FaithWorld

World Council of Churches says Pakistani Christians “live in fear”

September 3, 2009

pakistani-christians-1Christians and other religious minorities in Pakistan live in fear of persecution and even execution or murder on false charges of blasphemy against Islam, the World Council of Churches (WCC) has said. The Council, the Geneva- based global body linking Protestant and Orthodox churches in 110 countries, has called on the Pakistani government to change a law promulgated by military ruler General Zia-ul-Haq that allows for the death penalty for blaspheming Islam.

(Photo: Christians in destroyed home in Gojra, 2 Aug 2009/Mohsin Raza)

Since the law was adopted in 1986 religious minorities in the country have been “living in a state of fear and terror … and many innocent people have lost their lives,” the WCC said in a statement.

Pakistan is an overwhelmingly Muslim country where religious minorities account for roughly 4 percent — three quarters of whom are Christians — of its 170 million people.

In early August, the WCC head, Kenyan Methodist Samuel Kobia, protested to the Pakistani government over violence in Punjab province when Muslims torched Christian homes and 8 people were killed, seven of them burned to death. Reports at the time said the attacks in Gojra town were sparked by allegations, denied by church leaders as well as Pakistani government officials, that Christians had desecrated the Koran.

pakistani-christians-2Pakistani government officials said the violence, which also brought protests from Pope Benedict, was the work of Islamist groups linked to al Qaeda and the country’s Taliban movement.

(Photo: Christians grieve after funerals of Gojra attack victims, 2 Aug 2009/Mohsin Raza)

Read our report from Geneva here.

Charges of oppression of Christians in Pakistan are frequently heard in international meetings such as the WCC session. Complaints often surface at United Nations meetings. What do you think? Are these charges justified?

Before responding, consider the following articles in the international secular and Christian press. Are they accurate? If you think they don’t portray the real situation in Pakistan, how do you think international media should report about the Christian minority in Pakistan?

Six Christians burnt alive in Pakistan violence (Reuters, 1 Aug 2009)

Pakistan hurt by killing of Christians: church head (Reuters, 4 Aug 2009)

Christians demand repeal of blasphemy laws (UCANews, 6 Aug 2009)

Scrap blasphemy laws which bring shame on Islam and Pakistan, Muslim scholar says (Asianews, 10 Aug 2009)

Some 20 million Christians to mark ‘black day’ against persecution in Pakistan (Asianews, 11 Aug 2009)

Violations of human rights in Pakistan: 75% of cases remain unpunished (Asianews, 21 Aug 2009)

Intolerance is sweeping across Pakistan (The Guardian, 24 Aug 2009)

Pakistan gains from defending diversity (Daily Star, 24 Aug 2009)

Punjab: Christian victims of the massacres in Gojra reported by police (Asianews, 25 Aug 2009)

PAKISTAN: Attacks on Christians Spotlight Blasphemy Laws (IPS, 25 Aug 2009)

Pakistan: Christians want blasphemy laws repealed (SperoNews, 26 Aug 2009)

Memo to U.N.: Stop Muslims from killing Christians (WorldNetDaily, 27 Aug 2009)

Church dissatisfied over slow prosecution of rioters (UCANews, 2 Sept 2009)

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

Comments
65 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

There is a good piece which everyone especially faith based organized religions should read and comprehend.
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle Molt/idUSTRE58D1RT20090914

This would do everyone good.

Posted by Rohit | Report as abusive
 

Rajeev,

I have not heard anyone say they do not condemn violence. Have you?

Maybe you haven’t heard what mullas or Christian preachers said or say. Maybe you don’t know that Timur the Lame and his entire lineage including Aurangzeb is secular as per NCERT books doctored by Congress. This article can also be an eye opener http://www.fact-india.com/Aurangazeb.php

I neither seek selective perfection myself nor do I seek perfection in others like in Gandhi (or for that matter Patel, Nehru etc) the way you do.

