C. I. Issac: Christian ICHR member calls for ban on conversions – G. Sreedathan

G. Sreedathan“Although a St Thomas Christian himself, Issac disputed the claim that St Thomas landed in Kerala and converted Namboodiri Brahmins. ‘They are targeting higher jatis. They realized that without converting Brahmins they can’t bust the very foundation of Hinduism. In this line they deputed Robert de Nobili, an Italian padre, to Madurai in 17th century CE and he studied Sanskrit and wrote Jesus Veda, and lived in sanyasin attire in order to convert high-class Hindus, and miserably failed.'” – G. Sreedathan

Prof C. I. IssacThe lone Christian member in the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) under the Human Resources Development ministry and noted historian, C. I. Issac, has put up a passionate defence of the Sangh Parivar’s ghar wapsi (home coming) programme and called for a ban on conversions.

A retired history professor and author of over 10 books, including Evolution of Christian Church in India, Issac is now vice-president of Kerala-based right-wing think-tank Bharateeya Vichara Kendram. “Ghar wapsi is not religious conversion. It is a measure of opening doors for those who left earlier from poorva dharma due to historical reasons. Article 25 of the Constitution is not a provision for a one-way traffic or of a non-return valve. In no way with this Article, the founding fathers of our Constitution thought of any sort of conversion. Their intention was the healthy coexistence of all cultures and religious groups. Conversion by brainwashing, coercion, allurement, incentives, etc. is cruel in cultural terms,” said Issac.

According to him, ghar wapsi is a legitimate right of the Hindus. This movement began not only after May 26, 2014.  “Its origin in Kerala goes back to British period that is 1921. It started systematically as the shuddhi movement in the 19th century CE by Arya Samaj leader, Swami Dayananda Saraswati.”

Calling for capital punishment for indulging in conversions, he said, “The conversion is a criminal offence against humanity. The death of a religion means the total vanishing or death of a culture, civilization and knowledge system which generated by a religion through generations…. We lost the Greeks, Mayans, Persians, Romans, etc, like classical societies legacies. We missed Bamian rocks of Afghanistan. Nobody can New Delhi Archbishop Anil J.T. Coutoretrieve the lost knowledge. They have a substantial, objective, and observationally demonstrated information framework, obtained through generations. We, as an enlightened society, are bound to secure all societies and their commitments appropriately,” he added.

When his attention was drawn to Delhi Archbishop Anil Couto’s statement in an interview to Business Standard that he has a problem with the word ghar wapsi and not conversion, he said, “Behind this answer a fraudulent design is hidden. Ghar wapsi means return to poorva dharma. In it there is nothing as wrong. On the other hand, if it is conversion they can level charges against the Hindu society in international forms that Hindus are forcibly converting Christians to Hinduism, Hindus are fundamentalists, etc. Now they can’t raise such allegations. Above all in Hinduism there is no provision of conversion to Hinduism. Prima-facie, one may feel it is an innocent and genuine demand. But in fact it is cunning and putting Hindus in doldrums.”

Claiming himself to be a practicing Christian, he said, “The Church has good relations with me. When I was nominated to ICHR, the bishop arranged a meeting to congratulate me. I believe in Christ but I don’t believe Christ as the only way.”

On Delhi church attacks, he said, “Martyrs and saints are fuels for the gigantic engines of the Church (like jihadis for Islam) without which it cannot sustain. The nature and character of the Delhi church attack is doubtful. All the churches subjected attacks were suffered with minor damages. After the Delhi election they never pressed for the arrest of the persons behind attack or further investigations. It can be considered as a self-goal strategy.”

St. ThomasAlthough a St Thomas Christian himself, Issac disputed the claim that St Thomas landed in Kerala and converted Namboodiri Brahmins. “They are targeting higher jatis. They realized that without converting Brahmins they can’t bust the very foundation of Hinduism. In this line they deputed Robert de Nobili, an Italian padre, to Madurai in 17th century CE and he studied Sanskrit and wrote Jesus Veda, and lived in sanyasin attire in order to convert high-class Hindus, and miserably failed. Madras Bishop Arulappa bribed Ganesh Iyer and converted him as John Iyer and deputed him for manipulations and attempted to high-jack ancient Tamil poet Thiruvalluvar.” – Business Standard, 11 July 2015

» G. Sreedathan Sr Assistant Editor at Business Standard, New Delhi Area.

Roberto de Nobili

Where the Bible really stands on slavery – Valerie Tarico

Japheth, Ham & Shem

Dr Valerie Tarico“It is easy to look back on slavery from the vantage of our modern moral consensus—that treating people as property is wrong, regardless of what our ancestors believed. But the very same Bible that provided Furman and Jefferson Davis with a defense of slavery also teaches that non-believers are evildoers, women are for breeding, children need beating, and marriage can take almost any form but queer.” – Dr Valerie Tarico

New TestamentShould a person be able to own another person? Today Christians uniformly say no, and many would like to believe that has always been the case. But history tells a different story, one in which Christians have struggled to give a clear answer when confronted with questions about human trafficking and human rights. Had the Bible been edited differently, Christendom might have achieved moral clarity on this issue sooner. As is, the Bible contains very mixed messages, which means that biblical authority could be invoked on either side of the question, leaving Christian beliefs about slavery vulnerable for centuries to prevailing cultural, political, and economic currents.

Old TestamentOld Testament endorses, describes, and regulates slavery

The Bible first endorses slavery in the book of Genesis, in the story of Noah the ark builder. After the flood, Noah’s son Ham sees his father drunk and naked, and for reasons that have long been debated, is cursed. One recurring theme in Genesis is that guilt can be transferred from a guilty person to an innocent person (think of Adam and Eve’s fruit consumption, which taints us all), and in this case the curse is put on Ham’s son, Canaan.

When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” He also said, “Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.” (Genesis 9:24-27 NRSV)

Most likely, this story was intended originally to justify the Israelite subjugation of Canaanite peoples, who, in other stories about the conquest of the Promised Land are slaughtered or enslaved. Later though, Christians and Muslims would use the story to explain why some people have dark skin, and “Ham’s curse” became a justification for enslaving Native Americans and Africans.

