Fundamentalist Hindus harass and threaten Catholics in India (CNA)

[Catholic_Press]

Rome, Feb 4, 2009 / 03:41 am (CNA).- A number of Catholics from different parishes who were celebrating the priestly ordination of the first priest from the island of Majuli, in the Indian state of Assam, were harassed, threatened, and in some cases beaten, after participating in a Mass celebrated by Bishop Joseph Aind of Dibrugarh.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/531390871

Full article…

 

[Numinous]

Let us pray for Christ’s persecuted Church and that our brothers and sisters will be given the grace to persevere as they share in Christ’s suffering.

“In this world you will have trouble, but I give you my peace.”

 

[dotcomrefugee]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

Post count +1.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

Post count +1.

If the story bores you go and increase your post count in the club house.

 

[katy]

How can this be just boring? These are our Christian brothers and sisters who are being persecuted and even killed! The MSM’s silence on this is deafening.

 

[Numinous]

That’s a ****ed up post.

 

[syromalabarcath]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

Post count +1.

good to see you are filled with the Christian spirit.

 

[Benedict108]

It is truly unfortunate what has been happening to our brothers and sisters in India. This is not the first incident, nor will it be the last of acts against them. May we remember to keep them in our prayers and remember how good we have it when we can practice our faith freely.

Pax.

 

[ultraswamy]

Unfortunately, prayers alone are not enough…Millions upon millions of dollars are funneled to communal organisations in India.

Note that these dollars, and pounds fund anti-Christian organization sometimes intentionally, but MOSTLY unintentionally.

To that end, prayers alone are not enough…and Catholics in the US and UK need to be educated about this fact - the implications of it on Christians in India, and the innocent-sounding fronts that these organization have in the US.

Many large US corporate houses have previously donated significant money, sometimes passively as part of a balanced corporate charitable funding, and sometimes actively due the fund raising efforts by the US/UK-offices of these organizations, or even as a result of the decisions people within their ranks.

Given the currency exchange rate, foreign funds actually fund whole lot of unpleasant stuff, and so is quite sought after…unpleasant in the sense that while it might not go towards the obvious funding of hate-crime, say buying Machetes or Clubs (exaggerating by way of explanation), but instead end up funding Sectarian organizations who claim to do Humanitarian work.

The selective rehabilitation of Tsunami victims by some organizations is an easy example. I offer this example since everyone will understand. But there are many many examples, unreported by Indian-media itself, and which almost nevers hits Western-media, which are far more sinister in their implication and magnitude.

I don’t know that they can, but perhaps US Laws need to include powers scrutinize and hold accountable the ‘downstream’ effects of dollars, and not just the spreadsheets of the ‘upstream’ organizations. Already in India, Indian laws in many states have been modified to be purposely unfavourable - Visa’s are routinely denied to Pastors in an effort to stop evangelism. On the Catholic front too, foreign-funding receives unequal attention, as does Islamic funding.

To read more, i recommend visiting the www.StopFundingHate.org website.

For a Summary of a detailed campaign try:
stopfundinghate.org/sacw/part1.html

This is root, for extensive reading:
stopfundinghate.org/sacw/index.html

Try reading these Tabs on the site too: About/Campaigns

 

[bobzills]

There is another side to this which is not being told here. I think there was a hindu guru who was assassinated, and there was suspicion of Christian involvement. Further, there were problems with Christians disturbing some Hindu places and there were complaints from the Hindus that Christians were overzealous in their efforts to convert Hindus and were insulting their religion.
I am not defending attacks on Christians, but at the same time, I think it is important to look at both sides of the story and not just one side.
Let me ask you this. How would you feel if you were brought up in a particular religion, and you were devout in your beliefs. then all of a sudden, some European foreigners come to you and tell you that everything you were taught was false and that you will go to hell and burn forever unless you convert over to this foreigners religion? Further, your mother and father, who you love deeply, have gone to hell and are burning forever with no chance of getting out because they have been praying to false gods?

