Desicritics Author: SAN

Brothers and Sisters; Thanks for Clarifying Demographic Issues

SAN — Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:09:29 EST

Who are My Brothers and Sisters?

As I mentioned in the title, this gratitude is expressed only to my brothers and sisters. There are some Christians who may not consider me as their brother. I do not insist on them calling me as a brother. That is their choice and this is anyway not for them. There might be some Muslims, some liberal Hindus and some atheists who may not call me as their brother. I will not insist on them calling me as a brother either. That is their choice and this is not for them either. But I will insist that every RSS and Bajrang Dal member should consider me as their brother and this is for them.

Allow me to explain my reasons. Recently a self-claimed RSS leader (I am yet to cross-check the veractiy) wrote to me that he can never be a brother of either a Muslim or a Christian. But I gave him reasons why he should call me his brother. Of course, I know that his Guru Golwalkar in Bunch of Thoughts called Muslims and Christians as internal threats and enemies. So I should be his enemy and not his brother. But I will stubbornly insist that RSS and anyone who follows Golwalkar should call me as a brother and not as an enemy if they are Indians.

You see, the Indian national pledge very clearly says that 'all Indians are my brothers and sisters". Since the RSS insist that national song Vande Mataram is compulsory for every Indian, I am sure they compulsorily follow the national pledge and compulsorily call every Christian, communists and especially Muslims as brother and sister. Since I have defined my target audience clearly, and if you do not fall under this category (compulsory brother and sister) and have bothered to read until this line, you may chose to leave. However, if you chose to read further, I do not have any issues as this is not such a family secret. But the gratitude is not for you.

Now let me thank you.

My brothers and sisters, until now I was under the wrong impression that you were against changing the demographics of a society. Some misinformed secularists had written some biased reports in politically correct newspapers that you violently oppose anyone who changes the demographics (e.g. Orissa). For a moment I was perplexed and troubled. I never believed it. How can it be from my brothers and sisters?

But then the issue of transfer of forestland to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB) came like Sree Krishna's appearance to Arjuna. All my doubts were cleared after that. I read objections of those Mlecchas to the land transfer - i.e. it will change the demographics of the Valley. How silly!!!

But then I was anxiously waiting for your response too. I was thinking that if those pseudo-secularists were true in their accusations against you, then you would surely agree with those Mlecchas. But then I saw agitations after agitations, destruction upon destruction against such logic of demographic changes.

My eyes were filled with tears. How wicked can this pseudo-secular media become in their accusations against my brothers and sisters. RSS and Bajrang Dal- they will never oppose anyone who changes demography in fact they are for it.

But I had some doubts still left in mind because of the indoctrination of secular media. Then Raj Thackeray came. He fought like Shivaji against North Indians (particularly from Bihar and UP) coming to Mumbai. He too argued against the demographic change (and culture too???).

This time I was not expecting a strong protest like the earlier protests for the Shrine. I only expected an ideological protest in whisper volume. Do not doubt me. This was not just because Raj had a Thackeray attached to his name but also because the Shrine makes business sense. Who bothers about human beings in a land of billions. Somewhere we all need to prioritize our work. I can understand that. So I expected only an ideological protest. And to your credit, you did that.

That is why I am so thankful to you. Now, I know that secularists are lying. You are not against demographic changes. You are for them.

Now, I will surely continue my missionary work. Hope you do not mind if demography changes. If you want to convert, do let me know. We will teach those Mlecchas in Kashmir a lesson or two by changing the demographics.

Thank you brothers and sisters anyways for clearing all my doubts.

Jerry Thomas is a student of comparative religions with Sakshi: An Apologetics Network in India (www.sakshitimes.com). The views expressed here are personal and does not necessarily represent the organization or the Christian community that he belongs to.

