Introduction: “When the Christian clergy is attacked, they highlight it but when four RSS members were killed in Tripura it hardly got coverage in the newspapers.”
Four RSS volunteers were kidnapped in Tripura, allegedly by Baptists (a Christian w& with strong leanings towards conversion) a year ago. Their deaths in captivity were announced only this year, in July. In a country where kidnappings and killings are fairly common, the death of four PSS volunteers in unknown circumstances largely went unnoticed and uncommented upon. Media comment has been tardy if not nonexistent. Presumably RSS lives are ex le. In any event the attitude is one of disdain. The RSS volunteers are Hindus aren't they? They belong to the majority community, don't they? So what if a few of them am killed in captivity? What's the big deal? There has been no investigation into the circumstances in which the RSS volunteers were kidnapped, and if them has been one, no publicity seems to have been given to it. That is par for the course. The argument is that if anybody from the majority community is killed there should be no rumpus. Who knows but that they didn't deserve to be killed? The presumption is that the minorities are well-behaviour give no offence and should be treated with kid gloves. Their intentions should not be questioned. They should be considered strictly honourable. And never mind past history. The Hindu mind should purge itself of anger and let the dead past bury its dead. If Christian leaders look the other way when Hindus are massacred in Jammu and Kashmir, what is wrong with it? The Church can't get involved in politics, can it? But shouldn't Christians raise a hue and cry when one of their priests gets beaten up-not killed-even under some mistaken identity? And shouldn't the media stand up to such violence, in this secular land? Which, of course, the media run by secular Hindus-bless them! - exactly did. No newspaper went into the details of the mindless killing of four RSS volunteers. The presumption was that they were Fascists, anyway. But the beating up of a Catholic priest, mistaken as a Baptist, captured the headlines. Poor Atal Behari Vajpayee. It was somewhat silly of him to make much of this. On August 18, while releasing a biography of an RSS leader at his own residence he made the gross mistake of criticising the media. Of this wise and secular body he went on to say: “When the Christian clergy is attacked, they highlight it but when four RSS members were killed in Tripura it hardly got coverage in the newspapers.” Vajpayee was not criticising Christians or the Church. He was merely holding the mirror to the secular media. True, he said that there was a “conversion motive” behind the welfare activities carried out by some-mark the word 'some'-Christian missionaries in the country's backward areas. Vajpayee was quick to mention that conversion was permissible under law, though he did not think it was 'proper'. But how dam he say so? He is the Prime Minister, isn't he? Isn't he committed to the rule of law and the letter and spirit of the Constitution which guarantees religious freedom?
Hindus are not supposed to question conversion' But when Protestants were trying to make inroads among Catholic the Pope had no compunction in calling them ‘wolves’. It is a simple matter of heads I win, tails you lose. It is necessary to stress one or two points in this connection: rightly or wrongly, Hindus are concerned with attempting conversion. Many Christian missions may justly be run by saints but many Hindus have long memories. And the” should be respected.
Shri Vajpayee was merely reflecting the sentiments of millions of Hindus. To cast aspersions on this godly man may make the office-bearers of the All-India Christian Council feel good but they must be reminded that thereby they am not winning friends. A little self-introspection is clearly in order. If Hindu society is caste-ridden, Christian society is denomination-ridden. Most Hindus would be surprised to know (at the Vatican Year Book 2000’s own admission) that there are as many as 33,820 Christian denominations. The Catholic-run missions may be innocent, but can the same be said of missions belonging to other denominations? Has it over occurred to the Catholic Church to denounce other Christian denominations that bring a bad name to Christianity? Does it constantly have to attack Hindu groups to feel good? As Hamlet told his mother. “Lay not that flattering unction to your sour', that the entire Christian Community of whichever denomination is clean and only Hindus are vicious. In their noble-mindedness die makers of our Constitution permitted the propagation of all religions, in the face of doubts expressed by many members. To constantly flaunt that in the face of Hindus today may be good tactics but may prove to be counter-productive in the long run. A word to the wise should be sufficient. Besides, the question may well be asked: Why isn't the All India Christian Council condemning Pakistan for the jihad it is promoting against Jammu and Kashmir? If the beating up of one Christian priest can raise the hackles of the Council, surely its blood must boil at the ruthless killing of the innocents-both Hindus and Muslims- in Jammu and Kashmir? Are over 9000 Kashmiri lives expendable too? Or is the argument that the Church is not concerned with political killings? What comes as a shock is the silence as much of the Church as of Muslim association. Where was the Council when innocent Hindu pilgrims were killed on their way to Amarnath? And what are Muslim organisations in the rest of India doing when Muslims themselves are slaughtered in Jammu and Kashmir? It was left to the Minority Cell of the Bharatiya Janata Party to issue a strong condemnation of General Musharraf for propagating terrorism in the name of jihad.
No Hindu in his right mind would
deliberately beat up a priest belonging to another religion. One regrets
that a Catholic priest was beaten up in Thane, but the issue is much larger
than what the All India Christian Council would like to believe. It is
obvious that it labours under the illusion that it has the backing of the
so-called 'secular' Press. It must be reminded that this Press does not
reflect the sentiments of the vast majority of Hindus. By attacking Prime
Minister Vajpayee in harsh terms, the Council leadership has overstepped
limits. That is no way to get the understanding and sympathy of Hindus
whose record of respecting other religions down the ages has no parallel.
Christians who are m a majority in two thirds of the world's 238 countries
could do well with a little introspection, and respect Hindu sensibilities.
At least Hindus have not put over a hundred Christians at the stake as
the Catholics did in Goa between 1526 and 1776 to Hindus. The Pope could
apologise for Christian mission excesses elsewhere in the world as in Latin
America but India, apparently can be ignored. India is secular, isn't it?
It doesn't deserve an apology, does it?