India’s thought police are angry with Modi – Tufail Ahmad

Tufail Ahmad“Here is the mirror Mr. Mehta: Your secularism is the intellectual barbarism of our age that has divided India’s youth to the benefit of your politics, poisoned the heart of Indians and pushed the Indian youths to the wall from where the only path open for them is to fight back. India’s youth no longer trust your type.” – Tufail Ahmad

Akhilesh YadavIn the last week of September at Dadri not far from the Indian capital, an angry mob lynched to death Mohammad Akhlaq over allegations that a cow was slaughtered and he ate beef.

In the 1970s and 1980s in Bihar where there was no Bharatiya Janata Party, cow slaughter was still banned and there were times when there would be conflicts over beef and policemen would visit homes.

Beef conflicts are not new to contemporary India. Cows are not slaughtered across the Islamic world, but the reason cows are slaughtered mostly in the Indian Subcontinent is because Indian Islamists introduced the practice of cow slaughter here as a challenge to Hindu religious practice of worshiping cows.

Fikr-e-Nau (New Thinking), a newly launched Urdu magazine published by Pakistani Marxists—explores the issue of cow slaughter (a translation will be published soon by the Washington D.C.-based Middle East Media Research Institute).

You can look further back into history.

AkbarDuring the 16th century when the BJP and RSS did not exist, Emperor Akbar outlawed the practice of cow slaughter but the greatest Islamic scholar of the time Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi lambasted the Mughal emperor asking why Muslims couldn’t slaughter cows under a Muslim government.

While Akbar was sensitive towards the majority Hindus’ religious sensibilities, Islamists like Sheikh Sirhindi, much like the present-day commentators, were not bothered about them. Fikr-e-Nau goes on to argue that in the lands comprising Pakistan today, cow slaughter was brought by Indian Islamist organisations arriving there after the Partition in 1947.

But the issue being debated about the Dadri lynching is not a religious one.

At this point in time when India is at the cusp of emerging as a global power, even the most so-called right-wing Hindus hold the following view: any person taking the country’s rule of law should be prosecuted and jailed without delay.

Lawmaker and prominent BJP member Tarun Vijay, in an [Indian Express] article dated 2 October, advocated this line of thinking, calling for handling this issue “via the lawful path that the Constitution has provided” and urging the Akhilesh Yadav government to “take serious note of this”.

A purely secular view requires this: the socialist government of Akhilesh Yadav must act ruthlessly and quickly against anyone taking the law into their hands. However, such a course is not advocated by India’s liberal-secular intelligentsia which loves to engage in religious politics instead—of late, crudely.

On 1 October, celebrity gossip columnist Shobhaa De tweeted: “I just ate beef. Come and murder me.”

For our liberal-secular intellectuals and Islamists, the issue is not the failing of our rule of law: the issue is politics, more of it if it is laced with religion.

For example, instead of writing a piece asking the socialist government of Yadav to prosecute the Dadri mob, noted left-liberal intellectual Pratap Bhanu Mehta trained his guns on 3 October at Tarun Vijay (who was critical of this sort of“secular” politics).

I view Liberals and Conservatives in the following theoretical framework: Conservatives view social realities as they exist on the ground, while Liberals describe social realities as they ought to be, colored in their own leftist vision.

Conservatives are rooted, truthful and pessimistic. Liberals are hopeful, divisive and untruthful when describing realities. John Lloyd, former editor of London’s leftist magazine The New Statesman, observed: Liberals “tell people to ignore their own experience and to think only in approved ways.”

Pratap Bhanu MehtaP. B. Mehta’s ideological-political base is located here: the kind of secular politics his tribe of academics and commentators supported ran the roost in the 1980s when the secular government of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi surrendered before India’s vocal Islamists.

Mehta’s ideological thought police expected that the country’s majority would keep watching this total surrender of secularism before Islamists in broad daylight, but these three decisions helped the Conservatives prosper and seek truth in the nation’s roots. Mr. Mehta, your tribe is responsible for three historic decisions that have damaged the Indian Republic: the Shah Bano law, opening the Ayodhya locks and the notorious ban on The Satanic Verses of Salman Rushdie.

Conservatives are truly Indians, unlike your secular tribesmen who appear to be masquerading as Pakistanis in India’s intellectual mainstream. Your politics is recurring. Notably, the secular Congress government in Rajasthan did not allow Salman Rushdie to visit Jaipur in 2012, surrendering before the Barelvi Islamists of the Raza Academy which had threatened to attack him.

Equally, Mehta’s ideological-historical base can also be located here: his ideological cousins and ancestors supported the Khilafat Movement, an Islamist political enterprise supported by India’s secular politicians led by Mahatma Gandhi and the global Islamists of the era—the Ali Brothers. Along with the Aligarh movement, the Khilafat movement would lead to the division of India in 1947.

The Khilafat Movement’s more violent version is nowadays led by Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State (ISIS), about whom India’s secular journalists and commentators are largely silent while scores of Indian Muslims are getting attracted to and many have joined the ISIS.

Mr. Mehta, your ideological cousins in our television studios and editorial offices recently supported Aurangzeb, the Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi of 17th century at whose orders Guru Teg Bahadur, the Shield of India, was beheaded in the public square of Delhi for refusing to convert to Islam in 1675 CE, much like and exactly for the same reasons the ISIS beheads non-Muslims in public squares of Iraq and Syria today.

In his piece, Mehta takes umbrage at India’s Culture Minister Mahesh Sharma for a slip of the tongue, noting:

“The minister of culture, for example, whose praise for A. P. J. Abdul Kalam was accompanied by a congenital suspicion—‘despite being a Muslim’—and who described Akhlaq’s death as an ‘accident’, prefigures the moral blindness that [Tarun] Vijay represents.”

As a still evolving democracy, Indians are electing members of parliament and state legislatures who might not have gone to universities: such lawmakers are innocent and honest but are being forced to declare their sophistication to suit the viewpoints of tie-clad suited-booted liberals with a felicity for writing glib pieces in dense prose.

Sometimes these lawmakers are asked to declare their degrees (the Election Commission has an explaining to do as to why it wants Indians to declare degrees). Such elected Indians may not be intellectually equipped like the graduates from the St. Stephen’s College; occasionally, they might not be able to distinguish between a certificate and a degree.

To Mr. Mehta: “the moral blindness” that you speak of has another name: political correctness—that is, of your own.

At the Aligarh Muslim University, I was taught sociology by Dr. Rashida Rana Siddiqui who once used the word “uncultured” in some context when teaching a BA first year class. When asked to explain the sociological meaning of “uncultured”—she looked back, pondered deeply and replied, “If you are so sensitive, do not use this word.”

Tunku Varadarajan, in his otherwise decent piece of 20 September, goes on to describe our minister as uncultured:

“Even if it were a slip of the tongue, let’s not forget that a man’s tongue often slips in a direction where a man’s mind has gone already. But when the uncultured politician who is India’s Culture Minister said that India’s late president Abdul Kalam was a great nationalist ‘despite being Muslim’….”

To Varadarajan and P. B. Mehta, India’s Muslim atheists and liberals are routinely dubbed by Islamic clerics as follows: not being Muslim, not sufficiently Muslim, not practising Muslim, not proper Muslim, not even half a Muslim, or murtad (apostate). 

To reverse this definition for a meaningful discussion of India’s discourse, this is what you get: you are not an Indian, you are not sufficiently Indian, you are not an Indian first, you are a Muslim first—the “you” being the Indian Muslim.

This binary—Islam versus Indian—resides in India’s discourse nurtured over the past century by secularists of Mehta’s type. To Varadarajan: the minister’s statement was not a slip of the tongue, it was hard truth of our social reality coming via his tongue. Even if you accept that “a man’s tongue often slips in a direction where a man’s mind” is, it appears there is a single mind from where Varadarajan, P. B. Mehta, and, oh, Amartya Sen speak.

Therefore, Mr. Mehta, it is not incidental that your tribesmen—journalists, academics, and TV anchors posing as objective journalists and commentators—do not like Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, the late scientist and former president loved the most even by our schoolchildren.

The question raised by the Culture Minister Sharma remains relevant. Here is a detailed look-back.

Prophet MuhammadYou can look back much further. In the 7th century CE, the non-Muslims of Mecca urged Prophet Muhammad to join them and share power, but he told them: “For you is your own religion, and for me is mine.” This Verse No. 109:6 from the Quran is often cited by liberals as an explanation of Islam’s co-existence, but the truth is it was revealed as an antithesis to the pluralism of Meccans. During the 1857 war, Muslims and Hindus fought together against the British. Soon after the war, Muslims separated from this togetherness: for example, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan established a university that would give birth to the Pakistan movement. This phenomenon was also evident in the 1980s when the Muslims fought together with the CIA infidels in Afghanistan in the 1980s, but soon after the war ended, the Muslims separated to launch the jihadist project elsewhere, namely in Kashmir, and this time on their own.

This is the precise reason Mahesh Sharma, in an un-secular moment of truth, blurted out the reality. In a very unconscious way, Sharma was juxtaposing Islamism of our times with the Constitution and history of India.

A.P.J. Abdul KalamSince the Amartya Sens and P. B. Mehtas are the power brokers of India’s intellectual discourse, Sharma was speaking truth to that power, and thus his tribe felt offended at the truth being revealed in this way.

It is instructive that the culture minister was speaking in the context of renaming the Aurangzeb Road after A. P. J. Abdul Kalam who is not liked by P. B. Mehta’s clan, who instead love and defend Aurangzeb, the butcher of Hindus.

