Category: Articles

Why Gandhi opted for Nehru and not Sardar Patel for PM

From: savarkar vinayak < >

Why Gandhi opted for Nehru

and not Sardar Patel for PM

 

History is written by the victors”. The official history of independent India was written and overseen by that faction of the Congress party which emerged victorious in the leadership tussle on the eve of independence with the tacit but partisan support of none other than the all powerful and universally venerable Gandhi.

 

According to this official history, Jawahar Lal Nehru was elected as the first Prime minister of India and Sardar Patel became his deputy and it was all done purely on merit.

The official history has always downplayed the grave injustice that was done to the ‘Iron Man of India’ – Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. It’s not that the official history does not mention the emergence of Sardar Patel and not Jawahar Lal Nehru as the overwhelming choice of the Congress party to lead India after independence but it has been reduced to mere footnotes and nothing more.

 

Today, on the 137th birth anniversary of Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, let’s revisit the entire intra-party power struggle within Congress on the eve of independence and let’s figure out what really went in favor of Jawahar Lal Nehru and what was it that deprived Sardar Patel his moment of glory despite the overwhelming support he enjoyed amongst the Congressmen.

The entire rank and file of the Congress looked at Sardar Patel as the most deserving candidate to be sworn in as independent India’s first Prime Minister, given his proven track record of being an able administrator and a no-nonsense politician. Then what really went wrong? To find out the answer, we need to rewind back to 1946.

 

By 1946, it had become quite clear that India’s independence was only a matter of time now. The Second World War had come to an end and the British rulers had started thinking in terms of transferring power to Indians.

An interim government was to be formed which was to be headed by the Congress president as Congress had won the maximum number of seats in the 1946 elections. All of a sudden, the post of Congress president became very crucial as it was this very person who was going to become the first Prime Minister of independent India.

 

At that time, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was the president of Congress party. In fact, he was the president for the last six years as elections could not be held for the Congress president’s post since 1940 due to Quit India movement, the Second World War and the fact that most of the leaders were behind bars.

Azad was also interested in fighting and winning election for the Congress president’s post as he, too, had ambitions to become the PM, but he was told in no uncertain terms by Mahatma Gandhi that he does not approve of a second term for a sitting Congress president and Azad had to fall in line, albeit reluctantly. Not only this, Gandhi made it very clear to everybody that Nehru was his preferred choice for the Congress president’s position.

 

The last date for the nominations for the post of the President of Congress, and thereby the first Prime Minister of India, was April 29, 1946.

And the nominations were to be made by 15 state/regional Congress committees. Despite Gandhi’s well-known preference for Nehru as Congress president, not a single Congress committee nominated Nehru’s name.

On the contrary, 12 out of 15 Congress committees nominated Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. The remaining three Congress committees did not nominate any body’s name. Obviously, the overwhelming majority was in favour of Sardar Patel.

 

It was a challenge to Mahatma Gandhi as well. He instructed Acharya J B Kriplani to get some proposers for Nehru from the Congress Working Committee (CWC) members despite knowing full well that only Pradesh Congress Committees were authorized to nominate the president.

In deference to Gandhi’s wish, Kriplani convinced a few CWC members to propose Nehru’s name for party president.

 

It’s not that Gandhi was not aware of the immorality of this exercise. He had fully realized that what he was trying to bring about was wrong and totally unfair.

In fact, he tried to make Nehru understand the reality. He conveyed to Nehru that no PCC has nominated his name and that only a few CWC members have nominated him. A shell-shocked Nehru was defiant and made it clear that he will not play second fiddle to anybody.

 

A disappointed Gandhi gave into Nehru’s obduracy and asked Sardar Patel to withdraw his name. Sardar Patel had immense respect for Gandhi and he withdrew his candidature without wasting any time. And it paved the way for the coronation of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru as India’s first Prime Minister.

 

But why did Gandhi overlook the overwhelming support for Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel?

Why was he so enamored with Nehru?

When Dr Rajendra Prasad heard of Sardar Patel’s withdrawal of nomination, he was disappointed and remarked that Gandhi had once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant in favor of the ‘glamorous Nehru’.

Was it the ‘glamour’ and ‘sophistication’ of Nehru that floored Gandhi so much that he did not hesitate in doing grave injustice to Patel?

 

The answer to this question is not that simple. But a closer analysis of Gandhi’s approach towards Patel and Nehru throws light over a few facts that can decipher the mystery.

 

There is no denying the fact that Gandhi had a ‘soft corner’ for Nehru since beginning and he had preferred Nehru over Sardar Patel at least twice before 1946 for the post of Congress president. It happened in 1929 as well as in 1937.

 

Gandhi was always impressed with the modern outlook of Nehru. In comparison to Nehru, Sardar Patel was a little orthodox and Gandhi thought India needed a person who was modern in his approach.

But more than anything, Gandhi always knew that Sardar Patel would never defy him. He was not so convinced about Nehru. Gandhi’s apprehensions came true when Nehru made it clear to him that he was not willing to play second fiddle to anybody.

 

Perhaps, Gandhi wanted both Nehru and Patel to provide leadership to the country. He used his veto power in favour of Nehru because he feared Nehru could cause problems in the way of India’s independence if he was not given the chance to become Prime Minister.

 

Some analysts have also claimed that Nehru threatened to split the Congress in case he was not made prime Minister.

According to these analysts, Nehru coerced Gandhi into supporting him by saying that if he split the Congress, the entire independence plan would go awry as the British would get an excuse in delaying independence by raising the question as to who should be handed over the reins of power, Congress with Nehru or Congress minus Nehru.

 

Gandhi must have thought that it would be safe to ask Sardar Patel for making the sacrifice than to reason with a power-smitten Nehru. In fact, he had commented that Nehru had gone power-mad.

 

So, we can conclude that Gandhi chose Nehru over Patel because of two main reasons:

1. Gandhi believed a foreign educated Nehru with modern thoughts had an edge over Patel who, according to him, was orthodox in his thoughts.

2. Gandhi feared Nehru would revolt in case he was denied PM’s post and that would give the British an excuse to delay transfer of power. On the other hand, he was fully convinced of Sardar Patel’s loyalty. He knew Sardar Patel was a true patriot and would never play a spoilsport.

 

But Gandhi’s decision proved too costly for the nation.

