Someone on my GChat list had an intriguing link included in their status message. I saw “inauguration”, and since that historic event is still very much on my mind, I clicked it. I was led to the Boston Globe’s website, to a feature called “The Big Picture: News Stories in Photographs“.
Yesterday was a historic day. On January 20th, 2009, Barack H. Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America – the first African-American ever to hold the office of U.S. Commander-in-Chief. The event was witnessed by well over one million attendees in chilly Washington D.C., and by many millions more through coverage on television and the Internet. Collected here are photographs of the event, the participants, and some of the witnesses around the world. (48 photos total)
Picture number 38 caught my attention, setting my browndar off before I could even read the caption underneath it (which I’ve quoted, well, underneath it):
Pakistani Christian children hold portraits of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama during a prayers ceremony for global peace in Islamabad, Pakistan on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2009. (AP Photo) [Globe]
At first glance, I didn’t notice the word “Christian”. I just saw “Pakistani children”. I thought I’d just post the picture plus a quick blurb about where I found it, and isn’t it sweet, etc. But for obvious reasons, I started surfing around, and a rambling post was born.Over the past five years, I’ve made numerous references to my family’s faith and Christianity as it exists in Kerala, but Christianity exists in every South Asian country (admittedly in miniscule numbers, in some of those nations). The first non-Indian brown Christian I ever met was my ruthless Montessori pre-school teacher in San Francisco. She was Sri Lankan and my parents strongly encouraged her to get old-school naddan on me, if I were naughty enough. That meant that if some little white kid did something wrong, they were gently scolded. If I did something wrong, I got hissed at and pinched. My parents were overjoyed that they were really getting their money’s worth.
It would be 14 years until I met another Desi who was Christian; at Davis I discovered that someone wasn’t just using an anglicized nickname. “Wait, that guy’s actually named ____??”
“Yeah. He’s Christian.”
me: Baroo?
“Not like you. He said he’s Pakistani.”
me: wow.
“Yeah. Now there are two of you…and three hundred of us!”
I still don’t know all that much beyond a vague, depressing sense that it’s rather dangerous to be a Christian (or a Hindu) in Pakistan, due to the brilliantly just Blasphemy laws, which require nothing more than the insinuation of disrespect towards Islam, to ruin someone’s life:
Ten years ago today, Bishop John Joseph, Catholic bishop of Faisalabad in Pakistan, shot himself dead on the steps of the Sahiwal district court in protest at the abuse of the country’s blasphemy laws. Ten years on, little has changed in Pakistan.
The blasphemy laws impact everyone, regardless of religion – and the tragedy is that almost every case is completely fabricated. When the laws were first introduced, they were used primarily as a tool by extremists to target religious minorities – Christians, Hindus and others. These days, however, Muslims have got wise to the potential for using the blasphemy law against each other to settle personal scores.
The reason is simple. The blasphemy law requires no evidence other than an accusation made by one person against another.
There is no proof of intent, and an inadequate definition of blasphemy. When it comes to court the accuser does not even have to substantiate the charge. If the judge asks what the accused actually said, the accuser can refuse to elaborate, on the basis that by repeating the alleged statement they themselves would be blaspheming. [Guardian]
See? Brilliant!
This made me wonder about the Christians in Pakistan; we all know that Sikhs and Hindus had been there before partition, but I’d never heard much about the history of Christianity in that country. I have a deplorably lazy habit of assuming that the answers to such questions tend to involve colonizers and missionary types. Let’s see if I get lucky:
The exact introduction of Christianity to the South Asia is a debatable topic, with the Syrian Christian community in Kerala, South India being recorded as the earliest. Missionaries accompanied colonizing forces from Portugal, France and Great Britain, but in north western Ancient India, today’s Pakistan, Christianity was mainly brought by the British rulers of India in the later 18th and 19th century. This is evidenced in cities established by the British, such as the port city of Karachi, where the majestic St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Pakistan’s largest church stands, and the churches in the city of Rawalpindi, where the British established a major military cantonment. [wiki]
Had no idea about any of this:
Christians in Punjab and Sindh had been quite active post 1945 in their support for Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s Muslim League. Even before the final phase of the movement, leading Indian Christians like Pothan Joseph had rendered valuable services as journalists and propagandists of the Muslim League. Jinnah had repeatedly promised all citizens of Pakistan complete equality of citizenship, but this promise was not kept by his successors….In the mass population exchanges that occurred between Pakistan and India upon independence due to conflict between Muslims and followers of Indian religions, most Hindus and nearly all Sikhs fled the country, but the Christians remained. [wiki]
I have a million reasons for wishing my Father were still alive, but the one which is relevant to this post has to do with Jinnah, specifically the declamatory 15-minute rant he used to launch in to upon hearing his name. When I was younger I thought it was odd that my Dad, who was born in 1937, was so much older than everyone else’s parents. Now I wish I had written it all down.