We can debate whether A. P. J. Abdul Kalam was the right example to give, but Sharma’s speech was not scripted; inadvertently, his way of comparison was straight out of India’s national discourse for which largely the liberal-secular fraternity is responsible.

So, the Varadarajans, Amartya Sens and Mehtas need to do four things.

• First, stop beating up our members of parliament who may not be educated like you from the Presidency of Kolkata or Delhi’s St. Stephens College.

• Second, try to look within the corpus of your liberal knowledge and its moral relevance (for example in the context of 20 million humans butchered by Stalin in USSR and 65 million similarly dead in Mao’s China).

• Third, try to understand rationally and reasonably from where these “uncultured” and “uneducated” lawmakers and ministers come from.

• Fourth, offer reasoned analysis that will educate the Indian youths who are hungry to hear the truth about our society and history.

• If you wish, you can do a fifth point: keep your prejudices from your writings and to yourself.

Our lawmakers are the products of the great Indian democracy that we chose, but Mr. Mehta, your kind of analysts are products of the St. Stephens College, not of India’s College of Democracy.

There are also some Indian commentators who speak like Pakistanis in our media. It is profoundly enlightening that Mehta sees creativity in Pakistan’s chaos when Pakistan’s own writers are describing their social reality in more crystalized ways.

I hate to say this Mr. Mehta, but you appear like a Pakistani national masquerading as Indian in the Indian mainstream much like Gandhi who supported the hardcore Islamists of Turkey right here in India.

You taunt Tarun Vijay for seeing the loss of creativity in Pakistan’s cultural withering, but the true Pakistani and acclaimed historian Ayesha Jalal has described Pakistan for having entered a state of “cognitive disability”.

It also does not appear that your type of commentators are honest. You pose as a neutral analyst in our public discourse but the very first sentence of your article uses vile words that make your intellectual intent clear:

“If you wanted an example of how vile, nauseating and morally odious our public discourse….

Sorry, but this cannot be a way to begin a serious analysis especially given your stature as a serious and insightful commentator. It’s more of an abuse than an analysis. It is more of a vile attack from you on a sitting member of the Indian parliament.

It is interesting that Mehta’s article is titled Dadri Lynching: the Party and Its Poison.

The truth is this: you and your tribesmen in the academia and media industry are—to state it in academically neutral terms—both the seeds and fruit of this poison that this nation’s discourse is afflicted with.

Your article was also published by Huffington Post under the following title: “Dadri Lynching Incident Blame Has To Fall Entirely On Modi: Pratap Bhanu Mehta.”

Your article is published on the website of The Indian Express under the title: Dadri reminds us how PM Narendra Modi bears responsibility for the poison that is being spread.”

Frankly, Mr. Mehta do you really think that Modi was born in the Emperor Akbar’s era when beef conflicts used to occur? 

When spouses of Politburo members take over as editors—the Bihari writer George Orwell would have explained it better—scholarship is the casualty, truth is the George Orwellconcubine of the pen. Nowadays, India’s youth are left wondering if the motto of The Indian Express is “Journalism of Courage” or the “Practice of Cowardice.”

Of liberal intellectuals, George Orwell wrote:

[They] are more totalitarian than the common people…. Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history, etc. as long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side.

It is often noticeable that writers, journalists and commentators in India who have not lived the life of hunger are not on the side of social reality; most often they are secular, liberal and communist, the three-in-one intellectual of India who has forced our daughters to beg at traffic lights by his/her policy advocacy during the past six decades.

Most of India’s Left-Liberal activists are happy to spill blood from their pen from their posh apartments, some of them convert and find professorships, or long to marry a White professor and settle in the West.

The intellectual types of Mehta and Amartya Sens never put poverty on the nation’s agenda during six decades when their secular party was in power. Now, for the first time, a tea-seller has risen to the top but Mehta’s clansmen in our newsrooms are uncomfortable that Modi’s priority is to build toilets, clean our roads, and focus on skill development—in short, the most basic and fundamental reforms that will have a long-term, lasting and positive impact.

I do not want to defend the BJP and the RSS, but it is abundantly clear that at this turn in history, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is tirelessly working to make the BJP the most inclusive party of India, especially as democracy is robustly destroying the dynasty’s Congress party.

Mr. Mehta, it is due to your poison that our youths, especially those with B.Tech and M.Tech degrees, and middle and upper middle class working professionals have begun describing themselves on Twitter profiles in these terms: “Yes, I am a bhakt”; “Proud right-winger”;”Politically Incorrect”; “Right-wing Hindu”; “Nationalist and proud to be Hindu”; “India First”; “I am nationalist”; “Betrayed by Left”; “Indian nationalist national”; “Leftist in the past, Rightist in the present”; “Call me Sanghi”.

The three different titles under which Mehta’s article has been published in the aforementioned outlets remind us clearly that the purpose of his writing is not a concern for India, Indian Muslims or Hindu-Muslim relationship but to launch yet another attack on Modi.

Mr. Mehta, you take umbrage at Tarun Vijay’s comment that seculars don’t care for Dalits: but the fact is Tarun Vijay is correct here, not you.

India’s Constitution and democracy have cared for Dalits and empowered them in millions, but the secular Left has always abandoned them or has fed them with Marxist poison.

The best example of this is the history of India’s Left. For years, India’s Left has denied Dalits any representation in leadership. Generally, Brahmins have risen to the top of the communist parties’ leadership.

The intellectual hypocrisy of the Left was such that when it came to the issue of feminism, Leftists—morphed as “Liberals” today—like you reversed the Marxist principle: economy is the infrastructure and ideas are superstructure of society. You used this argument to deny caste identity and to simultaneously deny Dalits any presence in the Left’s leadership positions. However, you reversed it to accommodate upper caste women into top-posh ranks.

Mr. Mehta, you attack Tarun Vijay for falsehood, but how about looking into your own brand of intellectual heritage of past six-plus decades?

You ask Tarun Vijay to read more novels, but what are you reading? Secularists fail to grasp that your article is pure abuse published in a mainstream newspaper.

If you look within your soul, you will be able to grasp why the so-called rationalists are being murdered: charvakas were always welcome in India’s diversity. When Maoists are arrested, journalists from your tribe describe India’s laws as “draconian” for arresting these terrorists. When Indian’s Muslim youths join the ISIS, Hindus are being urged to go soft, just to please the seculariate.

Shockingly, Mehta writes: “Vegetarianism is an excuse for violence.” As history shows, secularism too, is the birther of riots. You write: “tradition is an excuse to assault freedom.” In India, the press too, is an assault on basic principles of journalism.

Amartya SenYou further write: “ideas are an excuse to curb debate.” I agree: India’s discourse has been poisoned by the likes of you.

You next write: “disagreement is an excuse for provocation.” Yes, disagreements of a personal nature are indeed an excuse for unprovoked intellectual attacks on Modi.

You still write: “facts are an excuse for mendacity.” But of course, this mendacity is rooted in the falsehood of our discourse nurtured by your type of three-in-one intellectuals.

India’s secular-liberal writers who have neither time nor shame to peer into their own hearts, pen such sentences: It is as if the nation is acting out the violent convulsions of a deranged being, with no calm light of reason, or compassion.

Frankly, what kind of seeds that you nurtured over the years that are flowering now? Here is the mirror Mr. Mehta: your secularism is the intellectual barbarism of our age that has divided India’s youth to the benefit of your politics, poisoned the heart of Indians and pushed the Indian youths to the wall from where the only path open for them is to fight back.

India’s youth no longer trust your type.

You write: The blame for this has to fall entirely on Modi. Those who spread this poison enjoy his patronage.

For now, please do enjoy the fruits of said seeds.

It is interesting to observe that social media has come to the aid of India’s common people, and it is more interesting that social media is disliked by India’s three-in-one thought brokers like you. More importantly, speed being the essence, social media can quickly expose your kind.

Narendra Modi & Mark ZuckerbergIt will be good if Narendra Modi worked out a partnership with Facebook to allow every Indian to publish an online newspaper. Such a development will prove a political graveyard for the Mehtas and Amartya Sens. It will demolish the Berlin Wall in India’s public discourse rooted in the half-Italian, half-Indian dynasty that disempowers India’s masses.

Meanwhile, here are your own article’s last sentences with a few alterations.

But we can be grateful to Pratap Bhanu Mehta for reminding us that the threat to India’s soul emanates from the centre of discourse, almost nowhere else. It is for that centre—and Mehta and Sen in particular—to persuade us otherwise. – IndiaFacts, 5 October 2015

» Tufail Ahmad is Director  of South Asian Studies Project at the Middle East Media Research Institute,  Washington D C. E-mail:

A.P. J. Abdul Kalam

See also

Caste-based reservation system is neither rational nor moral – S. N. Balagangadhara

Prof Dr S.N. BalagangadharaThe caste-based reservation system is neither rational nor moral. One has to say that Indians are either irrational or immoral or both, if they defend reservation. The British were reluctant to give self-rule or independence to India because many were convinced that Indians were immoral and irrational. Looking from the outside today, one is compelled to ask: were the British telling the truth? — Prof Dr S. N. Balagangadhara

Hardik PatelThe problem that has plagued India since Independence has flared up again: caste-based reservations for education, employment and career promotions. In the last four decades of living in Europe, I have heard both sides of the debate. As an Indian living abroad, it appears to me that these debates actually raise one single question: Are Indians irrational or immoral, or both? This is the un-debated side of the reservation discourse in India. Let me explain. Is caste-based reservation a rational policy to follow? The answer to this question does not require a definition of ‘rationality.’ Instead, the issue is: does this policy eventuate in irrational consequences or effects?

