 |
|
|
From the letters of Mr Omar Luther King, who claims to be a neo-convert Christian, it is clearly evident that his main objective is to create hatred and ill-will between Hindus and Muslims.
In the past, the Christian rulers adopted similar means to create division in the society. Thus asked the British historian Sir Henry Elliot, "The Hindus had not left any account which could enable us to gauge the impact the Muslim conquest and rule had on them." Since there was none, Elliot produced his own eight-volume History of India (1867) aided by handpicked historians.
Sir Henry's history claimed Hindus were massacred for standing up to Mohammedan rulers. According to him, Hindus were prohibited from worshipping and taking out religious processions, their temples were destroyed; they were forced to convert... Similarly, other Empire scholars produced synthetic Hindu-vs-Muslim versions of India. Sadly, their lies got embedded in history.
On further study, we also find that Lord Curzon was told by the Secretary of State for India, George Francis Hamilton, that they "should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened".
Another Viceroy, Lord Dufferin (1884-88), was advised by the Secretary of State in London that the "division of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage", and that he expected "some good as a result of your committee of inquiry on Indian education". "We have maintained our power in India by playing off one part against the other," the Secretary of State for India reminded. Yet another Viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862-63) added, "and we must continue to do so..."
Hence under a definitive policy, the history books were so falsified as to give an impression that the medieval period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers.
The present endeavour of Mr King seems to be a part of evangelical Christians' global conspiracy to create tensions between other communities. No wonder, the evangelists backed the US in its invasion of Iraq. They also supported US bombardment and genocide of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan. In a way, they are en route establishing Christian global hegemony.
Jesus, they impishly believe, will make a second coming, and his arrival will be accompanied by a global killing of "unbelievers" (read non-Christians) by the believers (Christians). They demonised Muslims as evil incarnate. This is why the agenda behind crusades was not to convert Muslims, but to exterminate them. So St Bernard declared that "to kill an infidel was not homicide but malicide"!
Today, the rise of Christian fundamentalism is truly frightening. The new Pope is known for his fundamentalist approach. He has taken hardline position on issues like contraception, celibacy, the marriage of priests, etc. The cardinals have obviously opted for continuity rather than change. The elevation of this fundamentalist approach has disappointed the liberals who had been laying emphasis on devolution of authority and collegiality within the church.
Of course, we have nothing to do
with church politics except hang our heads in shame. Particularly when
it was made known that cardinal Ratzinger had indeed scored a negative
point in the process of his election as the new Pope due to certain allegations
regarding his conduct that have already appeared in Western press. What
a pass things have come to!
|
|
|