Throughout the Hebrew Old Testament, slavery is endorsed in a variety of ways. Patriarchs Abraham and Jacob both have sex with female slaves, and the unions are blessed with male offspring. Captives are counted among the booties of war, with explicit instructions given for purifying virgin war captives before “knowing them.” The wisest man of all time, Solomon, keeps hundreds of concubines, meaning sexual slaves, along with his many wives.

The books of the Law provide explicit rules for the treatment of Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves.

  • You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

When punishing slaves, owners are given latitude that falls just short of on-the-spot murder:

  • When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

That said, the book of Deuteronomy explicitly forbids returning an escaped slave to his master, in a passage that was a favourite of abolitionists:

  • Slaves who have escaped to you from their owners shall not be given back to them. They shall reside with you, in your midst, in any place they choose in any one of your towns, wherever they please; you shall not oppress them. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)

Most Christians believe that Mosaic Law is no longer binding, and that the life of Jesus ushered in a new period of grace and forgiveness, but that hasn’t stopped Old Testament endorsements of slavery from shaping the course of Christian history. They are, after all, still in the Bible. Fourth century Catholic councils endorsed the Hebrew Scriptures as a package, permanently binding them together with the Christian writings that became the New Testament.

Paul & OnesimusNew Testament encourages kindness from master, obedience from slave

Equally regrettable, from the standpoint of moral clarity, is the fact that New Testament writers fail to condemn Old Testament slavery. In fact, the Jesus of Matthew says that he has come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it: “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18)

Slavery comes up regularly in New Testament texts; but rather than repudiating the practice, the writers simply encourage good behaviour on the part of both slaves and masters. Slaves are clearly property of the owners, as are their families. In one parable Jesus compares God to a king who has slaves. When one slave refuses to forgive the debt of a peer, the righteous king treats him in kind, “and, as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, and payment to be made.” (Matthew 18:25)

While in prison, the Apostle Paul encounters an escaped slave, Onesimus, and sends a letter to his Christian owner, Philemon, tacitly endorsing Philemon’s authority in the matter. The messages are mixed. Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon “not as a slave but as a brother”—but he does send him back.

Several letters attributed to Paul express the sentiment that in Christ all people are one:

  • For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)
  • There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

Then again, he tells slaves to submit to their masters, even as he exhorts masters to treat slaves well.

  • Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free. And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality. (Ephesians 6:5-9)
  • Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. (1 Timothy 6:1-3)

The mixed messages of the New Testament provided the basis for later Christian arguments on both sides of the slavery question.

Gregory of NyssaChurch Fathers disagree but pro-slavery faction dominates for 1300 years

For some early Christians, the message of equality trumped endorsements of slavery. John Fletcher (Lessons on Slavery, 1852) wrote that early sects in Asia Minor “decried the lawfulness of it, denounced slave-holding as a sin, a violation of the law of nature and religion. They gave fugitive slaves asylum, and openly offered them protection.” We are told that the Emperor Constantine gave bishops permission to manumit slaves, which would have offered a powerful incentive for conversion to Christianity. St. Gregory, the 4th-century bishop of Nyssa in what is now Turkey, made impassioned arguments against slavery.

“Do sheep and oxen beget men for you? Irrational beasts have only one kind of servitude. Do these form a paltry sum for you? ‘He makes grass grow for the cattle and green herbs for the service of men’ [Psalms 103.14]. But once you have freed yourself from servitude and bondage, you desire to have others serve you. ‘I have obtained servants and maidens.’ What value is this, I ask? What merit do you see in their nature? What small worth have you bestowed upon them?”

Regrettably, as the Church and Roman state became more tightly allied, politics trumped idealism. In the mid-4th century, Manichaean Christians, who were considered heretics by the Church of Rome, were encouraging slaves to take their freedom into their own hands. The Church convened the Council of Gangra, and issued a formal proclamation aligning with the Roman authorities against the Manichaean slave rebels. “If anyone, on the pretext of religion, teaches another man’s slave to despise his master and to withdraw from his service, and not serve his master with good will and all respect, let him be anathema.”

This became the official Church position for the next 1300 years. Although some writers, including Augustine, voiced opposition, the Vatican repeatedly endorsed slavery from the 5th through 17th centuries. To help enforce priestly celibacy, the Ninth Council of Toledo even declared that all children of clergy would be slaves.

Gregory XV Colonial powers invoke the Bible; Mennonites and Quakers raise opposition

As the countries of Europe colonized the world during the 17th century, the moral authority of Bible and Church offered little protection for subject people in the Americas and Africa. The Dominican Fray Bartolome de las Casas, argued against enslavement of Native Americans, but was ignored. The Catholic Church required only that slaves be non-Christians and captured in a “just war.” Near the close of the 17th century, Catholic theologian Leander invoked both common sense and the Bible in support of Church doctrine:

“It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture…. It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pass into the ownership of the captors…. All theologians are unanimous on this.”

Catholic defenders of slavery were not alone. In England, the Anglican Church spent half a century debating whether slaves should be taught the core tenets of Christian belief. Opposition came from owners who feared that if slaves became Christians they might be entitled to liberty. In North America Protestants first passed laws requiring that slaves be sold with spouse and/or children to protect the family unit, and then decided that these laws infringed the rights of slave-holders. Many sincere Christians believed that primitive heathens were better off as slaves, which allowed them a chance to replace their demonic tribal lifestyle with civilization and possibly salvation.

But as the 17th century came to a close with broad Protestant and Catholic support for slavery, two minority sects, Mennonites and Quakers began formally converging around an anti-slavery stance. Their opposition to injustice, rooted in their own understanding of the Christian faith, would become the kernel of an abolitionist movement that ultimately leveraged the organizing power and moral authority of Christianity to help end both church and state sanction for human trafficking.