Consider two individuals: one outside the reserved category, the other within. The former knows that to get an admission in a good university, he should belong to the top 0.5 per cent of the applicants. He knows too that he will not be part of the very few, who make the grade. Thus, what is the most rational thing for him to do? If putting in enormous effort and taking it easy both produce the same result, it is rational for him to expend less effort. Consider the latter. He knows that to get a seat in a good university, he only needs 35 per cent. Getting more marks will not increase his chances. No matter how little effort he puts in, he will get the desired seat. As a rational agent, therefore, he too takes it easy. Because knowledge and competence are mostly commensurate with the efforts put in to acquire them, expending little effort implies equivalent increase in ignorance and incompetence.

Since the caste-based reservation makes it rational for people both in and outside reservation to choose to be lazy, there is an incentive to remain ignorant, incompetent and inefficient. If this attitude is generalised (in colleges, courts and bureaucracy), it produces and reproduces such people. Result: the institutions they run cannot be more efficient than them. The inevitable consequence is the collapse of both the society and its institutions. That is how outsiders perceive India today: her courts, educational institutions, bureaucracy, police, governments, are in the process of breaking down.

Why does this rationality argument not figure in Indian discourse? There is a well-known answer: the reservation is the reparation for the injustice committed by one group of people against another over two millennia or more. In that case, moral considerations trump rationality. If we accept that it is irrational to follow policies that lead to the collapse of society because everyone is rationally encouraged to pursue irrational goals, the question becomes: is it moral to be rational?

In and of itself, there is nothing absurd about it. One can indeed speak of local rationalities, such as scientific, technological and ecological rationalities and raise ethical questions about them. So, let us ask: irrespective of its rationality, is the caste-based reservation system moral?

Archbishop Couto of Delhi Reservation DemonstrationToday, it is common sense to say that there is oppression of one group of people across the whole of India by another group of people spread equally widely across India. However, there can be no empirical evidence for this claim because say ‘Dalit’ or OBC (Other Backward Castes) is neither one social group nor one particular caste. Both names refer to sets of groups. It is only correct to say then that multiple groups have oppressed multiple other groups in the last millennia in India. One could, of course, name the oppressed groups as the Dalits or OBCs. Sadly, this fact of oppression is true for all human civilisations. Therefore, if the reservation system is a moral critique of oppression, it would have to follow that all other societies except the Indian are immoral, because they do not have such a system. This suggestion is implausible. Is the reservation system a payment for the sins of our forefathers, who instituted an unjust social system? This could be true, but only if one argues that the children of oppressors have to pay for the sins of their forefathers.

This moral stance is unique to the Judaic tradition, where the sins of the fathers visit their sons. No other moral tradition has coherently argued this. I am aware that some Indians do talk in this fashion but that is incoherent within the framework of Indian culture.

Rightly or wrongly, ideas like karma and punarjanma require that only the agent pays for his misdeeds. If one has to pay for the misdeeds of another, what do karma and karmaphala mean? The entire set of Indian traditions would become totally incoherent. Therefore, you cannot assume this ethical stance unless you are a Jew yourself. But Jewish Israel has no reservation system. Neither are Indians Jewish. Hence, this moral justification does not work.

Can we not say that the reservation system is the reparation of past damages, whether inflicted on one group or on multiple groups? Maybe. In the case of the Native Americans, for example, the white settlers took away their lands and became wealthy as a result. The Nazis deprived the Jews: of property, wealth, and life itself. African-Americans were displaced and transformed into slaves.

Perhaps, one could also address the British: for the damages inflicted by colonialism. In all these cases, a specific group appropriates unjustly what belonged to another specific group. Again, there is no historical evidence to indicate that there was dispossession of the property of one particular group by another specific group all over India.

Winston Churchill QuoteIf none of these arguments work, why does this policy appeal? Is it because of the demands of justice in general and of social justice in particular? If this is the case, one should give the criteria of justice and of social justice that make sense of caste-based reservation. Nobody has done so. Surely, those who question the morality of rationality mean something other than all these flawed arguments.

Here is one such. Just structures are preferable, since they always generate just consequences. However, it has been shown that just structures, in certain contexts, produce unjust consequences. Therefore, this claim is not a logical truth; we are compelled to show empirically that the reservation system is not generating unjust consequences. If that were to be the case, there would be no Patel, Gurjar or Jat protests, nor Mandal Commission. Thus, the reservation system is not an embodied critique of a local rationality (‘the’ caste system) nor is it about the morality of rationality.

Consequently, the caste-based reservation system is neither rational nor moral. One has to say that Indians are either irrational or immoral or both, if they defend reservation. The British were reluctant to give self-rule or independence to India because many were convinced that Indians were immoral and irrational. Looking from the outside today, one is compelled to ask: were the British telling the truth, after all? – The New Indian Express, 11 September 2015

» Prof Dr S. N. Balagangadhara of Ghent University, Belgium is the Director of the India Platform and Research Centre, Comparative Science of Cultures. E-mail him at:

Reservation demonstration in Gujarat

The native Sahib vs the Hindu – Vamadeva Shastri

Sonia Gandhi and Congress MPs

David Frawley“India appears like a nation without nationalism or at least without any national pride or any real connection to its own history. Self-negativity and even a cultural self-hatred abound. The elite that dominates the universities, the media, the government and the business arenas is the illegitimate child of foreign interests and is often still controlled by foreign ideas and foreign resources. It cannot resist a bribe and there is much money from overseas to draw upon. Indian politicians do not hesitate to sell their country down the river and it does not require a high price.” — Pandit Vamadeva Shastri

Robert VadraA defeatist tendency exists in the psyche of modern Indians perhaps unparalleled in any other country today. An inner conflict bordering on a civil war rages in the minds of the country’s elite. The main effort of its cultural leaders appears to be to pull the country down or remake it in a foreign image, as if little Indian and certainly nothing Hindu was worthy of preserving or even reforming.

The elite of India suffers from a fundamental alienation from the traditions and culture of the land that would not be less poignant had they been born and raised in a hostile country. The ruling elite appears to be little more than a native incarnation of the old colonial rulers who haughtily lived in their separate cantonments, neither mingling with the people nor seeking to understand their customs. This new English-speaking aristocracy prides itself in being disconnected from the very soil and people that gave it birth.

There is probably no other country in the world where it has become a national pastime among its educated class to denigrate its own culture and history, however great that has been over the many millennia of its existence. When great archaeological discoveries of India’s past are found, for example, they are not a subject for national pride but are ridiculed as an exaggeration, if not an invention, as if they represent only the imagination of backward chauvinistic elements within the culture.

There is probably no other country where the majority religion, however enlightened, mystical or spiritual, is ridiculed, while minority religions, however fundamentalist or even militant, are doted upon. The majority religion and its institutions are taxed and regulated while minority religions receive tax benefits and have no regulation or even monitoring. While the majority religion is carefully monitored and limited as to what it can teach, minority religions can teach what they want, even if anti-national or backward in nature. Books are banned that offend minority religious sentiments but praised if they cast insults on majority beliefs.

There is probably no other country where regional, caste and family loyalties are more important than the national interest, even among those who claim to be democratic, socialist or caste reformers. Political parties exist not to promote a national agenda but to sustain one region or group of people in the country at the expense of the whole. Each group wants as big a piece of the national pie as it can get, not realizing that the advantages it gains mean deprivation for other groups. Yet when those who were previously deprived gain power, they too seek the same unequal advantages that causes further inequality and discontent.

India’s affirmative action code is by far the most extreme in the world, trying to raise up certain segments of the population regardless of merit, and prevent others from gaining positions however qualified they may be. In the guise of removing caste, a new castism has arisen where one’s caste is more important than one’s qualifications either in gaining entrance into a school or in finding a job when one graduates. Anti-Brahminism has often become the most virulent form of castist thinking. People view the government not as their own creation but as a welfare state from they should take the maximum personal benefit, regardless of the consequences for the country as a whole.

Sundar Pichai at Stanford (1994)Outside people need not pull Indians down. Indians are already quite busy keeping any of their people and the country as a whole from rising up. They would rather see their neighbours or the nation fail if they are not given the top position. It is only outside of India that Indians succeed, often remarkably well, because their native talents are not stifled by the dominant cultural self-negativity and rabid divisiveness that exists in the country today.

Political parties in India see gaining power as a means of amassing personal wealth and robbing the nation. Political leaders include gangsters, charlatans and buffoons who would stop short at nothing to gain power for themselves and their coteries. Even so-called modern or liberal parties resemble more the courts of kings, where personal loyalty is more important than any democratic participation. Once they gain power politicians routinely do little but cheat the people for their own advantage. Even honest politicians find that they cannot function without some deference to the more numerous corrupt leaders who often have a stranglehold on the bureaucracy.

Politicians divide the country into warring vote banks and place one community against another. They offer favours to communities like bribes to make sure that they are elected or stay in power. They campaign on slogans that appeal to community fears and suspicions rather than create any national consensus or harmony. They hold power based upon blame and hatred rather than on any positive programs for social change. They inflame the uneducated masses with propaganda rather than work to make people aware of real social problems like overpopulation, poor infrastructure or lack of education.

