To Rakshas...Opposition is not confuson

Submitted by Don (India), Nov 29, 2005 at 12:53

Dear Rakshas 10 Anan
Just because i didn't agree with you, it does not mean that i'm confused.

Your Quote,
'All it needs is for one political leader to scream "Western powers are enslaving our people through their missionaries" and you will have millions of devout Hindus shouting on the street and rampaging and burning Churches like the way they did somewhere in 1997-99.'………….. You mean this sincerely, don't you, and are not mistaken about it? The reason why I passed your offensive remark is your ignorance of the situation. Read what you wrote once again, and longer if you please, until light dawns"

Read my sentence properly. Rampaging and burning Churches. I have not included "human life" here. Is really offensive? Don't such things as "riots" happen in India against Christians (in different states of Gujarat, Orissa, Karnataka and parts of Maharashtra during 1997-99) and also against Muslims? Why are you offended? I invite you instead to read what you wrote from dawn till dusk! Who are those people who attacked Christian churches or organizations? Are they atheists? Who are those "mobs" that attacked and destroyed the Babri Masjid (mosque)? Are they not Hindus? (Or are they Muslim themselves?!) … Quote" (The mosque was destroyed on December 6, 1992, by a crowd of nearly ONE MILLION activists (karsevaks) of the VHP and other associated groups… In 1990, Lal Krishna Advani, a top member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) began a campaign tour (a rathayatra, or "chariot-journey") to build support for a Rama temple at the mosque site.
.. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Babri_Mosque)..Why don't you just use Google and type "Hindus attack Christians" or instead:"Muslims" and see what you will get! Read above a "big political leader" L. K Advani is implicated in this issue! Why can't you admit and say such bad things happened but should be condemned instead of accusing me of being offensive when I state what happened? You are trying to sound like the Muslims when you tell of their terrorist brothers' act , they reply back "you are offending!".

Your quote
"Had millions of devout Hindus gone rampaging in the streets 'like they did somewhere in 1997-99', there would not have been a single Christian or his Church left in all of India!"…

That will never happen of course because that will be pure genocide and even if the extremist Hindus want to exterminate the entire Christians out of the land of India, the Muslims, Sikhs, Jains and won't keep quiet and would most probably side with the minority Christians as they would be the "next target" and the implication would be serious for the whole nation…. your argument "there would not have been a single Christian or his Church left in all of India" hence is not the issue here. Just because there are surviving Christians in India does not mean they were not attacked and persecuted at a certain period of time! In fact I have not included the physical abuse, torture, terror, abuse and rape of nuns, beating of priests, killings etc…. I know very well in India, how a "strike" or "mob unrest" occurs. If a rumor is heard let's say in the state of Uttar Pradesh, there will be attacks on churches, priest or nuns in that state and sometimes sporadic attacks in neighboring states…it just won't break all over India and hence "extermination" of all Christian Indians. I'm sure you know this very well.

And where am I contradicting myself? Is it because I said, "India is admirable because of it's people's co-existence? First of all you should have known why I said this. Look at Somalia (one religion, one language, only two major tribes) and see the bloody war they had because of "tribal clashes". Look at Rwanda (the barbaric war between the Hutu's and Tutu tribe). Look at your neighbor Pakistan (one religion), but see the animosity and sometimes bloodshed between Shia and Sunnis …look at Sri Lanka etc…but when I compare India (which is said said to have all the religions of the world, over 1 billion people, different languages, castes etc) and the peaceful existence of this people, I admire it. Comapred with his huge diversity conflicts are less. This is my personal view and there might be many who MIGHT say India is far from being peaceful and it is when compared to this other countries that I admire the peaceful co-existence. REAPEAT "as compared to this other countries". But that doesn't mean extremist Hindus does not attack Christians! There have been hundreds of attacks against Christian and Christian missionaries when the BJP came to power. The "Hindu" extremist groups like RSS, VHP, and Bajrang Dal have attacked, killed and terrorized Christians. Every Indian who followed the news properly in the period 97-99 knows this very well. The Australian missionary (Graham Stain) who was burned alive with his two children by a MOB of 50 men inside his car led by a Hindu extremist shouting Hindu nationalist slogans led by a man called named Dara Singh in Orissa in 22nd January 1999. His crime? He converted Hindus to Christians! ..reported by human rights watch … http://www.hrwf.net/html/india1999.html

So where am I contradicting or confused?" Or are you saying such thing as "mob rampaging in India is not there?"…I know what a mob instigates in India. What do you think instigated the Barbi Masjid or the Gujarat riots of 2004 where Muslims and Hindus started killing and burning each other? Don't you think there are some "leaders" or "instigators" behind the screen? Do you think it just started by a single man? Don't worry Mr. Rakshas this "mob uprising" or "mob riots" are not only indigenous to India. It happens periodically in most North and SE Asia. A call by a famous Islamic cleric or political leader will bring riots on the streets of Pakistan, Indonesia or Malaysia. A political leader's call for boycott will be followed by "burning of George Bush's effigies or attacking minority religious centers, burning KFC etc..This "disease" is pandemic in most Asian countries.