I wanted to find out more about the ceremony for global peace in Islamabad at which that picture was taken, but all I found were a few more photographs of the event and no news story. Oh, well. It’s poignant how the inauguration of our latest President has affected not just this nation, but the world. South Asians for Obama, indeed. 🙂
46 · DizzyDesi said
Do you think Hinduism had great grand father like Adam whose descendants filled Indian planes to make it a Hindu area? No religion is free from the sins(?) of spreading itself. India had vast number of Budhists and Jains in history. What happened to them?. They never learned the secrets of reproduction as Hindus learned? In a modern society, religion should be like a political party. If you like it join it, else remain independant. People should have the freedom to campaign for their party. If you dont have enough time to think, you can join in the political party that your Dad was a member.
The Dawn that Potent Joe founded for Jinnah is the Dawn of today. And Ardeshir Cowasjee is a shipping magnate who decided to stay back in Karachi, based on a personal assurance of safety from Jinnah, while he went about building Pakistan’s merchant Navy. MA Jinnah and his sister attended a church service that was held the day after the declaration of independence of Pakistan. Leaders of the minority community, particularly of the Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant decided to remain in Pakistan, as did Swami Ranganathananda who ran the sole Ramakrishna Mission Ashram in Pakistan, then, in Karachi. But after Jinnah died, Swamiji decided to return to India. Hindu and Parsi philanthropists too founded hospitals and colleges in Pakistan. But in case of the former once the wealthier families left for India, the institutions they founded were left leaderless. Christians in Pakistan, although they have the Church to turn to education and healthcare, have not been able to acquire any political clout. Unlike in India where there is a shared tradition between different faith gorups – everyone celebrates, Divali, Christmas, is aware of Id-ul-fitr, GuruParb, Mahavir and Buddha Jayanti, in Pakistan whatever tradition may have existed seems to have petered out since 1950 and possibly stamped out after the 70s. Basant of course is celebrated with fanfare in Lahore, and the CM of Panjab (Pakistani) some years ago had the purohit visit his official residence to be anointed with a tikka. While the many Pak teleserials I have seen over the years are conspicuously devoid of any non-Muslim character or even references (not even a Good Morning or Good Bye!), the web now is features discussions on blogs, music videos, amateur vids etc., that suggest a much more diverse and vibrant culture than would seem apparent. Outlookindia has over the years featured some offbeat coverage of Pakistan, and its Pakistan correspondent, Mariana Babbar is fantastic. Mariana has written some interesting stories about Hindus in Pakistan – even about a doctor duo who are officers in the Pakistan Army. Mariana may yet write something iteresting about the Christian experience in Pakistan.
51 · LandBeyond7Zs said
well said. the dual myths of hinduism’s purported tolerance through the ages (of course, it was “tolerant” as long as buddhists and jains weren’t encroaching on their turf), and the arguments made by some on this thread which are tantamount to claims that the only way to keep india’s tolerance alive is to tamp down on other religions (oh yeah, no contradiction there!) are part of the sangh victimology diet, and are somehow omitted in their selective complaints about the rewriting of middle indian history. that said, there are reasons for concern if the other strains of religion are intolerant, but that’s not what the sangh is worried about as much as in perpetuating hindu nationalism as some sort of equalizer against the global muslim threat or as a bulwark against the demographic scares they’ve been whipping up. somehow these people are able to pull off the brilliant feat of criticizing the fundamentalists and theocrats of other religions while yearning to emulate the same with hinduism.
Thanks for this post, Anna. It was a good read.
A segment of Pakistan’s Christian community are Goan Catholics, mainly in Karachi. The community still exists though they used to be a lot larger. Many have migrated to Canada, the UK, Australia etc. There is a large community in Toronto, if I’m not mistaken. My grandmother grew up in Karachi in pre-partition India but later moved back to Goa. We had a few relatives who stayed on after partition but I think all had left by the late 1980s.
Growing up in the U.A.E., my family’s social circle was made up almost exclusively of Goans, Mangaloreans and East Indians – three communities that had much in common. The Karachi Goans fit right in. I never thought of them as Pakistani – the only difference I can think of was that they usually rooted for Pakistan during India/Pakistan cricket matches!