Should a decent government come to power, the opposition pursues pulling it down as its main goal, so that they can gain power for themselves. The idea of a constructive or supportive opposition is hard to find. The goal is to gain power for oneself and to not allow anyone else to succeed.

To further their ambitions Indian politicians will manipulate the foreign press to denigrate their opponents, even if it means spreading lies and rumors and making the country an anathema in the eyes of the outside world. Petty conflicts in India are blown out of proportion in the foreign media, not by foreign journalists but by Indians seeking to use the media to score points against their own opponents in the country. The Indians who are responsible for the news of India in the foreign press spread venom and distortion about their own country, perhaps better than any foreigner who dislikes the culture ever could.

The killing of one Christian missionary becomes a national media event of anti-Christian attacks while the murder of hundreds of Hindus is taken casually as without any real importance, as if only the deaths of white-skinned people mattered, not the slaughter of the natives. Missionary aggression is extolled as social upliftment, while Hindu efforts at self-defense against the conversion onslaught are portrayed as rabid fundamentalism. One Indian journalist even lamented that western armies would not come to India to chastise the political groups he was opposed to, as if he was still looking for the colonial powers to save him!

 Laloo Prasad Yadav & Mulayam Singh YadavLet us look at the type of leaders that India has had with its Laloo Prasad Yadav (ex CM Bihar), Mulayam Singh Yadav (ex CM UP) or Jayalalitaa to mention but a few. Such individuals are little more than warlords who surround themselves with sycophants. Modern Indian politicians appear more like colonial rulers looting their own country, following a divide and rule policy, to keep the people so weak that their power cannot be challenged. Corruption exists almost everywhere and bribery is the main way to do business in nearly all fields. India has an entrenched bureaucracy that resists change and stifles development, just out of sheer obstinacy and not wanting to give up any control.

The Congress Party, the oldest in this predominantly Hindu nation, has given its leadership to an Italian Catholic woman simply because as the widow of the last Gandhi prime minister, she carries the family torch, as if family loyalty were still the main basis of political credibility in the country. And such a leader and a party are deemed progressive!

The strange thing is that India is not a banana republic of recent vintage but one of the oldest and most venerable civilizations in the world. Its culture is not trumpeting a militant and fundamentalist religion trying to conquer the world for the one true faith but represents a vaster and more cosmic vision. India has given birth to the main religions that have dominated East Asia historically, the Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh, which are noted for tolerance and spirituality.

It has produced Sanskrit, perhaps the world’s greatest language. It has given us the incredible spiritual systems of Yoga and its great traditions of meditation and Self-realization. As the world looks forward to a more universal model of spirituality and a world view defined by consciousness rather than by religious dogma these traditions are perhaps the most important legacy to draw upon for creating a future enlightened civilization.

Yet the irony is that rather than embracing its own great traditions, the modern Indian psyche prefers to slavishly imitate worn out trends in western intellectual thought like Marxism or even to write apologetics for Christian and Islamic missionary aggression. Though living in India, in proximity to temples, yogis and great festivals, most modern Indian intellectuals are oblivious to the soul of the land. They might as well be living in England or China for all they know of their own country. They are isolated in their own alien ideas as if in a tower of iron. If they choose to rediscover India it is more likely to occur by reading the books of western travelers visiting the country, than by their own direct experience of the people around them.

The dominant Indian intelligentsia cannot appreciate even the writings of the many great modern Indian sages, like Vivekananda or Aurobindo, who wrote in good English and understood the national psyche and how to revive. It is as if they were so successfully brainwashed against their own culture that they cannot even look at it, even if presented to them clearly in a modern light!

Kanchi Acharya Jayendra SaraswatiGiven such a twisted and self-negative national psyche, can there be any hope for the country? At the surface the situation looks quite dismal. India appears like a nation without nationalism or at least without any national pride or any real connection to its own history. Self-negativity and even a cultural self-hatred abound. The elite that dominates the universities, the media, the government and the business arenas is the illegitimate child of foreign interests and is often still controlled by foreign ideas and foreign resources. It cannot resist a bribe and there is much money from overseas to draw upon. Indian politicians do not hesitate to sell their country down the river and it does not require a high price.

Fortunately signs of a new awakening can be found. There is a new interest in the older traditions of the country and many people now visit temples and tirthas. Many young people now want to follow the older heritage of the land and revive it in the modern age. The computer revolution and the new science are reconnecting with the great intelligence of the Indian psyche that produced the unfathomable mantras of the Vedas.

Slowly but surely a new intelligentsia is arising and now several important journalists are writing and exposing the hypocrisy of the anti-Hindu Indian elite. Yet only if this trend grows rapidly can there be a real counter to the defeatist trend of the country. But it requires great effort, initiative and creativity, not simply lamenting over the past but envisioning a new future in harmony with the deeper aspirations of the region.

One must also not forget that the English-educated elite represents only about three percent of the country, however much power they wield. The remaining population is much more likely to preserve the older traditions of the land. Even illiterate villagers often know more of real Indian culture than do major Indian journalists and writers.

Meanwhile overseas Hindus have become successful, well-educated and affluent, not by abandoning their culture but by holding to it. They see Hindu culture not as a weakness but as a strength. Free of the Indian nation and its fragmented psyche, they can draw upon their cultural resources in a way that people born in India seldom can. Perhaps they can return to the country and become its new leaders.

However, first this strange alienated elite has to be removed and they will not do so without a fight. The sad thing is that they would probably rather destroy their own country than have it function apart from their control. The future of India looks like a Map of Bharatvarshanew Kurukshetra and it requires a similar miracle for victory. Such a war will be fought not on some outer battlefield but in the hearts and minds of people, in where they choose to draw their inspiration and find their connection with life.

Yet regardless of outer appearances, the inner soul of the land cannot be put down so easily. It has been nourished by many centuries of tapas by great yogis and sages. This soul of Bharat Mata will rise up again through Kali (destruction) to Durga (strength). The question is how long and difficult the process must be. – Hindu Human Rights, 2 September 2013

» Pandit Vamadeva Shastri (David Frawley) is a guru in the Vedic tradition. In India, Vamadeva is recognized as a Vedacharya (Vedic teacher), and includes in his scope of studies Ayurveda, Yoga, Vedanta and Vedic astrology, as well as the ancient Vedic teachings going back to the oldest Rigveda. His website is here.

Congress secretary Rahul Gandhi parties after Mumbai attack in 2008.

Subramanian Swamy reminds Amit Shah about Ram Temple construction at Ayodhya – Upananda Brahmachari

Amit Shah & Subramanian Swamy

“Amit Shah may take up the issue during Dussera [October] and may declare a new plan for Ram Temple construction at Ayodhya.” – Upananda Brahmachari

Modi & Sri RamaOn the auspicious day of Gurupournima, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Hindu Think Tank and National Executive member of BJP once again reminded his party president Sri Amit Shah to contemplate over the construction of Sri Ramjanmabhoomi temple at Ayodhya on and from January 1, 2016. Dr. Swamy requested Sri Shah to convene National Executive committee meeting of BJP to resolve the matter, as Swamy wrote a letter to Shah on the matter just on July 20. Both were exchanging their good wishes on the event of Gurupournima Utsav.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy suggested his party president Amit Shah to convene a special session of the National Executive to discuss the Ram Temple whose construction in Ayodhya should begin from January 1st next year. In a letter written on July 20 to Shah, Swamy said BJP should also obtain consent from the court for shifting the structure of a mosque present there.

Dr. R. Nagaswamy with Ayodhya Hindu artefact photo.The Narasimha Rao government, he said, had filed an affidavit before the court that if it is found that a temple pre-existed at the place where Babri Mosque was built then the Ram Janmabhoomi land would be handed over to Hindus for building a temple. Time and again, it has been proved there is a pre-existent temple under the disputed Babri construction. “Thus, our government should declare that from January 1, 2016, the construction project of building a Sri Ram temple in Ayodhya will commence,” he said.

Swamy said he had earlier written to Shah in March urging him to convene a special session of the National Executive to discuss this issue and other commitments made in the BJP”s election manifesto which are close to the hearts of party men and described as ”Hindutva” issues. “I urge therefore now again to schedule a special session of the National Executive. I am sure you will agree that Hindutva is the core issue of the BJP”s ideology and it needs special attention of the party.”

Sonia Gandhi As per occult perception, BJP president has no time now to go through the requests made by Dr. Swamy as his party is in a strangulated position in current Lok Sabha session and they are busy for ensuing Bihar election also. Sri Shah may take up the issue during Dussera [October] and may declare a new plan for Ram Temple construction at Ayodhya.

Many sadhus in Ayodhya, Varanasi and Haridwar are saying that PM Modi and his party may have to face the curse of Lord Sri Ram, if he does not start the construction of Sri Ram Temple immediately.

Experts opine that delay of construction of Sri Ramjanmabhoomi Temple at Ayodhya will cause a big Hindu frustration which may endanger the Hindu vote bank of BJP. – Hindu Existence, 1 August 2015

A Hindu approach to LGBT rights – S. Venkataraman & H. Voruganti

US Supreme Court 2015

“Some leaders associated with the Sangh Parivar remarked that homosexuality to be against Indian culture. What we have here, in reality, is a case where supposed defenders of Indian culture, and presumably Hinduism as well, from ‘western influence’ are not only wrong, but seem to be the ones acting under the very influence they seek to protect against.” – S. Venkataraman & H. Voruganti

Asoke Kumar Mukerji & Ban Ki-moonWill the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling declaring gay marriages legal in all 50 states restart the debate on LGBT rights in India? Far from discussion on marriage equality, there seems to be opposition to even decriminalizing LGBT relationships, not just among Christians and Muslims, but many Hindus as well. In fact, the Modi Government recently voted against the UN Secretary General’s decision to extend marriage benefits to LGBT couples, ostensibly because the UN did not discuss the matter with national governments. What should the Modi Government’s policy on LGBTs be? And what would a policy inspired by Hinduism or a more authentically Indian ethos look like?