First of all, Gandhi introduced the concept of forced decisions by the so-called ‘high-commands’ that usually means overruling state units. This practice, now being followed across the political spectrum, has negated the very concept of inner party democracy. Nehru’s follies on Kashmir and China proved beyond doubt the fact that Gandhi committed a mistake in backing Nehru by showing utter disregard to overwhelming support from the majority of PCCs for Sardar Patel.

 

Even two known critics of Sardar Patel conceded the point that Gandhi’s decision to chose Nehru over Patel was erroneous.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad confessed in his autobiography that was published posthumously in 1959, “It was a mistake on my part that I did not support Sardar Patel. We differed on many issues but I am convinced that if he had succeeded me as Congress President he would have seen that the Cabinet Mission Plan was successfully implemented. He would have never committed the mistake of Jawaharlal which gave Mr. Jinnah an opportunity of sabotaging the Plan. I can never forgive myself when I think that if I had not committed these mistakes, perhaps the history of the last ten years would have been different.”

Similarly, C Rajagopalachari who blamed Sardar Patel for depriving him of the first president-ship of independent India, wrote, “Undoubtedly it would have been better if Nehru had been asked to be the Foreign Minister and Patel made the Prime Minister. I too fell into the error of believing that Jawaharlal was the more enlightened person of the two… A myth had grown about Patel that he would be harsh towards Muslims. This was a wrong notion but it was the prevailing prejudice.”

 

But questions can be raised over Sardar Patel’s surrender as well.

Who was he more loyal to: to an individual, to an organization, or to his motherland? When he was convinced that Nehru was not fit enough to give the much-needed guidance that a nascent country so desperately wanted, why did he not object even once to the foisting of Nehru as India’s first Prime Minister?

History has proved it beyond doubt that had Patel been the PM in place of Nehru, the country would not have faced the humiliation of 1962 war.

Days before his death, Patel had written a letter to Nehru warning him about China’s nefarious designs but Nehru didn’t pay any attention to that letter. Even Kashmir would not have become a thorn in the flesh for India, had Patel and not Nehru been the first prime minister of India.
No wonder Gandhi was (were not) shot, history of India would have been completely different (worse in my view. – Skanda987)

 

 

What the Muslim invaders really did in India

What the Muslim invaders really did in India

Rizwan Salim, Hindustan Times December 28,1997

http://www.hvk.org/articles/1297/0110.html

On the anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition (December 6, 1992), it is important for Hindus (and Muslims) to understand the importance of the event in the context of Hindustan’s history, past and recent, present and the future.

Savages at a very low level of civilization and no culture worth the name, from Arabia and west Asia, began entering India from the early century onwards. Islamic invaders demolished countless Hindu temples, shattered uncountable sculpture and idols, plundered innumerable palaces and forts of Hindu kings, killed vast numbers of Hindu men and carried off Hindu women. This story, the educated-and a lot of even the illiterate Indians-know very well. History books tell it in remarkable detail. But many Indians do not seem to recognize that the alien Muslim marauders destroyed the historical evolution of the earth’s most mentally advanced civilization, the most richly imaginative culture, and the most vigorously creative society.

It is clear that India at the time when Muslim invaders turned towards it (8 to 11th century) was the earth’s richest region for its wealth in precious and semi-precious stones, gold and silver, religion and culture, and its fine arts and letters. Tenth century Hindustan was also too far advanced than its contemporaries in the East and the West for its achievements in the realms of speculative philosophy and scientific theorizing, mathematics and knowledge of nature’s workings. Hindus of the early medieval period were unquestionably superior in more things than the Chinese, the Persians (including the Sassanians), the Romans and the Byzantines of the immediate proceeding centuries. The followers of Siva and Vishnu on this subcontinent had created for themselves a society more mentally evolved-joyous and prosperous too-than had been realized by the Jews, Christians, and Muslim monotheists of the time. Medieval India, until the Islamic invaders destroyed it, was history’s most richly imaginative culture and one of the five most advanced civilizations of all times.

Look at the Hindu art that Muslim iconoclasts severely damaged or destroyed. Ancient Hindu sculpture is vigorous and sensual in the highest degree-more fascinating than human figural art created anywhere else on earth. (Only statues created by classical Greek artists are in the same class as Hindu temple sculpture). Ancient Hindu temple architecture is the most awe-inspiring, ornate and spell-binding architectural style found anywhere in the world. (The Gothic art of cathedrals in France is the only other religious architecture that is comparable with the intricate architecture of Hindu temples). No artist of any historical civilization has ever revealed the same genius as ancient Hindustan’s artists and artisans.

Their minds filled with venom against the idol-worshippers of Hindustan, the Muslims destroyed a large number of ancient Hindu temples. This is a historical fact, mentioned by Muslim chroniclers and others of the time. A number of temples were merely damaged and remained standing. But a large number -not hundreds but many thousands – of the ancient temples were broken into shreds of cracked stone. In the ancient cities of Varanasi and Mathura, Ujjain and Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi and Dwarka, not one temple survives whole and intact from the ancient times.

The wrecking of Hindu temples went on from the early years of the 8th century to well past 1700 AD a period of almost 1000 years. Every Muslim ruler in Delhi (or Governor of Provinces) spent most of his time warring against Hindu kings in the north and the south, the east and the west, and almost every Muslim Sultan and his army commanders indulged in large-scale destructions of Hindu temples and idols. They also slaughtered a lot of Hindus. It is easy to conclude that virtually every Hindu temple built in the ancient times is a perfect work of art.

The evidence of the ferocity with which the Muslim invaders must have struck at the sculptures of gods and goddesses, demons and apsaras, kings and queens, dancers and musicians is frightful. At so many ancient temples of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, for example, shattered portions of stone images still lie scattered in the temple courtyards. Considering the fury used on the idols and sculptures, the stone-breaking axe must have been applied to thousands upon thousands of images of hypnotic beauty.

Giving proof of the resentment that men belonging to an inferior civilization feel upon encountering a superior civilization of individuals with a more refined culture, Islamic invaders from Arabia and western Asia broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan. So morally degenerate were the Muslim Sultans that, rather than attract Hindu “infidels” to Islam through force of personal example and exhortation, they just built a number of mosques at the sites of torn down temples-and foolishly pretended they had triumphed over the minds and culture of the Hindus. I have seen stones and columns of Hindu temples incorporated into the architecture of several mosques, including the Jama Masjid and Ahmed Shah Masjid in Ahmedabad; the mosque in the Uparkot fort of Junagadh (Gujarat) and in Vidisha (near Bhopal); the Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra right next to the famous dargah in Ajmer-and the currently controversial Bhojshala “mosque” in Dhar (near Indore).

