Vir Sanghvi’s Missionary Position
Monday, 13. October 2008 - 6:05 PM
My heart goes out to Vir Sanghvi. His article dripping with poor understanding, phony liberalism and pseudo concern for the health of the Indian society finally melts into a boiling concoction of a shabby advocacy of conversions. He starts off in tone that conveys both agitation and sympathy.
Every single Hindu I know has been deeply disturbed and more than a little ashamed by the recent violence against Christians. As it is, we are still to recover from the grief we felt when Graham Staines and his children were burned to death and our subsequent humiliation when the loonies of the Bajrang Dal glorified his killer and exulted in the bloodshed.
The last time I heard, there was not a single voice from the mass of the Lord’s World speaking against the illicit nature of inflicting cultural/civilizational murder. That is the exact nature of conversions. Mass violence against any community should be condemned. But does it arise in a vacuum? As for Graham Staines’-inspired grief, he was not exactly an angel but we have seen that several times in the past so we’ll let that pass.
And then, some spiel on the relationship as to the nature of violence and superpowerdom.
At a time when the world is looking at India as a potential 21st century superpower, such barbarism is deeply embarrassing. It reminds us that beneath our gleaming high-tech, IIT-engineered façade, there lurk medieval forces, full of hatred and bloodlust.
This is true for all societies/nations. Let’s recount the wanton mayhem unleashed in New Orleans during Katrina. Or the ethnic violence in France. Both the US and France fall in the category of superpowers. There’s nothing medieval about hatred and bloodlust: it is as old as humanity. Perhaps I’m missing the point. Does Sanghvi want to re-hammer India’s image as an underdeveloped country where “caste and communal passions run rampant, that there are two Indias, this medieval India needs to be redeemed, <insert your favourite cliche here>?” Given that Hindu groups have attacked Christians, it is keeping with the narrative. I spoke too soon. There’s still redemption for Hindus for he says:
Worse still, it shames all Hindus. Many of us want to say to the world: look, this is an aberration; these people are crazy; Hinduism is not like this; it is not only one of the world’s oldest religions, it is also based on an ancient tradition of non-violence, liberalism and tolerance.
Non-violence, that precept, which was so badly mauled by Mohandas Gandhi that its roots are barely recognizable. Today it means something slightly better than cowardice. Gandhi’s twisted non-violence and tolerance template is in many ways at the root of our foreign policy, and especially our slavish overtures towards Pakistan. Boom goes a Pakistani bomb in our towns and cities, and boom goes a paper bomb from the Prime Minister seeking peace. Never mind. Sanghvi’s real point is that Hindus are supposed to meekly accept assaults on their culture simply because his reading of Hinduism prohibits legitimate calls for justice on the pretext of non-violence and tolerance. Nice.
Sanghvi then meanders on a journey whose route is a maze because it has no destination. Nevertheless, he reaches a sort of destination.
Push many Hindus to the wall and they will not dismiss, out of hand, the idea that conversions should be banned. Is it really necessary, they will ask, for us to sit back and watch helplessly while foreigners use wealth from overseas to lure people away from Hinduism? Surely, we can put a stop to this!
Well, yes and no.
But here’s the thing: ban conversions and you destroy the idea of India.
At the root of our notion of who we are as a nation is that we are a secular, liberal democracy. This means not only that religion and politics will be kept separate but that we will afford complete freedom of belief in both areas.
We know where he is getting at. But it is necessary to clear the befuddling cobwebs. We are not a liberal democracy. Certainly not by Sanghvi’s assertion that religion and politics are are kept separate in India. What keeps India going as a functioning, physically united nation is the thread of civilizational unity still inherent in the national consciousness. Needless to say, Hinduism provides this unifying thread. Any other geography with even half of India’s diversity would have been splintered in no time. Europe is a good example of how people didn’t learn to live in harmony for several centuries. India’s tragedy is that we adopted the Westminster-style of parliamentary democracy but implemented it with no heed to history or heritage or as they say, “local conditions.” Sanghvi’s assertion is therefore goes beyond being ridiculous. For a nicer/more caustic analysis of the charade of India as a democracy, see Atanu Dey’s blog.