Section 377 of the Indian penal code is a colonial law dating from 1860 that punishes sexual conduct “against the order of nature” with up to life imprisonment. In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court reversed an earlier Delhi High Court decision that had held section 377 to be unconstitutional, on the grounds that this is a matter for the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. At that time, some leaders associated with the Sangh Parivar remarked that homosexuality to be against Indian culture. What we have here, in reality, is a case where supposed defenders of Indian culture, and presumably Hinduism as well, from “western influence” are not only wrong, but seem to be the ones acting under the very influence they seek to protect against.

Victor Bruce, 9th Earl of ElginLet’s settle the obvious first. Section 377 is a product of Victorian [Christian] social mores. A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report titled This Alien Legacy describes how laws in over three dozen countries, from India to Uganda and Nigeria to Papua New Guinea, derive from a single law on homosexual conduct that the British colonial rulers imposed on India in 1860. The report demonstrates that the British saw conquered cultures as morally lax on sexuality. British viceroy Lord Elgin warned that British soldiers could succumb to “replicas of Sodom and Gomorrah” as they acquired the “special Oriental vices.”

“Colonial legislators and jurists introduced such laws with no debates or cultural consultations, to support colonial control,” the report says.  “They believed laws could inculcate European morality into resistant masses. They brought in the legislation, in fact, because they thought “native” cultures did not punish “perverse” sex enough. The colonized needed compulsory re-education in sexual mores. Imperial rulers held that, as long as they sweltered through the promiscuous proximities of settler societies, “native” viciousness and “white” virtue had to be segregated: the latter praised and protected, the former policed and kept subjected.”

Bible & CrossBritish leaders of the Victorian era acted against homosexual conduct based on their understanding of the famous Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah or the book of Leviticus that homosexuals were, simply by virtue of that conduct, denied entry into heaven.  Moreover, according to the HRW report, notions of polluting sex from which sodomy laws were derived, “traced to an old strain of Christian theology that held sexual pleasure itself to be contaminating, tolerable only to the degree that it furthered reproduction (specifically, of Christians).”  

What does Hinduism have to say on all of this? We at the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) believe that a genuine Hindu approach to this matter, just as on any social issue, must not only turn to, but draw on the distinction between srutis (scriptures like the Vedas and Upanishads that enunciate eternal truths) and smritis (those that detail social laws and practices bound by time, place, and circumstance like the Manu Smriti and Yagnavalkya Smriti). Smritis are time bound and subject to change, and such bifurcation, which is unique to Hinduism, underpins HAF’s approach to LGBT rights.  

Hindu sruti texts don’t address sexual orientation at all or indeed social issues in general. They state that every being is an eternal soul, or atman, incarnate and that the ultimate goal of life is not heaven, but rather moksha, freedom from the cycle of birth and death. Moksha is attained by one’s real self, or atman, which is distinct from one’s physical body and personality (ego) as well as outer attributes such as race, caste, gender, and sexual orientation.

Progress towards moksha comes through yogic spiritual practices, and the attainment of moksha implies transcending material desires and impulses, including sexual ones. To put it provocatively, an LGBT person who has mastered his or her impulses (sexual or otherwise) is actually closer to moksha than a non-LGBT person who is a slave to desires. Thus, unlike in other faiths, Hindus cannot point to anything in the sruti texts that supports treating LGBT persons as being inferior to non-LGBT persons, let alone supports their persecution.

Prof Arvind SharmaThe smritis, which are said to have laid down social laws historically, have imbibed the perspective of the srutis and have never advocated broad-based, harsh punishments for homosexuality. Professor Arvind Sharma, a Hindu academic at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, states in his essay on Homosexuality and Hinduism:*

“It appears from the foregoing account that, save for the emphasis on renunciation, Hinduism is a sex-positive religion in relation to all the (other) three ends of human life – dharma, artha, kama….”

The Manusmriti, to quote a favourite bugbear of many, does express mild opposition to the practice, but prescribes such quixotic punishments as bathing in public with your clothes on! (Manusmriti, 11:75) The most stringent punishment, that of cutting off two fingers (or shaving the head and riding a donkey), is prescribed for an older woman who has a relationship with a young virgin (ibid, 8:370). But the concern here is on virginity, not homosexuality. For the exact same, punishment of cutting off two fingers (plus a fine of 600 panas of gold) is prescribed for a man who violates a virgin woman just a few verses earlier (ibid, 8:367). And there is no such punishment in the case of two older women.

Thus, not only do the srutis lay absolutely no bar on moksha for LGBT persons, the codes of conduct of ancient India seem to have largely ignored the LGBT phenomenon, rather than persecute them. Prof. Arvind Sharma also points out that if traditional Balinese culture is taken to represent an older and at least a trans-Indian form of Hinduism, the Hindu attitude to homosexuality is one of mild amusement bordering on indifference. The Hindu epics mention several characters who demonstrate a range of sexual orientations and gender identities, including Shikhandi, Chitrangada (wife of Arjuna and mother of Babruvahana), and Brihannala from the Mahabharata. None of these characters are discriminated against because of sexual orientation or gender identity.  Rather, they are all treated with respect, and judged by their abilities rather than their sexuality.  

Ardhanarisvara (c.1800)The Arthashastra and the Kama Sutra have numerous mentions of LGBT individuals in various professions free from any persecution. And the stories of Ardhanareeshwara (Shiva as half-man, half-woman) and Lord Ayyappa (born to Shiva and Vishnu as Mohini) indicate the subtle approach that Hinduism adopts towards matters of gender.

Given all this, a Hindu approach towards LGBT issues in India would argue for scrapping Section 377. The wisdom of the old Hindu attitude can be seen when one reflects on the consequences of calling all LGBT persons “criminals.” The law relegates some people to inferior status based solely on how they look or who they love, invades their privacy, and degrades their dignity. It provides ample opportunity for political vendetta by other means as it can be used to discredit enemies, destroy lives, and provide a police force that is already perceived to be corrupt with a powerful tool to abuse innocent people. It also drives LGBT persons to live their life “underground.” HAF believes that scrapping Section 377 should be a part of the Modi’s government’s social agenda. Even the RSS indicated its support shortly after the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, and just this week, India’s Union Law Minister Sadananda Gowda opened the door to repeal Section 377 and same sex marriage legalization in India.

Indian lesbian couple Baljit Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur Despite Gowda’s surprising statement on the matter, however, his subsequent claims to have been misquoted indicates that the transition to full marriage equality in India is likely to be a long process. America’s move to full marriage equality for LGBT persons came after a public struggle of over 30 years.  It was also preceded by the notion of “civil unions” in which many states accorded most secular benefits to LGBT couples, although not the religious sacrament of marriage. Civil unions could be an intermediate step in India as well, as it would help address several issues which have no religious basis by themselves. This includes employment benefits for LGBT partners, differences in tax and insurance rates, protection against discrimination in employment, housing, hotels, hospital visitations, property inheritance etc.  HAF supported marriage equality for all Americans, and we submitted amicus briefs in various US courts, including the US Supreme Court to this end.

Same Sex SaptapadiBut what about marriage equality for LGBT Hindus?  It must be emphasized that India actually has a long history of wedding rites for hijras, who are transgender people. And in recent years, some Hindu priests and same-sex couples in the US have adapted and found acceptance in traditional Hindu wedding rituals, especially in the Saptapadi, a key marriage ritual that enunciates seven vows of an ideal Hindu marriage.  The vows remind every couple about the true purpose of a life partnership: (i) nourishing one another; (ii) growing strong together; (iii) fulfilling spiritual obligations; (iv) working towards happiness and fulfillment through mutual respect; (v) working for the welfare of all living beings through raising virtuous children; (vi) praying for bountiful seasons which they may go through together, just as they would share their joys and sorrows; and (vii) praying for a life of understanding, loyalty, and companionship not only for themselves, but also for universal peace.  

Muslim, Hindu, & Christian leaders for Section 377Like other legal rights, the right to marriage may compete with the right to religious freedom. Sampradayas, temples, religious leaders, and priests thus have an inalienable right to define marriage in conformity with their traditions, as they continue to interpret and reinterpret them over time.  And because Hinduism has no central authority that controls theology, different groups are free to move as fast or slow as they desire on the religious front.  So while religious rites of same-sex marriage continue to evolve (and in many cases, not), governments (at least in the US and several other nations around the world), no longer discriminate in the matter of marriage as a legal right or social contract. We believe that this concept – namely that there remain freedom in the realm of religion to define and/or adapt the definition of marriage, but that governments should no longer discriminate and hold some marriages to be legal but not others – is an important nuance that is rarely articulated in Indian public discourse.  It also becomes especially relevant given the magnificent diversity of cultural practices within India and the lack of a uniform civil code in the country.

Krishna & Gopa KumarBut before India can actually discuss the issue of marriage equality of any sort, it will need to abrogate Section 377 first. As Hindus grapple with LGBT rights under Indian law, HAF suggests that the following should be key considerations:

1. We need to work with the scientific and medical conclusions that LGBT orientations occur naturally in a small percentage of most life forms. These are not acquired habits, and certainly not a disorder, handicap, or “disease to be cured.”

