“India and its tolerance for the diversity of its religious communities were built up over thousands of years. But, it looks like if individuals like Saldanha and his like-minded friends are not checked and their false propaganda countered, your children and the children of India’s minorities will have no future anywhere near the equity and fairness that they have so far enjoyed despite India being a predominantly Hindu nation.” – P.N. Benjamin

A retired judge of Karnataka High Court, M.F. Saldanha has recently said that Christians in Karnataka State are under an unprecedented wave of persecution. He has also termed Karnataka as “the Rogue State No. 1”. Unfortunately for Saldanha, he himself admits that the State has not recorded any killing in this season of “persecution”.

Despite the horror stories trotted out by Saldanha and his friends about the unprecedented “persecution of Christians in Karnataka” it is interesting to not that there has not been a single instance of Christians fleeing the State and migrating to neighboring states!

The same retired judge had alleged last year that there were 1,000 attacks against Christians in Karnataka at that time. . Asked for the details of the attacks, Saldanha failed to provide me with the list of names of churches and even dates of attacks. Thus, his baseless charges against the State government now also reflect his shocking ignorance of the real religious situation in Karnataka.

I have been a freelance journalist writing regularly for several newspapers for the past thirty-five years. Like most of those who have to regularly write for newspapers I need factual information. So, I diligently file press clippings so that I don’t slip up on accuracy.

I am the founder and coordinator of the Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue (BIRD), promoting pluralism, tolerance and understanding for a society, free of all prejudices. It provides a platform for addressing issues which are causes for religious/communal tension/resentment by inviting people of all faiths to share through it the richness of their various religious traditions and experiences.

In addition, I am at present a member of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission, representing the Christian community in the State. As a member of the Commission I have visited several places where alleged attacks against Christians took place and interacted with the victims of the alleged violence and also government officials to find out the facts behind attacks.

As far back as 2002, I was part of a fact-finding team that enquired into the attack on the Holy Family Church at Hinkal in Mysore. Its report is available on the internet. In the same manner, I was a member of another fact-finding team that exposed the political conspiracy behind the Mangalore incidents of violence against Christians in 2008.

So, I have the first hand information about several of the alleged attacks against Christians in Karnataka. I can thus confidently say that the incidents of violence against Christians in Karnataka have been few and far between. However, all of them have been blown out of proportion and internationalised by a handful of leaders from the Christian community and by unscrupulous politicians. They are using ordinary Christians as pawns in their hands for their narrow selfish ends.

Reasons for Attacks

The reasons for the attacks against certain Christian groups are not difficult to ascertain. Simply put, they are a reaction to the “aggressive faith marketing,” propaganda, and mindless evangelism and conversions through foul and unethical means indulged in by Christian missionaries who denigrate and make fun of Hindu gods and abuse Hindu rituals as barbaric.

Father Adolf Washington of the Archdiocese of Bangalore wrote in a Bangalore daily: “There are several groups of people doing the rounds in Bangalore adopting persuasive techniques not just to convert people but also to spread animosity against mainstream Christian denominations. They hurl invectives against the teachings of Christian denominations and even induce people to tender a written ‘resignation’ to the pastor or priest. Since some of these groups do not even accept the divinity of Christ, in effect, their conversion should not be understood as conversion to Christianity but to their organisation. Mainstream Christian denominations do not go on a conversion spree, only splinter groups and cultic groups do so probably for some self-gain.”

Karnataka has suddenly become the principal target for a wide range of western Christian missions, especially after the BJP government came to power in 2008. The leaders of these groups are determined to spread “the Good News” to Karnataka’s “unreached” people. The tragedy is that politically ambitious so-called Christians like Saldanha who claim to be the spokesmen and defenders of the Indian Christian community spread distress and divisions and fan the flames of hatred against peace-loving Hindu community. They spread the venom of communal hatred like butter on hot bread. To all appearances, these Christian leaders enjoy the grace and favour of the Congress Party-led Government of India. This encouragement helps the growth of powerful elements of separatism and disunity in the country. It is well-known to political observers in Karnataka that Saldanha has been currying favour with Congress leaders and waiting in the wings for a plum post in the Party.