There were many South Asian Christian groups in the U.A.E. Besides the Goans, Mangaloreans and East Indians, you had the Malayalees, of course, who I found fascinating since they represented so many different Christian traditions. There were Catholics – Roman, Syrian and Malankara, Syrian or Indian Orthodox, Jacobites, the Marthoma church, Church of South India, Church of the East, and numerous Evangelical and Pentecostal groups. You also had Anglo-Indians; Catholics from Sri Lanka – many of whom also had Portuguese names like de Silva and Pereira; and the Pakistani Punjabi Christians – they had their own Urdu Mass at church. I’d always thought that Indian Punjabis were either Sikh or Hindu, but in the U.A.E., I knew a few who were Catholic and had been so for a few generations.
I do have a lot of respect for Orthodox and Anglican traditions and some for the Jesuit tradition, but attributing tolerance to “Desi” attributes is unfair. It would still be accurate to say that while minority subjects under a hindu monarchy were tolerant, the when Hindus were under a non-hindu kingdom/empire/state, they usually landed up as second class citizens.
My take on it is that that hindus are composed of many faiths. Over time these faiths took a tolerant approach more often than not. Various other communities that lived with and under Hindu faiths in a tolerant atmosphere continued to follow but propogate a common culture long after the Hindu rule faded away.
53 · nuh uh said
Conversion by inducement and force, while denigrating other religion, is what is considered unethical. So, if someone willingly converts by being influenced by teachings or coming across great souls like Buddha, or saints like Saint Thomas, Shankaracharya, Chaitanya, Ramadass, Moinuddin Chishti, Sufi saints, etc then no, it is not considered unethical (at least to me). While most hindus converted to Buddhism under the influence of Buddha, many converted back under the influence of Shankaracharya, Chaintanya, Madhava and other great saints of the time during the Bhakti Movement. And none of those saints denigrated other religions, like the evangelists of today.
56 · zee said
oh, so it was the buddhists and jains who saw the light of day that decided to kill themselves under the variety of regimes in southern india – kerala, andhra pradesh and tamilnadu, as well as mutilate all their own statues… well, one learns something new every day. not to mention dozens of history like this (and similar about several famous temples in southern india), or the complete destruction of the traditional sinhalese buddhist capital of anuradhapura by raja raja chola. it wasn’t exactly just people engaging in weighty intellectual discource and participating in the lofty free market of ideas. of course, it’s easier to be tolerant when you are the only group of consequence.
(i love that word “inducement and force” and “willingly converts by coming accross great souls”. i wonder what counts as unethical inducement or force, and how ownership of people is divvied up. if a poor individual who doesn’t see any value from hinduism chooses to convert to a religion that gives him short term upward mobility and potential escape from a caste hierarchy, should that person be threatened with damage to life, limb and property, and a few in his cohort made an example of? is the latter acceptable or even understandable, and the former unarguably unethical? it just seems like a turf war to see who can accumulate the most warm bodies on either side.
57 · nuh uh said
So, are we seeing upward mobility in Africa due to evangelical influences in Africa and Latin America ? Nuh uh! I too choose to agree with what Gandhi said “proselytizing under the cloak of humanitarian work is unhealthy, to say the least.” BTW, I have Buddhist heritage too, and so your sentence about “easier to be tolerant when you are the only group of consequence” is inconsequential.
58 · zee said
That wasn’t my point, I asked why individuals should be prevented (or threatened or victimized – “force”, as they often are) from making that choice for themselves if they felt they had something to gain from it (“inducement”). It is a perverse morality that would prefer the supremacy of numbers in some abstract turf war, over missionary work that offers some benefits to deprived and backward people and communities.
I have no idea what this means, but I do see you chose not to engage any of my other points about how Buddhism and Jainism were obliterated by Hindu kings in many different ways.
You asked why individuals should be prevented from being threatened or victimized in order to make them convert? You don’t see what could possibly be morally incorrect with that or that their rights as secular citizens would be infringed upon due to that? I don’t think anyone would argue that there is something wrong with someone freely making a decision for themselves that their religion or non-religion doesn’t suit them and that another does or doesn’t. I certainly don’t; it’s one of our fundamental rights as citizens. But, if, as it does happen in certain parts of India, violence or otherwise fraudulent methods are used as part of such activities (regardless of who does it), then there has to be some legislation to prevent that.
As a Hindu, I definitely don’t see why some of my fellow Hindus act as if preaching or engaging in missionary work is somehow taboo in our religion. How do you think a vast portion of South East Asia converted to Hinduism? How do you think nearly ninety percent of the present population of Bali is Hindu? Do you really think that our ancestors simply stood by while, due to some singular quality of our religion, it survived and thrived with nothing being done to ensure its protection and propagation? At the same time, I think it would be fair to say that Hindu theology itself is more accommodating of a wide range of beliefs than most other religions. But, that should not prevent us from proselytizing in a peaceful, ethical manner.