The same riots were also seen when the BJP came to power on the ideology of the Hindutva (Hindustan for Hindus). So many extremist Hindu organizations like RSS, BAJRANG DAL and VHP immediately were seen to wield much power and cause riots, disturbances, physical and property attacks against the Christians by "unconfirmed" or "unproven" accusations. Even if they are proven , is this the way to react? You can Google this information if you have not heard it. Are you saying that "a mob would never do rampages on a call by its leader?'…..no need to mention did you read/hear of yesterday's news (Just Yesterday) about what happened in the Shiv Sena party? Read down…

MUMBAI: Key Shiv Sena leaders close to party executive president Uddhav Thackeray found themselves on the receiving end of the collective ire of Raj Thackeray's supporters, immediately after the latter wound up his speech attacking his detractors in the Sena

The city police moved swiftly and stepped up security for several Uddhav acolytes after the incident. Minutes after Raj stepped down from the dais outside his Shivaji Park residence, his supporters attacked a bottle green Skoda Octavia car belonging to Sena mouthpiece Saamna's executive editor and MP Sanjay Raut.

They smashed the car and turned it upside down as senior police officers stood mute spectators. Some also wanted to torch the car, but Raj stopped them…..( http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1310048.cms)"

Read the sentence property…"IMMEDIATELY after Raj delivered his speech, his supports went creating a "mini-riot". Imagine this is just a small because of small misunderstanding between Raj and Uddhav supporters…what about if that speech was on sensitive issues like religion and that too " innocent Hindus being forcefully converted by "evil" missionaries!"…Don't you think there will be similar riots? This is how riots, start. Small rumor or a conspiracy theory is enough. Where is the concrete evidence of the conversion, where is the victim? Shall we go to court first? What is the legal measure? No one will ask such questions. Police will arrive only after the damage has been done! This happened only yesterday! No need to go to see how the riots against Christians were instigated by mobs in 97-99 …

Your quote
"Why should I defend her following your prescription, Don? Are you not confident enough of yourself being able to do it adequately, or someone else from among the Missionary tribe you are seeking to defend in such an obtuse manner?"

Again let me repeat what I wrote for you on my last post "I saw your post of what your reaction would be (because your name sounded Indian).I didn't accuse you of maligning her (which you instead preferred to attack the missionaries). Mother Theresa's one of it: either she is "evil" as what Iasisu is trying to make her (he is even feeling "shy" to call her Mother Theresa and has coined her a new name "step-mother!") Or she is "good". Mother Theresa dose not need my defense nor does she need yours. Her work is her defense. I'm not "requesting" you to defend her! This great woman has the poor, the sick and homeless children in the streets of Calcutta to support her (may be those children too need a little lecture by Iasisu on how Mother Theresa was shrewd and how she has fooled them by subjugating their rationalism!). By the way ask many famous film stars as to who is the woman most they admire?. Prompt comes the reply "Mother Theresa"…I think they are also fools as not to understand how "evil" she was. No my friend I don't want you to praise or defend her. Save your praises for those people who are sitting behind comfy offices without the slightest regard for the poor, the sick but who sharpen their tongues on a person who has dedicated his entire life with the down trodden. No Mr. Rakshas my intent was to see what your reaction would be when someone was labeling her "menace" or terrorist "but not in the pious Islamic sense!". this word "terrorism" surely has many levels!

Your quote
"I think you are right for the first time when you say, "Missionaries have got to fear more from Indians than Indians have to fear missionaries!" Glad you got the message as far as the first part of your statement goes; the writing is on the wall regarding the second part though, with all the anti-Hindu propaganda indulged in by the missionaries, their NGOs and media organs in India itself. Your own posts are evidence enough of this!"