John Wesley, anti-slaver and founder of Methodism.Protestant support for slavery fractures and turns

The 18th century marked a pivot point in Christian thinking about slavery, much as the 4th century had, but in the opposite direction. At the start of the century, British Quakers forbade slave-holding among their members, and American Quakers even relocated communities from the South to Ohio and Indiana to distance from the practice. But then as now, Quakers were a small sect, the leading edge in their ethical thinking perhaps, but only the leading edge.

It took John Wesley, founder of the Methodist denomination, to bring abolitionism into the Christian main current. A son of the Enlightenment as well as the Christian tradition Wesley drew on both secular and religious tools to make his case. His writings lay out in careful detail the history of the Atlantic slave trade as it was known to him. He cites laws that prescribe mutilation and worse for slaves who offend. He makes the argument in clear secular ethical terms for abolition. He also plumbs the language and passions of faith:

“If therefore you have any regard to justice, (to say nothing of mercy, nor of the revealed law of GOD) render unto all their due. Give liberty to whom liberty is due, that is to every child of man, to every partaker of human nature. Let none serve you but by his own act and deed, by his own voluntary choice. Away with all whips, all chains, all compulsion! Be gentle towards men. And see that you invariably do unto every one, as you would he should do unto you.” 

Wesley is keenly aware that the book of Genesis has long been invoked in defense of slavery, and rather than deny the Bible’s dark legacy he invokes it, calling on God himself to free the oppressed from both slavery and sin:

The servile progeny of Ham
Seize as the purchase of thy blood!
Let all the heathen know thy name:
From idols to the living God
The dark Americans convert,
And shine in every pagan heart! 

I cite Wesley not because he gets sole or even majority credit for the sea change in Christian thinking during the 18th century, but because he embodies the many currents that came together to create that change. The European Enlightenment prompted lines of ethical philosophy and political analysis that are fundamentally at odds with slave trafficking and forced labour. America’s deist founding fathers documented their own conflicted feelings on the topic. Christians including Puritans, Quakers, Methodists, Anglicans and Baptists wrestled publicly with the issue.

The first and second Great Awakenings spawned revival meetings across the country that drew slaves and former slaves into Christianity. And emancipation began making political inroads, though not without opponents. Vermont outlawed slavery in 1777, and by the end of the century, Upper Canada—now Ontario—had implemented a law that would phase out the practice. By contrast, the Catholic Church placed anti-slavery tracts on a list of forbidden books, and Virginia forbade Blacks from gathering after dark, even for worship services.

Jefferson DavisChristians in the American South hold out

By the start of the 19th century, the fight was far from over, but without Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin in 1793, legal slavery in Christian-dominant countries might well have ended with a whimper instead of a war. The economic value of slavery was in decline throughout Europe’s empires, and in the American North a transition to grain production had made slavery all but obsolete in some regions. Where slaves cost more to feed than they could produce, owners set them free.

But as cotton production soared in the South, thanks to Whitney’s invention, so did the demand for slave labour. By the start of the Civil War, the South was producing over 4 million bales of cotton annually, up from a few thousand in 1790. Between 1790 and 1808, when an act of Congress banned the Atlantic slave trade, cotton-producing states imported 80,000 additional slaves from Africa to meet growing demand.

Northerners could think about slavery in abstract humanitarian terms but for Southerners, slavery was prosperity, and many Southern Christians behaved like owners of oil wells might today: they hunkered down and defended their revenue stream by engaging in the kind of “motivated reasoning” that allows us to find virtue in what benefits us. Under pressure, prominent Christian leaders turn to the Bible to defend the South’s way of life:

  • [Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…. It has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts. — Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.
  • There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral. — Rev. Alexander Campbell
  • The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example. — Rev. Richard Furman, prominent Baptist and namesake of Furman University
  • The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined. — U.S. Senator James Henry Hammond.

The doom of Ham. Whether Ham’s curse is “branded on the form and features of his African descendants,” as Hammond believed, the story of that curse has been branded on the form and features of Christian history, down to the present.

Brigham Young: Self-styled prophet, polygamist and slaver. Kind of a 19th century Muhammad.Modern Christians struggle to disentangle biblical authority from bigotry

On Friday, Dec. 6, 2013, the LDS Mormon Church officially renounced the doctrine that brown skin is a punishment from God. The announcement acknowledged that racism was a part of LDS teaching for generations, as indeed it was, officially, until external pressures including the American civil rights movement and the desire to proselytize in Brazil made segregation impossible. LDS leaders have come a long ways from the thinking of Brigham Young, who wrote, “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10).

“This will always be so,” said Young, but modern Mormons believe he was wrong. Similarly, most modern Protestants and Catholics believe their spiritual forefathers were wrong to endorse slavery—or practice it—or preach it from the pulpit. But thanks in part to words penciled by our Iron Age ancestors and decisions made by 4th-century councils, this moral clarity has been painfully difficult to achieve. How much sooner might Christians have come to this understanding if the Church had not treated those ancient words from Genesis and Leviticus and Ephesians as if they were God-breathed?

It is easy to look back on slavery from the vantage of our modern moral consensus—that treating people as property is wrong, regardless of what our ancestors believed. But the very same Bible that provided Furman and Jefferson Davis with a defense of slavery also teaches that non-believers are evildoers, women are for breeding, children need beating, and marriage can take almost any form but queer.

This month, aspiring presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was asked to comment on marriage equality and said, “This is not just a political issue. It is a biblical issue. And as a biblical issue, unless I get a new version of the scriptures, it’s really not my place to say, ‘Okay, I’m just going to evolve.’” I’m guessing that the generations of Christians who fought slavery, biblical texts and Church tradition notwithstanding, would beg to differ. – Alternet, 12 February 2015

» Dr Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. As a writer she tackles the intersection between religious belief, psychology and politics, with a growing focus on women’s issues, and is actively engaged in dialogue that aims to find common ground between theists and freethinkers, in particular by focusing on humanity’s shared moral core.