Animosity against Christians

Saldanha is ignorant of the fact that Christians are a tiny minority in this country/state. Their attitudes often elicit counter-reaction from the lunatic fringe of Hindu community who sometimes incite violence against Christians. Many preachers of the Christian Gospel rattle off verses from the Bible to preach hellfire and damnation to those who do not agree with their interpretations of the contents of the Bible. They lay enticing traps for people whom they think must be “saved” at all costs. One hopes that the Christian merchants of hate including the retired judge will soon realize that theirs is a losing battle even if they derive their financial and other means of support from foreign funding agencies for their nefarious activities.

Simply put, the animosity against Christians is a reaction to the aggressive faith-marketing and mindless evangelism by thousands of foreign-funded, cultic, fundamentalist, fanatic and revivalist Christian groups and their half-baked preachers working among the wretched of the Indian earth. They denigrate Hindu gods and abuse Hindu rituals as barbaric. They are the root cause of tension between Christian and Hindu communities. Why should anybody be surprised if the so-called “extremists” among Hindus are offended and react violently? Invariably, incidents of violence against Christians are always bloated out of proportion and internationalized. It is, therefore, urgent that leaders of the established mainline churches, known for their erudition, equipoise, and empathy came out in the open and disowned such provocative acts of intolerance of the fundamentalist Christian groups masquerading as real Christians.

The real source of danger to the Indian Christian community is not the handful of Hindu extremists but the self-styled saviours of Christianity who assert that they alone are the holders of valid visas to heaven and paradise.

Yes, no civil society should condone violence. But mere condemnation is not a method to avert the repetition of violence. We have to find out if the violence is deliberate and unprovoked, or due to provocation. If it is the former, then there is one set of solutions, which mostly involves applying the law and severely punishing the perpetrators of the violence. However, if there is provocation, then we have to study the issue in greater detail. We have to understand why there has been a provocation for the violence, and who are the persons or organisations behind the provocation.

It is high time people like Saldanha made an earnest attempt to appreciate this basic fact. That would be true humility if that is indeed possible for them to manifest. The retired judge and his friends should apologize for their irresponsible and unsubstantiated comments that Karnataka is “the number one rogue state” in the Indian Union. They should also check and re-check their facts before deciding to disparage Hindu “extremists” in their utterances and reports.

The only way out

When greater inter-religious understanding and mutual respect is the need of the hour, leveling wild accusations that do not have any foundation is dangerous gamesmanship.

Hindu “fundamentalism” is a reaction to the provocations of Christian proselytizers. Under attack, Hindus have partly woken up to the need for self-protection and self-preservation. When they attack such Christian proselytizers they generate much criticism, especially from pseudo secularists and from the media world-wide.

People like me, who have some access to the media and are still in control of our betz cells know that all such propaganda is being peddled in the name of a bogey man called Sangh Parivar. If one is honest in one’s analysis, it is not the Sangh Parivar but certainly the actions of Christian proselytizers and jihadi Muslims who challenge the religious sensitivities of the Hindu majority in the State.

The Sangh Parivar bogey man will disappear if the mainline Churches in India come out openly and affirm that they are taking a solemn pledge in the name of Jesus Christ to abide by his admonition not to go miles to make a proselyte. If they can do that, the so-called Sangh Parivar will disappear.

India and its tolerance for the diversity of its religious communities were built up over thousands of years. But, it looks like if individuals like Saldanha and his like-minded friends are not checked and their false propaganda countered, your children and the children of India’s minorities will have no future anywhere near the equity and fairness that they have so far enjoyed despite India being a predominantly Hindu nation.

Be that as it may, can Saldanha, the self-styled leader of  the Christian community, light a candle amidst the encircling gloom spread by the religious conversionists of both fundamental Christianity and Jehadi Islam?

With malice towards none, and charity towards all, Indian Christians like me remain true to our guide and spiritual leader, the Jesus of Nazareth. Peace, Shanti, Salam, and Shalom! – Vishwa Samvada Kendra, Karnataka, Jan. 23, 2012

» P.N. Benjamin is the Coordinator of Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue (BIRD), Member, Karnataka State Minorities Commission and  a freelance journalist with 35 years experience.

