The Pain of 2011

My most distant memory of a cricket match is of the '91 World Series match between India and West Indies where Tendulkar bowled the last over of the low scoring tense game to ensure that India reached the finals. As a 6 year old I still remember my dad telling me that Tendulkar needed to bat well for us to have any chance of defeating the Aussies. My dreams were crushed by Allan Border and Dean Jones in both the finals. I still remember my elder cousin telling me before the India Pakistan '92 World Cup tie that Wasim Akram and Imran Khan bowl at 200 kmph and only Tendulkar can save India from defeat. Tendulkar didn't disappoint and hit the shit out of the Pakistani attack inspiring a memorable win. I still remember the disappointment after the loss to Australia by one run in the same WC. I still remember the Hero Cup semi final when the man, sorry boy took the responsibility of bowling the last over to Brian McMillan when SA needed just 6 to win of the final over (even veteran Kapil Dev disagreed to Azharuddin's request to bowl the last over).

When people say to me that the man cannot play under pressure I ask myself these questions. Can the sehwag's, or raina's or dhoni's ever take so much pressure even at this age (he handled it at 17). Can Sehwag bowl to Michael Hussey with Australia needing six of the last over and win the match for the country? How high is the probability of a 17 year old Dravid, Laxman or Sehwag scoring a 100 at the WACA Perth with your side reeling at 52 for 7 and the opposition having bowlers like Merv Huges and Craig Mcdermott.

Its been a journey of 19 years since I started watching cricket but one man has always been there at the helm of all my expectations and possibly I am so much used to it that I just can't imagine Indian cricket without the "Boy" who is now "The God". 2011 in all possibility would be Tendulkar's last year as an Indian cricketer. I still wonder how will I ever be able to imagine Indian cricket without him.

Arundhati Roy .... a "booker"

Long before many of us were born, there lived a man in India who raised his voice against exploitation of India's resources and its citizens by the state that was then run by a colonial power. This man, despite being born into wealth and privilege, and educated in the land of the exploiting kingdom, chose to fight for his countrymen to free them from that oppressive yoke.

Like many before him, he too could have wined and dined in Delhi and Bombay, written fine articles in the language of the master whose ways he had adopted, and filled himself and the oppressed with hatred, to incite them, from the comfort of his home or wherever, to wage war against the 'state' by picking up a gun, or the bows and arrows that they had been using since 'long before there was a country called India'.

But, no, he did something else altogether. He shed almost everything that represented the repression he was fighting against, and took to living the life of the poor people he wanted to awaken and help. Without hatred or violence, that man in a loin cloth electrified India and overthrew the greatest empire on earth.

63 years after Independence, the state run by its own people remains the oppressor and exploiter in the eyes of over 800 million Indians for whom freedom and democracy are words that still have no meaning whatsoever. They remain poor, uneducated, hungry and as developed as they were hundreds, even thousands of years ago. And now, their land is under threat too, ready to be taken over by large corporations ready to extract bauxite, iron ore and much more, to feed the needs of an India that is growing and developing rapidly, unconcerned that a large part of it is still stationary and therefore moving farther away.

Many tribals, failing to find a real leader who can lead them into light, have fallen prey to a few who have made them believe that like Mao, they too will free them from the yoke of a state that has done nothing for them, a state that cannot be distinguished from the colonial regime that preceded it, a state that suppresses them using the same tools of governance that it found demeaning when their reins were in white hands.

Those few - call them Maoists, Leninists, Naxals, whatever - left a viciously violent legacy, wherever they held sway, be it the Soviet Union, China or Kampuchea. In the last century, they murdered close to 110 million people, many more than the 38 million who were killed in all the wars of the century put together. That is what they will do in India too, should they get power in the name of the people whose cause they are championing. What they did recently in Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere in India should have left no one in any doubt that this path has the same ending, no matter where it is followed.

Enter a new breed of educated 'liberators' of India's downtrodden tribals, most ensconced comfortably in 21st century enclaves in cities, and loving it. They are the unlikely defenders and champions of Maoists, and are not willing to open their eyes to any but their anachronistic notions of a solution based on a discredited, violent ideology that they watch and cheer from a safe distance.

One of the most prominent of these romantics, for want of a better word, is a celebrated author armed with the Booker and, as Sagarika Ghose puts it, luminous prose. Arundhati Roy has been angry with the state for a very long time, for reasons that may be revealed in a future novel or autobiography. I have not followed her closely and have not read her 'God of Small Things' or her latest, but I do remember reading, among other things, that some time back she had seceded from India and become an independent mobile republic of one.

This republic is at war with India again. This time on behalf of the poor tribals who live in a vast forest area that was once called Dandkaranya.