Hindu culture was at its imaginative best and vigorously creative when the severely-allergic-to-images Muslims entered Hindustan. Islamic invaders did not just destroy countless temples and constructions but also suppressed cultural and religious practices; damaged the pristine vigor of Hindu religion, prevented the intensification of Hindu culture, debilitating it permanently, stopped the development of Hindu arts ended the creative impulse in all realms of thought and action, damaged the people’s cultural pride, disrupted the transmission of values and wisdom, cultural practices and tradition from one generation to the next; destroyed the proper historical evolution of Hindu kingdoms and society, affected severely the acquisition of knowledge, research and reflection and violated the moral basis of Hindu society. The Hindus suffered immense psychic damage. The Muslims also plundered the wealth of the Hindu kingdoms, impoverished the Hindu populace, and destroyed the prosperity of Hindustan.

Gaze in wonder at the Kailas Mandir in the Ellora caves and remember that it is carved out of a solid stone hill, an effort that (inscriptions say) took nearly 200 years. This is art as devotion. The temple built by the Rashtrakuta kings (who also built the colossal sculpture in the Elenhanta (Elephenta?) caves off Mumbai harbor) gives proof of the ancient Hindus’ religious fervor.

But the Kailas temple also indicated a will power, a creative imagination, and an intellect eager to take on the greatest of artistic challenges.

The descendants of those who built the magnificent temples of Bhojpur and Thanjavur, Konark and Kailas, invented mathematics and brain surgery, created mind-body disciplines (yoga) of astonishing power, and built mighty empires would almost certainly have attained technological superiority over Europe.

It is not just for “political reasons” that Hindus want to build grand temples at the sites of the (wrecked) Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, and the Mathura idgah. The efforts of religion-intoxicated and politically active Hindus to rebuild the Ram Mandir, the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir, and the Krishna Mandir are just three episodes m a one-thousand year long Hindu struggle to reclaim their culture and religion from alien invaders.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992 was just one episode in the millennial struggle of the Hindus to repossess their religion-centered culture and nation. Meanwhile, hundreds of ancient Hindu temples forsaken all over Hindustan await the reawakening of Hindu cultural pride to be repaired or rebuilt and restored to their original, ancient glory.

==

(This Muslim author’s ancestors, like almost all the Hindustani Muslims’ ancestors some 3-5 hundred years ago were Hindus who were forced to accept Islaam. Therefore, the author and all the Hindustani Muslims need to give up Islaam. For full rationale why this is right thing to do, read a short article at:

https://skanda987.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/affidavit-of-quitting-islaam/

-Skanda987)

 

Nationalists must protest against Indo-Pak cricket

From: J. G. Arora

Dear friends,

Though Indo-Pak cricket ties had been snapped after the Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack on Mumbai in November, 2008 which claimed about 200 innocent lives, Indian Government has approved Indo-Pak cricket series to be played in India in December, 2012.

All nationalist individuals and organizations must peacefully protest against this shameful and self-destructive move since this invitation to Pakistan to play cricket in India conveys the following terrible messages:

i. Indo-Pak cricket justifies Pakistan’s frequent terrorist attacks which have killed thousands of innocents in India.

ii. Indo-Pak cricket means that the sentiments of families of countless innocents and martyrs who sacrificed their lives in terrorist attacks upon India do not matter.

iii. Indo-Pak cricket justifies Pakistan sponsored genocide of Kashmiri Hindus and their eviction from Kashmir during 1989-1990.

iv. Indo-Pak cricket implies that Pakistan was justified in driving out Hindus and Sikhs from its land after the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

v. Indo-Pak cricket means that Pakistan is justified in allowing the kidnapping and forcible conversion of Hindu girls and their marriage to Muslims in Pakistan.

vi. Indo-Pak cricket also legitimizes Pakistan’s school education which teaches hatred against India and Hindus.

vii. Indo-Pak cricket also condones infiltration of crores of Pak-Bangla nationals into India. 

With regards,

Jai

==

Please describe how to protest and whom to press for effective action to ban Indo-Pak cricket. – Skanda987

 

When sovereignty belongs to a god, Claims of tolerance are often in self-interest

When sovereignty belongs to a god, Claims of tolerance are often in self-interest

Aakar Patel, Nov 22 2012

http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/h34SBYVy3lfWwMIny905CI/When-sovereignty-belongs-to-a-god.html

A community demonstrates its secular and pluralistic credentials where it is a majority. As minorities, all communities make claims of tolerance because it’s in their self-interest. On the Indian subcontinent, which they know by the beautiful name Burr-e-Sagheer, Muslims are in a majority in three corners. West (Pakistan), north (Kashmir), east (Bangladesh). They are a minority in two regions. The centre they called Hindustan, from Sirhind, the head of Hind, to the Tapi river. From Surat, on the south bank of the Tapi, begins Dakhin. There is a continuity across the three geographical areas where Muslims are a majority. It is neither secular nor plural. First let’s see it in Pakistan’s constitution.

Sovereignty in that nation belongs not to Pakistan’s citizens and voters, but “to Allah Almighty alone”. Minorities get “adequate provision” to “freely profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures”. In 1951, the word “freely” was inserted. In 1985, it was removed. In 2010, it was reinserted. This is a commonplace in Muslim states, and I shall explain why later.

Pakistan’s constitution says the “principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed”. How much democracy, freedom, equality and tolerance?

In Pakistan, no Sikh can become president [Article 41 (2)], no Christian can become prime minister (Article 91-5). The real villain is, of course, the Hindu. This is what Pakistani children are taught in class V: “The Hindu has always been an enemy of Islam” and “Hindus worship in temples, which are very narrow and dark places, where they worship idols”. In class VI: “Hindus live in small, dark houses” and Partition happened because the Congress “demanded that the Muslims should either embrace Hinduism or leave the country” (taken from A.H. Nayyar and Ahmed Salim’s work The Subtle Subversion).