• Justice B.K. Somashekar report on church attacks
• RSS and Christian federation leaders discuss communal harmony in Karnataka
• Intellectulas demand ban on conversion in Karnataka
• Political parties oppose communal violence bill

This is an excerpt from a long article which the late Major T.R. Vedantam wrote in 1982, and which forms part of Christianity: An Imperialist Ideology published by Voice of India in 1983. - SRG

The motivation for Christian evangelism is simple. Disrupt and destroy. The missions make no secret of it. It is a mistake to think that Christian missionary enterprise is a religious movement. The Christians themselves never claimed it to be a religious movement. It was a declaration of war and an attack on the religious and cultural set up of the people of Asia and Africa, and it was always politically motivated. Traditional religion has collapsed in Christendom, which is no more Christian. This is a post-war phenomenon. The divorce of the Church and State relationship, the old pattern, is now complete. But it has now emerged in a different form. The old theology based on untenable doctrines and dogmas has been totally discarded by the industrialized West with its new religion of scientific technology. The Church, therefore, is undergoing a process known to social scientists as politicization. The term does not mean merely political activity. By politicization of religion is meant the internal transformation of the faith itself so that it comes to be defined in terms of political values. This has resulted in the entry of the State into areas which were formerly the traditional preserve of the churches. That means, the Church-State relationship has been reinstated in a new form. The Church is today a tool for organizing political action as decided and directed by the State. There is a clear distinction between the involvement of religion with politics and the reinterpretation of religious values as political values. This is the politicization that is happening in the modern Church. If the Church does not agree then the justification for its existence just disappears. Christians as a religious body do not exist today in the Western world in a meaningful way. But Christian evangelism is still reaping a harvest in the Third World. Thus the political consciousness of Christianity in the developing world actually originated within the politicized churches of the old world. The Christian religion has lost the power and the confidence to define its areas of influence and jurisdiction even on questions of social morality. In their death agonies, the churches are distributing the causes of their own sickness — the politicization of religion of the churches in the developing world in Asia and Africa. This can be a fatal inheritance in the Eastern countries where religion is not yet so dead.[1]

Liberation Theology

This is the post-war model of Christian religion. The Christian missions now claim that it has become their duty to liberate the oppressed and the suppressed all over the world. This movement works through the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the International Christian Council, etc. These organisations work under the direction and control of the governments of the Western superpowers. The USA, Canada, Britain, and Australia are in the forefront. USSR and China also seem to have a finger in the pie on their own terms. The Anglo-American group is keen to liberate India, Afghanistan, Laos, Kampuchea, Vietnam, Thailand, Cuba, Iran, etc. According to them, Tibet, South Korea, South Africa, Rhodesia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Diego Garcia etc. do not come into this scheme. Countries in the Soviet zone of influence feel that these countries like Tibet, Salvador, South Korea etc. have to be urgently liberated from the “tyranny of the imperialists” and the “Reactionaries.”Leftist groups have also been making a lot of noise about the need for drastic action to be taken to eliminate Racism from Africa.[2]

It is interesting to note that many of the high-ranking dignitaries of the Church,occupying key positions in these world councils and the international missionary organizations, happen to be all war veterans of World War II vintage. These Patriarchs installed as the heads of the Church hierarchy are talking in the language of exporting revolution to other countries. These Christian organizations, when making serious inroads into politics, use some special type of technical phraseology to make everything euphemistic. In the concept of Liberation Theology are also included the concepts of internal disruption, use of violence, civil disobedience, organizing resistance movements, etc.[3]

While the programme continues and even expands, it is worth noting that most of the money disbursed through these special funds has come not from traditional donors, but from new ones, mostly governments. This government element worries some critics within the organizations who see in it some dangerous portents. It is a breach of the Church and State relationship brought about not necessarily by philosophical arguments, but by pragmatic ones involving a political approach. Another serious implication is that some governments will be consciously aiding subversion in some other country. In 1925, in a conference at Stockholm sponsored by Life & Work and the Faith & Order Movements they postulated the slogan “Doctrine divides: ServiceUnites”. These critics or the dissenters now feel that this slogan has now been reversed to read “Doctrine unites; Service divides”. The ethical philosophy of Jesus is dead, and a political philosophy of violence has now taken its place.The developed countries are now making a serious effort to subvert and overthrow the governments established by law in the developing countries,using the churches as their tools.[4]