2. Hindu teachings hold the inherent spiritual equality of all beings, regardless of outer attributes.  As such, Hindus should not reject or socially ostracize LGBT individuals, but should accept them as fellow sojourners on the path to moksha.

3. Hinduism has wisely separated the spiritual from the social and allows for the understanding and interpretation of customs to change over time. Various historical smritis are testament to such changes, and even in ancient times, smriti never advocated broad-based, harsh punishments for homosexuality.

At HAF, we believe that it is important for Hindu leaders, both religious and lay, to work within our sruti/smriti framework to evolve a uniquely Hindu perspective on LGBT rights, rather than follow existing social mores in India which are profoundly influenced by non-Indic sensitivities. Colonialism physically left India decades ago.  It’s high time Indians let its social and psychological hold go too. – Swarajya, 4 Jul, 2015


* Prof Arvind Sharma is the Birks Chair of Comparative Religion at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. See “Homosexuality and Hinduism” in Arlene Swidler, Homosexuality and World Religions, Valley Forge, PA; Trinity Press International, 1993: pp 47- 80.

Demonstration against Section 377 in New Delhi
Demonstration against Section 377

See also

India’s ideological civil war – M. Vidyasagar

Prof M. Vidyasagar“I was born on September 29, 1947—just 45 days after Independence.  My entire life has been wasted by the pro-poverty agenda of the Congress Party (disguised as a “pro-poor” agenda).  Each time a potential saviour appears on the horizon, be it Jayaprakash Narayan in 1975, or the first NDA government in 1998, or now the Narendra Modi government, the dynasty strikes back with ever greater force.” – Prof  M. Vidyasagar

Narendra ModiIndia is at present undergoing a civil war.  This civil war is not being fought on a conventional battlefield, but in the battlefield of people’s minds.  The armaments used to fight this war are not conventional weapons, but rather, the weapons of disinformation.

On one side is the present government led by Narendra Modi and its well-wishers.  On the other side is a horde that is unwilling to accept the democratic verdict of the people of India, and/or unable to accept that a person starting his life in humble circumstances has risen to the position of Prime Minister.

By now it is clear that the dynastic Congress Party has systematically entrenched poverty as a permanent feature of the Indian landscape.  In order to perpetuate the poverty of Indians, the Congress party consciously imprisoned Indian citizens in a vast web of government rules and regulations, and perverted every institution in democratic India, including the judiciary and the media.

In order to legitimize its stranglehold on Indian society, the dynasty has also created a vast ecosystem consisting of “the poverty industry” in the form of NGOs whose survival demands that India remain a desperately poor country, or at the very least, is perceived to be so.  Thus, when the outcome of the 2014 election was not in favour of the dynasty, the Congress could summon up all of its foot soldiers in the judiciary, the media, and the most inappropriately named “civil society.”

What else can explain the daily dose of misinformation in the media?  For the past many months, we have had a plethora of accounts of “church attacks,” most of which were debunked as being either inside jobs or simple law and order problems.  The rape of a nun in West Bengal was instantly attributed to “militant Hindus emboldened by the election of Modi,” until it was discovered that the perpetrators were Bangladeshi Muslims.

Rahul GandhiJust a couple of days ago, we had one Misbah Quadri claiming that she was denied housing in an apartment complex merely because she was a Muslim.  Even the most inexperienced cub reporter would have gone to the housing complex in question and verified in person whether in fact the complex was “Muslim-free.”  But our journalists sitting in their air-conditioned offices were happy to enough to accept this victimhood narrative at face value and play it up for all it was worth.

A minor newspaper, Mid-Day in Mumbai, was apparently the only media agency to take the trouble of visiting the complex in question, to find that there are already Muslims living there (thus blowing Quadri’s story to smithereens), and unearthing the fact that Quadri was being evicted because she did not maintain her payments.

But the rest found it all too expedient to persist with their false narrative of Muslim persecution in “Modi’s India.”

Even as that particular hatchet job on the government blew up in the faces of its perpetrators, comes another one that IIT Madras “banned” a “student group” for “having criticized the Prime Minister.”  The Dean of Students at IITM has already stated that the group was provisionally de-recognized because it did not follow procedures, but none of that could be heard in the din.

By jumping into the fray at IITM merely to score some cheap points against the HRD Minister, opposition parties and the corrupted media are again showing that they do not care a whit for the welfare of Indian society, and that their sole interest is in regaining power by hook or crook.

The IITs are among our finest educational institutions, a stark contrast to JNU which is a cesspool of politics and mediocrity.  Over-politicization of the “student body” at any institution can have only one outcome: JNU-ization, if I might coin a phrase.  This is why I was adamantly opposed to the introduction of humanities departments in the IITs.  While in theory, these subjects are supposed to broaden the minds of the students, the reality is that such departments attract intellectually inferior minds for the most part.

Indian MediaLet us not remain under any illusion that the Quadri affair or the IITM affair will be the last.  As soon as one issue gets resolved, the media will throw up 10 others, like a hydra-headed monster for which it is a proxy.  This is why I call it a civil war.  Or perhaps one should borrow from Christian mythology and call it Armageddon, the final decisive battle between the forces of good and evil.

I was born on September 29, 1947—just 45 days after Independence.  My entire life has been wasted by the pro-poverty agenda of the Congress Party (disguised as a “pro-poor” agenda).  Each time a potential saviour appears on the horizon, be it Jayaprakash Narayan in 1975, or the first NDA government in 1998, or now the Narendra Modi government, the dynasty strikes back with ever greater force.

Each one of these prospective saviours has had a more difficult task compared to his predecessor, because the forces of evil get more and more entrenched after each victory.  For me, the present government offers the last hope that India would become a worthwhile country within my lifetime.  If we as a nation miss this opportunity to uproot the forces of evil once and for all, then I at least won’t be around for our next opportunity, assuming that it will come at all.

There is only one glimmer of hope on the horizon. Until now, the corrupt media has had a monopoly on information dissemination, and could thus control the narrative.  With the rise of social media, that monopoly has been broken.  But the breaking of the monopoly does NOT, by itself, weaken the hold that the corrupt media has on our collective fortunes.  The rest of us must seize that opening and provide a fully competitive alternative to the distorted, anti-national garbage that is constantly being put out by the media.  We cannot afford to be complacent, nor can we afford to underestimate the magnitude of the task at hand.

To repeat: India is in a civil war.  As Lord Krishna told Arjuna: “Yuddhaaya krita nischayah.” You must fight with full vigour. – Swarajya, 30 May 2015

» Prof Mathukumalli Vidyasagar is a leading control theorist and a Fellow of the Royal Society. He is currently the Cecil & Ida Green (II) Professor of Systems Biology Science at the University of Texas at Dallas.

Rahul Gandhi

Why Christianity poses a threat to India – Rakesh Krishnan Simha

Nasrani or Syrian Christians of Kerala

Rakesh Krishnan Simha“Under the cloak of democracy, Christian missionaries can sneak in and conduct their unholy work among the poor and helpless. Christian churches have cropped up like a rash across the east coast after the tsunami hit southern India. Nagaland, which was entirely animist, despite two centuries of British rule, became 100 per cent Christian under 50 years of democratic—or rather Nehru-Gandhi dynasty—rule.” — Rakesh Krishnan Simha

India Crossed-OutChristianity poses a clear threat to India

If you could sum up the history of Christianity in India in one word, that word would be ingratitude. Among the earliest refugees to arrive in India were the Syrian Christians, who were facing persecution in their native lands in the Persian Empire in the fourth century CE.

Persecution would be the wrong word to use here because the Syrian Christians of the Persian Empire were found to be collaborating with Christianised Rome. Aghast at the betrayal by his Christian subjects—in the midst of Persia’s war with the Romans—the Zoroastrian king Shapur II lamented: “We are in a state of war; they are in a state of joy and pleasure. They live in our land but are of like mind with the emperor, our enemy.”

Shahpur II deported some Christians from his Eastern Syrian province and imposed a double tax on those that remained. The Christian subjects were then ordered to revert to their native Zoroastrian religion.

Down on their luck, the Syrian Christians sought refuge in India. Kerala’s Malabar coast attracted them because they had heard of an ancient community of Jews who had been living there since the first century CE, having also fled the turmoil of the Middle East.

How were these Syrian Christians—or Nasranis as they are still called by the locals—treated? “The Indian king received them with great kindness,” George David Malech writes in History of the Syrian Nation and the Old Evangelical-Apostolic Church of the East.

“At the Kotem school in Malabar there are still some copper tablets in existence on which there are written messages from the king to the Christian leader, permitting him and his followers to settle in some places and recommending them to neighbouring chiefs.”

In fact, around the time (1498 CE) when the Portuguese marauders led by Vasco Da Gama arrived in Malabar, the Syrian Christian community was thriving, with at least 30,000 members. Now, here’s how they repaid India’s generosity. When Da Gama returned for the second time in 1502, he was met by a delegation of Syrian Christians: “They identified themselves, surrendered their ancient honours and documents, and invited him to make war on their Hindu king,” writes Ishwar Sharan in The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple.

According to George Menachery, a Catholic apologist and former adviser to the Kerala State Department of Archaeology, the Syrian Christians presented Da Gama “a ‘Rod of Justice’ and swore allegiance to the Portuguese king and implored Portuguese protection.”