Roy knows her statistics well and knows how to use and conceal them creatively to show you just the kind of picture she wants, the kind that will impress many but move a few, notwithstanding her incandescent words. One is almost charmed by the canvas she paints to lull you into believing that there is real pain in her heart for the forest people, that she wants nothing more than seeing that their lives improve, that her opposition to the state is born out of such feelings alone. But, at the end of it, like in her Outlook article entitled 'Mr Chidambaram's war', she emerges looking no better than an artificial flower; it looks very real - can't tell - but simply doesn't have the right smell.

Roy rejects the model of development that India is following and wants to dismantle and replace it, not really knowing with what and how; that does not concern her. Her focus is on destruction and violence, not construction and peace. You know what she wants, or at least what she wants you to believe, when she says that the bauxite and other minerals that are going to be mined should 'remain in the mountain', because if the hills are destroyed, 'the forests that clothe the tribals will be destroyed too'. She is convinced - not erroneously, given the unforgiveable track record of the Indian state thus far - that the tribals will have to pay the price of progress. So, she doesn't want them to pay that price, like most of us don't. But, unlike most of us, she is comfortable condemning them to paying a far greater one.

The only way to protect the tribals, as one can surmise from what Roy says, is by keeping them just where they have been for thousands of years. They should stick to bows and arrows, live on forest produce and let the forest clothe them. From that it must follow that they should also never cook their meals in aluminum utencils on steel stoves, and never take a bus or train - none of these has ever been made without mining ores from a mountain somewhere and changing the lives of the affected forever. So what if has been for the better in recent years elsewhere?

If the bauxite had remained in the mountains, how would Roy have travelled to get her Booker? Now that she has discovered , like a certain Gandhi did nearly a century ago, that to keep her and 'neo-colonialists' like us motoring and flying and connected to the whole world, the tribals of India will have to pay a price that she finds unacceptable, why does she not walk the Gandhi talk? Why does she not begin by making a personal sacrifice to reduce the burgeoning demand for metals and minerals worth trillions of dollars that lie inside the mountains? Will she, or anyone else, like to go back to the lives their ancestors led a few hundred years ago, to save the environment and to effectively ensure that those who have missed the progress bus do not catch it ever? Or would she rather live in a country that follows the development model of, and is run by, the likes of Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot? Does it matter to her that China, not the one that Maoists want to emulate, produces 10 times more steel than India? Have China's tribals paid a heavy price or are they happier, wealthier and better fed than ever before?

Roy is not going to do either. There is a big difference between genuinely wanting to do something for others out of empathy and deliberately provoking some others to attract attention to ones own self. No? Why is she not unequivocally denouncing the violence unleashed by Maoists and others? Why is she cleverly hiding behind selected views of others to mask Maoists and convey her support for what they are doing? Why is she not talking about the fact that arms and ammunition that Maoists have require money which tribals don’t have, as she herself admits? Why is she silent about the manner in which Maoists are extorting money from the very corporate houses and mining companies that they are supposed to be fighting against? She will, of course turn around and say that all reports pointing to this are false and that the latest CNN-IBN report to this effect is another manifestation of the state unleashing its most potent weapon, the 'embedded media'; Maoists can do little wrong.

Why is Roy focusing selectively on castigating the state for the force it is belatedly using to reclaim its writ, however faulty? Why is she craftily picking faults with any and everything that the state is doing and has done, knowing fully well that will not help set things right for the people whose cause she has picked up? Why is she deviously casting aspersions on everyone's integrity, Prime Minister downwards, only because India's mineral wealth has to be exploited to support the needs and improving lifestyles of millions, Roy included? Why does she want the state out of the forests where people are living sub-human lives and leave them at the mercy of armed thugs? What is it that makes her hate and oppose the state so much that she can see little wrong with those who oppose it, whether it is in the vast jungles of Dandkaranya or in the 'tiny valley of Kashmir'?

It is not love for the environment or the poorest of the poor - or anyone else - that resides in Roy's heart. That there is no space in it for anything except for hatred, particularly for the institution called the state, is evident from the fact that she has a problem even with the setting up of 'a brigade headquarters in Bilaspur (which will displace nine villages) and an airbase in Rajnandgaon (which will displace seven)'. As far as she is concerned, the state is always against the people, never for it; armed forces of the state only kill its people, not defend them - only those who fight against them do! To prove this to even herself, she sometimes lapses into imagining and inventing simplistic, childish scenarios. Sample this nursery story: "Kashmir used to have a Hindu king and a largely Muslim population, which was very, very backward and so on at the time, because at the time, you know, Muslims were discriminated against by that princely—in that princely state."