60 · arul said
I think you exactly inverted the question I asked.
Of course, violence should not be acceptable, whether it is Kandhamal, or Karnataka, or the northeast. As for the other part, I consider all of religion a fraud, or if you want it to put it more mildly, a fantasy, so I don’t know how any argument for any religion is any more or less fraudulent than any other (unless based in general platitudes about “do no evil” or equivalents).
@Nuh uh
Ever notice how the strongholds of Indian Buddhism in antiquity are today known as “Afghanistan,” “Pakistan,” and “Bangladesh?” What do these areas have in common religion-wise do you think?
Sri Lanka managed to survive, but little else. All those Buddhists in SouthEast Asia. . . mostly gone. Mysterious circumstances I’d say.
59 · nuh uh said
It is you who seem to ignore that, Buddhism was given a very high position by most Hindu kings. Although there might be some exceptions like the Cholas, but majority of Hindu royalties revere the Sakyamuni. Buddhism flourished under patronage of Hindu emperors like the ‘Guptas’. The number of Buddhists reduced drastically only after the advent of Mughals and Persians. The Buddhist monasteries of Afghanistan fell first during the conquest from Persia.
It is my firm belief that no social benefit can come by religious conversions. And by no means, does that give anyone any social mobility. Again, Africa and Latin America are examples. In fact in Latin America, it is the Europeans who form the ruling junta while the indigenous people got nothing out of conversion. Is that what you want for India ? And in Africa ? No, the money of the westerners didn’t do any good yet. Rather, slavery was quite acceptable to missionaries as long as they were baptized. So again, I not believe that bribing to convert is not only unethical, it also is useless.
62 · NV said
Funny you mention SE Asia, do you know what happened in Cambodia around the turn of the century.
If your point about bringing up Muslim strongholds is to highlight their intolerance, that’s fine and you won’t see me deny it. Let’s just not pretend that India was a special bastion of equal opportunity, or that Hindu nationalism isn’t just trying to sneak in the Muslim theocratic ideology with its associated perversions through the backdoor. Once we can agree that’s what the Hindu nationalist movement is about, we can dispense with weasel words such as pseudosecularism and appeasement, and have a debate on honest terms.
63 · zee said
So you’ve decided on behalf of tribals that they are best off staying low caste Hindus. Good to know.
This does not fit with the historical record. Further, the Buddha was appropriated as forms of Hindu gods by many many emperors, in the early days of Buddhism.
Well, for what it is worth, missionaries and faith based movements do at least a modicum of development work in Africa when governments have failed. Denying people access to even a modicum of improvement because of some misplaced analogies to imperialists from multiple centuries ago is wrongheaded.
might that be you, chachaji? well, if you’re reading this, i miss you.
Thanks for the interesting discussion all. One thig I want to point out is that I used to have a knee-jerk opposition towards conversions to Christianity in India because I was raised in the United States and didn’t understand the difference in contexts. In India, some/many dalits choose to adopt another faith – whether Christianity or neo-Buddhism or something else – and this is their right. This antogonizes many people from the rightwing Hindu front (who most frequently are not dalits), but it shouldn’t antogonize anyone else – it is part and parcel of a longstanding tradition in India of the upper castes/classes getting too big for their britches and the people at the bottom (economically and socially) opting out. That is, in fact, the brilliance of Buddhism.
To all those who argue that Islam spread in India by violence, I would strongly suggest you stop reading
crapideologically loaded texts and read Thomas Eaton’s book or a summary thereof on how large swathes of Bengal became Muslim – it has to do wtih the river changing path and people following it. Violence and extremism and proselytization are not the prerogative of any particular faith or belief community, but the dipshit faction in all of them. They usually have morein common, thoughtwise, with each other, than with people they are allegedly in the same belief system as.Thanks for writinng a post that generated such a substantive discussion, Anna.
Check the captions of the posters in the photo — They are only asking for peace between “Ghaza and Palestine”
I had a snarky comment about how peace between Jews and Muslims was of the utmost importance to Christians. And made sarcastic references the inner peace brought about by observing lent and also Afghanistan, Bhutto, Baluchistan, Madrid, London, Mumbai, Madrid, etc. Unfortunately my new years resolution is to be less snarky 🙁 and I decided to keep it.