Sanghvi further meanders–this time, in circles to say just one line: freedom of choice exists in India. To prove this, he cites literature of various political parties but cannot resist saying:
I may have been a Trotskyite in my youth but could decide on reflection that Hindu fascism seems much more attractive. In our liberal democracy, it is entirely appropriate for me to change my mind, even this involves a 180 about turn.
And then he applies this freedom-of-choice analogy to religion. And trips horribly.
And how do I know whether to change my mind? In almost exactly the same way as I know which party to support. I must have complete access to information and yes, people from every religion (and rationalists and atheists even) must have the right to lobby me on their own behalf.
In both politics and religion, take away the right to be lobbied, to be persuaded and yes, to be converted, and you destroy the whole notion of secular, liberal democracy.
Fair enough. Everybody should have a right to lobby, persuade others to his/her viewpoint. But in India, that exists merely in theory. How does it work in practical life? The persuasion methods of Evangelists are widely documented and too well known. Does Vir Sanghvi accept coercion, allurement and denigration of other religions as legitimate forms of lobbying? The attacks against Christians/Churches stem from these very reasons. There’s no other reason.
Sanghvi then proceeds to characterize Hinduism as a missionary religion. His attempt at this impossible fait accompli involves some amount of historical fraud or outright lying if you will.
All of India was not always Hindu. Many Indians worshipped animist faiths before Hinduism came along. At some stage, ancient people must have stopped listening to their old priests and accepted the virtues of Hinduism. And somebody must have propagated those virtues.
Notice that he doesn’t give a single evidence to support this, his mere fantasy. On what basis did he conclude that Indians worshipped animist faiths? If yes, what were those animist faiths? And when did this “Hinduism” suddenly emerge? And who is this “somebody?” No definite answers just “must haves,” a casting of probabilities in a wide field. Reminiscent of the techniques of eminent history-writing. Followed by more lies.
Similarly, Buddhism swept India for several centuries till Hinduism made a comeback and reconverted the Buddhists.
Reconverted the Buddhists? Perhaps Sanghvi would care to tell us how exactly this “reconversion” happened. The only way in Hinduism to “convert” is to switch over to either Islam or Christianity. The said “conversion” to Buddhism or vice versa was merely a change in adherence to one school of philosophy within Hinduism to another. This change wasn’t easy or quick: it involved philosophical debate and counter-debate until the person was convinced of the “superiority” of one philosophical school over the other. What happened in the process was that the converted would accept it wholeheartedly. No Evangelist snake-in-the-grass techniques had any play in the process. But these are perhaps Sanghvi’s minor errors compared to what follows.
Who did the conversions? Hindu missionaries, obviously.
Our problem is that all this happened several centuries ago. For over a thousand years, Hinduism has not actively converted people. And so, we regard conversions as something that only other people do. But if no religion had ever converted people all around the world, then all us would still be worshipping trees and tigers.
Give me one evidence of something called a “Hindu missionary” Vir Sanghvi. In fact the term itself is an oxymoron. Used again, without a shred of proof. As the next paragraph makes it clear, Sanghvi’s mission is to equate Hinduism with fanatical cults. Hence he doesn’t bother with pesky things as evidences, etc. Notice: if no religion had ever converted people all around the world, then all us would still be worshipping trees and tigers Viola! Thus we can conclude that Hindu missionaries had converted people of other faiths! Perfectly logical.
And on this flimsy, fraudulent premise, Sanghvi triumphantly asks:
But despite my disdain for those who seek to convert, I do not find them threatening.
And that eventually, is the question we need to ask ourselves. Yes, the missionaries may well be preying on poor people but do they represent any threat to India?
This really doesn’t need an answer unless you are blind to the fate of the North East, and now Orissa and Karnataka. But Sanghvi’s deception really lies in the fact that he justifies these destructive conversions with a : yeah, they convert, so what? In other words, wink and pretend all is well. That is not all, he reserves the worst for the last.