John Foster Dulles published a book, War or Peace, in 1957 (Macmillan, New York). In the chapter “Policies in Asia” he writes: “In the past the United State policy in the east rested on the foundations of friendly relations with China. Our people, through Government, missionaries, doctors, and educators, have shared and built Chinese friendship for more than a century. Out of it have come such political doctrines as the ‘Hay doctrine of the open door’ in China, the ‘Hughes doctrine of territorial integrity.’ Out of it have also come Boxer Fund scholarships, Christian colleges in China, and Christian medical centres, including a Rockfeller Foundation development at Peking.”[5]

Here Mr. Dulles is making a clear-cut statement that the USA has been using the Church and the mission organizations and institutions to build up its close relations with China. The Church in China is no more under the tutelage of the USA. Similar changes are coming up in other areas also. Sixty years ago Christianity was at loggerheads with Communism. But today Liberation Theology is working in the grooves of Marxism. This has produced a most anomalous situation for the World Council of Churches, which is very much dependent on the Anglo-Americans for its finances. They have to apply this ideology to support the political ambitions of the capitalist West which has used and still continues to use the Church as a tool. The Church is only too willing to co-operate. In the meanwhile, Christianity has become a danger and a threat to the safety, security and freedom of India. It is not yet too late. But it will brook no further delay. It is time that the Government and the people of this country tackle this problem with all the energy and resources at their command. – From Jesus Christ: An Artifice for Aggression by Sita Ram Goel

1. Christianity and the World Order by Edward Norman, Oxford University Press, 1979.
2. Bulletins of the National Christian Council and World Council of Churches.
3. “The Rejuvenation of the Russian Orthodox Clergy”, a paper read before the Institute for Study of the USSR by NadezhadaTheodonovich.
4. To Set at Liberty the Oppressed, W.C.C., Geneva, 1975.
5. Summary of the Niyogi Committee Report.

“The Church inviting Hindus for an interfaith dialogue while going ahead with converting weaker sections of Hindu society through force, fraud and allurements, is like a pickpocket preaching virtues of renunciation to a man while relieving him of his purse. Hindu scholars and sanyasins must make stoppage of conversions by Church in theory and practice as a pre-condition to their participation in any interfaith dialogue.” - Virendra Parekh

“Vade vade jayate tattvabodhah” (Every debate brings forth understanding of principles), says a Sanskrit subhashita. In their long history, Hindus as a people have been fond of discussing matters of religion, philosophy and spirituality, among themselves and with others. In spite of what Islam and its votaries had done to Hindus and their civilization, Brahmins participated in discussions organized by some Muslim rulers between scholars of different faiths. When a German missionary Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg (1682-1719) sent in 1712 a large number of letters to a selection of Hindus inviting answers to a number of questions, he received no fewer than 104 responses.

Christianity, on the other hand, has traditionally preferred monologue i.e. it alone talked and others were made to listen. It was ensured in advance that the monologue was not disturbed by arguments from the other side. Convinced that it had the monopoly of Absolute Truth which others had to accept from it in all humility, it saw no need for holding any dialogue with any kind of paganism.

But times have changed. The collapse of Christianity in the West and the retreat of Western imperialism have forced the Church to change its methods. Buyers of its stale and discredited merchandise are becoming increasingly scarce. Gone are the days when the Church spoke and others had to listen. It can no longer use the might of the state (once described as secular arm of the church) to crush the adversaries. So, now the church is not just prepared to enter into a dialogue with heathens, it is actually organizing it.

But the Church is uncomfortable with the new environment. It knows, from its experience in the West, what reason and open inquiry can do to its dogma. At the same time, the closed and arrogant mindset, fashioned by centuries of dominance, has not changed. Short-term tactics have changed, but the long-term goal remains unaltered. There is a change in the language, but not in the ideology. These show a striking continuity over the centuries.

For instance, annals of the mission record one instance of a public debate in sixteenth century Goa, when Jesuits, aided by a convert, deputed with pundits. After a while, forty pundits were banished from the debate for “proving obstinate.” No more dialogues were held in Portuguese possessions thereafter.

Writing four hundred years later, Richard Fox Young, who records this incident in his Resistant Hinduism (Vienna, 1981, pp. 20-21), concludes that Hindu tolerance towards other religions is a myth because Hinduism resisted Christianity instead of accommodating it! The author sees nothing wrong with the wanton Christian onslaught of which he himself provides prolific proof.