Islam and Hinduism: Experience of an Evangelist

SAN — Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:45:51 EST

Let me begin with who I am and what I believe. I am a Christian evangelist who believes in winning others to Christ (you can call it conversion). I am not paid nor funded by any organization though I do not see anything wrong in both. I work to earn my living and do my ministry. I do not belong to any organized/institutional Church though I preach in every Church. It has been almost eight years that I am preaching the Gospel. I have conducted open forums, inter-religious public debates (one of the largest ever in the world), written pamphlets and booklets. I hope I can speak about religion now.

I believe that one man’s religion is another man’s blasphemy. So I do not believe that ‘all religions are true’ and ‘all religions are valid paths for salvation”. Moreover, I think the statement that ‘all religions are true’ is illogical and can never be substantiated with evidences. In fact, it is logically valid to say that “all religions are false” though I believe one religion is true because of evidences (and you know which I think as true). Therefore, if one man truly preaches his religion, then it would be a blasphemy to another man. You may ask: if I do not think other man’s religion as valid how am I going to live in a pluralistic society? My answer is- I believe in the dignity of every human being though not in the validity of every view. So along with the alleged statement of atheist Voltaire, I will say “I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

It has been almost two and half years ago that I started focusing on Islam with a greater interest. Islamic terrorism was a concern for me too. Initially, I attended some Islamic religious programs and asked a few of the most sensitive questions. I was expecting a bomb blast for that. The Islamic preacher attempted to answer the questions (though not satisfactorily), and blasphemed against my religion (which I thought was not relevant to the question though that is his right). But there was no threat of any kind - veiled or blatant.

Then I started writing against the doctrines of Islam. A few Christians and some Hindus warned me of Muslim repercussions. But I never got a threat - veiled or blatant.

I then debated with Dawwah preachers both closed-room (in front of hundreds) and open ground (in front of thousands). They sometimes ridiculed at me, sometimes mocked at me, sometimes blasphemed about my faith, and presented their own rebuttals but never did I receive a threat - veiled or blatant. To add to it all, I now live in Hyderabad.

It was the Hindu terrorism in Orissa that rudely woke me to the Hinduism angle. So it has been hardly two months that I have been focusing on Hinduism. I am yet to conduct an open forum or a public debate on this topic though I intend to start with an open forum and am willing to take a public debate (if any Hindu religious preacher is ready). But until now I have only written a few articles and an e-booklet. All of these are written in English and published on the Internet. The responses that I got from the ‘religion of tolerance’ are shocking.

Here I summarize a few:

• We will chop your head (Blatant threat, I say. I have saved this email and wrote back to this guy that this might be difficult for him to carry out and he should rather try to refute me.)
• You are defaming and maligning our religion
• We are tolerant people but if you write like this we will be forced to attack (I thought one should be considered as tolerant when they peacefully respond to criticisms and not when they live without criticisms. Maybe this fellow must have thought that he is ‘gracious’ in allowing me even to live as a Mleccha as long as I keep silent)
• You are forcing us to join RSS (veiled threat, I say)
• And a lot of abuses

I agree that both these experiences are very limited and cannot be generalized. Moreover, Hindus in USA may have responded differently and Muslims in Saudi Arabia will surely respond differently. But as of now, I am only bothered about India.

Are the Indian Muslims better in handling criticisms than Indian Hindus? With my limited experience, I should say yes.

Why it is so?

Maybe because Hindus are in the majority. As Bill Clinton once said in another context, "I did it because I could."

Maybe because Hindus are only tolerant when you do not disturb their caste structure (remember Jews and Parsis) and are intolerant when you disturb it (remember Buddhists).

Maybe because Hindus do not want to face criticisms for the fear of being exposed. My political leader Babasaheb Ambedkar once wrote:

“In raising the second objection (all religions are true, therefore it is futile to convert) the Hindu is merely trying to avoid an examination of Hinduism on its merits. It is an extraordinary thing that in the controversy over conversion not a single Hindu has had the courage to challenge the Untouchables to say what is wrong with Hinduism. The Hindu is merely taking shelter under the attitude generated by the science of comparative religion. The science of comparative religion has broken down the arrogant claims of all revealed religions that they alone are true and all others which are not the results of revelation are false. That revelation was too arbitrary, too capricious test to be accepted for distinguishing a true religion from a false was undoubtedly a great service which the science of comparative religion has rendered to the cause of religion. But it must be said to the discredit of that science that it has created the general impression that all religions are good and there is no use and purpose in discriminating them.”