It’s harder still to argue that Hinduism, which survived centuries of Buddhist influence, Muslim rule and the British empire, faces any significant threat from the activities of missionaries in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh or Karnataka.
Why then is there violence against Christians?
Well, why did the Nazis massacre the jews? Why do jihadis want to kill infidels? Why is there so much racism in the world?
The truth is there will always be people who hate those who are different, whether they are Nazis, jihadis or Bajrag Dalis. That is the way of the world.
This kind of rot qualifies as opinion pieces in India. Which is unsurprising given that far worse passes off as scholarship.
So here’s my open challenge to Vir Sanghvi: show me evidences for your assertions about “animist” and Hindu-Buddhist conversion that you say took place historically. Or say openly that Hindu sentiments/Hinduism itself doesn’t matter. I’d appreciate your honesty at least.
13. October 2008 - 6:30 PM
Well, Vir Sanghvi has a problem with Hindu becoming a missionary religion, but he does not find any problems with Muslims and Christian missionaries… strange indeed !!
14. October 2008 - 12:24 AM
Ignore this bastard Vir Sanghvi(forgive my language Sandeep). He wants Bangladeshis to come to India because they were part of India before 1947. What a logic?
Hindus shouldn’t convert others but others can convert Hindus. You know what if ever we get a chance to hang these bastards after conducting a mass trial we should do that. Useless moron.
14. October 2008 - 5:07 AM
Sandeep,
This is a very very weak rebuttal by you.
The canard of “civilizational genocide” is such a cockamamie
its worthy of jihadist propaganda. murdering people vs changing
their names, giving them money, and noting them in some
stupid christian registry. right..civilizational genocide.
How can even a thousand conversions justify one murder?
And please dont give me the “pseudosecular” crap, I agree with you
on all of that. what part of you doesnt understand that no matter
how much nonsense the “pseudosecular” idiots justify, we should not
justify evil?
Your expose of the shameless media narrative on gujarat and modi was brilliant. but this im afraid is bad. Please use some more empirical data and have the heart to condemn murder and violence WITHOUT equivocation, the way we expect Shabana Azmi or others to do but they never do and we chastise them.
Here its easy, ..i’ll help you “The violence against christians is despicable and everyone responsible should be met with justice”.
That wasnt heart was it? And after this, without using the word “but” we can advocate inquiring into the actual hostilities on the ground….what part religion played, what part the competitive intolerance of quotas played, and yes what part the murder of the Swami played.
And I write this as a loyal reader who’s been following you for 3 years
14. October 2008 - 7:01 AM
Please forgive my language, Sandeep, I cannot help it, I am boiling with fury! How can I contact this bastard Vir Sanghvi? I personally want to give him a piece of my mind. These PS will sell thier mothers for a penny and pimp for their wives. Has this bastard taken up your challenge, Sandeep?
14. October 2008 - 12:29 PM
Journalism in India is usually uncontested. The fact that these musings of Vir Sanghvi were not published in his personal blog but in Hindustan Times clearly reflects upon the quality of journalism in India. Newspapers want to fill the pages – they don’t care about evidences. We don’t have a strong channel to sue these suckers for publishing articles written by vacuous columnists.
14. October 2008 - 3:01 PM
Tushar,
Thanks for the kind words. But I’m afraid you have misread my post. I need you to point out where exactly I have indulged in equivocation.
>>The canard of “civilizational genocide†is such a cockamamie
its worthy of jihadist propaganda.
Civilizational genocide is true, and is happening all around us irrespective of whether you like to believe it or not. It’s neither a canard nor propaganda. Here’s the thing. Why does a person when he/she converts from Hinduism to Islam/Christianity suddenly start spewing venom on Hindu gods/temples/idols etc? When this happens over decades in large numbers, it is called civilizational/cultural invasion/genocide. I need you to come up with an argument convincing me otherwise. If you need to convert, why do it using sleazy techniques like denigrating other religions? Isn’t that an attempt at cultural murder?