In our own day, the ex-communication is practiced in a more sophisticated way. Fr. Francis Xavier Clooney, professor at Harvard Divinity School, says that in the past Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Swami Vivekanand had attempted a critical look at the West from a Hindu perspective, but post-colonial authors like Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel had politicized the Hindu-Christian relationship. In other words, even the adversaries of the Church need a character certificate from it before their contributions are recognized. And the grant of that certificate depends on the degree of accommodation shown by the Hindu scholar to Christianity, especially to conversions.

Fr. Clooney would have been within his rights as well as bounds of a healthy dialogue if he had pointed out where these authors had misquoted a source, or quoted it out of context, and how the context altered the apparent meaning, or used logic which was not straight, or passed a value judgment which was not valid. But that is not on his agenda. The Church has no use for authentic scholars like Ram Swarupji or Sita Ramji precisely because their critique is too comprehensive, too accurate and too fundamental for its comfort.

As to the closed mind, one example would suffice. Ziegenbalg, who worked in south India, travelled around and held conversations with Brahmins. He recorded these conversations in some detail and passed them on to Halle (Germany) which published them from 1715 onwards. Only thirty-four of these conversations were translated and published in English in 1719. The preface to the book Thirty-Four Conferences Between the Danish Missionaries and Malabarian Brahmans (or Heathen Priests) in the East Indies (London, 1719), sums up the Brahmana’s “Divine Law sent from Heaven” in the following eight Precepts:

“I. Thou shalt not kill any living creature whatsoever it be, having life in the same: For thou art a creature of mine and so is it: Thou art endued with soul and it is endued with the same. Thou shalt not therefore spill the blood of anything that is mine.

II. Thou shalt make a covenant with all thy five senses. First, with thy eyes, that they behold not things that be evil. Secondly, with thy ears, that they hear not things that be evil. Thirdly, with thy tongue, that it speaks not things that be evil. Fourthly, with thy palate, that it takes nothing that be evil; as wine, or the flesh of living creatures. Fifthly, with thy hands, that they touch not things defiled.

III. Thou shalt duly observe the times of devotion, thy washings, worshippings and prayers to the Lord thy God, with a pure and upright heart.

IV. Thou shalt not tell false tales, or utter things untrue, by which thou mightest defraud thy brother in dealings, bargains or contracts; by this consenage to work thy own peculiar advantage.

V. Thou shalt be charitable to the poor and administer to his need, meat, drink, and money, as his necessity requires, and thine own ability enableth thee to give.

VI. Thou shalt not oppress, injure or do violence to the poor, using thy power unjustly to the ruin and overthrow of thy brother.

VII. Thou shalt celebrate certain festivals; yet not pampering thy body with excess of anything; but shalt observe certain seasons for fasting, and break off some hours by watching, that thou may’st be fitter for devotion and holiness.

VIII. Thou shalt not steal from thy brother anything, however little it be, of things committed to thy trust in thy profession or calling; but content thyself with that which he shall give thee as thine hire; considering that thou hath not right to that which another man calleth his.”

Yet, according to the same Preface “there is not, perhaps, a more wicked race of men treading upon God’s earth (than the Brahmanas).” “The Brahmanas”, it continues, “are the greatest impostors in the world; their talent lies in inventing new fables every day, and making them pass for incomprehensible mysteries among the vulgar.” Brahimins of today would readily underscore the above summary of the precepts of their faith. Does the Church today have any different opinion of those who disagree with its dogma and resist its incursions?

“The purpose of this correspondence (of the letters referred to above),” writes Dr. H. Grafe, “as stated by Ziegenbalg, is three-fold:

1. To make for increased publicity of the missionaries’ work,

2. To reach people whom they are not able to meet personally,

3. To get better informed about Hinduism and particularly about Hindu objections to Christian Faith.” (“Hindu Apologetics at the Beginning of the Protestant Mission Era in India”, by H. Grafe in Indian Church History Review, June, 1972, p. 48.)