Arundhati Roy may have divorced the Indian state and seceded. But that unpleasant parting has evidently neither satisfied her, nor given her peace. On the contrary it seems to have left her even more embittered. There is violence inside her, not love. She wants the big world to believe that violence was done to her and that she did, and is doing, right. That is perhaps why she will not speak up against the Maoists; for her the only violence that is unacceptable is that of the state. Her war is against it. It is not for the poor she is talking about; they just happen to be on her side of the international border.

She does not want the state to correct its many flaws and empower and enrich its forgotten poor; she wants it to abdicate.

She says provocatively that the state needs a war, that the Maoists are to the Congress what Muslims were to the BJP. That may or may not be correct. But one thing is certain: Ms Roy doesn't want any war to end. As long as her luminous prose - that beautiful body that lacks a soul - helps her fight her personal wars from afar, as long as there are non-state actors across the world telling her from the sidelines that she is right, the poorest of the poor can remain just where they are - clothed by the forests that they have been living in long before there was a country called India.

Prostitution in India: A view

Prostitution, perhaps, is the oldest profession lasts till date. This profession has many untold ugly scenes under it. The profession is sought on two bases 1 – Need based and 2 – Greed based. As the nature’s law states, the less mighty or poor choose this profession on first category and the mighty or rich choose the profession (or as hobby) on second category. This can be classified as female prostitution, child prostitution, male prostitution etc.,

Recently a group of government employees hosted a sleaze party involving sex workers in a separate bungalow. They were arrested and a popular news paper defended them saying it was a private party and on no law they can be arrested. From the legal angle, they are right and from moral angle – lets see. A view from moral angle….

In India consensual sex is something that is allowed. This means that it is not necessary for a guy and a girl over 18 years of age to be married to have sex. Now if this is moral why isn’t prostitution? In the former case we have two individuals having sex in order to satisfy sexual greed and in the latter case one is indulging for bodily greed, the other for money. In face if we look at the entire picture from a real “moral” point of view, prostitution is more “moral” than so called normal consensual sex. Prostitution is the way through which many families get their bread. It does have a survival aspect to it while consensual sex before marriage just has greed attached to it.

Then if an individual wants to take the services of a prostitute isn’t it the same as an individual spending a night with his girlfriend. Where is the difference? In both cases we have individuals satisfy their sexual needs. So why is it that law looks at one thing in a very normal manner while the other thing as illegal?

At this point I am not trying to become a moral police. I have just one question to ask the government. If on moral grounds we can have consensual pre married sex as legal, then why not prostitution? Consensual sex with a partner other than your wife is also illegal which is understandable because that could lead to inter family issues. But is pre married sex any better? Is it morally better than prostitution?

A Legal angle

Prostitution (engaging in a sexual activity in exchange of monetary gain) is a contentious issue all around the world. In India it is estimated that there are around two million female sex workers. According to a Human Rights Watch report, prostitution per se is not illegal. Indian anti-trafficking laws are designed to combat commercialized vice. A sex worker can be punished for soliciting or seducing in public while clients can be punished for sexual activity close to a public place.

Brothels are illegal but in practice they are restricted in location to certain areas of any given town. Thus, although the profession does not have official sanction, little effort is made to stamp it out or to take action to impede it. Sonagachi in Kolkata, Kamathipura in Mumbai,G.B. Road in New Delhi, Reshampura in Gwalior, Budhwar Peth in Pune Dalmandi in Varanasi, Naqqasa Bazaar in Saharanpur host thousands of sex workers in India.

As a result of India signing the United Nations' declaration in 1950 in New York on the suppression of trafficking, the act was introduced known as All India Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (SITA). This was amended in 1986 to the current law known as The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act or PITA. The laws were intended as a means of limiting and eventually abolishing prostitution in India by gradually criminalizing various aspects of sex work. Some main points are:

Sex Workers: A prostitute who seduces or solicits shall be prosecuted. Similarly, call girls can not publish contact numbers to the public. (Imprisonment up to 6 months with fine)

Clients: A client is guilty of consorting with prostitutes and can be charged if he engages in sex acts with a sex worker within 200 yards of a public place or "notified area". (Imprisonment up to 3 months). The client may also be punished if the sex worker is below 18 years of age. (7-10 years of imprisonment, either with child or minor)

Pimps and Babus: Babus or pimps or live-in lovers who live off a prostitute's earnings are guilty of a crime. Any adult male living with a prostitute is assumed to be guilty unless he can prove otherwise. (Up to 2 years of imprisonment with fine, point 4)

Brothel: Landlords and brothel-keepers can be prosecuted, maintaining a brothel is illegal. (1~3 year imprisonment with fine). Detaining someone at a brothel for the purpose of sexual exploitation can be prosecuted. (Imprisonment more than 7 years)

Procuring and trafficking: A person procures anybody or attempts to procure is liable to be punished. Also a person, who moves a person from one place to another, human trafficking, can be prosecuted with the same. (3-7 years imprisonment with fine)

Rescued Women: The government is legally obligated to provide rescue and rehabilitation in a "protective home" for any sex worker requesting assistance.