>>How can even a thousand conversions justify one murder?
Where have I justified it?
More importantly, the point of my post–you missed it again–was more to call Sanghvi’s fraudulent “history.”
14. October 2008 - 11:58 PM
Was’nt friend Sanghvi involved in a honeytrap situation some years ago?
Missionary Position is right!!!!
15. October 2008 - 2:26 AM
Rama Krishnan, thoughts and actions coming from base of anger are not healthy neither wise. We need to respond to Vir Sanghvi with a cool head and dissect the “logic” of his arguments, as Sandeep did. That’s what appeals to people, whereas anger turns people off, even if your anger is justified.
15. October 2008 - 4:36 AM
Fabrication of historic facts is the strategy of these Commies-Xian historians and journalists in India. All their arguments are based out of their own version and interpretation of history and not the real true version. These journalists and media thrive because majority are gullible in India. Look at the way our media creates sensation and derives psychopathic pleasure in projecting every Indian’s success overseas (Shilpa Shetty in Big Boss and Harbhajan racism row comes to my mind immediately) as India’s victory, and this Sainthood has already been projected as some of victory for whole of India! And Sonia’s government would really be a fool if it doesn’t take advantage of the platform set by our media..and now they are issuing commemorative coin for Sister Alphonsa! Way to go to make India, a pathetic place of shit..
15. October 2008 - 2:43 PM
Seems Vir Sanghvi writes one sided articles these days. Earlier he had written an article on “Remembering Rajiv” to be rebutted by Ramachandra Guha and now this. All one can say is “Religion are many but religion is one” and some people will always be upto mischief.
15. October 2008 - 9:59 PM
This is my first post on this website and I’m glad I found some shelter on the internet from the relentless bombardment of pseudosecularism from all nook and corners of our print and electronic media.
Now,coming back to Mr VS’s article, I think this is just another cock and bull article pouring out his grief for the Evangelists. He belongs to the same ilk as Bharkha Dutt and Prannoy Roy and I dont expect him to be any different. Sandeep, dude, you were bang on all your attacks- you blew him to bits. I see those white robed men on English news channels being handled with kid-gloves by our TV anchors as though they were pieces of crystal–do we honestly think that they are actually that innocent?? VS’s eloquent writing style might probably fool people into believing the nonsense he writes about the history of Hinduism in this country–but I just call it yellow journalism. In my rebuttal, I want to tell him, that is the same f****** liberal democracy and cultural ethos of this country that give him the freedom to write what he pleases about Hinduism and YET go scott free. Try this elsewhere about Islam and he’ll probably know what exactly ‘secularism’ means.
16. October 2008 - 6:50 AM
Sandeep
Thanks for your reply.
Yes Sanghvi cannot be taken seriously.
However, how can we ban “conversions”?
First, we have to come up with an answer to what a “conversion” is.
I’ll attempt an answer:
It might be:
1) A genuine rejection of a set of beliefs by an individual in favor of another set of beliefs.
2) A change of facade of identity reinforced by governmental ID cards, and an individual’s community without any belief therein => Exchanging a bag of rice to allow ones name on the “christian” registry.
Since life is more complex than bullet points, we can agree that
reality may be anywhere in between the scale of the above extremes.
Once we accept this, then to be consistent in belief with a genuine liberal democracy, must respect 1) without argument, which you seem to support.
As I see it, your contention is with two, even if you feel i have mischaracterized it a bit, lets count 2) as everything which is not covered by 1).
Now you say this should not be allowed. Okay, so to prevent this from happening, we have to stop/prevent all the steps that are taken in order to implement 2).
What might those be?
A) Religious propaganda – example Christian and Muslim leaflets, sermons etc etc.
B) Offering of material goods in exchange for putting one’s name in the Christian registry, and changing one’s identity to Christian in one’s state provided IDs.