Maybe a combination of all the reasons, although I am inclined to believe in the second and third reasons. Or maybe it is something else that I do not know yet.

Whatever the reasons I have some unsolicited advice for the Hindus:

• Defend your religion only by means of reason. It will show that you are truly tolerant.
• Never take physical weapons to oppose verbal and ideological criticisms
• Learn your own scriptures and reject what is wrong and accept only what is right (and if you would like to convert at any point, please do let me know).
• Study other’s religions also. Though you are a majority, it will help to build a better pluralistic society
• Do not repeat that ‘all religions are true”. You cannot live by a falsehood for long.

I have a few more things to say (including taking up debates), but that as you progressively become truly tolerant.

Jerry Thomas is a student of comparative religions with Sakshi: An Apologetics Network in India. The views expressed here are personal and does not necessarily represent the organization or the Christian community that he belongs to.

So, You Want Me to Reconvert? Come, Let Us Reason

SAN — Sun, 2 Nov 2008 10:16:33 EST

The RSS and its affiliate organizations want Indian Christians (and Indian Muslims?) to reconvert to Hinduism. Of course, as RSS opposes conversion-based allurements and force (which we too oppose), I assume that the RSS would not want us to reconvert based on allurement or force or threat. They may want us to examine the merits and demerits of both the religions (and maybe others also) and take a decision based after evaluation.

While examining the merits and demerits, I believe that we can do so without the RSS raising the red-herring of 'defaming Hinduism' (a good evading tactics for not to provide any reasons for things we find in Hinduism as illogical and immoral and thereby escape from a dialog). And of course, it goes without saying that there should not be any threat of force while one openly discusses about religion. We are ready for this and time would tell whether RSS and it affiliate organizations are genuine or hypocritical.

Let me begin. To avoid all charges of maligning Hinduism, I will be primarily quoting from scholars accepted by RSS.

1. Hinduism is Santana Dharma: What does that mean?

Santana Dharma According to Hindutva Ideologist Veer Sarvarkar

I hope RSS would not mind me quoting Sarvarkar.
Sarvarkar writes:

"Those laws of nature that have been experimentally vindicated and have stood the test of time verily constitute Sanatana dharma.

We have yet to experimentally gain knowledge of the hereafter. As such, this subject is still in the realm of speculation and it would be inappropriate to either confirm or reject its existence. None of the religious scriptures that offer various explanations of the hereafter are divinely inspired but have been composed or inspired by human beings. Their explanations lack proof and hence they cannot be said to be timeless and eternal.

The worldly conduct, ethics, practices and laws of human beings may be regarded as beneficial or otherwise solely on the touchstone of benefit to humankind. They should be adhered to and amended also on that very touchstone. It is neither possible nor desirable for the code of human conduct in this ever-changing world to be Sanatana (*timeless). As the Mahabharata says, "hence, decide your conduct according to prevailing conditions." (1934, Vidnyannishtha nibandha or pro-science essays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.315-316)

I am well aware that we have not fully comprehended this Sanatana dharma, these laws of nature at the present moment and are probably unlikely to ever do so. What we think we have understood could well be rendered false in future by the march of science. Surely, newer ideas will be added to our existing state of knowledge. (1934, Vidnyannishtha nibandha or pro-science essays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.311)

When we append the word term 'Sanatana' to 'dharma', we apply it to the principles and philosophies that expound the nature and the mutual relation between God, individual and creation (ishwar, jeev and jagat). For the nature of the First principle (aadishakti), the First Cause of creation and the First Laws are truly Sanatana, eternal and have stood the test of time. The principles expounded by the Bhagwadgita and the Upanishads regarding these may be sanatana. For it is beyond human power to change the nature of the First Cause. They are as they are and will always remain so. (1930, Jatyuchchedak nibandha or essays on abolition of caste, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.442)."