Public place in context of this law includes public religious worship, educational institution, hostel, hospital etc. And a "notified area" is a place that is declared to be "prostitution-free" by the state government under the PITA. Brothel in context of this law says a place which has two or more sex workers. Prostitution itself is not an offense under this law, but soliciting, brothels and pimps are illegal.

Causes: The research indicates that the majority of sex workers in India work as prostitutes due to lacking resources to support themselves or their children. Most do not choose this profession out of preference, but out of necessity, often after the breakup of a marriage or after being disowned and thrown out of their homes by their families. The children of sex workers are much more likely to get involved in this kind of work as well. 76% of the agents were female and only 24% were males. Over 80% of the agents bring young women into the profession were known people and not traffickers: neighbors, relatives, etc.

Also prevalent in Indian prostitution is the Chukri System, whereby a female is coerced into prostitution to pay off debts, as a form of bonded labor. In this system, the prostitute generally works without pay for one year or longer in order to repay a supposed debt to the brothel owner for food, clothes, make-up and living expenses. Some women and even girls are by tradition born into prostitution to support the family. The Bachara, for example, follow this tradition with eldest daughters often expected to be prostitutes.

At the other end of the spectrum operate high class escort girls recruited from women's colleges and the vast cadres of India's fashion and film industries. They can command large sums of money. These services usually operate by way of introduction. However a recent trend has seen the emergence of several snazzy websites, openly advertising their services.

Male sex workers: Male prostitution is increasingly visible in India. Gigolo service in India is growing. In Delhi there are as many as twenty "agencies" offering "handsome masseurs" in the classifieds of the newspapers (Hindustan times). They offer both in and out services, although the facilities are usually very basic. Local middle class Indians are also now using these services. Fees are discussed over the phone, typically 1000 - 3000 Rs. Large percentage of male sex workers are eunuchs.

Eunuchs also indulge in prostitution as they are deprived of any other means of surviving. They are often faced with violence from the police, clients, and are often subjected to extortion from the police in order to carry on with their work.

Most know of sexually transmitted diseases through experience, but there are few preventative measures, such as condoms, that are made available to them and due to their legal status, no regimen of testing for AIDS or other diseases are available.

Surprising fact is that our society, despite being highly conservative, has allowed this industry to flourish and it was never hit by recession. The up-bringing at homes, explaining girls that sex is not a taboo but an art, sex-education are some of the measures one can take to tackle this. We cannot eradicate this by law but people are to be impressed upon the good and bad of this.

To sum up, using the moral veil to illegalize prostitution is incorrect because we as a society have legalized consensual sex which is morally worse than prostitution. Then as mentioned there are so many issues with this trade that are atrocious to both clients and sex workers. By legalizing this trade the government can look into and control the entire system in an organized manner through which many of the above issues could be taken care of.

Just a thought

It was yesterday wen one of my dear fnds send me an article which was written by Karan Thapar on Hindu fundamentalist and their obscene acts all ovr India (specially citin example frm Orissa). The article reads as follows 