I followed the link that Nuh Uh posted, and of course what do I find but this “According to D. Ravikumar, who has studied the history of Buddhism in several districts in Tamil Nadu and is a legislator belonging to the Dalit Panthers of India…” There are so many things mistaken with this…Nuh Uh and Co. are comfortable with a very hazy requirement for competence. To criticize ideologically loaded texts while quoting from the casual observations of a non-scholar doesn’t make for useful discussion. Given the richness of Hindu iconography and the elaborate lore associated with it, all evidence points to an appropriation of traditionally Hindu forms into Buddhist iconography. Very simply, while the story of Gautam becoming Buddha is a simple one, with a few transitions, the lore associated with each deva or devi is vast. It is true that the later Bodhisattva and Tibetan traditions tried to create a richer set of icons. Again this is not to say that stories are simply written down by a bunch of writers who decide to make things up – that is so ignorantly colonial and Hinduism has suffered griviously from such descriptions. Given that the Hindu dharmic traditions are not religions in the first place, these narratives emerge ground up from the experiences of people. Sometimes they converge into joined accounts of a few characters, and at other times as communities split and go their own ways, they may give way to a completely different set of even contradictory accounts. At times some centrally accepted texts may provide a background for the interpretations, or not at all. Some of the more interesting ways in which this change has happened is incorporation of the chief devas of one tradition as minor or even supplicant deities of another. Some Buddhist traditions have done this to incorporating Vishnu, even while appropriating many features of Vishnu. In the case of Jain traditions, which are much older than the Buddhist, there is a longer tradition of the Tirthankaras so some of this re-creation was probably not necessary. Again all early evidence points to both Buddhist and Jain panthis being from the elite. The Buddhist movements especially grew from state patronage and dependent on revenues from trade over a period of 1000 years. The Muslim invasions obviously destroyed these foundations, economically and politically. As always the facade of scholarly discourse of the likes of Nu and Doc A, peels off quickly, when we come across those so typically ill-informed JNU steeped boilerplates. And these posts are no exception. FYI, what we today dismissively dub the tribes of India, or more respectfully call the vanvasis as they have always been called, dwellers/keepers of the forests, (as distinguished from the city dwellers – nagariks – and the people of the fields – kshetriya/khetiya) have always remained outside the jati tradition, and their autonomy has remained inviolable for centuries until recently. And a suggestion to Doc A and Nuh Uh, you deep thinkers, pl don’t reporoduce boilerplate from the the JNU types. There is only so much of discredited text you can churn out each time.
To paint this as a religious crusade is wrong. The Cheras (hindus)and Singhalas (Bhuddists) had an alliance against Raja Raja Chola when he came to power. He sacked both Chera and Singhala Cities. Given that the Singhala empire was more dificult to maintain control over (Island), it is easy to see that he had a reason to destroy it more thouroughly.
jyotsana, so let’s see the “strong” evidence you accumulated. you picked out one sentence from one of the examples i produced, and “discredited” by saying the author was from a dalit party, and hence untrustworthy, and a natural member of the greater jnu conspiracy. wow, that’s some really strong stuff you have there! and then said that hindus peacefully absorbed all religions with disinterested “patronage”, whereas muslims only destroyed. and then some stuff about tribes being inviolable until recently – even if you believed that, i have no idea how any of the stuff i said contradicts that. that’s some heady stuff you got there – what with using words like “nagarik” and “vanvasi”, you must be sooo well informed compared to the hawaii chappal wearing jnu pretenders.
nuh nuh said
“if a poor individual who doesn’t see any value from hinduism chooses to convert to a religion that gives him short term upward mobility and potential escape from a caste hierarchy”
This is the most common argument coming from evangelicals and if the argument is True I will also support it. The argument is flawed. First of all those who are targeted are poor and illiterate who have no idea what’s going on. The dalits who are Hindu end up as ‘Dalit Christians’. The so called upper caste christians look down upon them. It’s their #1 issue if you read that page. Forget Hindus and Christians this dalit lower caste tag exists among muslims also. The point is this: casteism is a social evil in Indian context. Converting from one religion to another is not going to help. Definitely it does not provide any ‘upward mobility’ and ‘potential escape from a caste hierarchy’. Casteism is going away slowly and steadily. Some pepetuate with arranged marriages, business arrangements and such. Most people don’t care. As capitalism makes inroads and economic liberalization takes priority the caste construct will break down automatically. Slavery took 300 years in US to be dismantled. It’s only 60 years since Independence. My Hindu Gowda brother is married to a girl who is a daughter of Hindu Brahmin man whose wife was a Muslim. All is fine in their world. Worse, even if caste persists and people choose to identify with it as long as there is no discrimination based on that factor it should be OK. It’s just like Christians identify with various denominations, only stripped of religious angle in case of caste.