Slavery in Brazil

See also

Magna Carta: Political reform and civil liberties or an English con trick? – Jay Bhattacharjee

John signs the Great Charter

 Jay Bhattacharjee“Despite all the hoopla about the Magna Carta, it was basically a palace affair that had nothing or very little to do with democracy, people’s rights etc., that were subsequently ascribed to this private coup d’etat. The entire exercise was the first practical demonstration of the basic skills of the English aristocracy—avoiding obliteration through careful strategies of adapting and assimilation. These attributes are also shared by their Indian elite counterparts who have a different composition but are guided by the same motives of self-aggrandisement and survival.” – Jay Bhattacharjee

Magna CartaThe 15th of June marked the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, widely acknowledged in the English-speaking world (including these shores) as one of the most important milestones in human rights and civil liberties. On the 15th June 1215, King John of England, in order to protect his turf, signed a charter (a brainchild of the Archbishop of Canterbury) with a cabal of rebellious barons in the barren fields of Runnymede, near the royal palace of Windsor Castle.

The document, grandly labelled “Magna Carta” (The Great Charter) or sometimes even more inaccurately as “ Magna Carta Libertatum” (The Great Charter of the Liberties) was basically a holding movement, in military parlance. The hugely unpopular John was buying time from his core group of supporters, the barons and the clergy, and he did this by making a number of significant compromises. The Magna Carta assured and committed the following: (a) the barons would not be subjected to illegal imprisonment (b) the rights of the Church, including its huge properties would not be impinged upon (c) the barons would have access to swift justice, (d) there would be limitations, administered by a council of 25 barons, pertaining to their feudal payments.

In this entire soap opera, the people of the country, the ordinary citizens, were noticeably absent. And deliberately so. Despite all the hoopla about the Magna Carta, it was basically a palace affair that had nothing or very little to do with democracy, people’s rights etc., that were subsequently ascribed to this private coup d’etat. The entire exercise was the first practical demonstration of the basic skills of the English aristocracy—avoiding obliteration through careful strategies of adapting and assimilation. These attributes are also shared by their Indian elite counterparts who have a different composition but are guided by the same motives of self-aggrandisement and survival. We will return to this subject later.

M.K. Gandhi & Lord MountbattenOver centuries, the English establishment’s public relations machine carried on one of the most bogus campaigns in intellectual history, conning generations of scholars and politicians throughout the globe that the Magna Carta was one of the bedrocks of democracy, governance, civil rights etc. The Indian Home Rule advocates, including Gandhi for many years, fell for this English card trick, lock, stock and barrel. If the radical group had not acquired a leading role in the freedom struggle, inspired by titans like Bipin Pal, Sri Aurobindo, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Subhash Bose and the other Purna Swaraj advocates, Gandhi, Nehru and their cabal would have been perfectly content with a slightly modified version of Pax Britannica in India.

In fact, when the Congress under Nehru as its President, passed the “Purna Swaraj” resolution in its session in December 1929, declaring that the 26th January 1930 would be observed as “Purna Swaraj” day, it did not anticipate the wave of popular support and enthusiasm that would be displayed by the people of the country. Both Nehru and his mentor Gandhi were taken aback by this upsurge of national sentiment, and thereafter chose to cast their lot with this wave. The fact that Nehru conveniently overlooked the basic spirit underlying Purna Swaraj and opted for India to remain within the British Commonwealth even after becoming a sovereign Republic is an act of perfidy that our country barely realises or comprehends. I call it the Magna Carta syndrome that hovered over the colonised people of the British Empire and still does in Delhi’s Lutyens zone.

Utpal  DuttFast forward to the 1950s when the history textbooks in independent India’s English schools still sold the original Magna Carta fable. This writer vividly remembers the scintillating presentation by Utpal Dutt to eager young schoolchildren about this myth. He dissected and demolished it completely. Sadly, outside Bengal, Utpal Dutt is remembered (albeit vaguely) as an eccentric character-actor in the semi-art films of Hrishikesh Mukherjee and similar directors. However, his pedagogic genius is still imprinted in my mind and those of my contemporaries. For about 7 years or so, this thespian moulded the minds of youngsters in a new-wave Calcutta school, apart from revolutionising Bengali theatre with his Little Theatre Group. Admittedly, Utpal Dutt was a Marxist, but his decolonising mind-set was outstanding. He was almost in the league of his namesake, Michael Madhusudan Dutt many years earlier, or his contemporary Frantz Fanon, though he never got around to writing like the black Frenchman.

Returning to the Magna Carta and the impeccable marketing job done by the British aristocracy and establishment in selling it to a world audience, a few other fundamental facts should be emphasised. Even in Britain, the role of the Magna Carta in bringing about basic democratic rules and norms like universal suffrage etc. was limited. At the beginning of the 20th century, British historians started re-evaluating the entire subject. The iconic position of the document was slowly dismantled. Many historians like Maitland, Jenks and Pollard argued convincingly that the events in 1215 did not relate or pertain to the liberty and freedom of the British people at large but were confined to safeguarding the rights of the barons and the aristocracy.

Winston ChurchillFor Indians and the other colonised people of the British Empire, what is of greater significance is that the British rulers did not think it fit to apply the purported benefits of the charter to those foreign people whom they ruled. A cad like Churchill who thundered forth about freedom, liberty and the evils of Hitler’s Nazi ideology (the last issue being just about the only subject where I agree with him) did not think of extending the Magna principle to the Zulus in South Africa or the Indians. And certainly not to the starving Bengalis in the Bengal famine of 1943, an act of barbaric genocide that equalled anything that Eichmann, Himmler and Hitler had done in Europe. The fact that Churchill never bothered to pay his Bangalore Club bill either, merely substantiates my thesis about the English / British aristocracy and establishment—they are unapologetic kleptomaniacs.

On the 15th June, you can bet that the British put up an impressive show to celebrate the confidence trick they played on the world for centuries. Their royalty will turn out in the style that befits the descendants of the mad German king George III who was invited by them to usurp their throne. One of the Guards regiments may march and I admit they do march nearly as well as the Indian regiments.