Is the purpose any different today? Like a multinational corporation marketing a dubious product, what the Church craves above all is attention tampered with indulgence. Hindu scholars and sanyasins are making a big mistake if they harbour the illusion that they are educating the Church in principles of Sanatan Dharma. The Church has no use for those principles. It wants Hindu intellectuals and Sanyasis for their brand value (such as it is) within the Hindu society – to market its own product. Their erudition, their carefully constructed caveats, provisos and arguments will be lost upon ordinary Hindus who will only remember that these worthies have something to do with what the Church is saying.

By participating in high-profile well-publicised dialogues with spokesmen of Christianity, modern-day Hindu scholars and sanyasins may be making the same mistake that Gandhiji did. As Sita Ram Goel observes, “Mahatma Gandhi’s meeting the Christian missionaries again and again and wasting so much breath in talking to them on the same point, namely, the uniqueness of Jesus and their right to convert in his name, made them respectable in the eyes of Hindus at large. Till the Mahatma started advertising the Christian missionaries in his widely read weeklies, Hindus had looked down upon them as an unavoidable nuisance deserving only contempt and ridicule. The Mahatma invested them with unprecedented prestige and made them loom large on the Indian scene.”

In any case, the Church has studied Hinduism and Hindu society in far greater detail than Hindu scholars have studied Christianity. Missionaries have studied Hindu scriptures not as Mumukshus, but like army generals mapping out the enemy territory before attacking it.

Hindus are committing a great mistake in regarding the encounter between Hinduism and Christianity as a dialogue between two traditions of Dharma. Christianity has never been a Dharma; it has always been a predatory imperialism par excellence. The encounter, therefore, should be viewed as a battle between two totally opposed and mutually exclusive ways of thought and behaviour.

“But can we not sort out differences in perceptions, attitudes and approaches through an amicable dialogue? What is the harm in talking?” one may ask. The harm is that the dialogue is intended to be a distraction from the merciless and incessant attacks of the Church on the roots of Hindu Dharma. The whole purpose of the interfaith dialogue is to wear down Hindu resistance to conversions, first among the elite and then, hopefully, among the laity.

As Sita Ramji points out, Hindus from seventeenth century Pandits of Tamil Nadu (who conversed with Ziegenbalg) to Arun Shourie have expended tremendous amounts of ink and breath to demolish the dogma of Christianity. But it has hardly made any difference to the arrogance of Christian theologians and missionaries. That is because dogma was never meant for discussion. It is meant for propagation, by any and every means permitted by times and circumstances.

The Church knows more than any Hindu that its dogma cannot stand any discussion. It is an axiom of logic that that which cannot be proved need not be disproved. And who can ever prove that the nondescript Jew (if at all he existed) who was crucified by a Roman governor of Judea in 33 AD had atoned for the sins of mankind for all time to come? Who can ever prove that those who accept that Jew as the only Saviour will ascend to a heaven of everlasting bliss and those who do not will burn for ever in the blazing fire of hell?

Glorified by high-sounding theological bunkum, the dogma is no more than a subterfuge for forging and wielding an organizational weapon for aggression against other people. It is high time for Hindus to dismiss the dogma of Christianity with the contempt it deserves, and pay attention to the Christian missionary apparatus planted in their midst. The sole aim of this apparatus is to ruin Hindu society and culture, and take over the Hindu homeland.

The Church inviting Hindus for an interfaith dialogue while going ahead with converting weaker sections of Hindu society through force, fraud and allurements, is like a pickpocket preaching virtues of renunciation to a man while relieving him of his purse. Hindu scholars and sanyasins must make stoppage of conversions by Church in theory and practice as a pre-condition to their participation in any interfaith dialogue. They should not fall prey to the sweet language that is designed to deceive them and other Hindus. For, Ko va durjanvagurasu patitah kshemeñ yatah puman? (Who has ever escaped unscathed after falling in the trap of words of a wicked man?) – Vijayvaani, New Delhi, Jan. 27, 2012

Acknowledgment

• History of Hindu-Christian Encounters: AD 304 to 1996 by Sita Ram Goel, Voice of India, New Delhi, 1996

» The author is Executive Editor, Corporate India, and lives in Mumbai

“In the matter of bringing up children, what the Norwegian authorities are demanding is not emotional sustenance but homogenisation. These are the hallmarks of a totalitarian system that believes children belong primarily to the state. Norway is not a totalitarian state but its social codes resonate with checklists of uniformity.” – Swapan Dasguta

The establishment of an all-embracing “nanny state” has been a cause of concern to many sensible, right-thinking citizens of the European Union (EU).