Who's the real hindu?
Does the VHP have the right to speak for you or I? Do they reflect our views? Do we endorse their behaviour? They call themselves the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, but who says they represent all of us? This Sunday morning, I want to draw a clear line of distinction between them and everyone else. My hunch is many of you will agree.
Let me start with the question of conversion � an issue that greatly exercises the VHP. I imagine there are hundreds of millions of Hindus who are peaceful, tolerant, devoted to their faith, but above all, happy to live alongside Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Jews. If any one of us were to change our faith how does it affect the next man or woman? And even if that happens with inducements, it can only prove that the forsaken faith had a tenuous and shallow hold. So why do the VHP and its unruly storm troopers, the Bajrang Dal, froth at the mouth if you, I or our neighbours convert? What is it to do with them?
Let me put it bluntly, even crudely. If I want to sell my soul � and trade in my present gods for a new lot � why shouldn�t I? Even if the act diminishes me in your eyes, it�s my right to do so. So if thousands or even millions of Dalits, who have been despised and ostracised for generations, choose to become Christian, Buddhist or Muslim, either to escape the discrimination of their Hindu faith or because some other has lured them with food and cash, it�s their right.
Arguably you may believe you should ask them to reconsider, although I would call that interference, but you certainly have no duty or right to stop them. In fact, I doubt if you are morally correct in even seeking to place obstacles in their way. The so-called Freedom of Religion Acts, which aim to do just that, are, in fact, tantamount to obstruction of conversion laws and therefore, at the very least, questionable.
However, what�s even worse is how the VHP responds to this matter. Periodically they resort to violence including outright murder. What happened to Graham Staines in Orissa was not unique. Last week it happened again. Apart from the utter and contemptible criminality of such behaviour, is this how we Hindus wish to behave? Is this how we want our faith defended? Is this how we want to be seen? I have no doubt the answer is no. An unequivocal, unchanging and ever-lasting NO!
The only problem is it can�t be heard. And it needs to be. I therefore believe the time has come for the silent majority of Hindus � both those who ardently practice their faith as well as those who were born into it but may not be overtly religious or devout � to speak out. We cannot accept the desecration of churches, the burning to death of innocent caretakers of orphanages, the storming of Christian and Muslim hamlets even if these acts are allegedly done in defence of our faith. Indeed, they do not defend but shame Hinduism. That�s my central point.
I�m sorry but when I read that the VHP has ransacked and killed I�m not just embarrassed, I feel ashamed. Never of being hindu but of what some Hindus do in our shared faith�s name.
This is why its incumbent on Naveen Patnaik, Orissa�s Chief Minister, to take tough, unremitting action against the VHP and its junior wing, the Bajrang Dal. This is a test not just of his governance, but of his character. And I know and accept this could affect his political survival. But when it�s a struggle between your commitment to your principles and your political convenience is there room for choice? For ordinary politicians, possibly, but for the Naveen I know, very definitely not.
So let me end by saying: I�m waiting, Naveen. In fact, I want to say I�m not alone. There are hundreds of millions of Hindus, like you and me, waiting silently � but increasingly impatiently. Please act for all of us

"Does the VHP have the right to speak for you or I?"

Not for you and not for all the fanatic so called secular hindu's who think tht groupism wen it comes to religion isn't tht big a deal. Come on guys stop living in a dream world of your own. 

Do they reflect our views? Do we endorse their behaviour? They call themselves the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, but who says they represent all of us?"

I agree Mr. Thapar they dont represent us . Its people like Soniya Gandhi, Lalu Pd. Yadav and Mulayam singh who represent us. How can you talk about educated people like Praveen Togadia representing us.

"This Sunday morning, I want to draw a clear line of distinction between them and everyone else. My hunch is many of you will agree."

You contradict yourself by giving yourself the right to draw a distinct line between them and other hindus. Who the fuck says that we follow your views even if we don't follow theirs.

"Let me start with the question of conversion - an issue that greatly exercises the VHP"

Means you support proselytizing. Now if that goes for the Hindus then its a big issue in media and questions are asked about protection of minorities in the country and if it goes against them then its an issue of the right to practice a religion. And by the way why do u think I should believe that proselytizing is justified even if done on humanatarian grounds? Are those groups and people who are involved in this process just to convert a few to their religion in any ways better than so called gundas of bajrang dal and VHP.

"I imagine there are hundreds of millions of Hindus who are peaceful, tolerant, devoted to their faith, but above all, happy to live alongside Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Jews."

 A typical political statement. Now after every Kashmiri Pandit was raped , after every temple that was bombed sm1 or the other has cm up with such arguments. So please cm up wit smthin new.

 Please leave the Sikh, Buddhist, Jains and Jews alone - they do not belong to the faiths you seem to represent- the "peaceful, tolerant, devoted to their faith" Muslims and Christians.

And "happy to live alongside"? 

Yes, we did live happily alongside for the 700 years of Muslim rule. Only we lost maybe just a 100 million Hindus and had to accept, Jizya tax and put up to few atrocities such as having our daughters and sisters raped, our temples vandalized and razed and our properties taken away, but mostly we were happy to live like a second or third class citizen - we sure lived alongside. 

Are you also representing the Hindus of Pakistan and Bangladesh, in your hundreds of millions? May be they don"t count since they are not Indians. Should I, say, include Hindus of Jammu and Kashmir or do Hindu minorities matter like their Islamic and Christian brethren?

And what about the 200 years of British rule, which Will Durant described as the most sordid and criminal exploitation of one nation by another in all recorded history. 

Let me remind you what Lord Curzon, the late Viceroy of India, had said about India, "Powerful Empires existed and flourished here while Englishmen were still wandering painted in the woods, and while the British Colonies were a wilderness and a jungle. India has left a deeper mark upon the history, the philosophy, and the religion of mankind, than any other terrestrial unit in the universe." 