I will not argue with anyone trying to defend the evangelical ways. What they are doing in India is plain wrong. No point in defending the indefensible. Everyone is free to profess their religion and if someone takes it up fine. I get knocks on my door once in six months or so by bible thumpers and I talk to them for a while about merits and demerits of conversion and finally say NO! Same should be the approach in India. Most people who get into this conversion debates do not fully comprehend the issue. They adopt pro-conversion stand by using “upward mobility, escape from caste and such” flawed logic. If you can spare some time educate yourself, read the various links exchanged here. Read the 635 comments in Alex Alexander’s essay and you will side every side of this issue is covered. There are very smart minds there!
75 · Kiran P said
you miss the point even though i explained it. my point is not that conversion frees these people. the point is that an individual should be free to convert if they perceive value in doing so. to dismiss their choice as uninformed and hence something that must be prevented by law, force or intimidation is just a plain denial of their basic autonomy. especially, when these missionaries often do provide some minimal value to these individuals and communities at least in the short term.
i am no shill for evangelicals, but if hindus were really concerned about the well being of these people instead of just worried that they are losing warm bodies from their side of the turf, they would invest in socio-economic development for these communities rather than engage in physical violence and property destruction against these “poor and illiterate” dalits.
(i do worry about illiberal strains of christianity and islam becoming pervasive in india, but the solution is not to counter with illiberal hinduism, but rather education, wealth creation, and cosmopolitanism that usually renders religion far less important.)
73 · DizzyDesi said
so, motivational forensics or some variant of “pillaging of the local infrastructure? that’s what conquerors did!” gives the “correct” answer when it is a hindu empire doing it – be it sri lanka, or the non-island buddhists in andhra pradesh, kerala, and tamilnadu, or the chola vassals in cambodia, but is agenda driven when applied to muslim empires – enough that “romila thapara” and “jnu” can be used as casual invective with no more required. not to mention the high standards of scholarship applied to such key issues such as meat eating by hindus from 1500 years ago, or the presence of a land bridge used by ram, or krishna janmabhoomi, or the indigenous bharatiya civilization theory.
oh, and jyotsana, as for the “patronage” you talk about, i believe that should be viewed prejudicially as the “unethical inducement” that so many here rail against, or we should accept that both approaches are just fine.
but if hindus were really concerned about the well being of these people instead of just worried that they are losing warm bodies from their side of the turf, they would invest in socio-economic development for these communities rather than engage in physical violence and property destruction against these “poor and illiterate” dalits.
That’s right. I don’t see anything wrong if someone converts for money or for personal improvement. If Hindus are angry let them do the same things Christian missionaries do, run schools/ hospitals etc. and provide help. I believe thats what the anti-conversion swami in Orissa was doing before being bumped ff by Christian Maoists.
Anyways, whats all this need to do with Pakistani blasphemy laws.
I need to add this. There are several sites which test you for what religion you should really belong to based on your answers. Mine came up as “Buddhism” though I am a Hindu. One of my friend’s was “Sikihsm’. My point is Indic religions with subtle customization at the spiritual or ‘way of life’ level are all tolerant and pluralistic and inclusive. Alex/Anna’s version of Christianity too. Same with Sufi version of Islam ( I am not aware of any other strains in Islam that is Indic enough ). Hinduism itself has several varying schools of Thought. It’s western definition doesn’t capture it all. That is essence of Gandhi’s thought. Conversion between any of these Indic religions is fine. What’s important is to preserve India’s unity with Indic heritage intact and not succumb to divisive forces coming from Evangelists and Jehadis whose loyalty is to Vatican, Bush, CIA or Arabia.
Take care.
For those who ask about the disappearance of buddhism etc. from India – consider this – There was no official hinduism or buddhism ever – prior to British codification of laws for different native communities – people identified along sectarian or caste lines rather than on the gods they worshipped. It was quite common for people to worship different gods – gods who currently get identified as belonging to different religions. A continuation of the same tradition can be seen in what are currently Buddhist areas like Sri Lanka and Thailand – they still worship Hindu Gods while giving primacy to Buddha – Sri Lankan Buddhists worship Vishnu and Karthik, while Thai Buddhists do worship Brahma, Shiva and Ganesha. The Thai kings have Brahmin priesthood (from India?) for their royal ceremonies.
Many Kings in the pre islamic funded what are currenty identified with Hindu/Buddhist/Jain religions.