K. M. Panikkar elaborates in Malabar and the Portuguese: “More than this they suggested to [Vasco da Gama] that with their help he should conquer the Hindu kingdoms and invited him to build a fortress for this purpose in Cranganore [Kodungallur]. This was the recompense which the Hindu rajas received for treating with liberality and kindness the Christians in their midst.

Author and researcher Sanjay Subrahmanyam, no friend of Hindus, writes in the extensively annotated The Career and Legend of Vasco Da GamaThe perspective of the Syrian Christians on early Portuguese activities in Kerala is an interesting one; they clearly support their co-religionists, rather than the local rulers….

In a letter of late 1524, the Syrian Christian bishop Mar Jacob writes after recounting all his actions in favour of the Portuguese Crown: “This, Sire, is the service that I have done in these parts, with the intention of moving you to the help me in the expansion of these people [Syrian Christians] through this India in the faith of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer.”

Subrahmanyam continues: “In the same context, he hence offered the aid of the Syrian Christians as an auxiliary military force, to aid the Portuguese, claiming that they represent ‘over 25,000 warriors.‘” The bishop requests Vasco Da Gama to intercede—that is use military force—on behalf of the Syrian Christian community. Mar Jacob also proposed the construction of a Portuguese fortress at Cranganore, a proposal that was put into effect a decade later, in 1536, paving the way for the Portuguese colonisation.

However, once they had cynically used the help of the traitorous community, the fanatic Portuguese persecuted the Syrian Christians with a vengeance, and forced them—on pain of death—to abandon their ancient Orthodox church and swear allegiance to Roman Catholicism.

Vasco da Gama & Zamorin of Calicut

Flash forward to the 20th century

The history of Kerala Christians—who today comprise around 20 per cent of the State’s population—hasn’t exactly been exemplary in modern times. In the early 1970s when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was publicly denouncing the threat of CIA subversion of India, the US ambassador in New Delhi, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ordered an investigation into the matter.

The US embassy uncovered two occasions during Indira’s father Jawaharlal Nehru’s premiership when the CIA had secretly provided funds to help the communists’ opponents in state elections. The first occasion was in the 1950s, in Kerala, where cash was supplied to the Syrian Christian Church to destabilise the democratically elected Communist Party of India. According to Moynihan, “Both times the money was given to the Congress Party which had asked for it. Once it was given to Mrs Gandhi herself, who was then a party official.”

Just like the Syrian Christians backed their western co-religionists over the local Hindu and Muslim communities, with whom they had co-existed—and from whose help they had thrived, prospered, and gentrified—modern Indian Christians look up to the West, especially the United States. In their view, America, being the most Christian nation, should help them in keeping India—and thereby Hindus—in line.

Role of Christians in India’s Partition

In a paper titled The Role of Christians in the Freedom Movement of Pakistan published in the Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, Munir-ul-Anjum and Shahnaz Tariq write: “The support of Christians for the cause of Pakistan was based on their belief that the Muslim society in its nature was more secular than the caste ridden Hindu society hence more permissive for the rights and safe guards of the religious minorities.”

“Christians strongly supported Quaid-e-Azam and Muslim League at that critical time when there was lot of opposition to the formation a new Muslim state. The All India Christian Association assured unconditional full cooperation to the founder of Pakistan. This crucial role of Christian population of the region was recognised by the founder of Pakistan and the All India Muslim League at all levels. These Christians played a very strong role in the creation of Pakistan…. The Christian vote before the Boundary Commission was the only decisive vote for the true foundation of Pakistan. Christian leaders voted for Pakistan because they believed that Quaid-e-Azam would be the real protector of their rights and interests.”

“When the proceedings of the Boundary Commission took place, Christian leaders Dewan Bahadur S. P. Singha, C. E. Gibbon and Fazal Elahi, in their recorded statement, demanded that for the demarcation of the boundaries, the Christian population be included and termed as Muslim population.”

“In the last days of united India Jinnah visited Lahore as a part of his campaign to fetch the support of the minority community for Pakistan. He met the Christian leader Chandu Lal and Sikh leader Giani Kartar Singh. The Sikh leader turned down his offer while Chandu Lal declared unconditional support of the Christians for Pakistan. When the resolution to join Pakistan or India was moved and voted upon in the Punjab Legislative Assembly, the three Christian members voted in favour of Pakistan and saved the situation. Eighty-eight and 91 votes were cast in favour of India and Pakistan respectively. In this way the three Christian votes decided the fate of the province.” 

However, not content with the creation of Pakistan, the Christians “denounced and condemned the unfair distribution of Punjab province more forcefully even than the Muslims and tried their best to get the districts of Pathankot and Gurdaspur included in western Punjab”.

Bishop of Tuticorin Roman Catholic Diocese Rt. Rev. Yvon Ambroise

Are Christians a fifth column?

Christian fundamentalists thrive on suffering and disaster. In February 2001, T. John, the Karnataka civil aviation minister and a member of the Orthodox church, described the Gujarat earthquake, which resulted in death of over 20,000 people, as “the punishment of God to the people for ill-treating Christians and minorities in the state.”

John also saw a divine connection between attacks on Christians in Orissa and the cyclone that hit the region in December 1999, killing 10,000 people. This is nothing but vicarious pleasure at the expense of non-Christian Indians.

He wasn’t the only one expressing such sentiments. The tsunami in India—in which 10,136 people were killed and hundreds of thousands made homeless—was indeed a windfall for many American Churches which poured in billions of dollars to convert large numbers of poor fisher folk in the Kudankulam area.

Ten years later, these converts were unleashed against the crucial Kudankulam atomic power plant. In 2014, the Intelligence Bureau (IB)—India’s premier internal security agency—submitted a report to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, identifying several foreign-funded NGOs that are “negatively impacting economic development”.

The IB report neatly ties in with former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s claims that NGOs funded by the Americans were leading the protests against the Russian-built nuclear reactors in Kudankulam. That the maddeningly taciturn Singh would speak out—despite owing his prime ministership to his party boss, the pro-Christian and Catholic Sonia Gandhi—is an indication of the danger posed to India’s national security by forces being remote-controlled by the West.

The NGOs that were at the centre of the mass protests were associated with Bishop Yvon Ambroise, the Tuticorin Church leader, who had been active in the vicious campaign against the power plant.

In fact, there is evidence that the earliest Christian converts from Hinduism betrayed Indian interests. It also illustrates how Christians are easily coerced by their western masters.

Animalising—the process by which cotton is dyed—was a secret that remained a mystery to Europeans. Stephen Yafa explains in his book Cotton: The Biography of a Revolutionary Fiber how this trade secret was stolen: “Ironically it was a man of the cloth, Jesuit Father Coeurdoux, who betrayed these fiercely guarded secrets. In 1742 the French cleric took advantage of his missionary posting on the Coromandel coast to gain the trust of Indian master dyers who he had converted to Catholicism.

These Indian Christians confided their secret process to him with an understanding that he would never reveal it. And what the father do? “Coerdoux immediately gave a detailed description in a step-by-step letter published in France. In a blink, 3000 years of clandestine artisan practice became public knowledge.”

The point is not the betrayal by newly converted Indian Christians. To be sure, they had—albeit naively—asked the European priest to keep the secret to himself. The point is that this is exactly how Indian Christians can be used by their western masters. For instance, pressure can be applied on the family of a seemingly loyal Indian Christian who is, say, a rocket scientist at the Indian Space Research Organisation.

Pressure can come in a variety of ways but the most likely approach a western intelligence agency would take is to first approach the Christian scientist’s parish priest via the local bishop, who may be approached through someone in the Vatican.

Parish pressure is no joke. Hindus, who do not formally congregate under a priest, cannot understand how closely integrated the Church is with the families of local Christians in a particular area or parish. When this writer was studying in St Thomas College, Thrissur, Kerala, he was witness to priests, some of who were lecturers, demanding to know why a particular student had skipped Sunday mass.

The family can be threatened with pariah status. For instance, many Kerala Christians who joined the Communist Party of India were denied burial services by the Church upon their deaths. This can be traumatic for the surviving members because the rest of the community members tend to treat them as outcastes. (Imagine the state of children who are not able to bury their dead father.)

Under such circumstances, transferring national secrets into a pen drive and handing them to an agent of a western intelligence agency might seem like a small inconvenience. To be sure, individual Christians in high-level positions may not be predisposed to betrayal. But because the entire Christian ecosystem is geared towards complete control of its flock, it’s unlikely many of them can stand the immense pressure brought to bear on them and their families. As Subrahmanyam writes, the Portuguese looked at Syrian Christians as a means to get “political and economic mileage”. Similarly, today’s Indian Christians are a means for the West to penetrate the higher echelons of power in New Delhi.

Onesimus & Paul

Why Christianity has no place in India

Some argue the caste system in Hinduism is unfair to the lower castes and hence Christianity can lift them by treating them as equals. That’s probably the lamest argument in favour of the Abrahamic faith. For, if Christianity has not made, say, Europeans or Americans, better human beings, what makes them think it will make Indians any better?

First up, racism is at all-time high levels in the West. American Christian Churches quoted the Bible to give approval to the slave trade. Today, black Christians are again being lynched by white Christians in America. What can they teach India about equality?

Also, despite the horrendous bloodshed of two world wars, these Christian nations are still at each other’s throats and still bombing innocent civilians around the world. And if events in Ukraine are any indication, European Christians haven’t learnt anything at all and are creating a situation that could lead to World War III.