In Britain, to cite just one example, there is anger and exasperation over the way apprehended illegal immigrants have been able to avert deportation by falling back on the EU’s human rights legislation. The so-called right to family life has been successfully used by those who have broken the law to prevent constituent nations from acting against them.

So absurd is the situation that illegal immigrants were even able to cite the ownership of a cat and membership of a local cricket team to earn for themselves the right to stay in a country where they had overstayed their welcome.

It is against this bizarre backdrop of an over-regulated state, replete with gratuitous codification of daily life, that we must view the strange case of Anurup and Sagarika Bhattacharya, Indian citizens resident in the Norwegian town of Stavenger.

In May 2011, the child welfare department of the town took the couple’s two children, a son aged two and a daughter then barely five months old into custodial care. The Bhattacharyas were accused of dereliction of parental responsibilities.

What were the faults of the Bhattacharyas, a normal middle-class couple with the husband working as a geo-scientist with Halliburton, a well-known US company? In the courts where the case was heard, the account of parental negligence was provided. These included the absence of separate rooms for the children, the lack of appropriate toys, the absence of a separate diaper changing table and the fact that the son slept in the same bed as the parents and was fed by hand — which allegedly amounted to “force feeding”. The mother was also guilty of breast-feeding the daughter in an unsuitable way.

According to a report in an Indian newspaper, filed from Oslo, the authorities argued in court “that when the mother breast-fed the infant, she put her on her lap without holding her, holding the head against the breast but not close to her body”.

Taken together with the fact that the mother had admitted to once slapping her son — a prohibited act under Norwegian law — the Child Welfare Service concluded that the mother failed to look after the children’s emotional needs. The larger interests of the children, it felt, were better served by placing them in foster homes.

The city court of Stavanger agreed with the Child Welfare Service and sent the children to foster homes. As an act of generosity, it allowed the parents to see their children — one of whom was still being breast-fed — twice each year for two hours. In a further revision by the Country Board of the Child Welfare Service it has now been stated that the children must remain in foster homes till they are 18 years of age but would be allowed to spend three hours each year with their parents in three separate visits of an hour each.

The sheer inhumanity of the Norwegian state defies belief. What happened to the Bhattacharyas is not merely the result of the perverted thinking of authorities that believe they know better than the natural parents of children.

It is also an outcome of insular Europeans not knowing and not bothering to appreciate the fact there is no prescribed way of bringing up children. That a child does not have a separate room and the fact that diapers were changed on the bed rather than on a table of a prescribed size are niggling issues. These have more to do with their parents’ financial priorities than a bid to wilfully scar the children emotionally.

Indian children routinely share a bed with their parents or grandparents. This is often a function of space or gestures of affection and they haven’t resulted in India becoming a nation of the emotionally traumatised.

Equally, if feeding a child by hand constitutes an inhuman act of force-feeding, more than 95 per cent of Indian parents would be found guilty of cruelty. Norway cannot dictate how an Indian family chooses to eat. By this absurd logic, Westerners in India should be advised that toilet paper is unhygienic and environmentally unsound!

Like many prosperous but insular countries, the authorities in Norway possess an infuriating sense of sanctimoniousness, believing that their habits, customs and worldviews are the only routes to well-being. There is no common sense view of right and wrong.

In the matter of bringing up children, what the Norwegian authorities are demanding is not emotional sustenance but homogenisation. These are the hallmarks of a totalitarian system that believes children belong primarily to the state. Norway is not a totalitarian state but its social codes resonate with checklists of uniformity.

It is heartening that the Government of India has responded to the sense of outrage at home by summoning the Norwegian ambassador to South Block. It is said that a solution may be worked out with the grandparents of the children giving a helping hand to the Bhattacharya couple.

In other words, Norway will be given a face-saving way out that stops short of its authorities admitting that what happened to the Bhattacharyas was a gross violation of their human rights, particularly their right to a family life and their right to pursue cultural practices. India has a moral duty to rescue two of its children who have become victims of judicial abduction. – Deccan Chronicle, Chennai, Jan. 27, 2012