When there is not a single instance of mosque demolition until 1857 in non-muslim ruled areas of India, despite all the well documented temple demolitions from 12th century to british times, why do you expect intolerance among indic religions prior to that?
Things were not perfect, and some Southern Indian kings were part of Shiva – Vishnu rivalry and some Vaishnava – Jain issues, but the scale of intolerance post 12th century is incomparable.
77 · nuh uh said
OK nuh it’s getting better. But here’s the problem. The keyword is “percieve”. Perception is not reality. A 13 year old percieves there is value in having sex, A drug addict perceieves there is value in taking pot. But society has a responsibility in protecting those having wrong perceptions. That’s why sex with minor is a rape, it’s a crime. Hence it’s important that until the poor, illiterate and the innocent are capable of making decisions or in this case assess the value of conversions they need to be protected. The anti-conversion laws that are in some states are designed for that purpose. The highest court of the land, the supreme court has also made this clear.
Kiran P wrote: What you are quoting is what you want to believe in.
Actually, what I am quoting are figures from the census, which, as you note, was conducted in 1951. I have been unable to find any data corrobrating your claims for partition, 1947. Again, I would be interested in seeing the source for the data you cite.
If by “immediate aftermath” you means August 16, 1947 — then I agree. The ethnic-cleasning/”historic unmixing of peoples” did not happen in one night.
82 · Kiran P said
Sounds like believers who’ve seen the light wanting to make sure non-believers are saved for eternal salvation to me! Or maybe it is an indigenous appropriation of “white man’s burden” of responsibility to the the “poor and illiterate” who are rendered infantile and incapable of decision making.
Guys,
Let’s stop arguing with people like Nuh uh and Dr. Anonymous. If someone dislikes Hinduism, then there’s nothing that we can say or do that will make them change their minds.
As Hinduphobia becomes more and more widespread, people like them are going to be the least of our problems…
80 · another longtime lurker said
Good point. The people complaining about the disappearance of Buddhism also need to account for how Buddhism spread all over Asia. If it is possible for one religion to spread peacefully over the whole of Asia, just based on its intellectual merit, it is also possible for that same population to replace that religion with another religion, based on its intellectual merits, peacefully.
Bottomline: the complainers don’t have a clue about what they are talking about. You have to first understand what Buddhism is, and its relationship with other intellectual traditions during that time (labeled ‘Hinduism’ by the British), before you can make any sense of that part of history. The best starting point to understand the philosophic literature, and the links between the history and the philosophy, is this guy.
85 · TTCUSM said
And you keep nurturing that open mind that can absorb arguments, buddy!
17 · Kiran P said
Kiran P, you scare me.
As the years go by, I see more and more people saying such things. And then they use these statements to justify violence against minorities. Hinduism is not under any threat. The very air we breathe in India is Hindu.
I agree there are a few crazy evangelists, but you are blowing this out of all proportion. Don’t do it.
You don’t seem to understand the consequences of such talk. Don’t ruin innocent lives by this irresponsible fearmongering.
76 · nuh uh said
nuh,
I wouldn’t say it so crudely. Not if you are a believer of inclusivity and not support something that is the source of strife in India. You are right about the need for Hindus to do more but the playing field is not level. And it gets worse when west is pitted against India in this aspect. Let me explain.
First there was no turf. With advent of Islamic invasions, European colonization, Missionary Inquisitions and such a turf arrived where there was none. After the Bristish had plundered and pillaged India what wealth was left went to Christian institutions. So hopitals, schools etc., i.e the infrastructure to convert remained with Christians. Even then they just did ‘good’ with expectation that people came over to their side. That mechanism was also ok. Conversion in this mode was minimal, not causing the massive social disruption like what’s happening now. The secession based movements in NE funded by western churches, Pope’s open clarion call to convert India in 3rd millenium during his visit and Bush’s faith based policies changed all that. Everything accelerated after that by a large magnitude. Then everyone woke up. It took long time for Hindus to realize the designs and dangers of conversion. Not just Hindus but Sikhs and Jains too. So they are doing with whatever they can now. Hinduism is not an organized religion. It’s not interested in empire building. It’s not interested in world domination. Eastern religions are focussed on spirituality, on the aspects related to divine compared to expanded agenda of monoethistic religions. As someone said the anti-conversion swami who was doing noble work was murdered. Yes, in all this there’s hatred getting generated resulting in loss of innocent lives and property. That is why it’s important to address the root causes of the problem. Preaching Intolerance should not be tolerated.
pj,
You are trying to dilute the matter. I know the importance and truthfullness of what I say. I was quoting following study.