Observations:

� Laws of nature which are scientifically proven are Sanatana dharma
� Doctrines about the life hereafter are not Sanatana dharma
� Moral laws are not Sanatana dharma
� As much as Bhagwadgita and the Upanishads have expounded regarding these, they may be sanatana dharma

My Conclusion:

� To accept the scientifically proven laws of nature (Sanatana dharma), I need not become a Hindu
� In fact, it is better to remain as a Christian as modern science itself is a product of Christian worldview (which of course will be the content of another article)

Does Sanatana dharma mean that Hindu gods are Eternal?

Babasaheb Ambedkar now is a much venerated leader of RSS. The RSS print his photos in their posters and brochures. I too accept Ambedkar as my political leader though not a spiritual leader. I am sure RSS will only be happy if I quote him. I am also happy to do that.

Vedic gods abandoned for Puranic gods: Ambedkar writes in the Riddles of Hinduism:

"The real charge which can be levelled against the Hindus most people seem to have missed. That charge is that the Hindus are never steadfast in their devotion to their Gods. There is no such thing as loyalty or attachment or faith in one God. In the history of Hindu Gods one finds it a very common experience that some Gods have been worshipped for a time and subsequently their worship has been abandoned and the Gods themselves have been thrown on the scrap-heap. Quite new Gods are adopted and their worship goes with an intensity of devotion which is full and overflowing. Again the new Gods are abandoned and are replaced by a fresh crop of new Gods. So the cycle goes on. In this way the Hindu Gods are always undergoing rise and fall--a phenomenon which is unknown in the history of any other community in the world.
The statement that the Hindus treat their Gods with such levity may not be accepted without demur. Some evidence on this point is therefore necessary. Fortunately there is abundance of it. At present the Hindus worship four Gods (1) Shiva, (2) Vishnu, (3) Rama and (4) Krishna. The question that one has to consider is: are these the only Gods the Hindus have worshipped from the beginning?

The Hindu Pantheon has the largest number of inmates. The Pantheon of no religion can rival it in point of population. At the time of the Rig-Veda the number of its inmates was colossal. At two places the Rig-Veda speaks of three thousand three hundred and nine Gods. For some reasons, which it is not possible for us now to know, this number came to be reduced to thirty-three. This is a considerable reduction. Nevertheless with thirty three, the Hindu Pantheon remains the largest.

The composition of this group of thirty-three Gods is explained by the Satapatha Brahmana[f58] as made up of 8 Vasus, 11 Rudras and 12 Adityas, together with Dyasus and Prithvi (heaven and earth)"

Further, Ambedkar continues and says that these Vedic gods were abandoned for Puranic gods who were anti-Vedic.

Ambedkar then writes:

"What is the present position as compared with that found in the Chula-Niddessa? Here again, three propositions are well-established. First: the cults of Agni, Indra, Brahma and Surya have disappeared. Second: Krishna has retained his position. Three: The cults of Vishnu, Shiva and Rama are new cults which have come into existence since the time of the Chula-Niddessa. Given this situation it raises three questions for considerations: One is why the old cults of Agni, Indra, Brahma have and Surya disappeared? Why was the worship of these Gods abandoned? Second is what are the circumstances that gave rise to the new cults of Krishna, Rama, Shiva and Vishnu. Third what is the relative position of these new Gods, Krishna, Rama, Shiva and Vishnu?
For the first question we can find no answer. The Brahmanic literature gives us no clue whatsoever as to why the Brahmins abandoned the worship of Agni, Indra, Surya and Brahma. There is some explanation as to why the cult of Brahma disappeared. It rests in a charge which is found to be levelled in the Brahmanic literature against Brahma. The charge is that he committed rape on his own daughter and hereby made himself unworthy of worship and devotion. Whatever be the truth in the charge it could not be regarded as sufficient to account for the abandonment of Brahma and for two reasons. In the first place, in that age such conduct was not unusual. In the second place, Krishna was guilty of greater immoralities than were charged to Brahma and yet they continued to worship him.