That is a perfect contradictory statement. You have faith that Shri Narendra Modi is demonic person. I simply say if you can justify Gandhi (Not Congress… Gandhi, I feel you are Gandhian) who had a role in mass killing or Genocide of Indians then you are looking for selective perfection. If you can justify the act of muslims (given the fact that muslims who do not report existence of violent or traitors and cry crocodile tears via mullahs) going out and burning innocent people and expect that such persons should be protected then you are looking for selective perfection. Number crunching is altogether a different matter. I find this type of reasoning very close to the Christian reasoning for wiping out natives.

Explaining everything by “common sense” also does not work.

Let’s say ok for the time being and proceed… But then since when history became science? Big Bang Theory or Chimps to Humans theory or Aryan Invasion theory or that Islamic terrorists like Aurangzeb were secular theory or Gandhi theory? Can you tell me one historical event using the might of science?

Posted by Rohit | Report as abusive
 

Rohit:
I am not Gandhian but admire him. I am glad not to fall under any label. I also admire Martin Luther King and Abdul Gaffar Khan. I admire the work of Naram and Garam Dal freedom fighters both—Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Co, Azad and especially Shaheed Udham Singh….
Tell me this:
Do you love MODI and call him a true leader who leads from the front because of:
1. his work as CM for economic growth of Gujrat?
or
2. his condoning and directing the killings of Muslims (yes i know after Hindu killings)?

If #1 is true. why not admire Manomohan Singh who during Narsimha Rao PMship took the country out of Nehruvian socialist economy —perhaps you dismiss that a trivial no brainer job and the obvious choice.
If #2 is true., do you approve of killings of Sikhs in 1984 by Congress/Tytler gang (I assume you do not, but then similar to Gujrat, Sikhs masses should have gone and kill Hindus—when “emotions running high” why would Sikhs care about the long history of peaceful common roots with Hindus since the Hindus did not think that way. I see a problem with the Hindus here.
@comments about missionaries—-as if I am defending them; it is getting to the waste of time point; do one thing-pull out my posts and go through them to get my profile including my stand on missionaries).
I said nothing contradictory. Logic is like play dough; you can play all you want. You use Gandhi as a barometer and say if Gandhi is GOD why not MODI. Use logic in positive way, which will be that missionaries who force conversions, Muslims who killed Hindus or anyone, the Christians who killed natives/aborig/pagans, and Gandhi for your reasons, Muslims and Hindus/Modi in Gujrat belong to the same group—terrorists/fundamentalists/killers . You are using the logic negatively and base Modi’s greatness upon the undeserving Gandhi who condoned genocide (acc to you).
@ the unwritten part of what you failed to pick is that everyone says “we condemn violence but………” Religions are THE reasons for the violence and mass killings.
I know history. and who did what. the missionaries and aurangzeb and all that…
Your link did not work but I agree aurangzeb is not secular and it MUST be corrected. There have been other such examples—go google teg bahadur, bhagat singh. Politicians are screwed up.

@Common sense: It is perception of the facts, which varies from person to person, and yes sure there is no one stopping anyone to proclaim to be the most prudent judge. But the perception of the facts–or common sense–gives rise to differing opinions; rest science/bing bang stuff is off track mental gymnastics and I am not getting into that.

@ I find this type of reasoning very close to the Christian reasoning for wiping out natives.
–You are WRONG. But then again, it is your perception. Like I can call people with your views as Hindu fundamentalists who 1) condone the action of state machinery to respond an attack (by some Muslims) and that too 2) with a faulty assumption that those killed in the counter attack are “muslims who do not report existence of violent or traitors”.

It is time to settle down by saying that we have different opinions and different ways of thinking and move on.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

I admire Modi because he is committed to development of Gujrat and life for any Sanatan Dharm follower will always be more secure in Gujrat than anywhere else in country. I do not create gods out of persons so that I find it difficult to condone their cowardly acts. I can admire Gandhi and I can kick him too. I kick RSS hard too because they are idiots and their leadership lacks common sense http://satyameva-jayate.org/2009/06/05/r ss-debate/

Manmohan Singh was/ is not a leader. Shri Narsimha Rao was the leader eventhough he got the leadership in circumstance forced by time and not his efforts. But he didn’t need third party clearances and support to run the government or to tackle problems of the country as a leader.

