Mishra is one of the leading lights of Literary and Cultural Criticism in India and the World today. His works are often cited in the “New York Review of Books,” one of the great literary magazines in the world. Part of his own book The Romantics is set in Auroville and the Pondicherry Ashram, where the father of the protagonist goes to retire.
by Pankaj Mishra
For ordering & reviews, see: The Complete Review,
On the evening of Jan. 30, 1948, five months after the independence and partition of India, Mohandas Gandhi was walking to a prayer meeting on the grounds of his temporary home in New Delhi when he was shot three times in the chest and abdomen. Gandhi was then 78 and a forlorn figure. He had been unable to prevent the bloody creation of Pakistan as a separate homeland for Indian Muslims. The violent uprooting of millions of Hindus and Muslims across the hastily drawn borders of India and Pakistan had tainted the freedom from colonial rule that he had so arduously worked toward. The fasts he had undertaken in order to stop Hindus and Muslims from killing one another had weakened him, and when the bullets from an automatic pistol hit his frail body at point-blank range, he collapsed and died instantly. His assassin made no attempt to escape and, as he himself would later admit, even shouted for the police.
Millions of shocked Indians waited for more news that night. They feared unspeakable violence if Gandhi’s murderer turned out to be a Muslim. There was much relief, also some puzzlement, when the assassin was revealed as Nathuram Godse, a Hindu Brahmin from western India, a region relatively untouched by the brutal passions of the partition.
Godse had been an activist in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteers Association, or RSS), which was founded in the central Indian city of Nagpur in 1925 and was devoted to the creation of a militant Hindu state. During his trial, Godse made a long and eloquent speech claiming that Gandhi’s “constant and consistent pandering to the Muslims” had left him with no choice. He blamed Gandhi for the “vivisection of the country, our motherland” and said that he hoped with Gandhi dead “the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan.” Godse requested that no mercy be shown him at his trial and went cheerfully to the gallows in November 1949, singing paeans to the iliving Motherland, the land of the Hindus.
Now, more than half a century later, many Indians feel that the RSS has never been closer to fulfilling its dream. Its political wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People’s Party, BJP), the most important among the Sangh Parivari — the family of various Hindu nationalist groups supervised by the RSS — has dominated the coalition government in New Delhi since 1998. Both Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India’s prime minister, and his hard-line deputy and likely heir, L.K. Advani, belong to the RSS, and neither has ever repudiated its militant ideology.
In the last five years, the Hindu nationalists have conducted nuclear tests and challenged Pakistan to a fourth and final war with India. They have taken a much harsher line than previous governments with the decade long insurgency in the Muslim majority state of Kashmir, which is backed by radical Islamists in Pakistan. After a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001, they mobilized hundreds of thousands of troops on India’s border with Pakistan. The troops were partly withdrawn last October, but a war with Pakistan — one involving nuclear weapons — remains a terrifying possibility and is in fact supported by powerful, pro-Hindu nationalist sections of the Indian intelligentsia.
The Hindu nationalists’ attempts to stoke Hindu fears about Muslims also appear to be succeeding among many of India’s disaffected voters. In December, the BJP won elections in the western state of Gujarat, despite being blamed by many journalists and human rights organizations for the vicious killings of more than 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat early last year.
According to a report by Human Rights Watch, the worst violence occurred in the commercial city of Ahmedabad: “Between Feb. 28 and March 2 the attackers descended with militia-like precision on Ahmedabad by the thousands, arriving in trucks and clad in saffron scarves and khaki shorts, the signature uniform of Hindu nationalist — Hindutva — groups. Chanting slogans of incitement to kill, they came armed with swords, trishuls (three-pronged spears associated with Hindu mythology), sophisticated explosives and gas cylinders. They were guided by computer printouts listing the addresses of Muslim families and their properties . . . and embarked on a murderous rampage confident that the police was with them. In many cases, the police led the charge, using gunfire to kill Muslims who got in the mobs’ way.
The scale of the violence was matched only by its brutality. Women were gang-raped before being killed. Children were burned alive. Gravediggers at mass burial sites told investigators ithat most bodies that had arrived . . . were burned and butchered beyond recognition. Many were missing body parts — arms, legs and even heads. The elderly and the handicapped were not spared. In some cases, pregnant women had their bellies cut open and their fetuses pulled out and hacked or burned before the women were killed.”
Narenda Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat, who is also a member of the RSS, explained the killings as an “equal and opposite reaction (a statement he later denied) to the murder in late February of almost 60 people, most of whom were Hindu activists, by a mob of Muslims.” The Human Rights Watch report disputed this defense, charging that the Hindu nationalists had planned the Gujarat killings well in advance of the attack on the Hindu activists. It cited widespread reports in the Indian media that suggest that a senior Hindu nationalist minister sat in the police control room in Ahmedabad issuing orders not to rescue Muslims from murder, rape and arson.
Many secular Indians saw the ghost of Nathuram Godse presiding over the killings in Gujarat. In an article in the prestigious monthly Seminar, Ashis Nandy, India’s leading social scientist, lamented that the “state’s political soul has been won over by [Gandhi's] killers.” This seems truer after Hindu nationalists implicated in India’s worst pogrom won state elections held in Gujarat in December a fact that Praful Bidwai, a widely syndicated Indian columnist, described to me as “profoundly shameful and disturbing.”
Not much is known about the RSS in the West. After Sept. 11, the Hindu nationalists have presented themselves as reliable allies in the fight against Muslim fundamentalists. But in India their resemblance to the European Fascist movements of the 1930′s has never been less than clear. In his manifesto “We, or Our Nationhood Defined” (1939), Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, supreme director of the RSS from 1940 to 1973, said that Hindus could profit from the example of the Nazis, who had manifested “race pride at its highest by purging Germany of the Jews.” According to him, India was Hindustan, a land of Hindus where Jews and Parsis were guests and Muslims and Christians “invaders.”
Golwalkar was clear about what he expected the guests and invaders to do: “The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture . . . or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges.”
Fears about the rise of militant Hindu nationalism, present since the day Godse killed Gandhi, have been particularly intense since the late 1980′s, when the Congress — the party of Gandhi and Nehru that had ruled India for much of the previous four decades — was damaged by a series of corruption scandals and allegations of misrule. The BJP, which began under another name in 1951, saw an opportunity in the decay of the Congress Party.
In 1989, it officially began a campaign to build a temple over the birthplace of the Hindu god Rama in the northern town of Ayodhya. (The Hindu activists whose train was attacked last February had been assisting in the construction of the temple.) Hindu nationalists have long claimed that the mosque that stood over the site was built in the 16th century by the first Mogul emperor, Babur, as an act of contempt toward Hinduism. The mosque was a symbol of slavery and shame, BJP leaders declared, and removing it and building a grand temple in its place was a point of honor for all Hindus.