While there is something to speculate about the abandonment of Brahma there is nothing to account for the abandonment of the others. The disappearance of Agni, Indra, Surya and Brahma is thus a mystery. This is no place to solve this mystery. It is enough to say that the Gods of the Hindus had ceased to be Gods--a terrible thing.

The second question is also enveloped in mystery. Brahmanic literature, to account for the importance of the cults of these new Gods, Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva and Rama, is full and overflowing. But there is nothing in the Brahmanic literature to account for the rise of these new Gods. Why these new Gods were brought into action is thus a mystery. The mystery however deepens when one finds that some of the new Gods were definitely anti-Vedic."

Observations:

� Hindus have abandoned their Vedic gods in favor of Puranic gods
� Brahminical literature provide us no reasons why they abandoned one set of gods in favor of other sets of gods

Conclusions:

� Hindu gods are not eternal
� In fact, since the present day Hindus themselves have abandoned one set of gods in favor of another set of gods without reason, there cannot be any objection for me abandoning all these sets of gods in favor of Jehovah who incarnated as Jesus with reason
� Further, it makes sense to continue as a Christian as Jehovah is the One True Triune God who is ancient to all other gods even historically

Does Sanatana Dharma mean that Hindu Culture is Eternal?

Ask any RSS person and he will say how they respect and venerate Sree Narayana Guru. They say that if not for Sree Narayana Guru, more than half of Kerala now would have been filled with Christians like me. Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP) stands as a witness for this.

As a matter of fact, in India, the RSS have the maximum number of Shakas in Kerala and a good number of RSS members are from Ezhava community, the major community of SNDP.

How much more thrilled and happy RSS would be if a Christian like me quotes from SNDP. Let me quote what the SNDP says about the culture before the Aryanization of Kerala and after it. This is very important for me to consider as Guru Gowalkar of RSS stated very clearly that the culture of Hinduism is the Aryan culture. Of course, if I reconvert, RSS would want me to adopt this Aryan culture. So let me read about the Aryanization of culture from a source which RSS approves.

The SNDP Website of New York says the following

"The Aryan culture was introduced in to Kerala by immigrant Brahmins from the North. They reached Kerala in small periodical waves from the 5th Century AD onwards. They came to be called Nambudiris. Though the Aryan Culture began to spread in Kerala from the 5th century AD, Hinduism was a very minor religion until 9th century AD. During 8th Century AD a new set of immigrants reached Kerala and strengthened the existing force of Brahmins, and during the 9th Century, at the time of Adi Sankaracharya, Brahminism reached its zenith."

Further it continues:

"As the final product of Aryanisation, Kerala society crystallized into two major caste-based categories, the caste Hindus or 'Savarnas' and the non-caste Hindus or 'Avarnas'. The caste and sub-castes were arranged in a hierarchical order from the highest and the most sacred to the lowest and the least worthy.
The Savarna hierarchy consisted of the Nambudiris or Kerala Brahmins, the Kshatriyas or the rulers and Sudras or Nairs in a descending order. The Avarna hierarchy had Ezhava (Thiyya or Chovan) at the top followed by Pulaya, Paraya, etc. with the Nayadi occupying the last rung. The Avarnas were definitely below the rank of Sudras. The bifurcation of Savarna and Avarna was so deeply felt that professional castes like tailor, barber, washerman, etc. existed separately for Savarnas and Avarnas. That is, a Savarna tailor or barber would not work for an Avarna as an Avarna was considered to be inferior to the Savarna professional."