We have in entirety different views on Sikhs / Sanatan Dharm / secularism. For example I do not consider any one who believes in a religion called as secularism as Sanatan Dharmi. Today if the entire congress and the likes are wiped out, I would be happy. Seculars are more sick than religions. They live to create riots/ genocide while say the opposite. These persons have the tendency to disappear during riots/ genocide and reappear when peace is established.

Logic is like play dough.

Even Amartya Sen comes up with logics that point to his belief that he is better than Sri Krishna. He says something to effect that if he had been Arjuna he would have had a better debate http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx  ?261171 with Sri Krishna.

Use logic in positive way, … Politicians are screwed up
Religion is beyond logic. If any one could have reasoned with religion, violence would never had happened. The link was supposed to link one to the link http://www.aurangzeb.info/

Common sense … I am not getting into that

As you wish.

I can call people with your views as… “muslims who do not report existence of violent or traitors”.

I only said that it was apt reply of society. I justify 1857 on the same lines. Britishers also did only logical thing post 1857. They kicked out East India Company, reduced dependency on Muslims and Brahmins in army; reigned in missionaries and I have the guts to say they were best for governance when Gandhi stood up and demanded freedom without any responsibility and without knowing for whom. Such events will take place even if you have all the power and fail to check religious worms. I also have the guts to say that India will be kicked hard around in entire world till secular mentality people make the political class.

It is time to settle down … move on.

As you wish.

Posted by Rohit | Report as abusive
 

Rohit,
@Manmohan Singh was/ is not a leader.
-That is irrelevent answer and I am not claiming he is a leader. I admire Singh’s work as FM his work on economy in 1991–along with Montek Singh Ahluwalia. I admire PV narsimha rao who picked him for knowing who can do the job—but the deed was done by Singh. Singh need not be a leader to do the job he did. That was an academician’s job with experience in government. If it was so easy then why PM Rao caleld Singh?—what was wrong with the previous FM. Those economic policies are the foundations over which today’s economy is based–good or bad.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Rohit,
Few parting comments:
@ I do not create gods out of persons so that I find it difficult to condone their cowardly acts. I can admire Gandhi and I can kick him too.
—– My job is much simpler since I do not into believe in GOD stuff to begin with, but like the general message of Hindu scriptures and HInduism. I am willing to listen to someone who finds fault with Lords Ram & Sham (with reason, not just BS). I understand your stand in general and for Gandhi in specific, but do you criticize Modi for anything YET? I have heard all the good things thus far. He has done good work in Gujrat–economy/development projects.

Thanks for the links. It was nice talking to you on the issue.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Rajeev:

1) If it was so easy then why PM Rao called Singh.

I think Shri PV Narsimha Rao would have called in various scholars on subject matter where he didn’t have much knowledge but had the wisdom and judgment to pick the best man. I am glad that he picked Shri Manmohan Singh. His era saw death of Pakistani sponsored terrorism in Punjab. It doesn’t mean that he went out and fought the wars but had the guts to give job to the right people. His era also saw destruction of Babri structure, a good omen. Now you may continue and take debate ahead that Sonia has a better vision than Shri PV Narsimha Rao and she made Manmohan Singh the primie minister because the biggest problem in country is economics even though economics is only a part of overall governance.

At present we have problem of Islamic Terrorism, Christian Missionary, Kashmir faith based terrorists facing hostile neighbours, Defence forces with shortage of officers and army and also drought + economic problem. You tell me, in these areas, where we will be after the reign of Shri Manmohan Singh is over.

2) Now your sickular love of Hinduism and debates on Sri Ram or Sham (you could have used a title, but it reflects secularism)