To become a Pakistani legislator one must be “not commonly known as one who violates Islamic injunctions” (Article 62-1d), must have “adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam” (Article 62-1e). Interior minister Rehman Malik was in September unseated by the Supreme Court, which observed that he was not a good enough Muslim. In Pakistan, you don’t decide what faith you belong to: Islam will determine this. Punjab’s finance minister Rana Asif Mahmood (also fired this year by the Supreme Court) is a Christian, as was his father, Rana Taj Mahmood. A few months ago, someone mistakenly recorded Asif Mahmood’sfaith in the national database as Islam. Mahmood now cannot change this because the punishment for leaving Islam is death. Once a Muslim, even by someone’s mistake, always a Muslim. This is not the saying of some cleric, it is the order of Pakistan’s chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

“Secular” is an allegation in Pakistani politics. It is a word of abuse. Its meaning is “la-deen” (outside Islam).

Now Kashmir.

The warriors of independence from India are Islam’s warriors, not secularists. No need to look too far to prove this. The two biggest Kashmiri leaders represent Islamic conservatism (Umar Farooq, the head cleric or Mirwaiz of Srinagar) and Islamic radicalism (Ali Shah Geelani of Jamaat-e-Islami). Both men want Shariah.

The freedom fighters are called Muhammad’s soldiers (Jaish-e-Muhammad), Muhammad’s army (Lashkar-e-Taiba) and Muhammad’s helpers (Harkat ul-Ansar, now known as Harket ul-Mujahideen). The freedom fighter is a mujahid, his cause is jihad against Hindus.

Will azadi from India mean Kashmir will be relocated to Arabia? No, it will remain on the Indian subcontinent, north of Jammu, west of Ladakh.

Kashmir’s azadi means freedom from India’s secular constitution. Azadi is the right of Kashmiri Muslims to persecute Kashmiri non-Muslims because that is what Shariah stands for in Pakistan as we have seen. Now Bangladesh.

The high culture of all Bengalis was Hindu because it is Rabindric. The politics of Bangladesh is split on whether this should continue (the position of Sheikh Hasina’s Bangladesh Awami League) or be dismantled and made Islamic (the position of Khaleda Zia’s BNP, or Bangladesh Nationalist Party), which is allied with the Jamaat-e-Islami).

Like in Pakistan, Islam is the religion of the state in Bangladesh. This was the doing of dictators. Hasina promised her Hindu voters she would change that democratically but couldn’t. This is because the majority of Bangladeshi Muslims prefer an Islamic state to a secular one. Bangladesh was a third Hindu at Partition. It, today, is about a 10th Hindu.

Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim was inserted into the Bangladesh constitution and removed by the Supreme Court. This has become a major issue in politics. I spoke earlier about the unease of Pakistan with the word “freely” when offering non-Muslims the right to practise their faith. This is because the Islamic state defines itself through discrimination. In fact, a state becomes Islamic through demotion of non-Muslims. Jizya, the tax for being born Hindu, was applied, then removed, reapplied and then removed by Maratha force during the Mughal period. The same thing, as we have seen, is happening in Pakistan’s constitution.

The second aspect of Muslim majority on the subcontinent is the depopulation of its minorities. Pakistan was 70% Muslim at Partition, today it is 97% Muslim. Having got rid of minorities, Muslims then turn on themselves. Takfiri (declaring one another kafir (non-believer) has been the primary pastime of Muslims through their history.

Since 2000, 10 times more Muslims have died on the subcontinent in religious violence at the hands of fellow Muslims than at the hands of Hindus. There is great discrimination, great oppression of Muslims on the subcontinent, but it is mostly from fellow Muslims.

Hindus are better off under Hindu majority. But the truth is that the Muslim is also better off under Hindu majority because he’s protected from his own mischief under Islam. There’s a bomb ticking in Pakistan’s constitution. It is Article 227 (1): “All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam” and “no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions.” Implementation of this is all that Taliban and al-Qaeda are demanding. They are on the right side of the law.

To me the Pakistani Muslim is the same as an Indian Muslim. He understands my words of abuse as I do his. Our wives both cook with garam masala. He’s my brother and we share a culture. A political line drawn a few decades ago doesn’t change that. My problem, looking at Pakistan dispassionately, is that it is not self-correcting. The question is why. Let’s look at an unusual place to find its answer next week.

Aakar Patel is a writer and a columnist. Send your feedback to replytoall@livemint.com

Validity demonstrated of the Vedic Yoga processes: A video – A Fire Yogi

From Satish Oberoi < >
Incredible. Mantras make man immune to fire and live with almost no food and water?.. Can science catch up?

It seems according to Aghori tradition, what we call Gayatri,  is actually Savitri mantra. Real Gayatri mantra is secret and is extremely powerful.

http://www.drishtikone.com/fire-yogi-who-is-in-union-with-fire-and-lies-on-firewood-in-flames-video/#.ULnj3E6dsBM.email

Origin of European gypsies traced to NW India

HYDERABAD, November 30, 2012

Origin of European gypsy population traced to north-

western India

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

Scientists at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology crack mystery surrounding the origin, migration of Roma population

Scientists at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) have said that they have cracked the mystery surrounding the origin and migration of the Roma (gypsy) population.

A team of international scientists led by CCMB’s Kumarasamy Thangaraj concluded that the aboriginal scheduled tribe and scheduled caste population of north-western India, traditionally referred as Doma and also as Dalits, are the most likely ancestral population of modern European Roma.

The development assumes significance in view of the curiosity surrounding the parental lineage of the European gypsy population.

Though linguistic and genetic studies of the European Roma have been traced to Eurasia, the exact parental population group and time of dispersal remained disputed in the absence of archaeological evidence and scanty historical documentation of the Roma.

The study found that the exile time of the Roma founders from India could be approximately put at 1,405 years ago.

The conclusion was arrived at after an exhaustive study involving screening of about 10,000 males around the world, including 7,000 hailing from 205 ethnic population of India to discern a more precise ancestral source of Romani (gypsy) population.

Single founder

Dr. Thangaraj explained that all males of a family or a population evolved from a single founder make and would possess the same Y chromosome.

Based on the genetic signature that exists on the Y chromosome, every male could be assigned to a specific group (haplogroup), enabling tracing of parental lineage using these signatures.