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

There is another side to this which is not being told here. I think there was a hindu guru who was assassinated, and there was suspicion of Christian involvement. Further, there were problems with Christians disturbing some Hindu places and there were complaints from the Hindus that Christians were overzealous in their efforts to convert Hindus and were insulting their religion.
I am not defending attacks on Christians, but at the same time, I think it is important to look at both sides of the story and not just one side.
Let me ask you this. How would you feel if you were brought up in a particular religion, and you were devout in your beliefs. then all of a sudden, some European foreigners come to you and tell you that everything you were taught was false and that you will go to hell and burn forever unless you convert over to this foreigners religion? Further, your mother and father, who you love deeply, have gone to hell and are burning forever with no chance of getting out because they have been praying to false gods?

Maoists claimed responsibility for killing the Hindu Brahmin who had been responsible for forced reconversion of Dalit Christians to Hinduism for many years. This happened in an area which has been long known for violence against Christians by militant Hindu groups. Maoists have nothing to do with Christianity.

All of Europe, the Middle East, Russia etc were pagan when Christianity was born. How do you think the Apostles of Jesus converted the pagans? Hindus believe in reincarnation, not in hell. So there is no reason why a Hindu should believe that their Hindu parents would not be reincarnated in accordance with their beliefs at the time of their death.

Christian missionaries should be wise in the way they approach Hindus with an intention to convert. The attempt to convert is very much Christian because Jesus Christ commanded it. If Hindu Orthodox Brahmins could accept Christianity when Apostle Thomas preached it starting in 52 AD, there is no reason why any Hindu should find it difficult to accept Christianity on merit alone.

 

[Benedict108]

There is another side to this which is not being told here. I think there was a hindu guru who was assassinated, and there was suspicion of Christian involvement. Further, there were problems with Christians disturbing some Hindu places and there were complaints from the Hindus that Christians were overzealous in their efforts to convert Hindus and were insulting their religion.
I am not defending attacks on Christians, but at the same time, I think it is important to look at both sides of the story and not just one side.
Let me ask you this. How would you feel if you were brought up in a particular religion, and you were devout in your beliefs. then all of a sudden, some European foreigners come to you and tell you that everything you were taught was false and that you will go to hell and burn forever unless you convert over to this foreigners religion? Further, your mother and father, who you love deeply, have gone to hell and are burning forever with no chance of getting out because they have been praying to false gods?

The attack on the Catholics that took place was unjustified. To attack on mere speculation is foolhardy; further, one always has the ability to ignore.

It is conceivable that Hindus in the population don’t like Christian missionary activities and they see it as a threat to their own religion. However, there have been many attacks on Catholic Churches, Institutions, Religious and Lay people and often times the government turns a blind eye to it.

I thought for a bit about the the comment that you wrote…

Further, your mother and father, who you love deeply, have gone to hell and are burning forever with no chance of getting out because they have been praying to false gods?

I have never heard a Catholic missionary say that someone, nor have I ever said that to someone to try and convert them. I am currently in a mission territory and work with Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, etc. That is not to say that other Christian groups do not use those words, but Catholic missionaries generally do not speak like that.

Pax.

 

[bobzills]

Maoists claimed responsibility for killing the Hindu Brahmin who had been responsible for forced reconversion of Dalit Christians to Hinduism for many years. This happened in an area which has been long known for violence against Christians by militant Hindu groups. Maoists have nothing to do with Christianity.

All of Europe, the Middle East, Russia etc were pagan when Christianity was born. How do you think the Apostles of Jesus converted the pagans? Hindus believe in reincarnation, not in hell. So there is no reason why a Hindu should believe that their Hindu parents would not be reincarnated in accordance with their beliefs at the time of their death.