John Kenneth GalbraithGalbraith, a Canadian-American, in one of his remarks about conservatives said something that is so applicable to the British establishment and aristocracy: “They (the conservatives) are engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy—the search for superior moral justification for selfishness”. Despite all the English hoopla about the Magna Carta, the U.K continues to be one of the most unequal societies in the western hemisphere. It is also a thoroughly class-ridden country, with some families having been at the top of the pecking order for centuries. Britain’s industrialists, financiers, landowning gentry, and politicians have been past masters at mutual back-scratching. Their positions have very rarely been challenged throughout history. Along with Iran, Britain it is the only country I know where clerics (the Bishops of the Church of England who sit in the House of Lords) are automatically elected to the legislature.

Anyone still rooting for the Magna Carta? – Swarajya, 15 June 2015

» Jay Bhattacharjee is a policy and corporate affairs analyst based in Delhi.

Archbishop Justin Welby, Prime Minister David Cameron, Queen Elizabeth II & Prince Philip attend Magna Carta signing anniversary ceremony at Runnymede on June 15, 2015

Soldiers stand next to the Magna Carta memorial during an event marking the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta signing by King John at Runnymede, near London, England, June 15, 2015.

Native Americans say Junípero Serra enslaved them; Pope Francis says he saved them – Jack Jenkins

Native American demonstrators protest the proposed sainthood of Junípero Serra outside Mission Dolores in San Francisco, California.

Jack Jenkins“‘It is imperative [Pope Francis] is enlightened to understand that Father Serra was responsible for the deception, exploitation, oppression, enslavement and genocide of thousands of Indigenous Californians, ultimately resulting in the largest ethnic cleansing in North America,’ a MoveOn.org petition read.” – Jack Jenkins

Pope FrancisPope Francis has been widely lauded as a champion of the oppressed, advocating for the victims of war and passionately declaring that “to discriminate in the name of God is inhuman.”

But in September, the pontiff is planning to canonize, or declare a saint, a man who some Native Americans say not only discriminated in God’s name, but also subjugated thousands of Indians along the West Coast using missionary tactics that effectively enslaved his Christian converts.

Spanish Franciscan missionary Junipero Serra (1713-1784)On [May 6th], the Vatican formally sanctioned plans to proclaim the saintliness of Junípero Serra, an 18th century Franciscan missionary who converted thousands of Native Americans to Christianity in California before his death in 1784. The Spanish priest is renowned by many Catholics for his devoutness, and Francis is scheduled to make his sainthood official in an elaborate outdoor mass during his papal visit to the United States this fall. The pontiff has expressed deep admiration for Serra, showering him with praise in a recent address to seminarians for exhibiting “generosity and courage” while “usher[ing] in a new springtime of evangelization in those immense territories, extending from Florida to California.” 

“Such zeal excites us,” Francis said.

But many argue the impact of Serra’s “zeal” is more complicated than the pope suggests. Native American activist organizations such as Mexica Movement have staged several protests outside Catholic sites across California since January, when Francis first announced his intention to canonize Serra. On Monday, demonstrators gathered outside of Mission Dolores in San Francisco, making speeches condemning Serra and unfurling banners emblazoned with slogans such as “No Sainthood for Serra” and “Native Lives Matter.”

“My ancestors were directly enslaved at Mission Dolores here, and at Mission San Jose in Fremont, and I want to make sure that the Vatican knows that we, and Native people allies, do not agree with the canonization of Junipero Serra,” said Corrina Gould, a woman who claims Karkin and Chochenyo Ohlone ancestry, according to Indybay.org.

Organizers have also launched Facebook groups and online petitions urging Francis to reconsider.

“It is imperative [Pope Francis] is enlightened to understand that Father Serra was responsible for the deception, exploitation, oppression, enslavement and genocide of thousands of Indigenous Californians, ultimately resulting in the largest ethnic cleansing in North America,” a MoveOn.org petition read.

Protest against Serra's canonizationA saint who beat Native Americans?

Credited with baptizing around 90,000 Indians during his lifetime, there is wide agreement among historians that Serra’s evangelism tactics were harsh by any modern standard. George Tinker, Professor of American Indian Cultures and Religious Traditions at Iliff School of Theology and author of Missionary Conquest: The Gospel and Native American Genocide, described to ThinkProgress what he called the “almost slave-labor conditions” that Native Americans were subjected to under Serra’s leadership. Citing accounts from Serra’s own lieutenant, Tinker said the Franciscan priest prohibited converts from leaving his Christian compounds, often called missions, and forced them to endure grueling labor on Spanish-run farms. Any attempt to flee was met with brutal reprisals.

Protest against the canonization of Junipero Serra at Mission Dolores, California“The army would round the person up, bring him back to the mission compound, and then the person is punished,” he said, “The mission compound was run kind of like a military boot camp.”

The mission compound was run kind of like a military boot camp.

Tinker, himself a Native American of the Osage Nation who practices traditional spirituality, said Indians were often unwillingly compelled to convert, and that Serra housed women and unmarried girls in tight quarters until he chose spouses for them.

“Indian people had little free choice,” he said. “Conversion [was] almost a last desperation in order to stay alive.”

Native Americans and even some Catholics have opposed the Church’s celebration of Serra for several decades. In the lead up to his beatification — a preliminary step on the road to sainthood — in 1988, advocates in California penned op-eds demanding Church officials acknowledge Serra’s role in harming indigenous populations. In response, the Diocese of Monterey issued a 90-page report rejecting the accusation that Serra mistreated Indians, with one contributor saying “there’s no evidence that Serra ever instituted physical punishment or any kind of unusual punishment.” But several Indians pointed out that the document, which was compiled by a public relations specialist, did not interview any Native Americans, and that Franciscan historians had already acknowledged that Serra “upheld the custom of whipping.”

ThinkProgress contacted the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for a response to the recent wave of anti-Serra protests, but did not receive a reply by press time.