And when the British left after a successful "loot" of over a trillion dollar (in today"s value) that funded the British Industrial revolution, India was transformed from a producer of about 25 percent of world GDP in 1750, to only 2 percent in 1900. Those 200 years of "benevolent" Christian British rule, left India with 20 million famine-related deaths, a literacy rate of 11% (1947) and a life expectancy of 25yrs (1921).

Sure some people did happily live alongside at that time and some still do praise the Christian British for "civilizing" us. 

How about Goa under Inquisition from the Portuguese Church- requested by the venerated St. Francis Xavier himself, an unmatched saga of mayhem for over two centuries that outlasted even the inquisition in Europe and left less than 20,000 adherents to the their Pre-Christian faith from an original 250,000.)

"If any one of us were to change our faith how does it affect the next man or woman? "

(Now let"s start to look at some opinions of a few famous people about Christianity and Conversions. 

Let me start with Swami Vivekananda. I hope he passes your scrutiny as an original Hindu of a Non- VHP kind. He was sent to represent Hindu Dharma to Chicago over a century ago - thankfully he had no secular media to face. And these are his words, "They come to my country and abuse my forefathers, my religion, and everything; they walk near a temple and say "you idolaters, you will go to hell" ... "If all India stands up, and takes all the mud that is at the bottom of the Indian Ocean and throws it up against the Western countries, it will not be doing an infinitesimal part of that which you are doing to us."

How about some westerner"s comment? Thomas Jefferson, the former US President, had mentioned, "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. ...were the Pope, or his allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith."

This is what Pitrim Sorokin, a Harvard sociologist had said, "During the past few centuries the most belligerent, the most aggressive, the most rapacious, the most power-drunk section of humanity has been precisely, the Christian Western world..During these centuries western Christendom had invaded all other continents; its armies followed by priests and merchants have subjugated, robbed or pillaged most of the non-Christians. Native Americans, African, Australian, Asiatic populations have been subjugated to this peculiar brand of Christian "love" which has generally manifested itself in pitiless destruction, enslavement, coercion, destruction of the cultural values, institutions, the way of life of the victims and the spread of alcoholism, venereal disease, commercial cynicism and the like."

And this is what thy holy Pope John Paul II, in 1999, on his visit to India said, "Just as in the first millennium, the Cross was planted on the soil of Europe, and in the second on that of the Americas and Africa, we can pray that in the third Christian millennium a great harvest of faith will be reaped in this vast and vital continent (of Asia)."

I could expand or should l trust your journalistic curiosity to do some search yourself?

In case you still do not get the message - it is about preservation of dharma, of righteousness, of choosing between good and evil, of standing against atrocities, of pride and self-esteem, of patriotism and liberty.)

"And even if that happens with inducements, it can only prove that the forsaken faith" Do you mean "Hinduism? Did your mask slip for a moment? "had a tenuous and shallow hold." (on people of your stripe). "So why do the VHP and its unruly storm troopers, the Bajrang Dal, froth at the mouth if you, I or our neighbours convert? What is it to do with them? Let me put it bluntly, even crudely. If I want to sell my soul - and trade in my present gods for a new lot - why shouldn"t I? "

(Sure you can sell your soul and you proved it well. But let me reinforce the basics, never taught or learnt by you. 

The reason is the concept of Bhartvarsha, the land later named as India, and her over 8000 yrs old Civilization, called the Indus - Saraswati Civilization. It is the purity of Bharat"s religion and culture and the tradition of her indigenous people who later came to be labeled as "Hindus" by foreigners. People of different faiths, languages and customs, lived and survived in this civilization. Jews and Parsis got their shelter after been persecuted everywhere. Tribes and sects lived happily in remote places without fear of their identity being trampled. And that was all because the "forsaken faith" of Hinduism did not preach proselytizing. 

India is not a Muslim or Christian country even after 900 years of invasion, torture and annihilation because of the Hindus. You may not agree but there are many who do agree with what Annie Besant had to say, "After a study of some forty years and more of the great religions of the world, I find none so perfect, none so scientific, none so philosophical and none so spiritual than the great religion known by the name of Hinduism. Make no mistake, without Hinduism, India has no future...And if Hindus do not maintain Hinduism who shall save it? If India"s own children do not cling to her faith, who shall guard it? India alone can save India and India and Hinduism are one.

So if by this time you do not understand, Mr. Thapar, let me tell you once more clearly that the true Hindus, who have not sold their souls and who do not trade their gods, feel that the existence of Bharatvarsha and her Spiritual soul is threatened.