At any rate, caste schisms among Indian Christians mirror the caste divisions in Hinduism. “Conversion to Christianity does not seem to eradicate caste prejudice in India any more than it eliminates racial discrimination in the US. Despite Jesus’ call for brotherly love, isn’t Sunday the most segregated day in America?” writes C. Alex Alexander, a naturalised US citizen and former Chief of Staff, US Department of Veterans Affairs in a detailed expose of the Christian threat to India.

Caste segregated Christian graveyard in Tamil Nadu

There are others some who argue that converted Hindus will remain Indians, and therefore where’s the problem with conversion? Well, there is a major problem and Swami Vivekananda set it in the founding document of the Ramakrishna Mission in 1897. If India embraces a foreign religion, he wrote, “Indian civilisation will be destroyed. For whomever goes out of the Hindu religion is not only lost to us but also we have in him one more enemy.”

Because the West has usurped the soul of Christianity, Christianisation—like Islamisation—equals denationalisation. Western missionaries who were rampaging through China in the 1940s were fond of the line, “One more Christian, one less Chinese.”

Religious conversion is therefore a flick of a switch that transforms an Indian—or for that matter any follower of a native religion—into an extension of western culture and influence.

In his book The Armies Of God: A Study In Militant Christianity, Iain Buchanan, a British-born, Malaysia-based academic, has explained how Christianity imported from the West can cause havoc in developing countries. In an interview with DNA newspaper, he says“There is no doubt at all that US strategy makes deliberate (and somewhat cynical) use of Christian agencies in pursuit of foreign policy – and that the distinction between the religious and the secular is deliberately blurred in the process…. Most of the major evangelical corporations (like World Vision, Campus Crusade, Youth with a Mission, and Samaritan’s Purse) operate in partnership with the US government in its pursuit of foreign policy—World Vision, which is effectively an arm of the State Department, is perhaps the most notable example of this.”

What does this mean, in practice, for a targeted country?

“Above all, it means that it is often very difficult to distinguish the agencies of evangelization. Active Christian proselytization is often just a small part of the process; in addition, there must be infiltration of every sector of influence in a society, from religious groups to government departments to local charities to private business, in ways which blur the line between Christian indoctrination and secular change.”

Alex Alexander agrees: “Self-professedly Christian pressure groups have both a highly influential membership and a powerful grip on policy. The network of evangelical influence goes far beyond this: there are scores of such groups at work in Congress, the military, and departments of state. All act to connect politics, business, the media, and the military with one another in pursuit of a common vision of a Christian American dominion over the world.”

It is well-known that Indian Christians in cahoots with fundamentalist American politicians, Church groups and Indian Marxists played a leading role in getting Prime Minister Narendra Modi banned from entering the US for his alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat religious riots.

However, Christians have been working against Indian interests even prior to that. In September 2000 when Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was in the US on an official visit, Christian fundamentalist John Dayal appeared before the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in Washington DC.

According to Alexander, the virulently anti-Hindu “Dayal should have thought of the possibility that the timing of that invitation extended to him by USCIRF was not an accident. It is quite likely it was part of the US State Department’s plan to place the visiting Prime Minister on his defensive and thereby weaken India’s efforts to convey to the American public the destructive consequences of cross-border terrorism aided and abetted by Pakistan.”

Alexander offers an example of the West-Christianity nexus: “A page from the recent history of East Timor may be appropriate for Indians to review in order to understand the negative potential of offshore proselytisation. The indigenous tribes in that island were first converted to Christianity by Dutch and Portuguese missionaries. Then they were helped by the western nations to secede from Indonesia. India may run similar risks if it continues to allow foreign missionaries to have unfettered access to its tribal populations.”

Indeed, the activities of Christian missionaries can cause turmoil as it did on a massive scale in 1857. Historian R. C. Majumdar wrote: “The sensitiveness of the sepoys to their religious beliefs and practices and the dread of conversion to Christianity worked as a nightmare upon their minds…. A vague dread that the government was determined, by hook or by crook, to convert the Indians to Christianity pervaded all ranks of society, and the sepoys, fully shared these apprehensions with the rest…. The aggressive attitude of the Christian missionaries … in matters of proselytisation had been frequent subjects of complaint.

Among such aggressive activities, Majumdar noted the practice of missionaries of “open unchecked denunciation of their cherished social usages and customs in most violent language, and filthy abuses of their gods and goddesses by bands of Christian missionaries.
John Paull II & Hindu Swami (1999)

Myth of passive Christians

Outwardly, Christianity might appear to be a benign religion. Indeed, when compared with the aggressive face of Islam, it definitely appears to the tamer Abrahamic sister. In “Why Christianity Failed in India,” Tony Joseph writes in Outlook magazine that after 2000 years of trying to convert India, Christians form just around 2 per cent of the population. However, he misses the point entirely.

Christianity did not grow much during the centuries preceding the period of European colonialism because the early Christians were refugees and not keen on converting native Indians. Again, during the colonial period, when hordes of missionary Europeans waded into India, the pace of conversion failed to pick up because Indians knew who the enemy was—Christian Europeans, who came to destroy Indian civilisation just as they destroyed Native American and Australian Aboriginal cultures.

Today, the Europeans are gone but their agenda remains. Where earlier you could spot a Christian or evangelist by the colour of their skin, now they are in our midst. They have names like Mahesh Bhupathi, whose mother once said, “My burden is for India, since in this country we fight with about 33 million other gods.” Had she not uttered those tasteless remarks, nobody would have been the wiser to her and her son’s proselytization activities.

Under the cloak of democracy, Christian missionaries can sneak in and conduct their unholy work among the poor and helpless. Christian churches have cropped up like a rash across the east coast after the tsunami hit southern India. Nagaland, which was entirely animist, despite two centuries of British rule, became 100 per cent Christian under 50 years of democratic—or rather Nehru-Gandhi dynasty—rule.

Christianity has not—yet—failed in India. With powerful backers in the West, it is preparing for another big harvest. While visiting India in 1999, the Pope openly proclaimed his wish to “witness a great harvest of faith” there through the Christianisation of the entire country. Predictably, it led to a backlash from Hindus who felt threatened—and betrayed—by the huge crowds of Indian Christians who turned out to greet the Pope.

Breaking India

Christian leaders and organisations in sync with western NGOs and Church backed bodies are playing a divisive game aimed at breaking India. Author Rajiv Malhotra has exposed this with abundant evidence in the book Breaking India, which he co-authored with Aravindan Neelakandan.

According to Malhotra, US and European churches, academics, think-tanks, foundations, government and human rights groups play an aggressive role in fostering separation of the identities of Dravidian and Dalit communities from the rest of India.

Koenraad Elst says, “There is a vicious attempt to delegitimise Hinduism as India’s native religion, and to mobilise the weaker sections of Hindu society against it with ‘blood and soil’ slogans.”

Seeing how the nativist movement in the Americas is partly directed against Christianity because of its historical aggression against native society (in spite of Liberation Theology’s attempts to recuperate the movement), the Indian Church tries to take over this nativist tendency and forge it into a weapon against Hinduism.

Christian involvement in the so-called Dalit (“oppressed”) and Adivasi (“aboriginal”) movements is an attempt to channel the nativist revival and perversely direct it against native society itself. It advertises its services as the guardian of the interests of the “true natives” (meaning the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) against native society, while labelling the upper castes as “Aryan invaders”, on the basis of an outdated theory postulating an immigration in 1500 BC.

Elst adds: “To declare people ‘invaders’ because of a supposed immigration of some of their ancestors 3500 years ago is an unusual feat of political hate rhetoric in itself, but the point is that it follows a pattern of earlier rounds of Christian aggression. It is Cortes all over again: Cortes, the conqueror of Mexico, could defeat the Aztecs, the ruling nation which had immigrated from Utah three centuries earlier, by enlisting the support of nations subdued by the Aztecs, with himself posing as their liberator (of course, they were to regret their ‘liberation’). The attempt to divide the people of a country on an ethnic basis—whether it is a real ethnic distinction as in the case of Cortes’ Mexico, or a wilfully invented one as in the case of India—is an obvious act of hostility, unmistakably an element of warfare.

“Therefore, ‘without any restriction’, Christians are teaching some sections of Hindu society hatred against other sections. You don’t normally try to create hostility between your friends, so the Church’s policy to pit sections of Hindu society against one another should be seen for what it is: an act of aggression, which warrants an active policy of self-defence and counter-attack. This counter-attack should take a proper form, adapted to the genius of Hinduism.”

From allying with the fanatic Portuguese to siding with the murderous Muslim League mobs of the 1940s, Indian Christians have shown an unbelievably stupid and opportunistic streak. Their Abrahamic compass is fixed due west and there’s little hope Christians will suddenly become nationalist. For, identifying with the Indian nation-state would also imply acceptance of Hinduism. That, more than anything, is incompatible with the Christian worldview. Former top cop Julio Ribeiro and Supreme Court judge Kurian Joseph—who both railed against the Indian nation-state—are living symbols of this incompatibility. In this backdrop, Ghar Wapsi-–or reverting of Christians to Hinduism—is not such a bad idea after all. – IndiaFacts, 18 May 2015

» Rakesh Krishnan Simha is a New Zealand-based journalist and foreign affairs analyst, with a special interest in defence and military history. He is a columnist with the Rossiyskaya Gazeta group, Moscow, and Modern Diplomacy, a Europe-based foreign affairs portal.

World Vision India


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,218 other followers