Christian missionaries should be wise in the way they approach Hindus with an intention to convert. The attempt to convert is very much Christian because Jesus Christ commanded it. If Hindu Orthodox Brahmins could accept Christianity when Apostle Thomas preached it starting in 52 AD, there is no reason why any Hindu should find it difficult to accept Christianity on merit alone.

Some Hindus say the attack was incited by Christians although it may have been carried out by a Maoist.
I am not justifying violence on either side. I am just saying that there is another side to this story which is not being told here.

 

[bobzills]

The attack on the Catholics that took place was unjustified. To attack on mere speculation is foolhardy; further, one always has the ability to ignore.

It is conceivable that Hindus in the population don’t like Christian missionary activities and they see it as a threat to their own religion. However, there have been many attacks on Catholic Churches, Institutions, Religious and Lay people and often times the government turns a blind eye to it.

I thought for a bit about the the comment that you wrote…

I have never heard a Catholic missionary say that someone, nor have I ever said that to someone to try and convert them. I am currently in a mission territory and work with Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, etc. That is not to say that other Christian groups do not use those words, but Catholic missionaries generally do not speak like that.

Pax.

I was speaking with a Buddhist lady a few weeks ago and the subject came up about religion. She said that she did not have anything against Catholicism, but she added that she did not think it was very nice for people to tell her that she was going to hell unless she converted to Catholicism. So that thought is out there and in the minds of many non-Catholics.

 

[Benedict108]

I was speaking with a Buddhist lady a few weeks ago and the subject came up about religion. She said that she did not have anything against Catholicism, but she added that she did not think it was very nice for people to tell her that she was going to hell unless she converted to Catholicism. So that thought is out there and in the minds of many non-Catholics.

I do agree the thought is out there. There are a lot of thoughts out there about Catholicism. Some of the thoughts are true and some are not and I along with others have spent a lot of time straightening those things out for people who are interested in the Church or want to convert.

I don’t disagree with the notion that there are some who over zealously use talk of hell to attempt to gain souls, but I have never heard missionaries or clergy use it. Usually the best way to attract people to the church is living a life of example. Many times people will come of their own accord and when we ask them why they tell us it is the way we live our lives. I think sometimes over zealous people forget that there is free-will in the equation and our words have to be tempered with love. Too much pressure will shut someone off. You have to allow someone to make a choice and allow them the time to do it. If someone is open, the Holy Spirit will get to their heart. We definitely cannot force or scare someone into the church.

I shan’t pursue this tangent too much further as we will go off topic

Pax tecum.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

The attack on the Catholics that took place was unjustified. To attack on mere speculation is foolhardy; further, one always has the ability to ignore.

It is conceivable that Hindus in the population don’t like Christian missionary activities and they see it as a threat to their own religion. However, there have been many attacks on Catholic Churches, Institutions, Religious and Lay people and often times the government turns a blind eye to it.

I have known nuns and priests who work in remote parts of North India. I visited a tribal mission station myself in 1984.

I heard heartrending stories of how French nuns gave up their lives in the desert, with their foolish dedication to obeying orders of their superiors with regard to nun’s habits. Imagine being dressed in several layers of woolen habit in the heat of the desert! Luckily the superiors in far away France came to their senses after the death of several nuns and the dress code was changed. The nuns did some amazing things out there, which Indian missionary nuns took over later. The nuns went door to door like social workers among the tribals who lived in forests. The tribals, who are animists not Hindus, lived completely out of touch with civilization with no concept of hygiene etc. The nuns taught them basics of hygiene, helped them build water proof huts/little houses, got them to keep their cattle out of their huts (tribals would keep their animals in the one room hut along with them!), started primary health centers, schools etc. The villagers were invited to the village church they built, no one was never forced. In other words the nuns catered to the material needs of the community and gave them a choice about choosing the religion that inspired such selfless work. Many converted, but not all. Some came to Mass and worshiped their idols at home. Some did not come at all. The missionaries had running battle with business caste Hindus (Vaishya) because they sought fairer prices for the goods (mostly wood collected from the forest) the tribals traded in the market for other goods. That was the real reason missionaries were hated, because they sought to uplift the social condition of the tribals and build good little communities and taught them their dignity and equality as human beings in the sight of God. The missionaries fought for the human rights of tribals and sought to end their exploitation by higher caste Hindus.