In December 1992, senior BJP politicians watched as an uncontrollable crowd of Hindus, armed with shovels, pickaxes and crowbars and shouting “Death to Muslims,” demolished the mosque. It is estimated that at least 1,700 people, most of them Muslim, died during the riots that followed. In March 1993, Muslim gangsters, reportedly aided by the Pakistani intelligence agency, retaliated with simultaneous bomb attacks that killed more than 300 civilians.
The struggle over the construction of a Rama temple on the site continued throughout the 90′s, inflaming both sides. Muslims (who form 12 percent of India’s population of more than one billion) and secular Indians protested the Hindu nationalist attempt to rewrite history. But the nationalists fed on a growing dissatisfaction among upper-caste and middle-class Hindus. In March 1998, facing a fragmented opposition, the BJP emerged as the single strongest party in the Indian Parliament, and Vajpayee and Advani took the top two jobs in the federal government.
After the massacres in Gujarat last year, the Hindu nationalist response was shockingly blunt. “Let Muslims understand,” an official RSS resolution said in March, “that their safety lies in the goodwill of the majority.” Speaking at a public rally in April, Prime Minister Vajpayee seemed to blame Muslims for the recent violence. “Wherever Muslims live,” he said, “they don’t want to live in peace.” Replying to international criticism of the killings in Gujarat, he said, “No one should teach us about secularism.”
Vajpayee has worked hard to build close ties with the United States. Recent joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean and frequent visits by Colin Powell seem to confirm Washington’s view of India as a long-term ally against radical Islamism and China. But Vajpayee’s efforts can also be seen as part of RSS’s millenarian vision of India as a great superpower — and not just in Asia. A clearer sense of his worldview can be had from a long discourse K.S. Sudarshan, the present supreme director of the RSS and an adviser to Vajpayee and Advani, delivered to RSS members in 1999.
In the address, he described how a new epic war was about to commence between the demonic and divine powers that forever contended for supremacy in the world. Sudarshan identified the United States as the biggest example of the “rise of inhumanity” in the contemporary world.
He claimed that India exercised the “greatest terror over America,” a theme he had touched on in his praise of India’s nuclear tests in 1998 when he said that “our history has proved that we are a heroic, intelligent race capable of becoming world leaders, but the one deficiency that we had was of weapons, good weapons.” He ended his speech by predicting the “final victory of Hindu nationalism.”
The Hindu nationalists are especially cautious at present, an Indian journalist told me this fall. “Their fascistic nature has been obscured so far in the West by the fact that India is a democracy and a potentially large consumer market. They have managed to speak with two voices, one for foreign consumption and the other for local. But they know that religious extremists are under closer scrutiny worldwide after 9/11, and they know that they don’t look too good after the killings of 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat.”
When I arrived at the RSS’s media office in Delhi, I was told by the brusque young man in charge, “The RSS is not interested in publicity.” Sudarshan declined my request for an interview. Deputy Prime Minister Advani also declined to be interviewed on his connection with the RSS. Other members bluntly refused to talk to what they described as an “anti-Hindui foreign newspaper.”
One person who would talk was Tarun Vijay, the young editor of an RSS weekly who was described as the “modern face of Hindu nationalism.” Vijay shows up frequently on STAR News, India’s most prominent news channel, and speaks both Hindi and English fluently. He is known as one of Advani’s closest confidants.
When I ask Vijay about the RSS’s role in the killings in Gujarat, his normally suave manner falters. “Westerners don’t understand,” he says agitatedly, “that the RSS is a patriotic organization working for the welfare of all Indians.”
It must be said that his own career seems to prove this. He was so impressed by the selflessness and patriotism of the RSS members he met as a young man, he says, that he left his home and went to work in western India protecting tribal peoples from discrimination. “Some of my best friends are Muslims,” he says. “My wife wears jeans, and she wears her hair short. We eat at Muslim homes. There are reasonable people among Muslims, but they are afraid to speak out their minds. We are trying to have a dialogue with them. We are trying to talk with Christians also. After all, Jesus Christ is my greatest hero. But the left-wing and secular people are always portraying us as anti-Muslim and anti-Christian fanatics.”
The superior organization of the RSS, which now reaches up to the highest levels of the Indian government, is its strength in a chaotic country like India. Christophe Jaffrelot, a French scholar and the leading authority on Hindu nationalism, says he believes that the mission of the RSS is to “fashion society, to sustain it, improve it and finally merge with it when the point [is] reached where society and the organization [are] co-extensive.” Bharat Bhushan, a prominent Indian journalist, agrees. “The RSS,” he says, is “the only organization which has consistently geared itself to micro-level politics.” Its members run not just the biggest political party in India but also educational institutions, trade unions, literary societies and religious sects; they work to indoctrinate low-caste groups as well as affluent Indians living in the West.”
The scale and diversity of this essentially evangelical effort is remarkable. Highly placed members of the RSS conduct nuclear tests, strike a belligerent attitude toward Muslims and Pakistan and push India’s claims to superpower status, while other members are involved in almost absurd small-time social engineering.
I was startled, for instance, when Vijay triumphantly showed me the headline in his magazine about the patenting of cow urine in the United States. “Western science,” he said, had “validated an ancient Hindu belief in the holiness of the cow — yet further proof of how the Hindu way of life anticipated and indeed was superior to the discoveries of modern science.”
This was more than rhetoric. Forty miles out of Nagpur, at a clearing in a teak forest, I came across an RSS-run laboratory devoted to showcasing the multifarious benefits of cow urine. Most of the cows were out grazing, but there were a few calves in a large shed that, according to the lab’s supervisor, had been rescued recently from nearby Muslim butchers. In one room, its whitewashed walls spattered with saffron-hued posters of Lord Rama, devout young Hindus stood before test tubes and beakers full of cow urine, distilling the holy liquid to get rid of the foul-smelling ammonia and make it drinkable. In another room, tribal women in garishly colored saris sat on the floor before a small hill of white powder — dental powder made from cow urine.
The nearest, and probably unwilling, consumers of the various products made from cow urine were the poor tribal students in the primary school next to the lab, one of 13,000 educational institutions run by Hindu nationalists. In gloomy rooms, where students studied and slept and where their frayed laundry hung from the iron bars of the windows, there were large gleaming portraits of militant Hindu freedom fighters.
I sat in the small office of the headmaster, a thin excitable young man. From the window, above which hung a large fantastical map of undivided India, I could see tribal women who had walked from their homes and now sat on the porch examining the sores and calluses on their bare feet, waiting to meet their children during recess. The principal explained to me how the RSS member in charge of the federal government’s education department was making sure that the new history textbooks carried the important message of Hindu pride and Muslim cruelty to every school and child in the country. His own work was to make the students aware of the glorious Hindu culture from which tribal living had sundered them. The message of the RSS, he said, was “egalitarian and modern; it believed in raising low-caste people and tribals to a higher level of culture.”