It is the only country in the world where the majority of the population are actually fighting for their right to live peacefully without being terrorized, to safeguard their culture and tradition, to prevent their history from being wiped out, to save their temples from being taken over, to defend their faiths in their religious deities and icons, to save their saints from being humiliated and murdered, to preserve their heritage from being destroyed, to pray to their own God of faith and to visit their own pilgrim sites, in their own country and with their own money. 

Their unity is deliberately being divided. Their elected government and politicians are deaf to their needs. Taxes paid by them are openly and specifically allocated for the prosperity and development of their adversaries. Their newspaper and television media, by and large, ridicule them and identify with foreign faiths with foreign masters. Atrocities committed on them are not even reportable or "narrated objectively" whereas a mere allegation against them is good for headline news and warrants unqualified condemnation, without investigation or verification. 

There is no body that they can trust. They have no spokesmen, no Government to ensure their welfare, no media to express their anguish, no academic to pen their chronicle. 

They have their backs to the wall.

Their country has already been broken down to pieces - they cannot allow any further fragmentation.

They have realized that they have to fight back. 

And that is what has started to happen - if you can put your ears to the ground - be it in Orissa or Jammu, you can hear the reverberations.)

"Even if the act diminishes me in your eyes, it"s my right to do so. So if thousands or even millions of Dalits, who have been despised and ostracized for generations, choose to become Christian, Buddhist or Muslim, either to escape the discrimination of their Hindu faith or because some other has lured them with food and cash, it"s their right. " 

I was fucking expecting this when I started reading your article. How can sm1 not mention this when they r speakin abt conversion.

Have you ever heard of Dalit Christian Mr. Thapar? A little enquiry on your part will tell you that the Dalit Christians, who account for over 70% of the 25 million Christians in India, have been largely converted by exploitation, coercion and the false hopes of egalitarian status but still suffer from the segregation, oppression and discrimination, only now at the hands of their fellow Christians of the upper castes. Conversion into the new faith has not redeemed them from the stigma of "untouchablity". A Dalit Christian has minimal say in the leadership and control, has minimal access to education (despite a wide network of Christian missionary schools and colleges), job opportunities and entrepreneurship development. Even in the local church communities, controlled by Christians of the "upper castes", Dalit Christians often have separate entries, separate place to sit, separate cups at the Eucharistic celebration, separate communion rails, and even separate cemeteries. Thus ends the Christian promise of equality, human dignity and egalitarian status through conversion.

Have you ever criticized the Christian organizations for their Dalits and why they are "ostracized"?

You are fully aware that caste discrimination is a degenerated, socio-political evil manifestation of an ancient vocational order according to mental inclinations and unrelated to birth right. You also know this has been declared illegal in modern India. India had a President, a deputy Prime Minister, a Chief Justice, and currently has the Chief Minister of its largest state belonging to the lower caste. India is also the only country that has had religious minorities as its head of state not once but repeatedly, after its modern birth. But give me an honest answer. Who do you think perpetuates this social evil any more than our politicians and our media? So why is it that this ill politics of contemporary Indian society, of its lawlessness, exploitations and dominations, conveniently blamed primarily on Hindu religion? 

Have you ever demonized the "faith of Christianity" for its Crusades, Inquisitions, anti Semitisms, witch burnings, black slaveries and the destructions of Mayans, Incas and Australian aboriginal civilizations, the African and Asian Colonization, besides the two world wars.

As a leading media personality, what have you or your clan done to eradicate this system, other than parroting the same politicians and laying the blame on Hindu Dharma that ensured a just state for thousands of years, with no caste problem, until the British landed on its soil?

And how does that justify Christian proselytizing and domination over the lower castes and tribes of the Indian populace? 

At least bring a modicum of integrity to your profession, Mr. Thapar. Can you, for once, clear the web of lies, half-truths and disinformation that clouds your thoughts and write a "truthful" article on any of the topics like Joshua project, the 10/40 window, the Project Thessalonica, the Maranatha Volunteers, etc.)

"Arguably you may believe you should ask them to reconsider, although I would call that interference"( so conversion, by hook or by crook is okay but asking to reconsider is "interference",) "but you certainly have no duty or right to stop them. In fact, I doubt if you are morally correct in even seeking to place obstacles in their way. The so-called Freedom of Religion Acts, which aim to do just that, are, in fact, tantamount to obstruction of conversion laws and therefore, at the very least, questionable."

So, the law of the nation is now incompatible with your Christian sympathy. How patriotic?

"What happened to Graham Staines in Orissa was not unique"

I am sure you know very well that it had nothing to do with VHP or Bajrang Dal, but you had to make your "anti VHP case". If you honestly do not know, I request that you consider an alternative profession. 