**Buddhism is included in the modern Hindutva ideology, although Buddhists are not Hindus.
**

Buddhism is a proselytizing religion. Buddha spent over forty years going the length and breath of India after his enlightenment setting up monasteries and converting Hindus. When the Hindu Indian Emperor Ashoka converted to Buddhism, he sent out Buddhist missionaries as far away as he could, even to the Far East. All Far Eastern countries, including China and Japan became Buddhist with time. It was Adi Shankara, better known as Shankaracharya, a Nambudiri Hindu Brahmin from Kerala, who became a sannyasi, who reconverted Indian Buddhists back to Hinduism. He propagated his Hindu philosophy, which integrated Buddhist philosophy, by winning debates with other schools of Hindu thought. Adi Shankara had had nothing to do with Buddhism, but his spiritual experience, not unlike that of Buddha, was expressed within the context of Hinduism. Nobody knows for sure how Buddhism almost completely disappeared from Indian soil, the country of its birth, but Adi Shankara played a vital role because he set up Hindu Ashrams in all corners of India, and introduced a Hindu philosophy that could face the challenge of Buddhist philosophy. Thus Buddhist monasteries probably became Hindu ashrams. Nobody really knows except one does not find many Indian Buddhists who could trace their religion to the time of Buddha.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Hindutva (meaning Hinduness), the modern militant Hindu fascist ideology, that is fast gaining mainstream ground, has nothing to do with real Hinduism. Hinduism, in its earliest Scripture, the Rig Veda, recognizes that there is only one God and there are many paths leading to God. Hindus have thus always accepted other religions as equal, and lived at peace with non-Hindus. Kerala is a very good example. Religion based violence is almost unknown in South India, especially in the states of Kerala and Tamil Nad. Modern Hindutva ideology is a socio-political movement and has fascist elements as part of its core belief. It derives its power from being propagated by the various members of Sangh Parivar, Parivar meaning family of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). RSS was an underground militant political movement started in 1925, which did not join the mainstream non-violence freedom movement started by the National Indian Congress led by Mahatma Gandhi and others. BJP, a mainstream political party, is one of the official daughters of the Sangh Parivar, as are the various Senas (armies) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council) with branches all over the world. It has been noticed that the violence against non-Hindus is condoned in states ruled by BJP. But movements are now being started in states with support from many Hindus to tackle the violence against non-Hindus.

According to the modern Hindutva ideology, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs, have the right to practice their religion in India because all those religions were born on Indian soil. So mass conversions to Buddhism is generally accepted. Islam and Christianity are perceived as foreign religions and those who practice them somehow as foreigners although all are ethnic Indians merely practicing another religion. Hindutva blames Muslim invaders for conversions to Islam and colonialism for conversion to Christianity. Islam in Kerala goes back to the first generation of Mohammad’s followers who brought the religion by peaceful means; invasion by Muslims in the North took place over a thousand years ago. Muslim rulers who came from outside as a rule married local Hindu women to form political alliances, and the Muslim culture has long become an integral part of North Indian culture and history. The great Muslim architecture in the North including the Taj Mahal is proof. Muslims ruled large parts of India not as foreigners but as natives. The history of Christianity in Kerala, which goes back to Apostle Thomas in 52 AD, when he converted some ultra orthodox Nambudiri Brahmins and many high caste Hindus, is largely unknown to the rest of India and completely ignored with recently arising revisionist history of Hinduism. What is known are the mass conversions during the time of Portuguese rule by Roman Catholic missionaries starting with St Francis Xavier, the co-founder of the Jesuit Order. There are only 2.3% Christians in India. Kerala, even with a history of Christianity going back to 52 AD, has only 20%.