How can we stop A)? I see nothing short of an egregious intervention into freedom of speech by the state in enforcing A). Of course one might argue that the Indian state is “pseudo-secular” and already intervenes to punish individuals for speaking out or publishing against Islam. But if we are to remain honest and consistent, to remove this “pseudo-secularism” can only mean existing genuine secularism, which entails complete non-interference in private citizens’ religious life. Going in the other direction, i.e. banning “denigration” of another religion seems to go in the opposite direction.
As for B) how can we even stop this without interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech?
To remove the confusion, I believe we should skip the word “religion” in this context and try an analogy.
If I paid you $20 and a bag of rice and you accepted that in exchange, I put your name on my sheet of paper which calls you a “lollipop tweedledum”, what right is of the state to intervene in our stupid silliness?
You say religion is separate. Yes it is. But why? Because there are quotas which the Indian state has implemented which SUBSIDIZE conversion away from Hinduism.
If I convert and get to suck at the trough of government jobs and college seats, why would I not if I were desperately poor?
The most effective, liberal, and consistent action for us to support would be to
1) Remove all religion-based quotas granted by the Indian state.
2) Institute an american-like First Amendment clause protecting speech.
3) Organize more Hindu “conversion” and education camps.
If the Hindu faith be so weak as to be swayed by a bag of rice, how can we pretend that it deserves protection by the state?
I do not believe that Hinduism is so fragile. The Sangh has shown remarkable ability in countering Christian propaganda, and have brought many people back into the fold of Sanatana Dharma. This is the action of a confident, intellectually superior civilization. Not violence and banning of speech.
16. October 2008 - 10:24 AM
“How can we stop A)? I see nothing short of an egregious intervention into freedom of speech by the state in enforcing A)”
How far does this “freedom of speech” go? If I abuse the country and say something really really wild against the constitution, will I still qualify for this freedom of speech?
Is India same as western countries more than 90% of which, have not been able to maintain their native culture, and hence, the binding factor is different from their native culture?
A more basic question:
What is it that is holding our nation together? Is it a book called constitution written abt 60 years ago, by a group of unelected people, copying stuff from other books of the same sort?
16. October 2008 - 5:18 PM
Comrade Saxena,
Conversion doesn’t have to be banned. Proselytism has to be. If you don’t know the difference, ask Comrade Aikath, who posts a lot on Offstumped.
17. October 2008 - 4:58 AM
Right
This is the level of debate…calling a die-hard anti-communist like me a “comrade”. And yes, Mr Kedar, your brain cells are too deformed to absorb the meaning of “free speech” What you so rhetorically ask answers in the positive.
Pray tell, how do you define “proselytizing”?
17. October 2008 - 7:14 AM
Let us all not beat around the bush, using whatever one thinks as a clever argument. I am not trying to offend anyone here, please.
I presume we all agree on the point that proselytizing is the root cause of all the recent violence, heartache in India.
The law should be: 1. No conversion of Hindus to Christianity or Islam. If a person wants to change his relegion, his application should be forwarded to an independant commitie who will make sure that it is not a forced/bribed conversion. He can also have a cooling off period, say 6 months, to return to his old relegion.
This will eliminate mass conversion. ( this is only a suggestion, other suggestions are welcome)
2. If Christians/Muslims want to return to their Hindu relegion, similar process could apply or the process could be made simpler, as this not conversion, rather someone returing to their mother culture. Other suggestions please.
If someone wants to include his name in the registry of Lollipos or whatever,for some cash, he is free to do so. We are talking about relegious conversions here.
Also, freedom of speech does not give one the right to abuse other relegion/ their gods,their regeious practices etc. This shoud be punished severly.
Christians “right to convert”( as some christians argue, as it is written in their Holy book) should be dumped by law in the garbage bin.
17. October 2008 - 8:26 AM
Hello Comrade Saxena,
>>This is the level of debate…calling a die-hard anti-communist like me a “comradeâ€.
Weird. Can’t Die-hard Anti-Communists be my Comrades, comrade? You’re taking the level of debate in an entirely new direction with all this complaining. Focus on issues instead, friend.