According to John Dayal, the vice president of the All India Catholic Union, the RSS has spent millions of dollars trying to convert tribal people to Hindu nationalism. Dayal, who monitors the missionary activities of the RSS very closely, claimed that in less than one year the RSS distributed one million trishuls, or tridents, in three tribal districts in central India.
B L Bhole, a political scientist at Nagpur University, saw a Brahminical ploy in these attempts. “The RSS can’t attract young middle-class people anymore, so they hope for better luck among the poor,” he said. “But the basic values the RSS promotes are drawn from the high Sanskritic culture of Hinduism, which seeks to maintain a social hierarchy with Brahmins at the very top. The united Hindu nation they keep talking about is one where basically low-caste Hindus and Muslims and Christians don’t complain much while accepting the dominance of a Brahmin minority.”
“The RSS has been most successful in Gujarat, where low-caste Hindus and tribals were indoctrinated at the kind of schools you went to. They were in the mobs led by upper-caste Hindu nationalists that attacked Muslims and Christians. But the RSS still doesn’t have much support outside Gujarat. This is a serious setback for them, and the only thing they can do to increase their mass base is keep stoking anti-Muslim and anti-Christian passions and hope they can get enough Hindus, both upper caste and low caste, behind them.”
The consistent demonizing of Muslims and Christians by Hindu nationalists may seem gratuitous. Christians in India are a tiny and scattered minority, and the Muslims are too poor, disorganized and fearful to pose any kind of threat to Hindus, but it is indispensable to the project of a Hindu nation. The attempt to unite low- and upper-caste Hindus in a united front against Muslims and Christians has certainly worked in the state of Gujarat. Ashok Singhal, the president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council, VHP), yet another RSS affiliate, seemed to accept proudly the charge of inciting anti-Muslim hatred when he described last year’s pogrom in Gujarat as a “victory for Hindu society. Whole villages,” he said, had been “emptied of Islam. We were successful,” he said, “in our experiment of raising Hindu consciousness, which will be repeated all over the country now.”
This sounds like an empty threat, but the BJP’s gains in the recent elections in Gujarat, where it did best in riot-affected areas, may have encouraged hard-liners to think that they can win Hindu votes by whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria elsewhere in India. Narendra Modi is to be the star campaigner for the BJP in the local elections later this month in the north Indian state of Himachal Pradesh, an area with almost no Hindu-Muslim tensions to date. Virbhadra Singh, a senior opposition leader from the Congress, wonders if the Hindu nationalists have hatched an “ill-conceived plan to stage-manage some terrorist incident in the state.”
John Dayal fears that Hindu nationalists may also target Christians. “They have never been more afraid,” he told me. “I have been expecting the very worst since the BJP came to power, and the worst, I think, may still be in the future.”
The worst possibility at present is of a militant backlash by Muslims. In the villages and towns near Ayodhya, I found Muslims full of anxiety. They spoke of the insidious and frequent threats and beatings they received from local Hindu politicians and policemen. At one mosque in the countryside, a young man loudly asserted that Muslims were not going to suffer injustice anymore, that they were going to retaliate. His elders shouted him down, and then a mullah gently led me out of the madrasa with one arm around my shoulders, assuring me that the Muslims were loyal to India, their homeland, where they had long lived in peace with their Hindu brothers.
Saghir Ahmad Ansari, a Muslim social activist in Nagpur, told me that the Muslims he knew felt “that the Hindu nationalists, who were implacably opposed to their existence in India, now controlled everything, the government, our rights, our future.” He said he worried about the Muslim response to Gujarat. “When the government itself supervises the killing of 2,000 Muslims, when Hindu mobs rape Muslim girls with impunity and force 100,000 Muslims into refugee camps, you can’t hope that the victims won’t dream of revenge,” he said. “I fear, although I don’t like saying or thinking about this, that the ideology of jihad and terrorist violence will find new takers among the 130 million Muslims of India. This will greatly please the Islamic fundamentalists of Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
His fears about vengeful Muslims were proved right in September, when terrorists reportedly from Pakistan murdered more than 30 Hindus at the famous Akshardham temple in Gujarat in ostensible retaliation for the massacres last winter. It was the biggest attack in recent years by Muslim terrorists outside of Kashmir, and the Hindu rage it provoked further ensured the victory of Hindu nationalist hard-liners in December’s elections.
The growth of religious militancy in South Asia is likely to excite many Hindus. As they see it, Gujarat proved to be a successful laboratory of Hindu nationalism in which carefully stoked anti-Muslim sentiments eventually brought about a pogrom, and a Muslim backlash seemed to lead to even greater Hindu unity. A few months ago, I met Nathuram Godse’s younger brother, Gopal Godse, who spent 16 years in prison for conspiring with his brother and a few other Brahmins to murder Gandhi. He lives in Pune, a western city known now for its computer software engineers. In his tiny two-room apartment, where the dust from the busy street thickly powders a mess of files and books and the framed garlanded photographs of Gandhi’s murderer, Godse, a frail man of 83, at first seems like someone abandoned by history.
But recent events seem to Godse to have vindicated his Hindu nationalist cause. Gujarat proved that the Hindus were growing more militant and patriotic and that the Muslims were on the run not just in India but everywhere in the world. India had nuclear bombs; it was growing richer and stronger while Pakistan was slowly imploding. Only recently, Godse reminds me, Advani advocated the dismemberment of Pakistan.
India has turned its back on Gandhi, Godse claims, and has come close to embracing his brother’s vision. Nathuram did not die in vain. He asked for his ashes to be immersed in the Indus, the holy river of India that flows through Pakistan, only when the Mother India was whole again. For over half a century, Godse has waited for the day when he could travel to the Indus with the urn containing his brother’s ashes. Now, he says, he won’t have to wait much longer.
- end of excerpt -
Re: The other face of fanatacism by Pankaj Mishra
Proselytization In India: An Indian Christian’s Perspective
C. Alex Alexander ~ May 22, 2003
Since colonial times to the present, the impetus for Christian proselytizing work in India has largely emanated from Western Christian Church groups and missions. The latter’s continuing obsession for promoting religious conversions under the aegis of India’s Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom has triggered a raging debate among religious and political leaders of that country. Many Hindus of the Indian Diaspora have also been drawn into it.
