Author: Editorial
Publication: Organiser
Date: October 12, 2008
The Indian Prime Minister on a foreign soil
telling the world that he was ashamed of the violence in India against Christians
was a shameful sight. He was responding to the European Union allegation that
his government failed to prevent what it called a "massacre of Christians"
in Orissa and Karnataka.
This atrocious allegation was reportedly made
during the India-EU summit at Marseille. The issue was taken up strongly with
Dr Singh by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also head of the European
Council and Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission. There
was also a report that the US President George W. Bush had asked the Prime
Minister of India to give an assurance to the EU on the subject. In any case
it was incumbent on the part of the Prime Minister to clarify the situation
and defend the country.
In the first place it is not the business
of the US or EU to protect the Christians in India. The Christians are Indian
citizens and they have always been first Indians and only then Christians.
This country will not allow any violence in the name of religion and Hindus
have always stood in the forefront protecting legitimate Christian rights.
In these columns we have reiterated often that the protection of minorities
and the oneness of the people of this country are at the core of Indian values
we uphold.
There are some isolated, totally localised,
incidents of violence in one or two areas as a result of some social schism
developed over a period of time. The state governments there have done everything
in their capacity to restore order and reassure the affected people. Here
the affected, the victims have no religion, they belong to all communities,
though the provocation came entirely from the foreign funded evangelical groups.
That is why, established Church denominations have dissociated from the evangelists
and condemned conversion by force and allurement. (On the front page we are
carrying a report on the successful Hindu-Christian dialogue held last week
in Kerala). This being the situation, the EU allegation against India was
both uncalled for and preposterous. In fact Dr. Singh had every right to protest.
Dr Singh could have objected to the blatant lie being propounded by the EU.
For, there was not a single instance of "massacre" of Christians
in India. Even riots are rare involving Christians and Hindus. Even if we
take the number of persons killed in the recent incidents, including Swami
Laxmananda Saraswati and his three Ashram mates, three policemen and four
others killed in police firing and violence the total is less than ten and
that cannot be qualified as massacre. There were some cases of arson and pillage
in mob fury. But they are nothing compared to the kind of anti-Muslim violence
witnessed in France, UK and other EU countries a few years ago. There is no
need for the EU to communalise the issue or take up the protection of Christians
as their special commitment. If secularism as Sarkozy explained is the issue
they should have been equally concerned about the lives of Hindus lost in
terrorist violence. And the discrimination against the Sikhs in France is
a major issue agitating every Indian mind. Manmohan Singh should have taken
it up at the EU.
No other Prime Minister of India would have
tolerated such interference in the internal affairs of the country. Some lobbyists
have started saying that India's effort to emerge a front runner of globalisation
has suffered a setback because of the Kandhamal incidents. These people talk
as if globalisation is Christianisation.
In his effort to be more secular than Indian
Dr Manmohan Singh has let down the country. And foreign soil is no place for
the Prime Minister to speak about a domestic issue on which the national opinion
is hugely divided. Perhaps this is the difference between an elected political
Prime Minister and a selected one. Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Atal Behari
Vajpayee or any other Prime Minister of India would not have entertained such
indiscretion.