It should not come as a surprise then when Buddhists show great sympathy for Hindutva ideology. They are included in it, even though they are not Hindus.

 

[Benedict108]

S J Thaikattil,

Thank you. That was very insightful.

I had heard some of the things that you mentioned before, but you expanded beyond the scope of my limited knowledge.

Pax tecum.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

S J Thaikattil,

Thank you. That was very insightful.

I had heard some of the things that you mentioned before, but you expanded beyond the scope of my limited knowledge.

Pax tecum.

You are welcome Benedict.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Some Hindus say the attack was incited by Christians although it may have been carried out by a Maoist.
I am not justifying violence on either side. I am just saying that there is another side to this story which is not being told here.

Bobzills, if violence against Christians and Christian missionaries has been a regular feature in those areas, should it surprise anyone that those very Hindus would use Christians as scapegoats for their violence? Mind you violence has been directed against Christians simply because they are Christians, nothing else. It is official policy of Sangh Parivar to prevent conversions to Christianity and to reconvert Christians by force to Hinduism. They seek out vulnerable Christian communities.

About 77% of Christians in India are Catholics. At independence foreign missionaries were no longer allowed to enter India to proselytize (this was before the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by many countries), so almost all missionaries in India are Indians. Indian Christians have never ever been involved in any violence anywhere in the country for the nineteen and a half centuries that Christianity has been on Indian soil.

India has had European colonizers of course, Portuguese (mostly around Goa), Dutch (in a small part of Kerala for a very brief period), French (mostly in and around Pondicherry) and for the longest period the British. Although the British did not prevent Christian missionary activity, they did not impose Christianity as a religion on India. So modern Hindutva has no justification in claiming Christianity as the religion imposed on Indians by foreigner rulers. Their claim that poor Hindus are being lured with material goods to Christianity is distorted because it would imply Christianity in itself has no merit as a religion but poor people are accepting it only for the sake of material benefits. But the truth is Hinduism has a caste system, and discrimination based on it, no low caste Hindu can shed; Hinduism believes in Karma and reincarnation, and salvation or Moksha is achieved in Hinduism over several lifetimes with self effort alone, even though they have a pantheon of gods to worship.

Where European Christian missionaries (unlike Apostle Thomas) have erred is in imposing a different culture on Indian Christians when they began their first conversion efforts. So for e.g. Christians from Goa gave up their Indian names and adopted Portuguese names and Western dress and customs. This of course made it easier for them when Goa was a Portuguese colony, but they began to be treated like foreigners or Indians servile to foreign rulers by Hindus for that very reason. Catholic nuns and priests all over India wore only Western clothes etc. But it is easily forgotten that many elite Hindus adopted many Western customs in the long period that British ruled. They got Western education, wore western clothes, spoke English with pride, and adopted many British habits (think of how popular the game of cricket is in India, and other “western” games like tennis etc). Even some Hindu names are anglicised versions. But most Hindus did not change their religion. Why should changing one’s religion as a free choice alone be associated with accepting colonial rule? Jesus Christ was not British or European, and Christianity was first brought to India by a direct disciple of Jesus Himself. Christianity was not imposed as a state religion by any European ruler. So why should it be such a shame to worship the historical Jesus, in preference to the many mythical Hindu gods or the many living or dead Hindu gurus? Every Hindu knows God has no nationality. So if Jesus Christ is worshiped as God by Christians, He is not being worshiped because of His nationality or ethnicity when He as God took human form.

Modern Hindutva is a very recent phenomenon. It is a socio-political movement. Real Hinduism, which in itself is a confederation of religions, with many gods, philosophies, gurus, reformers etc, which accepts all religions as equal, cannot be used to lend credibility to modern Hindutva with its ideology of violence and intolerance.