Protest against the canonization of Spanish missionary of Junípero Serra in CaliforniaAn agent of colonialism

Some Catholics and scholars have sought to re-examine Serra — who was a member of the Inquisition — as a product of his time, when missionaries all over the globe were encouraged to treat their converts like misguided offspring. Robert M. Senkewicz, history professor at Santa Clara University and co-author of Junípero Serra: California, Indians, and the Transformation of a Missionary, told ThinkProgress that Serra was actually arguably more benevolent than other missionaries, and tried to protect Native Americans from additional exploitation at the hands of the Spanish military.

“In California, [political leaders] always wanted the Indian labor force available to themselves, a sort of series of personal servants,” he said. “Most of the fights Serra had in California were over trying to restrict the military settlers’ access to Native labor.”

Catholics who support Serra’s canonization, such as controversial San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, say his relative altruism toward Indians justifies his sainthood, and that Native life under missionaries was preferable to battling European armies.

“European powers were going to discover this continent and settle here,” Cordileone told the New York Times in January. “Were the indigenous people better off with the missionaries or without the missionaries? I would say they were better off with the missionaries.”

Pope Francis expressed a similar sentiment in his homily over the weekend, claiming that Serra defended “indigenous people against abuses by the colonizers.”

Protest against canonization of Junipero Serra at Mission DeloresBut Tinker and other Native Americans say Serra couldn’t have protected Indians from colonialism, because he and other missionaries were colonial agents of deeply Catholic Spain. Tinker noted that Serra’s first task after making landfall in San Diego in the 1700s was to celebrate mass on the beach with Native American observers, all while ships offshore fired canons overhead. Tinker also said Serra had at least partial control over the military that accompanied him, and regularly used soldiers to keep Native American converts in line — presumably with whips, which historical records imply he ordered for use on his flock.

Indian people [of the time] would agree that they were better off dead than living under a Franciscan rule.

“Indian people [of the time] would agree that they were better off dead than living under a Franciscan rule,” he said. “How is that better than what the Puritans did? It’s the same results. Invariably, mission work was a component of colonization, either explicitly or implicitly, and in the case of Serra it was inordinately explicit.”

“This [was] an act of pure colonialism, of nailing down territory.”

Senkewicz also acknowledged that Serra, despite representing the “softer side of colonialism,” was undeniably a willing participant in Spanish conquest and the mistreatment it entailed.

“Violence and coercion were an integral part of the colonial system,” Senkewicz said, referring to the use of flogging in Serra’s missions. “This was justified by a frank paternalism, [the idea] that these people are children, and this is what you do with children.”

Pope Francis and Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles Pope Francis’ saint

Pope Francis has been unusually involved in Serra’s soon-to-be sainthood. Normally, a person is vetted for canonization after being approved by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, a Vatican group which traditionally requires that at least two miracles be attributed to someone before they can be recommended for sainthood. But the congregation actually never approved a second miracle credited to Serra, issuing their endorsement seemingly because Pope Francis had already scheduled the canonization for September. This makes Serra part of a growing list of people deemed saints primarily through the will of Pope Francis, twice without the number of miracles historically needed to do so — including the recent canonization of Pope John XXIII.

Whatever the reasoning for Serra’s sainthood, however, the controversy largely centers around one question: should the pope elevate a man who played a key role in a colonial campaign that harmed Native Americans?

“It legitimizes the conquest,” Tinker said. He predicted the looming canonization will only worsen a longstanding chasm of mistrust between the Catholic Church and Native Americans in California — a rift that largely began under Serra’s ministry.

“Part of me wants to say, ‘Oh yeah, we would like the church to come to its senses,’” he said, audibly sighing. “But as far as I can tell that’s a lost cause.” – ThinkProgress, 7 May 2015

» Jack Jenkins is the Senior Religion Reporter for ThinkProgress.

Jose Gomez

Protest statement against Junipero Serro's canonization

Anti Serra Poster

Anti-Colonialism Poster

Church-run residential schools committed ‘cultural genocide’ against Native Canadians – Nick Robins-Early

Drummers pass Parliament Hill as they lead the Walk for Reconciliation, part of the closing events of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Sunday, May 31, 2015 in Ottawa. Beginning in the 1870s, over 150,000 First Nations, Metis and Inuit children were required to attend government-funded, church-run residential schools in an attempt to assimilate them into Canadian society; the last school closed in 1996. Students were prohibited from speaking their own languages, practicing their culture and often experienced physical and sexual abuse. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

Nick Robins-Early“Canada’s residential school system began in the late 19th century as a means of assimilating aboriginal youth into white colonial society through education and removing them of their cultural, spiritual and linguistic heritage. … Authorities forcibly took children from their homes and put them into boarding schools, which were operated by Christian churches — the majority of which were Catholic. “This was done not to educate them, but primarily to break their link to their culture and identity,” the commission’s report states.” – Nick Robins-Early

Truth and Reconciliation Commission Chair Justice Murray SinclairCanada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission released a landmark report on Tuesday that extensively details accounts of aboriginal children undergoing forced assimilation and physical and sexual abuse in state-funded, church-run boarding schools.

After conducting six years of research and over 6,000 survivor  Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (R) and National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Phil Fontaine (2R) pause before walking into the House of Commons on Parliament Hill June 11, 2008 in Ottawa, Canada. Harper delivered a formal statement of apology on behalf of the Federal Government and all Canadians to former students of Indian Residential Schools, who for decades were forcibly removed from their communities and sent to state-funded schools to be assimilated. (Photo by Mike Carroccetto/Getty Images)interviews, the commission’s report found that what happened at the schools, and the broader aboriginal policy that they were a part of, “can best be described as ‘cultural genocide.'”

A total of 139 of these residential schools, as they are known, existed across the country between 1883 and the late 1990s, with a sharp decline in operations after the 1970s. Many indigenous former students spoke with the TRC about their time at these institutions, detailing traumatic stories of being stripped of their cultural identity and, often, subjected to horrific assaults.

Canada’s residential schools have been the target of numerous legal challenges, as former students and rights groups have sought to redress the wrongs committed against the nation’s aboriginal people as a result of government policies.