It again observes:

"The plight of the Avarnas or non-caste Hindus was the most pitiable. Not only economic deprivation but inhuman humiliations were heaped upon them. By the end of the seventeenth century, caste assumed a ferocious and barbarous form in Kerala and stiflingly oppressive to those in the lower rungs of the caste ladder. .
There were nearly three hundred compulsory taxes imposed on the Avarnas exclusively, some of which will look ridiculous and nonsensical to the modern mind. Here are some examples:

Tharivari - tax on handlooms
Valayara - tax on fishing boats and nets
Chakkuvari - tax on oil press
Thalavari - tax to be paid by an Avarna for the hair on his head.
Mulakaram (breast tax) - tax on women to be paid depending on the size of their breasts.
Chetthukaram - tax to be paid by the worker for the number of palms he climbed in a day for extracting toddy.

These taxes appear laughable, but imagine the implied humiliation and tragic fate of the people who had to bear them. Realizing the illegitimacy, impropriety and inhuman nature of these taxes, Rani Gauri Laxmibai of Tranvancore issued a proclamation in 1851 abolishing them.

However, the social humiliations continued to be in force, because there was a firm belief that the lower castes defiled the higher in a spiritual or ritualistic sense. Hence, the principle of untouchability and unapproachability was maintained very strictly. Even Savarnas were victims of this. Since the Nambudiris were alleged to be the highest and most sacred, even the Kshatriyas were regarded as polluting the Nambudiris by touch and approach. The Kshatriya was therefore compelled to keep a distance of two feet away from the Nambudiris and the sanctum sanctorum of the temple. Similarly, the distance to be observed by the others were:

Nair - 16 ft.

Ezhava - 32 ft.

Pulaya and Paraya - 64 ft.
Nayadi - not to come within the sight of a Brahmin. The sight of a Nayadi at a distance would force the Brahmin to undergo ritual purification

Observations:

� Aryans came and corrupted our Kerala culture
� They made our culture one of the most oppressive culture ever in the history of mankind

Conclusion:

� Since Aryanization has corrupted my culture, it was a wise choice to become a Christian as Christian faith redeemed my culture to freedom and equality
� It is better to continue in Christian faith which redeemed my culture rather than reconvert as Aryanization would corrupt my culture

There is one more reason as a Keralite why I would not come back to the Hindu Fold.

There was an Asura King known as Mahabali (mythical- but myth is also a way of telling history) in Kerala. FYI- Ausra is a word used for people like me who do not have a white complexion like L. K Advani or Sonia Gandhi and do not have a long nose.

During the reign of Mahabali, no one told a lie (that might the reason why we do not have a long nose), all of us were equal (in other words, we were yet to follow gods who created caste system) and there was no starvation (of course, if it is an egalitarian society, distribution of food would not be unequal to make somebody starve). We were very prosperous.

But Hindu gods and goddess were envious about our prosperous status. So Vishnu took his fifth avatar as a small Brahmin boy (or Dwarf) and cheated our King Mahabali by asking for three feet of land. The moment our King Mahabali agreed for this, Vishnu grew so huge that one foot was in heaven, another foot was in earth and there was no space for the third feet.

So Vishnu put his third feet on the head of our King and immersed him to the earth. But once in a year, our King is allowed to visit us. It is in this hope that Keralites celebrate Onam.

Observation:

� Hindu gods and goddesses do not like to see us prosperous
� If at all we become prosperous, then they may take an avatar to destroy us

Conclusion:

� It was one of the best choices that we ever made to become Christians as God of the Bible takes pleasure in the prosperity of His people and beautify them with His salvation (Psalms 149:4)
� In fact, when I was in utter ruin (not in prosperity of the soul), God of the Bible died for me so that I may not be destroyed.

You might have noticed that until the last point of the story of Onam, I was only quoting sources which are even acceptable to RSS. Hope RSS would not accuse me of defaming Hinduism as they too agree with the sources.

And as you would agree there is no reason why I should be coming back to the Hindu fold. In fact, it seems the best and wisest decision we ever made is to become a Christian.Sorry my friends at RSS. I am not reconverting. I am happy to remain as a child of Lord Jesus Christ.

Jerry Thomas is a student of comparative religions with Sakshi: An Apologetics Network in India. The views expressed here are personal and does not necessarily represent the organization or the Christian community that he belongs to.