It was shown that the European Roma possessed the Y chromosome haplogroup Hlala. The most recent common ancestor of European Roma was not identified because of the absence of similar data from their putative homeland, India.

“We have compared the worldwide phylogeographical data for Indian Hlala haplotypes with Roma and concluded that Doma are most likely ancestral populations,” he said.

George van Driem, a linguist from University of Bern, Switzerland, who was part of the team, said the finding corroborated the similarity in the terms Roma and Doma and resolved the controversy about Gangetic Plain and Punjab in favour of north-western portion from where widespread range of Doma population diffused.

Linguistic, Indological studies

Another member Gyaneshwer Chaubey said it was noteworthy that the closest as well as matching haplotypes with Roma were found only in the SC/ST populations of northwest India.

This corroborated the linguistic evidence and most recent reconstruction of the likely ethno-linguistic origins and affinities of gypsies based on linguistic and Indological studies, he said.

 

M K Gandhi on Conversion

From: Sudhir Architect < >

 

1,240 CHRISTIANS INCLUDING A PASTOR COME BACK TO HINDUISM!

 

It will give you pleasure to know that 1240 converted Christians including a Pastor came back to Hinduism.  The program was organized by Dharma Jagran Vibhag, with the help of Gayatri Parivar and Arya Samaj.  Please read the complete report.

 

http://www.organiser.org/Encyc/2012/6/3/-b-1,240-Christians-including-a-pastor-came-back-to-Hinduism–b-.aspx?NB=&lang=4&m1=&m2=&p1=&p2=&p3=&p4=&PageType=N

 

 

USA president Obama gets Nobel peace prize for waging war

& Gandhiji does not get it because………..read below….

 

Mahatma Gandhi on Conversion

 

Gandhiji was not awarded the Nobel peace prize because he refused to be converted. Now that missionaries are spreading their tentacles far and wide in India converting people by allurement, inducement and fraud (In the north east killings and threats are becoming commonplace) Gandhiji’s message is all the more relevant in understanding and reacting to this problem. Missionary Terrorism will become as dangerous as Islamic terrorism if ignored. Please read & distribute.

 

Compiled by Swami Aksharananda

(Track No. 010119.1, Jan. 19, 2001)

 

I Call Myself a Sanatani Hindu

 

I call myself a Sanatani Hindu, because I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, and all that goes by the name of Hindu scripture, and therefore in avataras and rebirth; I believe in the varnashrama dharma in a sense, in my opinion strictly Vedic but not in its presently popular and distorted crude sense; I believe in the protection of cow. I do not disbelieve in murti puja. (Young India: June 10, 1921)

 

Why I am Not a Convert

 

Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, and fills my whole being. When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita. (Young India: June 8, 1925)

 

I Disbelieve in Conversion

 

I disbelieve in the conversion of one person by another. My effort should never to be to undermine another’s faith. This implies belief in the truth of all religions and, therefore, respect for them. It implies true humility. (Young India: April 23, 1931)

 

Conversion: Impediment to Peace

 

It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world’s progress toward peace. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man? (Harijan: January 30, 1937)

 

No Such Thing as Conversion

 

I believe that there is no such thing as conversion from one faith to another in the accepted sense of the word. It is a highly personal matter for the individual and his God. I may not have any design upon my neighbor as to his faith which I must honor even as I honor my own. Having reverently studied the scriptures of the world I could no more think of asking a Christian or a Musalman, or a Parsi or a Jew to change his faith than I would think of changing my own. (Harijan: September 9, 1935)

 

No Conversion Designs Upon Me

 

I am not interested in weaning you from Christianity and making you Hindu, and I do not relish your designs upon me, if you had any, to convert me to Christianity. I would also dispute your claim that Christianity is the only true religion. (Harijan: June 3, 1937)

 

Conversion

 

Conversion must not mean denationalization. Conversion should mean a definite giving up of the evil of the old, adoption of all the good of the new and a scrupulous avoidance of everything evil in the new. Conversion, therefore, should mean a life of greater dedication to one’s country, greater surrender to God, greater self-purification. (Young India: August 20, 1925)

 

Aping of Europeans and Americans

 

As I wander about through the length and breadth of India I see many Christian Indians almost ashamed of their birth, certainly of their ancestral religion, and of their ancestral dress. The aping of Europeans by Anglo-Indians is bad enough, but the aping of them by Indian converts is a violence done to their country and, shall I say, even to their new religion. (Young India: August 8, 1925)

 

Why Should I Change My Religion

 

I hold that proselytization under the cloak of humanitarian work is unhealthy to say the least. It is most resented by people here. Religion after all is a deeply personal thing. It touches the heart.

 

Why should I change my religion because the doctor who professes Christianity as his religion has cured me of some disease, or why should the doctor expect me to change whilst I am under his influence? (Young India: April 23, 1931)

 

Missionary Aim: Uprooting Hinduism

 

My fear is that though Christian friends nowadays do not say or admit it that Hindu religion is untrue, they must harbor in their breast that Hinduism is an error and that Christianity, as they believe it, is the only true religion. So far as one can understand the present (Christian) effort, it is to uproot Hinduism from her very foundation and replace it by another faith. (Harijan: March 13,1937)

 

Undermining People’s Faith

 

The first distinction I would like to make between your missionary work and mine is that while I am strengthening the faith of people, you (missionaries) are undermining it. (Young India: November 8, 1927)

 

Physician, Heal Yourself

 

Conversion nowadays has become a matter of business, like any other. India (Hindus) is in no need of conversion of this kind. Conversion in the sense of self-purification, self-realization is the crying need of the times. That however is never what is meant by proselytization. To those who would convert India (Hindus), might it not be said, “Physician, heal yourself.” (Young India: April 23, 1931)

 

Missionaries: Vendors of Goods

 

When the missionary of another religion goes to them, he goes like a vendor of goods. He has no special spiritual merit that will distinguish him from those to whom he goes. He does however possess material goods which he promises to those who will come to his fold. (Harijan: April 3, 1937)

 

If I had the Power and Could Legislate

 

If I had the power and could legislate, I should stop all proselytizing. In Hindu households the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink. (November 5, 1935)

 

The Only Begotten Son of God?