Survivors settled a massive class-action lawsuit against churches and the government in 2007. Among other things, the settlement required the founding of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The commission began its work in 2009 and collected over 6,750 witness accounts over six years.

Canada’s residential school system began in the late 19th century as a means of assimilating aboriginal youth into white colonial society through education and removing them of their cultural, spiritual and linguistic heritage.

The report notes that while addressing Parliament in 1883, Canada’s first prime minister, John A. MacDonald, said assimilation could only be accomplished by removing aboriginal children from their families and community — otherwise, he said, an aboriginal child would simply be “a savage who can read and write.”

Authorities forcibly took children from their homes and put them into boarding schools, which were operated by Christian churches — the majority of which were Catholic. “This was done not to educate them, but primarily to break their link to their culture and identity,” the commission’s report states.

Canadian Residential School SurvivorsSome of these abuses have previously been documented by rights groups and in legal cases. For example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported in 2013 that some schools conducted nutritional experiments on malnourished students in the 1940s and 1950s, in which children were withheld nutrients or kept on “starvation-level diets.” The TRC report, however, is the likely most comprehensive, detailed and up-to-date account. The summary report released Tuesday contains hundreds of pages detailing decades of trauma, and survivors’ stories were compiled into a lengthy additional document. A full six-volume document on the schools is set to be released later this year.

Female students and a nun at Cross Lake Indian Residential School in Cross Lake, Manitoba.Among other findings, the TRC documented survivors being punished and beaten if they failed to remember the Euro-Canadian names they were ordered to take on in place of their aboriginal names. Many said they had their hair, which can contain spiritual significance for aboriginals, cut off.

The commission also heard numerous reports of horrific physical and sexual abuse at the hands of school administrators, including sexual assaults on children as young as five.

Over 31,000 legal claims of sexual assault in residential schools have been resolved, totaling almost 2.8 billion Canadian dollars in compensation. Criminal charges have also been brought against some perpetrators, including an 11-year sentence for former dormitory supervisor Arthur Plint and two non-consecutive convictions for supervisor Paul Leroux.

The federal government estimates that a total of 150,000 aboriginal children went through the school system, according to the TRC report. More than 3,200 children are documented by the report to have died in the schools, but TRC chair Justice Murray Sinclair stated that the true number of deaths may be closer to 6,000.

If the 6,000 figure is accurate, the odds of a child dying in a residential school were higher that the odds of Canadians dying while serving in World War II, notes the CBC.

In 37 separate instances, students attempted to burn down their schools to escape the abuse, with two of those attempts resulting in the deaths of staff and students, according to the report. Other students died from exposure while attempting to run away.

Starting in 1969, Canada’s government began a long and drawn-out process of closing down the schools, the report states, taking control from the churches and changing policies. The last federally supported schools shuttered in the late 1990s, as the decade saw more survivors speaking out and aboriginal rights groups demanding reparation. The government issued a formal apology to former students in 2008.

In addition to documenting the abuse suffered in the schools, the long-awaited TRC report issues 94 proposals for achieving reconciliation. These range from changes in public health policy to language laws that protect indigenous languages. The report also suggests that memorial monuments be built in the capital of every province and territory, and that Canada adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It also calls on the pope to issue a formal apology for the Catholic Church’s role in the abuse.

Richard GagnonThe Anglican and Presbyterian churches have issued apologies in previous years, and Pope Benedict expressed sorrow and sympathy for the abuses in 2009, but did not apologize. Canada’s Archbishop Gagnon balked at calls for an apology on Wednesday, saying “that ground has been covered already.”

The Canadian government hasn’t committed to implementing any of the proposals, and it has previously opposed signing the UN declaration out of concerns that this would give aboriginal groups the ability to veto national laws in their territories.

Both of Canada’s largest opposition groups have said that they would implement all 94 proposals if they come to power. The next election is to be held in October.

The full summary report can be read here. — HuffPost, 4 June 2015

» Nick Robins-Early is the Associate World Editor at the Huffington Post, New York.

Around the Web

Catholics demand resignation of Mumbai’s profiteering prelates – Jyoti Shelar

Parishioners of the Our Lady of Mercy Church, Thane

Cardinal Oswald Gracias is the de facto head of the Catholic Church in India.The Church is one of the largest land-holders in Mumbai after the Mumbai Port Trust and the Bombay Parsi Punchayet, and the Catholics are demanding a Parsi Punchayet-like structure wherein residential colonies are developed for the community. – Jyoti Shelar

Twenty-six Catholics, including a priest, have said that they will sit on fast unto death from May 29 at the archdiocese in Colaba, demanding the resignation of the cardinal. The protesters allege that Oswald Cardinal Gracias, the Archbishop of Bombay, has been “blatantly consenting church land deals to benefit private developers”.

The Church is one of the largest land-holders in Mumbai after the Mumbai Port Trust and the Bombay Parsi Punchayet, and the Catholics are demanding a Parsi Punchayet-like structure wherein residential colonies are developed for the community.

“Huge plots of land are being sold to the private builders. The cardinal’s consent is needed in all land deals and he is allowing these deals for personal gains. We have managed to get a stay on two such deals, but the legal recourse requires a lot of money,” Church real estate in Mumbaisaid Melwyn Fernandes, secretary of the Association of Concerned Catholics, who is one of the 26 people to sit on the fast.

According to Fernandes, in 2013, the group managed to get a stay on development rights of a 21,000 sq mt of Our Lady of Mercy Church land in Thane, which was sold to a builder. Another stay was obtained after the Church sold development rights of the Marinagar plot to a developer.

In 2013, a first information report was registered against a priest at Santacruz Police Station for allegedly forging documents of a chawl belonging to the Our Lady of Egypt Church, and selling it to private parties.

“The cardinal and the bishop are allowing mismanagement of the Church properties worth crores of rupees,” said Joseph Sodder, a Mahim resident and a St Michael’s Church parishioner, adding that till date the archdiocese has constructed only one Catholics-only colony consisting of eight buildings in Mahim.