Over seventy years ago, Mahatma Gandhi stated that: “proselytizing under the cloak of humanitarian work is unhealthy, to say the least. It is most resented by people here.” The resentment that Gandhi alluded to has increased in India over the years, mostly due to the persistence of religious conversions engineered by Christian evangelists who derive their financial support from foreign sources. Fundamentalist Muslims too have entered the fray in recent years with substantive financial contributions from Muslim countries interested in furthering the spread of Islam in India. Some Hindu groups have resorted to reverse conversions. All these trends are destructive to India’s time-tested culture of religious tolerance.
The muteness of liberal Indian Christians, both in India and overseas, is indeed surprising. The aim of this essay is to rectify that omission at least in part. I hope that liberal Indians of all faiths will debate this issue with their fundamentalist counterparts in a similar vein to prevent inter-religious conflicts in that subcontinent. At the end of this essay, I shall present for your consideration a plan for pre-empting the religious militancy embedded in the fundamentalist varieties of both Christianity and Islam.
Though I have been living in the United States (US) for over forty years, I have maintained my moorings in the Indian culture through periodic visits to that country and close interactions with my Indian friends here regardless of their religious affiliations. The gift that I cherish most from my Indian origin and parental influence is one of unbridled religious tolerance. That Indic tradition of allowing people of diverse faiths to seek their own spiritual centering is now under attack in India at the hands of fundamentalists of all religions.
The divisive and supercilious natures of their arguments have given me the impetus to write this article. I am not a religious scholar. But, I do value and cherish the teachings of Jesus as conveyed to me through my early religious influences in my childhood. Therefore, I am able to empathize with the angst of an adherent of any religion when he or she is confronted by the caricature of one’s personal faith as portrayed by a fundamentalist of another religion. Like all my non-Christian friends, I too am annoyed when a well-meaning Christian fundamentalist knocks on my door and asks me whether I am “born-again” and whether I would like to be saved! I can internalize the frustration of a non-Christian subjected to such an intrusive interrogation.
I am well aware that fundamentalist Christians may condemn my views expressed in this article. If they do, I am certain that I will be able to weather their damnation because of my roots in an ancient Christian tradition whose commitment to the tenets of Jesus is no less than theirs. My faith will allow me to forgive their condemnation. I hope that their beliefs will likewise permit them to forgive my interpretations of Jesus’ teachings if they find them to be at variance with theirs.
My religious tradition has always placed more emphasis on the spiritual dimension of Jesus’ teachings than in the establishment of Bible’s historicity. My reading of the history of early Christianity leads me to believe that the Western churches’ obsession for converting others to Christianity is based more on their historical tradition of using proselytization as an instrument of statecraft for the extension of their political and mercantile influences, than in furthering the spiritual welfare of their flocks.
The ancient traditions of Christian churches evolved from their native eastern Semitic belief systems. But, most of the currently existing dogmas of Christianity as advanced by the Western churches were molded by the impact of Greco-Roman traditions. To this day, the ancient (often referred to as oriental orthodox) churches of Syria, India (in Kerala), Ethiopia, Egypt, and Armenia have successfully shielded themselves from the dogmas of Western churches. But, that was not easy in India after the arrival of the European colonizers there.
In 1498 CE, the Portuguese tried and failed in a hostile takeover of the ancient Indian Orthodox Church through intimidation. Again, starting from 186 CE, the Indian Orthodox Church was subjected to the machinations of the Church Missionary Society (CMS) of the United Kingdom with the connivance of the British Residents who were assigned to the Kingdom of Travencore to serve as Agents of the British Crown[2a]. Such meddling in the internal affairs of the ancient church resulted in the formation of a proselytizing group called the CMS, which is now part of the Church of South India (CSI). Subsequently in 1889 CE, another split in the original Indian Orthodox Church occurred to create a “reformed” group, with an explicit recognition that evangelism is essential for the growth of Christianity. That reformed orthodox group is known as the Mar Thoma Church. Interestingly, that Church’s conversion activities have remained modest and are mostly undertaken outside of Kerala.
The original Indian Orthodox Church too has been buffeted over the centuries by internal feuds. But, they have all been unrelated to theological issues. In 1912 CE, this ancient and original orthodox church splintered to form two separate churches, one known as the Malankara Indian Orthodox Church totally autocephalous with its own spiritual head in Kottayam, Kerala and another called the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church subject to Patriarchal oversight from the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch in Damascus, Syria[2c]. That division appears to have been based more on issues of autonomy and nationalism than on canonical differences. The Indian Supreme Court was recently drawn into yet another court fight between these two groups to settle issues concerning property rights of their respective churches. The theological beliefs of the original Indian orthodox churches along with their Egyptian, Armenian, Syrian and Ethiopian counterparts as well as the Greek and Russian orthodox churches (known as the Eastern Orthodox) seem to have survived in tact over a span of over 1600 years. They did not develop the same degree of fixation about proselytization as their Western counterparts did.
Unlike the Western churches, the oriental orthodox churches did not raise armies or promote crusades as the Bishop of Rome (Pope’s title in early Christianity) did in order to spread Christianity. The oriental orthodox churches seek God realization through the mental disciplines of contemplation and prayer in lieu of dependence on Christian eschatology. From the earliest of times, they exercised moderation in the practice of Jesus’ commandment to spread the “good news or evangelion”. They fulfill their obligation to “propagate” their faiths through natural processes such as births, marriages and the inclusion of those who seek conversion brought about by real changes in their religious convictions. That has remained so for nearly two millennia.
Even in today’s post-Communist Russia with its newly established religious freedom, the Russian Orthodox Church does not look upon kindly at proselytization undertaken by any religious sect. In Greece, its Constitution also prohibits proselytization. Whenever it is flouted by a religious sect, the Greek Orthodox Church seeks governmental intervention to suppress it. I am not holding up either Greece or Russia as a model of democracy. Greece is a theocratic state since Greek Orthodox Christianity is its state religion. It restricts the office of its Presidency to citizens of that faith. But, I am merely citing Greece and Russia as examples of two Western nations that do not tolerate proselytization even when they are undertaken by Christian denominations.
The fundamentalist Christians both in India and abroad have been too quick to condemn as draconian the recent anti-conversion legislations enacted by a few Indian states. Proselytization was not a distinctive hallmark of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches of early Christianity. Jesus himself appears to have condemned proselytization when he said, “Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more than the child of hell than yourselves.”
I often think of those verses whenever I hear of mass conversions of Dalits and tribals in India. They often seem to become outcasts twice! It is unfortunate that caste prejudice still persists not only among many Hindus but also among many Christians and Muslims as well. Frequently, it comes out of the closet when matrimonial alliances are considered, even when the two families involved in such discussions are of the same faith. 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? If not, how does one explain the need for English-speaking African-Americans and Hispanics of Christian faith to maintain separate places of worship? Many fundamentalist Christian groups in the US still maintain racial separation and frown upon inter-racial dating.