Hindus in minority in india by 2060 https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no31425.htm religious demography of india/a.p. joshi. m.d. srinivas and j.k. bajaj. chennai, centre for policy studies, 2003, xxii, 358 p., tables, figs., maps, $45. isbn 81-86041-15-x.
This is the finding of the extensive research on demographics conducted by professor m d srinivas and his team at the indian institute of technology. they deployed the most robust methods in statistics, probability and computing to project these numbers. I am sure this study includes the rapid phase of conversions by not only evangelicals but also by Mullahs in border districts of Bangladesh and such.
85 · TTCUSM said
Not if I have anything to say about it. Boo!
Here are some Indic Christian links
CHRISTIANS AGAINST PROSELYTISM
Faith, Civilization and Eurocentric Racism
Proselytization In India: An Indian Christian’s Perspective
http://www.petitiononline.com/panaveli/petition.html
I specifically gave the example of the Cheras to show that Raja Raja Chola did the same to Hindu empires too. And for the same reason. Empires throughout history neutralized threats from hostile neighbors. Those that did not got destroyed. Did Rome destroy Carthage because of religion? Why would Raja Raja Chola roll over an die, just because he was a Hindu? To the best of my knowledge most Hindu faiths do not have a commandment “When attacked, thou shalt bend over, take it and learn to enjoy it”.
BTW. There are examples religion based discrimination in Tamil Nadu — there was a lot of Jain, Shavite and Vaishavite fought for dominance.
But the example you keep harping on was from a period noted for the promotion of literature of all faiths by the Cholas. For example this was the time Jivaka-chintamani was written to promote Jainism in Tamil Nadu — with the full support of the Chola court.
Anna wrote a post on pakistani christians. now the argument has turned to hindus becoming a minority in 2060! amazing. Why does all arguments just deteriorate in almost every post to this in SM now.
94 · scribina said
Because many (not all) Hindutva advocates are fundamentally dishonest and abuse intellectual spaces.
87 · nuh uh said
You didn’t let me finish 🙂
I’ve noticed a disturbing trend where any sort anti-Hindu bigotry is justifiable as long as you mention things such as the caste system, treatment of women, etc. Who’s to say that today’s anti-Hindu remarks won’t evolve into something like this?
68 · Dr Amonymous said
hmmm? the way you phrased this dr a, as being generally oppossed to conversions except in the context of dalits in India where you recognize the convertee’s rights, implies you don’t recognize thsi right in the american context, or presumbably even in India if the convertee isn’t dalit.
Is context really that important to you?
I wonder why the Christian missionaries aren’t focused on the Muslim minorities in Christian Europe–oh, wait, wait, I know why–they’re scared–same reason they’re not working in Saudi or in Iran, but–oh, wait, wait, all religions are the “fundamentally the same,” right, nuh-uh? Anyhow, we here in the Hindutva camp are working with the Flemish right for–a reason. Moo-hoo–whawhawha. . . .
98 · rob said
See, that’s all I was asking for – honesty about your eventual vision for India, and what your role models are.
(I need to go now, but will respond to other comments in a couple of days if the thread is still open.)
97 · Manju said
<
blockquote>68 · Dr Amonymous said
Sorry, I wrote unclearly. As a person who cares a lot of about individual rights, I think that every person has the right to their own thoughts and self-definition, no ifs ands or buts, though I might call someone a dipshit for holding particular views or try to articulate what social or political or cultural trend they might be exemplifying in their views if I find it objectionable.
What I menat to say is that I think that the signifciance of the act of conversion differs from context to context. So I would have less of a beef with missionary activities in the context of assisting-whether intentionally or not- an escape from a system or ideology of oppression (e.g. like liberation theologists in Latin America or Buddha’s reputed original work or MLK or many other examples of the use of faith to attempt to liberate people). This is what I was saying I didn’t grasp at first wrt to christian missionary activities.
That said, I still think the tactics and intent of conversion (whether religious or political in nature) can be just as important as the effects (which as one of the Hindutva commenters above pointed out, frequently doesn’t alter social status as much as one might hope). I suppose that would be the question of how a proselytizer approaches the context I’m describing above and for whose benefit.
88 · pj said
I always wondered why it was so foul smelling. LOL
Getting back to the original topic, do people know if there are new churches /temples allowed to be constructed in Pakistan. I believe a few churches existed in the British time frame. I have read that Sharia disallows construction of new non Muslim places of worship. Is that the case in Pakistan?.
I always wondered why it was so foul smelling. LOL
he..he. 🙂
81 · Kiran P said
Let us take away the voting rights of the poor, illiterate and innocent before they become rich, educated and rational. LOL