tribals and Dalits and the poor...
But let's get back to the Sikhs, who've learnt from at least one part of their history: After the second Anglo Sikh war, the British exiled the boy Duleep Singh to Fatehgarh, in the care of a British guardian. Unlike previous British rulers, Lord Dalhousie wished to transform India, towards which end he promoted and supported the work of Christian missionaries: Fatehgarh just happened to be a mission. John Login and his wife, who had taken on the parental role in the boy's life, just happened to be devout Christians. Duleep was encouraged to have two English boys as his closest friends, one of whom just happened to be the son of a missionary. The textbooks he was given just happened to be full of Christian messages. His servant, Bhajan Lal, just happened to be a Christian convert. And Bhajan Lal just happened to read from the Bible to the boy every night. Duleep Singh was, in fact, totally dependent on the goodwill of his prisoners and limited to living in the centre of Christian missionary activity.
What happened next? Exactly what can be expected when missionaries shower the weak with their mercies: The last Sikh ruler of the kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh was surreptitiously converted to Christianity, dispatched to England and resettled near Cambridge, thereby minimising all chances of his becoming a rallying point for the people of Punjab. Next, "A facade of a ceremony was arranged in which the young prince was made to present the famous Koh-i-Noor to Queen Victoria and 13 most valuable relics pertaining to Maharaja Ranjit Singh to the Prince of Wales. The remaining jewellery in the Toshkhana of the Maharaja was either taken over by the British officials or auctioned to public thus putting to an end the glory and grandeur of the mighty empire of a mighty ruler of Punjab" (The Tribune, April 8, 2001).
We know that the exit of British rule did not mean the exit of Christian evangelism - that remains a clear and present danger: "India also has vast areas of more unreached groups - people with no access to the Gospel - than any other country. One such area is the Punjab - home of the Sikhs... Today there is much opportunity for Christian outreach." So says the Maranatha Gospel Mission based in Bhilai. The same Bhilai that Tarlochan Singh mentioned.
Last week, a Christian dork wrote me, "Adivasis are being re-converted from funds that come in from NRIs and others... but, aren't they doing exactly what the Christians are doing? But, you seem to justify what the RSS does by saying that the Christians did it... what a hypocrite!"
Actually, I never have justified the RSS's actions by saddling them with those of the missionaries. Read my lips: I support reconversion and the dissemination of Hindu awareness because I want Hindus to remain Hindu, Jains to remain Jain, Buddhists to remain Buddhist, and Sikhs to remain Sikh. Secondly, because a blunderbuss is no match for a daisy-cutter, the RSS must use the same weapons that missionaries use. So, more power to its fund raising. Where's the hypocrisy in that?! Regardless of it not being a zero-sum game, I don't see why I shouldn't root for Hinduism. Unlike the "secularists," I'm not ashamed of being a Hindu!
But we all know the reasons for the "secular" anger, right? The synchronized "action alerts" of pinko groups worldwide; the constant slamming of "Hindu nationalists" by the "liberal" media -- again, worldwide; the appearance of Kanwal-Rekhi-with-a-Christian-wife before the US Commission on International Religious Freedom; Father Prakash's deposition against the funding of "Hindu terrorists"... It's because the Sangh Parivar has been checking the tide of conversion:
Take, for instance, the case of the Haryana constables: The state recruited 1,600 police constables in 1995, which recruitment was then challenged in the high court. Subsequently, in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled against the recruitment procedure and hence their services were terminated. Nevertheless, in August 2001, the vice-president of the Haryana Police Employees Union ("Union," "NGO," "academic," "professor," "documentary maker" usually indicate you-know-what) announced, "If all 1,600 dismissed Haryana police constables were not taken back into service, all of them, who are Hindus, will adopt Christianity..." But that wasn't all; the sentence ended with: "...and in this regard they are in regular contact with Christian missionary people."
The British politician did not invent the policy of Divide & Rule, nor did the pinkos -- it was handed down to them by the Church. The 1954-instituted Niyogi Commission, while investigating the charge that Christian missionaries had instigated the movement for an independent State, noted in The Report of the Christian Missionaries Enquiry Committee MP, Nagpur, 1956:
Nothing has really changed in India between now and then: The ethos of the politicians is about the same, so is that of the people, and Godse was a villain even then. Even so, the six members of the Niyogi Commission were not harangued and abused as "Hindu fundamentalists." The difference lies only in the media: Then, opinion makers aired the facts -- and not the leftist versions thereof.
Update: The day after I submitted this column, The Hindu reported that 250 villagers were baptised on Saturday by pastors of the Seventh Day Adventist Church at its South Tamil Conference in Madurai. The villagers were asked to affirm their commitment to Christianity and "to donate one-tenth of their monthly earnings for missionary work. Enquiries show that the villagers, mostly below the poverty line, had been brought for baptism with promises of 'economic emancipation.' During 2001, the Seventh Day Adventist Church here had converted 1,500 Hindus... According to an organiser of the baptism, the president of Seventh Day Adventist Church, India, DR Watts, a Canadian, had set a 'tough target' for the pastors, titled 'Go 1 million.' The website, 'maranatha.org,' reveals the activities carried out by this congregation throughout the country... where thousands of Hindus were converted."
No religion, no ideology, no government can guarantee anybody's "economic emancipation." If this is not a deceit only to diminish the strength of Hinduism, what is? Get out your checkbooks, guys; we can do better than one-tenth.
|Tell us what you think of this column|
HOME | NEWS | CRICKET | MONEY | SPORTS | MOVIES | CHAT | BROADBAND | TRAVEL
ASTROLOGY | NEWSLINKS | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | GIFT SHOP | HOTEL BOOKINGS
AIR/RAIL | WEDDING | ROMANCE | WEATHER | WOMEN | E-CARDS | SEARCH
HOMEPAGES | FREE MESSENGER | FREE EMAIL | CONTESTS | FEEDBACK