 

I regard Jesus as a great teacher of humanity, but I do not regard him as the only begotten son of God. That epithet in its material interpretation is quite unacceptable. Metaphorically we are all sons of God, but for each of us there may be different sons of God in a special sense. Thus for me Chaitanya may be the only begotten son of God. God cannot be the exclusive Father and I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus. (Harijan: June 3, 1937)

 

Western Christianity Today

 

It is my firm opinion that Europe (and the United States) does not represent the spirit of God or Christianity but the spirit of Satan. And Satan’s successes are the greatest when appears with the name of God on his lips. (Young India: September 8, 1920)

 

I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ’s Christianity. I cannot conceive Jesus, if he was living in flesh in our midst, approving of modern Christian organizations, public worship, or ministry. (Young India: September 22, 1921)

 

Christianity and Imperialistic Exploitation

 

Christianity in India has been inextricably mixed up for the last one hundred and fifty years with British rule. It appears to us as synonymous with materialistic civilization and imperialistic exploitation by the stronger white races of the weaker races of the world. Its contribution to India has been, therefore, largely negative. (Young India: March 21, 1929)

 

No Room For Them

 

In the manner in which they are working there would seem to be no room for them. Quite unconsciously they do harm to themselves and also to us. It is perhaps impertinent to say that they do harm to themselves, but quite pertinent to say that they do harm to us. They do harm to those amongst whom they work and those amongst whom they do not work; i.e., the harm is done to the whole of India. The more I study their activities the more sorry I become. It is a tragedy that such a thing should happen to the human family. (Harijan: December 12, 1936)

 

Outrage!

 

Only the other day a missionary descended on a famine area with money in his pocket, distributed it among the famine stricken, converted them to his fold, took charge of their temple, and demolished it. This is outrageous. (Harijan: November 5, 1937)

 

Let the Hindu be a Better Hindu

 

I came to the conclusion long ago that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu. But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian. (Young India: January 19, 1928)

 

Welcome Them Back

 

If a person through fear, compulsion, starvation, or for material gain or consideration goes over to another faith, it is a misnomer to call it conversion. Most cases of conversion have been to my mind a false coin. I would therefore unhesitatingly re-admit to the Hindu fold all such repentants without much ado. If a man comes back to the original branch, he deserves to be welcomed in so far as he may deem to have erred, he has sufficiently purged himself of it when he repents his error and retraces his steps. (Collected Works: Vol. 66, pp. 163-164)

 

“THE SPIRIT OF HINDU RELIGION” SOME THOUGHTS

“THE SPIRIT OF HINDU RELIGION”
SOME THOUGHTS

By Deva Samaroo < >

(Note – The inserts in italics are by skanda987)

What makes Hindu religion so great that, it survived nearly 1000 years of barbarian Arab oppression and retained its very existence? Tolerant Hindu faith is the soul of humanity and symbols of coexistence philosophy. (Tolerance of adharma is adharma and cowardice.) Under brutal Arab persecution Hindus in number never took sward; rather adjusted with the situation. (Rajputs, Marathaas, Sikhs, and others did fight against the invaders; but unfortunately there was no unity at national level even when there was (is) unity culturally.)In the middle age SRI CHAITTANYA Mahaprabhu preached tolerant VAISHNAV religion against barbarian Arab doctrine. [Vishnavism (the Bhakti panth/yoga) is with us since the time of Sanat Kumaras and Narad, theu sond of Bhrhmaa. The first Vaishnav Aacharya after Shankaracharya was Ramanujacharya in the period 1117 to 1137. Sri Chaitanya who appeared about 500 years ago was not tolerant as you describe. When the Muslim Kazi prohibited sankirtan parties in public, he did satyaagraha against him, and won. So, Gandhi was not the first to do satyaagraha. His follower – Bhakti-vedanta Swami Prabhupad has spread Krishna bhakti all over the world as predicated by Chaitanya. Prabhupad strongly debated against the Christian missionaries and no one could defeat him in the debate.] This may look as cowardly approach of Hindus, but in long term HINDUS survived and the doctrine of terror has evaporated from Indian society. Pakistan was created with the doctrine of hate against Hindus/ infidels in 1947, but bleeding with suicide bomb and gun fire every day.

Hitler raised Germany to a supper power from the ashes of 1st World war by preaching despise against Jews and grabbing their assets, but died like a dog in a bunker with no formal burial. After 2nd World War Joseph Stalin rebuilt Russia into a super power with slave labor and despise to the West and capitalism. China at present is following the same foot step of USSR to become super power, and may have the same consequences like USSR in near future. USSR evaporated and fell into pieces after defeat in Afghanistan. We saw the same consequences of Ottoman Empire after 1st World war. Ottoman Empire was also created with blood and sward and was defeated by the West with blood and sward (gun). Terror in long term never survives; it only succeeds in short term. (Islam however is different. It’s 1400 years life is full of terror, rapes, loots, wars, invasions, and conversions. We the Vedics are suffering from Islam since 1000 years. Now we need unity to purge Islam out of the Vedic desh, and make Bhaarat a Vedic state.)

After the end of cold war and defeat of USSR in Afghanistan, world observed an abrupt rise of radical Islam all over under the leadership of Bin Laden (Al-Qaida). Although US Navy seals killed Bin Laden in the fortress of Pakistan military camp after long ten years chasing, yet the doctrine of despise to other faith is still vive rent among the Arab followers. World is divided in two parts, one part is the followers of Islam and other part is the Infidels/ non Muslims as described by Islam. There might be a decisive war between the followers of terror and peace in near future. (Yes, we need it in Bhaarat; and there are non violent ways to fight, but violent war is the last option if nothing works. So, the Vedic need to get prepared well while pursuing non-violent ways like economic boycott of the Muslims till they give up Islam.)   Without defeating either of the one doctrine the peace will not come permanently. [Not correct. The asuric forces need to be defeated. If all the powers are crooks, there cannot be peace. Just see, the Muslims kill each other as well (but all kill us)].

It is no secret that jihad is aimed to kill or convert all non Muslim of the planet to ensure their space in the haven is the secret responsibility of all the Muslims. (Secret only till they are 15% of the population.) Moderate Islam has been weakening and Sufism is almost evaporated from the society. Religion is ones individual private belief (per the Vedas only), but in all Muslim majority country government and state performs that religious responsibility and encourages conversion by creating disparity in state privileges’. (This is because Islam does not separate religion and politics of daily life like Christianity. The Vedic dharma also does not separate dharma and rajkaaraN, but dharma does not tell us to force dharma on others. That is the value of the Vedic dharma which actually is universal religion for mankind.) Some time the disparity comes with infidel tax (JIJIYA TAX) or enemy property act (vested property act).