While the missionaries are burned alive, tortured and abused, what are the extremist Hindus so much afraid about from the missionaries? Christianity is older than Islam in India and yet still the population of Indian Christians is still merely at 2% in over 80% of Hindus! Christianity and missionaries have been in India for many hundreds of years (Christianity in India is older than in Europe, if i'm not mistaken) and you talk about Christians are "mass converting Hindus" and "Christianizing India!" . What are you afraid about? Losing your "culture"? Do you think the Indian Christians have totally abandoned their Indian culture? They eat, behave, dress exactly like you. What makes you more "Indian" then them? They just believe in Christ and you believe in Krishna or other deities. You have mentioned your president. Are you more "Indian" than him? Why is that you try to "prescribe" what religion your people must follow? Why should Indians should be Hindus only? Isn't that what India is called largest democracy like the USA free to worship what you believe? You don't proselytize, that's the difference Christianity does (not by force, which is wrong) Should not people be free to choose their religion? Yes Christians preach the message of Jesus Christ and if any body wants to convert why should he be stopped as long as it is done under "conviction"? I'm not saying every one in the world should be Christian. But if they want to accept Christianity, that is free choice. If they are convinced Hinduism is better, they can remain Hindus too (just like you). No one will murder them for being Christian apostates. I'm against forced conversion but if some one wants to become a Christian that is his free choice.

Your quote
"You say, "Hinduism didn't originate in India. It is a foreign religion. While your "head" has been "harvested" by this religion, directly or indirectly, why do you have negative feelings when you see your Indian brethren adopting Christianity? (Also a foreign religion to India)."

The point here is not to offend you. The point here is if any Hindu wants to accept Christianity whether through missionaries (again not by force or intimidation) or any other way, why do you have to feel "allergic"? What matters to you what others worship, as long as he is living peacefully with you?

Your quote

"But yours was certainly harvested by Christian missionaries, 'directly or indirectly' at some point?"

I didn't accept Christianity because of missionaries or "because my father told me". It is a personal decision on my own. I like the Christian spirit. (Please don't mention Crusades or "evil" missionaries here). Christianity should not be attached to any political conspiracies or "world dominion by force". There are enough politicians to run any Christian country without adhering to religion. I can't understand why some people like to label Christianity to like a treat to their "national sovereignty" or "their culture" while some of the Christians are more "cultural" than them. Missionaries don't spoil cultures. The nuns and priest in tribal areas have better acquaint themselves with the language and habits of the people than "spoiling" them. Blame "Hollywood/Fashion TVs/your cable TV for your "cultural erosion". Christianity has separated it self from "state" and would do so in any country it covers unlike Islam which says religion and politics are intertwined.
Everybody thinks they are on the right track. Atheists think they are on the right truck, Muslim/Hindu/Agnostics. Every one think he is on the "right truck" would love so if everybody were "liberated" like then and thinks like them. So why all the hue on the Christians?

Your Qoute
Don It is very sad, I think, the extent to which Missionaries and their sympathisers can go in the pursuance of their jingoistic agenda. You are perhaps unaware that Hindu means those from the region of the River Sindhu, (--the 'S' being pronounced as 'H' in Arabic), or the Indus, as it was called by the Greeks! So Hinduism is the religion practiced by Indian"

I'm not a missionary nor do I work for one. The origin of Hinduism religion is a controversial topic as what you seem to present as spelling mistake! bteween S and H of Arabic!. Let me quote for you what historians are saying (reapeat historians) about the origin of Hinduism. If you wish to debunk them please do so in their own websites or media. I'm merely quoting them as "Hindiusm having a foreign origin"...

Quote "It is generally believed that the basic tenets of Hinduism was brought to India by the Aryans who settled along the banks of the Indus river about 2000 BC. According to one scholar, the evolution of Hinduism may be divided into three periods: the ancient (6500 BCE-1000 AD), the medieval (1000-1800 AD), and the modern (1800 AD to present). Hinduism is commonly thought to be the oldest religion in the history of human civilization.....(http://www.indhistory.com/hinduism.html)....

Quote "It is generally believed that the basic tenets of Hinduism was brought to India by the Aryans who settled along the banks of the Indus river about 2000 BC".....(http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/extra/bl-intro-origin.htm)

You mentioned arabic..but are not the invaders Aryans (Indo-European)?

Your quote
" But I do feel sorry for you, because obviously you are a very elderly person nursing cherished illusions about a far and distant world that you know very little about, in spite of your assertion to the contrary"

Yes I'm a Christian and I cherish what I believe as you cherish what you believe and you don't have to feel sorry for that.

Your Quote

"Even then, your comments are old fashioned and abusive of a culture that has taken too many hits from the combined forces of Islam and Christianity"

Sorry if I have offended you in any way. But you seem to catch only the negative points. I have said before I like Indians and have lived with them and I like their peaceful life. But you seem to catch only negative points, which I didn't even say it! And I don't like to use old adages like or "The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions or "'A Sucker Is Born Every Minute!"." I try to avoid them as them and try to explain in simplistic way and not camouflage your doubts behind such sentences.

Best Wishes,
Don.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".