>>Pray tell, how do you define “proselytizing�
Good question. I don’t know, and I don’t have to know. I’ll leave that to legal experts. Lay people can name and identify phenomena, activities etc, but defining them in the context of a legal framework is the job of legal experts.
17. October 2008 - 9:19 AM
dear tushar, you are learning sthg lot’s of people have learned allready. shri ot never, never answers questions. see his last para.
>>If the Hindu faith be so weak as to be swayed by a bag of rice, how can we pretend that it deserves protection by the state? I do not believe that Hinduism is so fragile.
completely correct, tushar. thankx for putting it so well. people on this site, they want to make hinduism appear as to be weak andd frightened. maybe becoz they are like that only.
>>I presume we all agree on the point that proselytizing is the root cause of all the recent violence,
i dont agree. plese dont presume for me.
appart from that, you guys want a *law* against conversions?? you want a “independant commitie” to intervene?? is this serious proposal? if someone want’s to convert to any religion, why will he submit anything to a “independant commitie”?
17. October 2008 - 11:44 AM
Shri Saxena,
Your Questions have begotten more questions than answers. If that makes you call people names, then good luck and perhaps you might want to search elsewhere for a better “level of debate”, as Shri Aikath here as already wisely found out.
And as to hindus being weak and converting for a bag of rice, I must mention that if India were a Dharma Rajya, such a situation would have never arisen.
17. October 2008 - 1:15 PM
Hello Comrade Tushar Aikath,
>>dear tushar, you are learning sthg lot’s of people have learned
Lots of people? Like Aikath, Saxena, Dhusakar Nair, Jahnavi, Mridula, Balaji, Rama Rao, Soma Rao, Squared Off, Cubed Out, Amit, Nikhil, Chorakkot etc, etc?
>> shri ot never, never answers questions
Shri OT said this:
– Good question. I don’t know, and I don’t have to know. I’ll leave that to legal experts. Lay people can name and identify phenomena, activities etc, but defining them in the context of a legal framework is the job of legal experts. –
Let me know what’s your problem with it.
17. October 2008 - 4:08 PM
sandeep
Did u read SLB s article on “conversions” in Vijaya Karnataka(yesterdays edition).Its a pity… such meaningful debates will never get published in the english print media.
17. October 2008 - 9:14 PM
Sandeep,
I have come to know that Aavarana has been translated to Sanskrit. Any news about English version?
17. October 2008 - 10:18 PM
Vir Sanghvi and his ilk should spend most of the rest of their lives reading up on Hindu Dharma and resist the temptation to throw their misbegotten “convictions” on the rest of us.
17. October 2008 - 10:31 PM
People who drive spend a lot of time checking their rear-view mirror and their side mirrors. Its part of good, safe driving. People who do not know how to drive, and do not *care* to know how to drive, who only want to criticize drivers, will say that drivers are fools that admire themselves in the mirror every so often while driving, and that this practice is wrong and wretched.
These people are fools who do not know that looking into the mirror is essential to driving.
This somewhat translates to Hindu Dharma. People who do not understand -and do not *care* to understand Hindu Dharma- call it animist, idolatrous, superstition-laden, etc. These fools need to make a sincere attempt to understand Hindu Dharma.
Food for thought: The smartest, most educated, richest immigrant segment in the US is Indians, the vast majority of whom are Hindu. Does it not occur to the missionaries (Vir Sanghvi’s ideological bosses) how an idolatrious people could be so smart?
17. October 2008 - 10:58 PM
This is interesting now.. :
Cong MP suspected behind VHP leader’s murder
http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17911§ionid=4&issueid=75&Itemid=1
18. October 2008 - 3:29 AM
I believe Mr. Saxena is probably coming to this issue from an Objectivist perspective, rather than the “Comrade” one.
18. October 2008 - 9:05 AM
>>Lots of people? Like Aikath, Saxena, Dhusakar Nair, Jahnavi, Mridula, Balaji, Rama Rao, Soma Rao, Squared Off, Cubed Out, Amit, Nikhil, Chorakkot etc, etc?
mebbe them. others too. also RR, raghu redy, oh i forgot thats you anyway??