Despise and disparity initially begins against infidels and then spreads over their own society in the name of Shea, Kadiani, and Sunni sectarian conflict. The spree of blood in the Jihadist mind set never stops until death. Reforms in despise doctrine by secular education and preaching tolerance can abort another great world war like disaster. (Until the law forces them to give up Islam, this is not possible. Unfortunately the current constitution of Bhaarat is anti-Veddic, and so it is anti majority, and pro Islam and Pro- Christianity. This needs to be amended.)

Hindu (i.e. the Vedic) is the only religion which was not preached by any men or prophet, but is given by God Himself), it’s a way of life with complete social code. (To say it is not a religion is not correct and cannot help us at all. It is a universal religion for mankind, and that is why it is called dharma. It is not organized like the anti-Vedic religions. But we need to organize and unite now against them.) The most reasonable question in all human being is where from they have come and where they will go after death. To search answer of this inevitable question man started worshipping nature for fear of unknown. For consolation many doctrine has emerged in the society with different views.  Orthodox people make offensive comments about worshiping Deities and sometime decimate those deities with fanatic views. Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist and Sikhs all they worship some figure or object. Muslims performs prayer facing the stone square KABHA which is also an object.

That means there are similarities in prayers between the believers. Muslims pray facing KABHA and others facing their deities like Jesus, Buddha, and Guru Nanak ext. Some prays looking at the sky or blindfolded. During prayer one need to concentrate on an imaginary object, it could be a black stone or human figure. Prayer is a means of meditation which is scientific and helps grow your patience & tolerance level.  In some culture prayer is used to preach despise to other faith, which helps men to become animal.  During crisis men goes to warship for mental and psychological console. Hindu dharma created the Vedic culture which includes food habit also, disease and treatment as described in the VEDAS especially AYURVEDA.

In cave age agriculture was unknown to mankind and hunting was the only source of living.  (There was no cave age in Bhaarat; there are not many caves.)

Rituals and festivals began in early Hindu civilization when male used to return from hunting in groups, the females remained busy in cooking those prey for their love ones. (Not typical of Bhaarat.) While serving food celebrations began with some social activities which later turned in to festival. Behind every festival there is a reason, which has come from the human necessity. During festival people from around come together to exchange their views and share each other’s excess item/commodities. Our ancestors began their business by exchanging item with item and later on with minarets, gold, silver etc. Silver and gold coin was replaced by bank note granted by the tribal chief or administrator.

All this festival helps grow local economy, harmony with neighbor and share their wealth with each other. Hindus has more festival then others which helped their community economy moving without outside support, there are saying that, Hindus has thirteen festivals in twelve months, in fact festivals are much more then thirteen. Due to more rituals/ festivals, Hinds are by nature more tolerant than others. Violence and divorce are very rarely seen in Hindu society.  To-day the West has adopted RAKSHAA BANDHAN as friend ship day and many days’ like father day, mother day, valentine day etc to add more festival in their cultural life. The community which has less festival is cruel by nature and unkind to its neighbor. (It is not festival, but the religion itself.) Due to lack festival in the society man becomes unsocial, robotic and ruthless. Importance of festival in life is very important which not only creates friendship and social bondage but also helps develop social relation. Jihadist doesn’t allow cultural activities like song, dance, painting and sculptures. (This because Islam says so.)

In rural area MELA (CARNIVAL) is organized during festivals for villagers to market their products. Man can’t live without rituals, although some fundamentalist believers are against such festival activities in the society. Festivals will hinder the fundamentalists’ animalization process.  Only an animal can kill another animal, human never bites another human, and the creator didn’t gave men hunting teeth like tiger, so the policy of fundamentalists is to create more animals in the society to establish their ideology of terror. DURGA PUJA is the greatest festival of Bengali culture, all including Hindus enjoy this festival the most and share love and joy with others. The traditional SANAATAN DHARMA doesn’t encourage conversion to their faith from other religion. Due to this non reactive approach HINDUS have maintained harmony with other religions for centuries. (However, the Hindus are the target for the anti-Vedics for conversion. This we need to resist strongly and successfully.)

By practicing such harmonious philosophy HINDUS have successfully retained their 5000 years old culture even after many barbarians attack. Under occupation by barbarians HINDUS accepted humiliating JIJIYA TAX and protected their culture rather than spilling blood. (This was cowardice. Dharma does not tell to surrender to asuras like this.) These were only possible due to non violent culture and unconditional faith in SANAATAN DHARMA. MAHATMA GANDHI proved that non violent SATYAGRAHA is more powerful than weapon. NELSON MANDELA and MARTIN LUTHER KING followed GANDHji’S non violence philosophy and they succeeded in their effort like liberating South Africa peacefully. (Non violence works only against those who have some human decency or value. It cannot work against Islam or Hitlers or Ben Ladins or Idi Amins.)  It’s time for PALESTINIANS to consider GANDHIji’S  AHIMSA non violence philosophy and help liberate their people from any occupation. In last 60 years of suicidal bombings and JIHADI activities didn’t help the PALESTINIANS cause, rather caused more suffering to their people. (What are the ways to help the anti-Vedics to help them become Vedics?)Everyone has a right to exist and the Ancient HINDU WAY has proven right. Many THEOCRATIC RELIGIONs need to examine their activities, and do their activities such that the world can be peaceful. Adopt the HINDU WAY of life is the answer.

Many westerns are now studying HINDUISM and its spiritual strength; they started comparing HINDUISM with other faiths for their intolerance. In the environment of true secularism of Europe and America many intolerant faiths and cults had mushroom growth in the last century. (what specifically?) They are now threatening the very existence of secularism in Europe and America and the World. (Who, except Islam, and communism, are threatening secularism?)  HINDUS are fortunate by birth for their tolerant culture; HINDUS don’t encourage conversion from other faith or never forced their religion on others. (Yes, and the also need to understand dharma first, live per it correctly, and then know how to debate with the anti-Vedics.)

“THIS IS WHY HINDU FAITH IS THE GREATEST”.