Christian fundamentalists believe that the prophecies in the Book of Revelation (New Testament) were revealed by the resurrected Jesus to his disciple John when the latter was on the island of Patmos in the Aegean Sea. The religious broadcast media in the United States is a good source for seeing and hearing the vehemence with which the Christian fundamentalists assert that every word in the Bible is true and infallible. A contemporary example of such misguided beliefs is discernible in their views about the military conflicts in Iraq and Palestine. They claim that the establishment of Israel and the war in Iraq are both vindications of the prophecies in the Book of Revelation. During recent months, five verses from that book are frequently cited by biblical literalists as examples of the Bible’s infallibility. Those verses predict the second coming of Jesus after “the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river of Euphrates and the water thereof dried up (so) that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.[4a]”
The fact that the verses refer to the “kings of the east” crossing the Euphrates is explained away by fundamentalists as mere allegorical reference to Bush, Blair and Aznar. A few of their troop formations did in fact cross the river from the east! Some even point to the uncanny accuracy of the reference to “kings” because of the behavior of Bush, Blair and Aznar. The latter three leaders of democracies did disregard the wishes of their “subjects” when they decided to wage war! So far, so good! But, how does one interpret without concern a subsequent prophecy in the same book which predicts one thousand years of world misery after the way for the kings are prepared and the river gets dried up? The biblical literalists have an answer for that too. It is just another allegorical measurement of God’s time. It may mean a thousand hours, days, weeks or months!
Bumiller, reporting on President Bush’s stance on Iraq stated that he “sees the world as a biblical struggle of good versus evil.” The fundamentalists of all religions seem to believe in the infallibility of their prophets and strive for a historic fulfillment of their prophecies regardless of whether they inflict untold miseries on themselves or their unwitting neighbors. The late Robert K. Merton, one of America’s foremost sociologists eloquently stated that: “a self fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true. The specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error, for the prophet will cite the actual course of events as evidence that he was right from the very beginning.”
Christian fundamentalists holding on to their blind beliefs in the infallibility of every word in the Bible are not affected by facts such as: (i)there are many versions of the Bible, (ii)Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Latin, Greek or English in which most Western Bibles are written, (iii)many oriental orthodox denominations have their own Bibles which are derived from the ancient Aramaic or Syriac translations of the Greek texts, (iv)the Book of Revelation was absent from many early Greek texts of the New Testament, (v)St. Paul’s writings on Christianity are not universally accepted by all Christians, (vi)the Gospels were selectively gathered, (vii)many early versions of the new and old testaments were hand copied with likely human errors of both omissions and commissions, (viii)many original works of Jesus’ associates (Thomas in particular) were discarded by some Christian sects during the first five or six centuries following the death of Jesus, (xi)many such discarded books are still used by other Christian sects, and (x)the first King James version of the English Bible was printed only in 1611 and has been revised seven times so far.
Christianity, as practiced by the West, has become insensitive to the emotional violence inflicted on the poorest of the poor when inducements such as free food, medical care, money, and employment are used as baits to engineer religious conversions. It is even worse when intimidations are used to facilitate conversions, as some Islamic nations do. While Christianity and Islam, as practiced by a large majority of their followers, do subscribe to peace, tolerance and non-violence, the daily occurrence of death and destruction based on religious differences in our present-day world highlight the distortions that are perpetrated by militant adherents of these religions. In Saudi Arabia, non-Islamic visitors and guest workers cannot even bring their books of worship or congregate in public places to conduct community worship services. Like their Christian counterparts, Islamic fundamentalists also want to actualize the prophecies in the Koran. Such obsessions to make religious texts serve as passports to heaven are mercifully absent in the non-Abrahamic faiths.
My Christian Faith
Being a liberal Christian and raised in a non-fundamentalist tradition, I am able to perceive little or no contradiction between the tenets of Jesus and many of the seminal concepts of Hinduism and Buddhism. The priceless affirmation in the Hindu scripture which says “eko sat vipra bahudi vedanti” (one truth, but discerned differently by the wise) is somewhat similar to one of Jesus’ sayings, “in my Father’s house, there are many mansions, if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare one for you.[4b]” Another of Jesus’ sayings which affirms that: “I and my Father are one”[4c] is similar to the Hindu Mahavakya, “Aham Brahmasmi” (I am Brahman). The “born again” attribute necessary for a Christian’s salvation as required by Jesus is no different from the concept of “dwija” or twice-born in Brahman (often misconstrued as Brahmin)[4d].
There are also several references in the New Testament indicating that Jesus and his disciples believed in both karma and reincarnation[4e]. It appears that the belief in reincarnation has persisted over the years, as evidenced by the continuing belief of Christian fundamentalists in the second coming of Jesus. The Acts of Thomas, which were excluded from the New Testament, contain concepts prevalent in the advaita of Hinduism. Even the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ assumption of the sins of his followers through his own crucifixion and death is similar to the willingness of adept Hindu Gurus to assume the karmic baggage of their followers. I also find that many of the parables Jesus used in his teachings are strikingly similar to Buddha’s teachings imparted 500 years before Jesus was born.
Like the majority of human beings, I too inherited my religion through the faith of my parents. Their Christian roots in India’s Kerala State are very ancient. My family lived very amicably with other religious minorities in a predominantly Hindu environment. I cannot recall even a single instance where I or any of my non-Hindu friends were subjected to any kind of religious discrimination. The Christian faith that I acquired through my parents has been so liberating that I have had no problem in accepting the plurality of worship pursued by others. I was brought up to believe that the practice of one’s faith should be a personal affair and of no concern to others. Jesus himself prescribed it thus: “when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.[4f]”
One of the early explanations regarding the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and the Holy Spirit) that I heard was in the form of characterizing the Father as the eternal truth, the Son as an expression of that truth in human form, and the Holy Spirit as the transformation of the latter as agape or unconditional love. Therefore, I have no difficulty in equating the state of bliss posited in Sat-Chit-Ananda with the transcendent bliss invoked through the Holy Spirit. In my mind they are conceptually well correlated: sat is the eternal truth, chit is the consciousness of that truth, and ananda is the bliss experienced through unattached love.
A Call To Indian Christians
In my opinion, most Christians born and raised in India’s diverse milieu are innately liberal and pluralistic in their outlook. Therefore, they should now raise their voices against the divisive activities of the evangelical Christians, especially those that are bankrolled by the Western churches. Failure to do so is likely to do harm both to the religious freedom of India’s minorities and the territorial integrity of that nation. The peripatetic foreign missionaries certainly have no stake in preserving the territorial integrity of India. But, Indians of all religions do. Besides, separatist movements in Northeast India have been suspected of deriving support from foreign missionary groups. Given the sordid history of Western Christianity, eternal vigilance is indeed prudent.