Bombay BishopsWhile the cardinal was not available for comment, Fr Nigel Barrett, spokesperson of the Archdiocese of Bombay, said that they were aware that a fast is planned by “a few individuals”.

He said, “This sudden demand for the cardinal’s resignation by a miniscule number of people is indeed a surprise. The Archdiocese of Bombay comprises over five lakh Catholics, out of which nearly all hold the cardinal in high regard. All our schools, colleges and other educational/technical institutions are built on the Church land. We have a number of housing colonies in various parts of the Archdiocese that are built on the Church land. In fact, some of the protesters are staying in housing societies built on such land.” – Mumbai Mirror, 21 May 2015

Corruption in the Indian Church is evident in her clerics.

See also

Book Review: Exposing the imperialism of the Church – R. L. Francis

Unteshwari Church, Kadi, Gujarat

R. L. Francis“Everybody who understands the importance of nationalism and sovereignty must read this book. The book gives them a message to return to their own fold. The book also portrays the pathetic condition of converted Christians and the dangerous policies of the Church system. The book also offers a solution to stop this trend. The book tells that every religion has been established to act as a safety valve. However, when it becomes a tool in the hands of the vested interests, it harms the humanity.” – R. L. Francis

P. B. LomeoThe controversy about Mother Teresa had not subsided, and there is yet another book by P. B. Lomeo which has raised a serious question on the functioning of the Church within the Christian society. The book titled Unteshwari Mata ka Mahant is about Father Anthony Fernandes from the Society of Jesus (SJ), who had spent 38 percent of his life to increase the number of sheep. The book exposes layer by layer the bad consequence meted out to priests and nuns who dare to disobey the dictates of the Church.  

The book makes some startling revelations about the Catholic Church system and tells the story about the modus operandi of conversion in the North Gujarat. One can really admire the sharp brain of the foreign missionaries who were quick to point out that the camels were the most important animal in the region. It is the lifeline of the desert area. Therefore, they created a new Goddess, Unteshwari Devi, who protects the camels in the region. She is ‘kuldevi’ of the camel protectors Jesus followers. 

Camel has become an integral tool to meet the Church’s larger objectives. So, with the help of foreign funds, they purchased a 107 acre tract of land in the Budasan village in Mehsana region and constructed a Chaburara. They proclaimed that this is Unteshwari Matachabutara.

When Father Anthony Fernandes came to know that his main task was to convert people of Northern Gujarat into Christianity, he was devastated.  He had never expected such a black face of truth.  

He understood that all welfare related activities, social service, health or education was mere hogwash. They were instruments to lure poor people. Domestic missionaries were even two-step ahead of foreign missionaries. They wanted to have a piece of the foreign funding. Father realized that all development activities run by the Church were a deception and they were directed towards converting more and more tribal people towards the Christianity.

Father Anthony Fernandez is not alive today. He died on May 11 2014 in Varanasi. He was a true priest, true Indian and a true patriot. He was born and brought in Mahatma Gandhi’s Gujarat. He grew up listening to religious songs of Narsingh Mehta: Vaishnav Jan te Tene kahiye ji Peed Paraye Jaane Re. He became priest to serve the people. Northern Gujarat receives a lower amount of rainfall. The area is very poor. He wanted to help the people. However, when he knew the true motive of Church, he started resisting. But, could he do anything? He was a lone fighter in the system.

Christianity has always been passionate to win the world. Anybody who has tried to oppose it has been forced to succumb before these imperialistic forces. They are following the same policy in India. Any nun or priest who dares to oppose the church system met the fate of Father Anthony Fernandes. Church never accepts dissent. This is why many priests and nuns have set up an organization, Catholic Church Reformation Movement, to save from exploitation.

Father Anthony Fernandes was also a victim of the conspiracy to kill through crucifixion like Jesus. He was alone in the battle like Jesus. His disciples left them in the hands of enemies. And, the Society for which he was working was in favour of crucifying him. The same happened with the Father Anthony Fernandes.

Famous Gandhi follower, Shree Kumarappa (a Catholic Christian) was of the view that western powers had four pillars: Army, Airforce, Navy and Missionary. They want to win the whole world. There is one more hidden pillar ‘Media’ that helps them when required. Currently, they have a deep knowledge of the resources of the developing and under-developed countries, and it is even more than their own countries.

The book exposes an innovative way to steal a camel. And, it is not just about camels, but also about the culture, social unity and harmony which can be disturbed. These missionaries never oppose a converted Christian girl to marry in her original caste. They are of the view that she will ultimately convert the whole family.

You must have heard about the term ‘parallel government’, but do you know about the face of such a government. Once you read this book, you will start understanding the face of a parallel government. You will know how the Vatican is running its global empire from the 107 acre land. The story of the Father Anthony Fernandes is a great example of that empire.

The parallel empire of Vatican had started in 1945. A Vatican ambassador had been installed in India. It has a great control over bureaucrats in the country, and it keeps them in its pocket. Even they have a great control over Indian media.

Everybody who understands the importance of nationalism and sovereignty must read this book. The book gives them a message to return to their own fold. The book also portrays the pathetic condition of converted Christians and the dangerous policies of the Church system. The book also offers a solution to stop this trend. The book tells that every religion has been established to act as a safety valve. However, when it becomes a tool in the hands of the vested interests, it harms the humanity. Now, the time has come to understand and expose their real intentions so that the humanity can be saved.

» R. L. Francis is the President of the Poor Christian Liberation Movement (PCLM)

Unteshwari Mata ka Mahant Book Cover

Unteshwari Mata ka Mahant
Author Name : P. B. Lomeo
Price :  300/-
ISBN No : 9789384380014
Edition/Year : First/2015
Publisher : Jay Kay Enterprises
Format : Paperback

Phone No: 011-23258802, 43528469, 65285328
E-mail: info@taxshilabooks.in
Website: www.taxshilabooks.in


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,188 other followers