How India’s tribal mines are bought by Muslims

From: A Bhhaaratiya < >

How tribal mines are bought by Muslims

Most of the private mines in Jharkand has a rule that only people of Tribal origin can own the business. However, majority of the mine owners are Muslims (happened only in last 20 years).
This is how it happened – A Muslim will marry and convert a Tribal girl. And then start the mining company in name of their children. The children will be sent away to another state to be educated in a madrassa. The tribal mother no longer is important. She might get a quick talaq or just become one of the multiple wives of the Muslim guy.
About 5-6 years back there was a major uproar among tribal people and they burned about 30 trucks belonging to Muslims after a tribal girl was married by Love-J.
Today, the # of marriages have gone down, but the hundreds of marriages that happened before is creating havoc in tribal culture. Mosques and madrassas have cropped up and Muslim business owners control all economic aspect of tribal people.

Wealthy Hindus should invest in tribal assets as partners, so save this poor people from the jehadis.

Pope gets Gandhi wrong

From: Sudhir Architect < >

 

Pope gets Gandhi wrong

Sandeep B

Benedict’s interpretation of Gandhi’s message of non-violence is false.

Gandhi’s non-violence doesn’t stand for a cowardly acceptance of injustice and unprovoked violence. Gandhi viewed proselytisation as cultural invasion and a hindrance to peace

 

On October 26 this year, Pope Benedict invoked Mahatma Gandhi’s name in an appeal to end “violence against Christians” in Orissa. It would have been ridiculous if only it had not been so ironical. This reminds us of a proverb about pinching the baby and pacifying it.

Reiterating a few facts would be in order. The Pope has chosen wisely when he chose to invoke Gandhi’s name. While Gandhi’s relevance and legacy in contemporary India is debatable, he is still much revered by millions of people. Equally, he is deeply respected in Christian countries because he comes close to the Christ-like figure that those countries are intimately familiar with. Gandhi’s life, and writings and speeches show him to be a moralist in the Christian mould: An overt emphasis on suffering, heartfelt compassion for the poor, and a non-violent fighter against oppression. Yet, he was a self-proclaimed, “proud staunch Sanatani Hindu.” Whatever his understanding of core Hindu philosophical tenets, Gandhi’s attachment to Hinduism was so steadfast that it is touching at different levels. He unequivocally upheld his opposition to all attempts at destabilising Sanatana Dharma. In the August 1925 issue of Young India, he wrote:

“I am unable to identify with orthodox Christianity. I must tell you in all humility that Hinduism, as I know it, entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being, and I find solace in the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount… I must confess to you that when doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of external tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita.

A more assertive proclamation of Gandhi’s firm Hindu moorings is not required. Gandhi rightly recognised proselytisation as a problem and condemned it as fiercely as he upheld Hinduism. He discerned that the psychology that drives conversion is innately flawed and dangerous. We only need to look at a few samples from Gandhi’s copious writings to learn his stance vis a vis conversions:
“Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man?’ (Harijan, January 30, 1937)
“I hold that proselytisation under the cloak of humanitarian work is unhealthy to say the least.” (Young India: April 23, 1931)

“If I had power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytising. It is the cause of much avoidable conflict between classes and unnecessary heart-burning among missionaries…”
And here the Pope invokes Gandhi’s name in utter ignorance of the Mahatma’s stand on Christian proselytisation. Pope Benedict’s message is addressed to all Hindus on the occasion of Diwali (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20081028_diwali_en.html). We are immediately struck with wonder at the sheer presumptuousness of this singular Diwali greeting: The subtle subtext seems to reprimand the Hindus for attacking Christians while completely omitting any mention of the root cause for the communal/social unrest! More fundamentally, the Pope has no authority to interfere in what is exclusively an Indian social problem. In this context, is he prepared to admit that the remote control for missionary activities in India lies in his hands?
The Pope’s message confirms the fact that selective quoting is not merely restricted to media and mischievous rhetoricians. While it self-righteously assumes these attributes to itself, it doesn’t come clean on its own record. Pope Benedict’s predecessor’s triumphant announcement during his 1999 India visit is a good instance. Till date, not one soul in the entire Christendom has condemned his intent to “harvest souls”. One wonders what gives these religious leaders the right to arrogate to themselves such licence. Are non-Christians — in the Indian context, this primarily means Hindus — a harvest waiting to be reaped? It is precisely against this form of mischief that Gandhi raised his voice.

The Pope’s interpretation of Gandhi’s message of non-violence is false. Non-violence in the Gandhian doctrine does not stand for a cowardly acceptance of injustice and unprovoked violence. In that light, Gandhi’s call to oppose proselytisation is — like his freedom struggle mantra — but opposition to any form of oppression. He viewed proselytisation as not just a form of cultural invasion but a hindrance to world peace. At the microcosmic level, he observed how a Hindu family is disrupted if just one member converts to Christianity.

“In Hindu households the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink. (Harijan, November 5, 1935)
“It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world’s progress toward peace.” (Harijan, January 30, 1937)

 

If we observe the social conditions of mostly-poor nations that have been weaned away from their native traditions, Gandhi’s remark becomes clearer. Angola is a Christian-majority country now, but was torn by civil strife for over 27 years.

Religious tensions exist till date between the native Bantu tribal traditions and the ‘Christian network’ of villages. Numerous African countries are torn by strife, thanks to missionary activity. Philippines, the Christian-majority state has mostly lost its native traditions thanks to centuries-long Spanish colonisation followed by aggressive evangelism. Papua New Guinea’s former Chief Justice, an outspoken Pentecostal, urged legislative and other bridles on the activities of Muslims in the country. Although it is home to some very diverse cultures and faiths, 96 per cent of its population is Christian. Its native, animist tradition is all but lost.

The clashes between Christians and followers of native traditions in South Korea still make headlines. Evangelist leaders openly call for political activity against North Korea by accelerating the spread of Christianity. This is not dissimilar to evangelists-backed secessionist movement in India’s North-East States.

 

This list is just a sample but is sufficient evidence to show the truth in Gandhi’s astute observation more than 70 years ago that evangelical activity poses a threat to peace.
If the present Pope wanted to spread the Mahatma’s words, he should have presented the whole story instead of just a twisted interpretation. Besides, we do not need to take lessons about Gandhi from the Pope. Not at least when the lesson is fraught with frivolity.