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 proselytization! 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.
If India is to maintain its hard-won nationhood and regain its past level of religious tolerance, all Indians of goodwill must do everything possible now to stifle the voices of religious fundamentalists. Muslim and Christian clerics must learn to tone down their assertions of monotheistic superiority as well as refrain from denigrating religions that do not subscribe to their views of salvation. They must come to terms with the fact that the Hindu perception of God in myriad forms is just as sacred and inviolate to them as the monotheistic concept is to the followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The Christian evangelists and the literal Islamists must also realize that they cannot continue to maintain their exclusive monopolies for marketing the road maps to heaven. Likewise, Hindu organizations should not allow their legitimate concerns about insensitive and duplicitous missionary groups to degenerate into generalized bashing of minorities through acts such as indulging in mass distribution of tridents or creating a climate of suspicion against all minorities. Pluralistic Indians of all religious faiths have an urgent need now to close their ranks and drown out the rhetoric of religious fanatics if they truly want to allow India to emerge as an economic and political power. Otherwise, India will remain a weak and soft State much to the glee of the Western nations.
Liberal theologians of Christianity seem to have no difficulty in conceding that the ultimate truth can be sought through other equally valid religious traditions. If Christianity is to flourish and thrive anywhere in the new millennium, it needs to heed the calls of its liberal leaders and theologians like Thomas Jefferson, John B. Cobb Jr., James Luther Adams, Paul Tillich, John Shelby Spong et al. If it merely wants to use the faith as a wedge to divide and enslave people as in the past, then it should continue to march to the drumbeats of Christian fundamentalists like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts and Billy Graham.
In 1984, the then Episcopal Bishop of Newark (NJ), John Shelby Spong visited India and wrote the following: “What I learned about Hinduism enhanced my appreciation for this ancient religious tradition. I saw a beauty in it that was enviable, and I found many points where Christians and Hindus are seeking to deal with the same human needs in remarkably similar ways.” He admired the absence of the “spirit of missionary imperialism” in Hinduism and questioned whether or not the “Christian claims to possess infallibility or ultimate truth are not signs of a brittle pettiness that cannot endure.” His writings credited such insights to the dialogue he had with three Hindu scholars at a very old Christian seminary in Kottayam, in India’s Kerala State.
While Christian fundamentalists take great pride in establishing the historicity of the Bible, they condemn all scholarly attempts of liberal Christians to study Jesus as a historical figure. They consider all such inquiries to be part of the “devil’s” preoccupation to either misquote or deny Jesus’ teachings. The fundamentalists of Christianity lack the insight to accept the limitations of the human mind to comprehend God. They are quick to condemn all plural definitions of God and ascribe such differences to the ignorance of the “heathens”.
Without any hesitation Christian fundamentalists will concede that Jesus advocated forgiveness of one’s enemies and commanded that an offender be forgiven not “seven times but seventy times seven”[4g]. But, that will not deter them from claiming that their wars are always just because they wage them only to destroy the wicked and the evil! And, God will always call upon them to decide who is evil and who is wicked! The notion that wars are inconsistent to the beliefs inherent in both the Old Testament’s call for the beating of swords into plowshares[4h] and Jesus’ own admonition to his followers not to resist evil has never been of concern to Christian rulers[4i].
Liberal Christians do recognize that during the last 1500 years, the European nations have indeed hijacked and corrupted an eastern mystic’s (Jesus) efforts to replace the then-prevailing Judaic concept of a vengeful God with one of compassion and infinite love. From the early European crusades to the Holocaust, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Iraq, the Judeo-Christian Western nations have not shied away from using violence to resolve political and ethnic conflicts despite Jesus’ commandments to abjure violence and promote peace. The victorious nations always justify death and destructions as unavoidable “collaterals” which are inseparable from their Christian obligation to fight evil, promote freedom, or preserve human dignity! The last millennium’s history is replete with such callous and cynical behavior of Western nations.
From the middle of the mid 10th Century, the Western nations seem to have expended great efforts in converting Jesus, a Semite into an Anglo-Saxon. They just could not tolerate letting him remain an Afro-Asiatic, which he was. Astute visitors to any large museum that houses a collection of medieval icons and church paintings can easily discern for themselves the slow conversion of the images of Jesus, Joseph and Mary from their original Afro-Asiatic appearances to those of Europeans. The Western nations not only expropriated the Middle Eastern persona of Jesus and his tenets to fit their Western traditions but they also confiscated the intellectual properties of ancient cultures without giving the latter any credit for their accomplishments.
Such expropriations of intellectual property from traditional cultures continue to occur even today. It is ironic that the Western nations who now demand universal adherence to the sanctity of patents and copyrights are the very ones who committed such plunders in the past. It is no secret that all colonial powers used Christianity as a useful weapon in their arsenal to expand their imperial domains. As Bishop Desmond Tutu often says, “When the missionaries came, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, ‘let us pray’. We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”
Independent India And Christianity
Since India’s independence, Hindu nationalists have been complaining about the ulterior motives of many foreign missionaries working in India. In recent years, particularly since the late 1980s, such complaints have become more vigorous, mostly as a result of the brazen calls of many Western evangelists and the Pope to Christianize Asia. While visiting India in 1999, the Pope openly proclaimed his wish to “witness a great harvest of faith” there through the Christianization of the whole country. It is well outlined in the Pope’s promulgation, “Ecclesia in Asia” which was released during his visit.
Predictably, a group of Hindu religious leaders were outraged. Not only did they ask the Pope to retract his proclamation, but also sought an apology from him for the notorious Goan Inquisition of 1560 CE which was carried out under the dictates of one of his predecessors. While the Pope had no hesitation at publicly praying at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem or apologizing for the past persecution of Jews, he was not willing to throw any such sop to the Hindu religious leaders.
Only recently I became aware of the fact that since 1974, the International Congress on World Evangelization (ICWE) has been quietly developing a grand design to evangelize the rest of the non-Christian world which is known among Christian fundamentalist circles as the “10/40 window” or the Joshua Project. It targets for conversion all those living in countries within the 10th and 40th parallels, truncated longitudinally in the west by the western borders of Africa and in the east along the eastern fringes of Japan. I would like to urge interested readers of this article to visit that organization’s website to fully comprehend the potential impact of such a worldwide conversion campaign.