Keeping in mind your selective amnesia and incompetence, I seriously doubt whether you remember the unique, sister Abhaya "suicide" case, who was "blessed" by the father in the Kottayam convent. It is been reported that a former Congress Prime Minister had tried hushing up the case and that the High court, had reprimanded the CBI for tampering with some relevant CDs. The case remains undecided for 16yrs. 

"Last week it happened again. Apart from the utter and contemptible criminality of such behavior, is this how we Hindus wish to behave? Is this how we want our faith defended? Is this how we want to be seen? I have no doubt the answer is no. An unequivocal, unchanging and ever-lasting NO!"

Depends on what kind of Hindu you represent. 

In case you do not know, protest and violence is a natural instinct of all life forms, especially to defend the integrity of their being. Surely, you cannot be dreaming of depriving Hindus of their right to self defense. Though the world likes to believe and promote the "Gandhi" image of Hindus, there are other icons of Hindus - starting from the "mythological" Ram and Krishna to the Shivaji and Rana Pratap and the Subhas Bose and Bhagat Singh.

"The only problem is it can"t be heard. And it needs to be. I therefore believe the time has come for the silent majority of Hindus - both those who ardently practice their faith as well as those who were born into it but may not be overtly religious or devout - to speak out." (They are speaking out - listen to the people of Jammu ,Orissa and Gujarat). We cannot accept the desecration of churches, the burning to death of innocent caretakers of orphanages, the storming of Christian and Muslim hamlets even if these acts are allegedly done in defense of our faith."

But we should gladly accept the desecration of our temples, the Christian - Marxist mercenaries killing our Hindu monks and the Islamic terrorist bombing our hospitals. 

We should accept the diversion of temple funds for churches and mosques, and the subsidy from the Hindu majority"s money to visit pilgrimages to Mecca and Jerusalem. 

We should also accept the largest state subsidy to those secessionists of Kashmir, who howl anti-India slogans and hoist Pakistani flag, and yet successfully clamor to disallow the temporary use of a mere 40 hectares of land for the Hindus, on way to a pilgrimage in their own country.

We need to assure them that Hindus will take it lying down.

Why don"t you show us the way, Mr. Thapar? 

Why don"t you announce Mr. Thapar, that the next time a Christian or Muslim wants to kill some Hindu that you choose to be the sacrificial cow; if they want to rape somebody they can pick her up from your family; and if they want to practice the art of "suicide bombing" they can go to your office address?

Indeed, they do not defend but shame Hinduism. That"s my central point.
I"m sorry but when I read that the VHP has ransacked and killed I"m not just embarrassed, I feel ashamed. Never of being hindu but of what some Hindus do in our shared faith"s name."

(You already expressed a solution - sell your soul and trade your god. Have you considered the possibility that the majority of one billion Hindus may be embarrassed by people like you or actually consider the VHP inadequate to meet the challenge of defending India"s honor.)

"This is why it"s incumbent on Naveen Patnaik, Orissa"s Chief Minister, to take tough, unremitting action against the VHP and its junior wing, the Bajrang Dal."

(What kind of action Mr. Thapar? The one you prescribed for Mr. Modi, some time ago after the foolish, rabid Hindu fanatic Gujaratis elected him again as their Chief Minister? Do you remember writing, "Only the sudden removal of Narendra Modi can stop this..."
How many Modis are you willing to stop? How do you propose to derail the progressive Gujrati in his march towards his freedom - economic and spiritual? Did you not hear the five crore voices speaking through the ballot in Gujrat or the voices in Himachal and Karnataka?)

"This is a test not just of his governance, but of his character. And I know and accept this could affect his political survival. But when it"s a struggle between your commitment to your principles and your political convenience is there room for choice? For ordinary politicians, possibly, but for the Naveen I know, very definitely not.
So let me end by saying: I"m waiting, Naveen. In fact, I want to say I"m not alone. There are hundreds of millions of Hindus, like you and me, waiting silently - but increasingly impatiently. Please act for all of us."

(It is said that during the British rule there was never more than 20-30 thousand British national in India at any one particular time. The British managed to rule for 190 years with the help of the "brown sahibs" who, as Thomas Macaulay defined, are a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, words and intellect.

Today how much we wish that the British had taken their pet brown sahibs along with them.

Max Muller, more than a century ago, while translating the Vedas, had wished that his translation "will tell to a great extent... the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3000 years." 

If he was alive today, Mr. Muller could have been a very happy man to know you Mr. Thapar.

May Jesus and Allah together bless you, since you have chosen to forsake, the shallow faith of your forefathers. 

We pray that may each member of the billion strong community, that you have chosen to misrepresent and misguide, find you and your ilk, worthy of pardon. 

May India once again rise to forgive her own treacherous brood?