>>Let me know what’s your problem with it.
shri ot said “Conversion doesn’t have to be banned. Proselytism has to be.”
tushar asked “Pray tell, how do you define “proselytizingâ€?”
shri ot replys “I don’t know, and I don’t have to know.”
so shri ot wants to ban sthg that he cant define. shri ot never will answer any qustion.
>>And as to hindus being weak and converting for a bag of rice,
hindus are not weak. but owner of this site and his readers they want to make hinduism *appear* as to be weak andd frightened. maybe becoz they are like that only.
18. October 2008 - 4:03 PM
Comrade Aikath,
You sound like a cubed out commie to me. Because …
>>tushar asked “Pray tell, how do you define “proselytizingâ€?â€
>>shri ot replys “I don’t know, and I don’t have to know.â€
… it’s the technique of cubed out commies to strip statements of context. Shri OT also said:
“I’ll leave that to legal experts. Lay people can name and identify phenomena, activities etc, but defining them in the context of a legal framework is the job of legal experts.”
Did those couple sentences scorch your bottom, Comrade Aikath, since you seem afraid to mention them?
18. October 2008 - 4:14 PM
>>hindus are not weak.
You ought to know, Comrade Aikath, you ought to know. True, Hindus are not weak, but I don’t say stuff to you burn your bottom (I actually kind of like commie catholics) so never be afraid to repeat what I said.
19. October 2008 - 5:46 PM
Mr. Sandeep, do u think Vir Sanghvi”s article is able to explain or even write everything bout the hindu mythology or conversion or watever as refuted by you?
plz dont try too hard to defend ur Hindu fanatic antics? just rem’ wats happening against the christians in india is NOT right. no matter how hard u try, truth will always prevail and justice will be done in the eyes of our Almighty God!
20. October 2008 - 1:24 AM
“plz dont try too hard to defend ur Hindu fanatic antics?”
Fanatics are those who claim “our God is true, your God is false” and then proceed to condemn unbelievers to hell fire or burn them on the stake. That is what fanaticism is all about. We don’t want these kind of “religions” in India. Spare us the love that you have been spreading throughout the world, from Red Indians to Goan Hindus to Rwandans.
20. October 2008 - 7:58 AM
Dear Shuvro Aitkath
Conversion is the root cause of all problems. If you are not aware of this, then you must have landed on this earth recently from another palnet.As someone has said,the right to religious freedom enunciated in the constitution should not be misunderstood as a right to convert others.
Conversion is a worst form of violence. Conversion interferes with an individual’s right to continue and practise his own natural religion.
Conversion disturbs a peaceful land and peace loving people and brings social disorder. Whatever happened to the native culture of Europe? South America? Australia?
Ban relegious conversion, I say.
4. April 2009 - 3:51 PM
It is precisely Hindus like Sanghvi that have let things go as far as they have gone in India. Its ok for other religions to convert Hindus as they are minorities but the reverse (which in my view has never been documented) is intolerable. Thanks to the vote bank politics of parties that have led the country for the most part of its free life.
Way to go!
12. April 2009 - 5:05 PM
People like Vir Sanhvi have licked feet of politicians and westerners to come to the stage where they stand today. It is a shame that it mainly the people of India (esp. the powerful ones) that have given idiots like Sanghvi many chances to spread insane ideas.
Everyone knows the mission of the Christian missionaries — Conversion. And conversion of religion is the same as change of nationality (Swami Vivekananda). How much has Sanghvi (dog of Congress) written about the British atrocities against Indians? Has he ever owned come up with the notion of “biased media” in India? Why can’t he ever praise Hindu religion or achievements of our ancestors?
I studied in an elite Chrisitan school (Bishop Cotton School, Shimla) fro 9 years, and over there we were forced to follow Christians beliefs, visit the Chapel on weekdays for 30 minutes everyday. Why the hell he never writes about these schools? We were beaten up from the age of 5 years for not speaking in English. No one cares to report that. Media of India sucks and is the foremost institution of corruption.