The ICWE is supported by the powerful churches of the West. They have enrolled native agents from all countries within the “10/40 window” to implement the Joshua Project. For India, the ICWE has developed a plan which targets for conversion, 150 communities of Hindu, Muslim and Parsee faiths. The Kashmir region is part of that project. On the same website, there is also a revisionist narrative of the history of Indian Christianity authored by Rev. Richard Howell. It is a classic example of the distortions that take place when vested interests reconstruct historical events. For example, though Rev. Howell concedes that Christianity in India is ancient and “two millennia old”, he is silent on the historically verifiable presence of the ancient Indian Orthodox Church as well as the tolerance shown by the then Hindu rulers (Cheraman Perumals) on the southwest coast of India to a new faith in their midst. He fails to grasp that religious peace prevailed there only because of the non-proselytizing nature of the early followers of Christianity.
When conversions to Christianity took place in pre-colonial India, they occurred more as a result of a true change in religious convictions than through an exchange of material benefits. There is also no mention in Rev. Howell’s writings about the intimidation used by Portuguese rulers in the late 16th Century against the oriental orthodox churches in Kerala to make them submit to the Pope’s authority. Through the use of the Portuguese armada in the Arabian Sea, their padres frequently harassed many orthodox priests traveling in dhows to and from Syria and Persia to India’s southwestern ports at Cochin and Cranganore. There is a well-documented report of the kidnapping of an Orthodox Bishop by the Portuguese while the former was headed to India in an Arab dhow[2b]. The Bishop was never seen again! In 1930 CE, the Pope succeeded in enticing several Indian Orthodox Christian priests to switch sides through an offer of immediate elevation to the status of Bishops in the Roman Catholic order.
The British residents in India’s former princely states as well as the Provincial Governors of British India actively assisted Christian missionaries from UK and other Western nations to continue with their quest to Christianize India. They did that without coming into conflict with their Roman Catholic counterparts who had been on that path since the early sixteenth century. Thus, for nearly four hundred years, the entire Indian subcontinent became available to Western nations for Christianization. Even after India’s Independence, the presence and influence of foreign missionaries in India have remained significant, mostly because of the tolerance of the large majority of Hindus who believe in pluralism. In contrast, the activities of all Christian missionaries in Pakistan and Bangladesh have been vastly curtailed due to the intolerance of Islam to the spread of other faiths.
I am not at all surprised at the emerging rise of Hindu nationalism in India, given the historical experience of the Hindus whose faith had been assaulted first by Muslim invaders and subsequently by European colonizers. Since the citizens of India can now think for themselves, they can demand that they be shielded from intrusive evangelical activities through the use of democratic means.
The Indian electorate has become sophisticated enough to distinguish between acts of selfless service and questionable acts of charity concocted by Christian missionaries involved in conversion activities. Such deceptive behaviors would have been an anathema to Jesus himself because we know that he insisted on not letting even one’s left hand know what the right hand does as charity[4j]. I am also quite perplexed at the silence of liberal Indian Christians when they are confronted by the strident rhetoric of Indian evangelicals like Mr. John Dayal and Archbishop Alan de Lastic of New Delhi. So far, the latter seem to revel more in sowing seeds of discord between Christians and Hindus than in promoting religious amity between Hindus and other religious minorities.
In my opinion, Mr. Dayal showed poor judgment when he appeared before the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in Washington DC in September 2000 when the Prime Minister of India (Mr. Vajpayee) was here on an official visit. Mr. 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 that 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 ravages resulting from cross-border terrorism aided and abetted by Pakistan.
Parenthetically, I would like to express my dismay here at the absence of representation for Hindus on USCIRF. After all, Christian, Jewish, Bahai and Muslim faiths are represented by Americans on the Commission. But nearly a billion Hindus and another billion Buddhists on this planet have no representation on the Commission despite its claim of being a watchdog for “international religious freedom”. Therefore, I believe that fairness demands that both Hindu and Buddhist Americans get representation on the Commission. The term of most of the Commissioners now on the USCIRF is due to expire in May 2003.
While testifying before the USCIRF, Mr. Dayal vigorously argued against according recognition to Vishwa Hindu Parishad as an accredited UN Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). His objection remained unaffected despite the fact that many religious organizations representing Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths are currently accredited to the UN as NGOs. Mr. Dayal demanded that the Indian Constitution continue to honor its commitment to citizens to freely “profess, practice and propagate” their faiths. But, he fails to comprehend the distinction between freedom to propagate a religion and the right to coercively convert people to another faith.
It has become clear to me that religious conversions using material enticements are coercive and therefore ought to be forbidden by law. For years, I used to think that the complaints of many Hindus about the use of economic inducements as a means of conversion to Christianity may be exaggerations until I personally came across incidents such as a Catholic school’s offer to defray the marriage expenses of Hindu girls if they agree to wed Christian boys. Anti-conversion laws may be the only civil means available for Indian states to deter such nefarious conversion activities.
Mr. Dayal’s website also contains articles alleging insensitivity on the part of some Hindu nationalists who “mock and blaspheme virgin birth, resurrection etc.” If it is found to be true, it should be condemned just as vehemently as one should in the case of similar allegations made by Hindu organizations against Christian missionaries who ridicule Hindu beliefs.
Mr. Dayal also complains about blanket discrimination by Hindus against all minorities. He implies that discrimination and religious intolerance are the contributing factors to the reduction of the Christian population of India from 2.9% in 1947 to 2.3% in recent years. But, he neglects to consider the probable impact of family planning measures used by the non-Catholic Christians as a more likely contributor for the small decline in population growth. He is silent on the dramatic declines of Hindus both in Pakistan (25% in 1947 to current 1%) and in Bangladesh (35% in 1971 to current 7%) as well as the rise in India’s Muslim population from 8% in 1947 to its present level of 13% . In view of such demographic changes in that subcontinent, Mr. Dayal’s claim of discrimination of religious minorities in India is not credible. It is disappointing that Mr. Dayal’s website does not contain even a single word of Christian concern for the plight of nearly 300,000 Kashmiri Hindus who were displaced from their homes to the refugee camps of New Delhi.
Mr. Dayal equates the Hindutva concept of “one nation, one people, one culture” with the “Nazi-fascism of Europe”. Is not India’s entire people one nation, one people and one culture? Isn’t culture a derivative of multiple factors such as language, climate, diet, habits, music, literature, arts and other traditions with religions playing minor roles at best? No religion by itself can imprint a specific culture on an individual. The western Christian culture is quite different from the culture of the Coptic Christians of Egypt, just as it is with the Indian Orthodox Christian communities of Kerala. The culture of Muslims in Bosnia is not identical to the Muslims of India, Bangladesh or Pakistan. For an Indian of any religion to be offended by anyone’s claim that India is one nation, one people and one culture is baffling to me. Precisely because India is one nation and one people, I hope that India’s present government will finally muster the requisite political courage to enact a single civil code for all Indian nationals as well as develop a uniform system for the management of all its religious places of worship and religious schools.
Having read most of Mr. Dayal’s polemical views and his explanations for the worsening of relations between Christians and Hindus in India, I believe that the 25 million Indian Christians who believe in India’s pluralistic tradition would be better off by not allowing Mr. John Dayal to remain as their sole spokesman. Failure to do so will only result in more acrimony and strife among Hindus and Christians.
Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated as offshoots of Hinduism. Their founders were neither crucified nor exiled. The ancient history of India attests to the symbiotic existence of multiple religions in that subcontinent. Religious tolerance has been the norm in India for thousands of years. Therefore, the emergence of religious intolerance there needs to be studied seriously in the context of foreign funding of all religious activities in India. Foreign sources of funding derived by all religious and charitable organizations in India deserve close monitoring by its government just as the US has begun to do with regard to similar organizations registered here.
Towards Global Religious Tolerance
Regardless of their religious affiliations, all religious leaders of goodwill can find myriads of theological convergences if they are open to sincere and deep inter-faith explorations. While it is less threatening for the practitioners of non-Abrahamic faiths to undertake such faith-based voyages of discovery, the religious fundamentalists of the monotheistic faiths shun all such excursions.
India and China have a combined population of more than two billions who do not subscribe to Abrahamic faiths. Besides, China is becoming increasingly concerned at the inroads religions are making in that country. Therefore, it may be timely for the two nations to jointly seek an amendment to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which will explicitly forbid religious conversions attempted through physical coercion or material inducement. Western democracies which advocate a strict separation of church and state should be challenged to lend their support for such a measure, more so because of the emerging menace of Al Qaeda and its philosophical stance steeped in Koranic literalism which argues for the world-wide establishment of ‘sharia’, the law of Islam.
Therefore, I would like to propose further that secularists of all religions everywhere mount a vigorous campaign to limit full membership status and voting rights in the United Nations (UN) to countries that are truly secular. Theocratic nations should be encouraged to amend their Constitutions to reflect their secular status if they aspire to become full members of the UN. The US and many other western nations should also find such a proposition to be in tune with Jesus’ advocacy to “give unto God what is God’s and to Cesar what is Cesar’s.[4k]”
The US is particularly well poised to take the lead in such a move since the first amendment to the US Constitution explicitly erected a wall of separation between the church and the state. Thomas Jefferson, a liberal Christian President of the US, recognized very early the deleterious impact of religion on a pluralistic America which was then getting established. Writing about religion, he said that its negative potential “has been severely felt by mankind, and has filled the history of ten or twelve centuries with too many atrocities not to merit a proscription from meddling with government.” He also objected to religious conversions rather strongly when he said that: “Were the Pope, or his allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith.”
India and many other nations are facing similar challenges today from both fundamentalist Christians and militant Islamists. If liberal Indians of all religions do not speak up and challenge their fundamentalist counterparts, India’s precious tradition of religious tolerance will become a mere footnote to its ancient history. Likewise, if there is no worldwide effort to contain theocracies and ostracize the militants of all religions, the new millennium may indeed witness many clashes of civilizations.
The UN may in fact be the last best hope for mankind to usher in a peaceful world devoid of religious upheavals. The liberal adherents of all religions are now at the crossroads of a crucial choice. They can either remain silent and permit their fundamentalist minorities to fan the flames of religious conflicts, or speak out against them and insist on religious tolerance as the only legitimate road to a peaceful world. As a Christian nurtured by the pluralistic tradition of India, my choice continues to be the latter.
Acknowledgment: The comments and suggestions of Rajiv Malhotra, Sankrant Sanu, Gopala Rao and Vinu Joyappa were very helpful to me in writing this article. I wish to recognize their valuable assistance.
Gandhi, Mohandas K: In Young India, April 23, 1931
David, Daniel: The Orthodox Church of India, Printaid, New Delhi., 1986, pp.97-100
[2a]Ibid. p. 153
[2b] Ibid. pp. 110-111
[2c] Ibid. pp. 383-428
Brown, Harold J: Religious liberty: Greeks face prosleytization court test., Christianity Today, Vol.41, No, 11, 1997, p.89.
 The Holy Bible: King James Version, Collins, NY, 1952. St. Matthew, 23:15
[4a] Ibid. The Revelation, 16:12-16
[4b] Ibid. St. John, 14:2
[4c] Ibid. St. John, 10:30
[4d] Ibid. St. John, 3:3-7
[4e] Ibid. St. John, 9:1-3, St. Mark, 6:14-16., 8:27-29., 9:11-13., St. Matthew., 11:13-15., 17:10-13
[4f] Ibid. St. Matthew, 6:5-7
[4g] Ibid. St. Matthew, 18:21-23
[4h] Ibid. Isaiah, 2:3-5
[4i] Ibid. St. Matthew, 5:39-40
[4j] Ibid. St. Matthew, 6:2-4
[4k] Ibid. St. Luke, 20:25
Broadway, Bill: Dire predictions for war in Iraq, The Washington Post, March 8, 2003, p. B 9.
 Bumiller, Elizabeth: Aides say Bush girds for war in solitude, but not in doubt, The New York Times, March 9, 2003, p.1
 Merton, Robert K: Social theory and social structure, Glencoe, IL, Free Press, 1957
 Davidson John: The Gospel of Jesus, Element, Rockport, MA, 1995, pp. 47-77
 Pagels, Elaine: The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, NY, 1989
 Borg Marcus: Jesus and Buddha, Ulysses Press, Berkeley, CA. 1997
Spong, John S: The Bishop’s voice, Crossroads Publishing Company, NY. 1999, pp.143-146
 Tutu, Desmond. www.brainyquotes.com
 Website, www.Ad2000.org
 Dayal, John: website, www.Dalitstan.org/christian/dayal
 Gupta, Arun K: Data on Hindu, Muslim Populations of Indian Subcontinent, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. (Go to www.indianetwork.org/res/relig2.html)
 Patel, Bipin: www.indiacause.com/OL_091302.htm
 Alexander, C.Alex: Gujarat & Hindu nationalism: a rejoinder to Dr. Lancy Lobo, OYSTER, Vol 5, No.3, Feb 2003, pp.5-8., (PO Box 42163, Washington, DC., 20015)
 Berman, Paul: The philosopher of Islamic Terror, The New York Times Magazine, March 23, 2003, pp.24-67
 Cohen, Adam: What Jefferson would think of Ms. Myles addiction program, The New York Times, Week in Review, Section 4, March 0, 2003, p.23
 Jefferson, Thomas: To Michael Megear (1823.ME.15:434), electronic text. Go to (http//etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-jeffquot)
** The author is a naturalized US citizen and a physician executive who recently retired after 35 years of combined service to both the US Department of Veterans Affairs as Chief of Staff, Hospital Director and Regional Chief Medical Officer and the US Army Medical Corps (Colonel).