Sanatan Dharm teaches you to take the advise of learned one or create your own path to unite with the supreme but not debate. It places common sense or vivek above all the factors of a body that need no proof in life and therefore, it doesn’t teach that one should impose his/ her own views on other and that a person not adhering to your set of beliefs has no right of existence. This basic philosophy allowed faith based practices to emerge in India which can be called as set of people who believe in Shri Krishna/ Shri Ram/ Goddess Durga/ Goddess Kali/ Lord Shiva etc. The basics saw emergence of beliefs like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shirdi Sai Baba, Osho, Satya Sai Baba or Sri Sri Ravi Shankar etc. All these faith based groups exist in harmony with each other because none of the thought process that emerged asked or commanded that this is the way of life and all others are false and that the person not following a particular set of belief has no right of existence. Wars/ battles have been part of history in Sanatan Dharm but none span to the extent that entire population got wiped out. For example Kalinga War didn’t reach beyond the armies fighting battle against each other. Raja Bhoj or Guru Teg Bahadur or Chhatrapati Shivaji didn’t advocate genocide. Even Ramayana or Mahabharata do not advocate removal of persons beyond those who matter in fight or war whether the advocator is Shri Ram or Ravana or Shri Krishna or Duryodhan.

When you contrast this with the basics of Christianity or Islam or secularism, everything is opposite whatever likes of Dr Zakir Naiks or Stevens or you yourself or Gandhi may say. My common sense tells me that practicing such faith how so ever laced with what so ever is not right. So when it comes to taking a stand between Christianity/ Islam vs Sanatan Dharm or any other belief which doesn’t deny right of existence or which doesn’t impose itself beyond tolerance level, I will use my common sense and not indulge in number crunching to determine how many are criminals and how many are not and on which side. Not all Bhartiyas are right but when it comes to choosing side between faiths that emanated from this land and imported/ forced faiths that deny right of existence, I will stand with faith of natives even if 100% of them are criminals because my common sense tells me it is better to stand with people who respect your basic right of having an unique belief in supreme and leave you in peace till you approach for words of wisdom/ philosophical guidance. That is why a Bison Muria or a Gond or a Bhil can life his life as per his wishes till missionary or similar torch bearer locates him. A Sikh or a Jain or a Buddhist won’t reach out to locate him

The issue that you raised Sikhism + MMS vs Hinduism is more due to your blind faith in religion called as secularism and denial of right to Sanatan Dharmi to exist in peace, dignity and honour. It primarily is aimed towards proving me wrong but still… Secularism is a Christian concept. Sanatan Dharm says the world has flaws and one has to use common sense to embrace everyone. Secularism makes you believe in perfection and then take a side of religion. Throughout your arguments, in this post, you will find that when it comes to taking sides, you won’t be able to decide where to stand, just like Gandhi who could not decide where to stand although he called himself as Sanatan Dharmi. So, ultimately seculars end up preaching Sanatan Dharmi that it is his job to loose his brother/ sisters from hands of a community which has a factory to produce exploding human bombs or a factory to run the create violent situation on might of money, lies and later on guns because our secular brother need to grow rich.

No one in India except those whose bread and butter was/ is linked to GANERU clan or secularism indulged in riots, primarily confined to Delhi, strong hold of Congress. You find it convenient to project Congressis = HINDUS aka VHP or RSS or BJP or Shri Narendra Modi any other similar out fit didn’t indulge in riots but not blame the congressi having numerous MMSs in it’s fld. You also find it convenient to make Congress HINDUS aka VHP/ RSS/ BJP when Sikhs are not in picture. Secularism and Gandhism/ Congressism know only to harm those who won’t retaliate like the bigots who pride themselves as Brahmins or Kshatriyas due to a surname and hide under sarees of their female clans when faced with real test of duty be it against Islam/ Christians or against VHP/ Bajrang Dal. Secularists never give up life to protect faith/ beliefs/ rights of natives. They give up life to protect teachings of west especially from Mecca and Rome.

Secularism/ Gandhism didn’t eliminate Islamic Terrorism in India. In fact, it has bettered prospects for Christians and Islam in India. SIMI or IM or Mizo Liberation Front and persons like Stevens, similar outfits exist in India not due to faith of natives or Shri Narendra Modi but due to imported faiths and the new faith secularism. Pakistan sponsored jehadis, persons like Steven/ Dr Zakir Naik/ Mhd. Ali Jinnah/ Graham Staines/ Aurangzeb don’t indulge in what they are accustomed to due to faith of natives. Their source of confidence is in bigotry practiced by persons who pride calling themselves Brahmins and Kshatriyas & secularism created by Christians, practiced by Congressis and persons like you. This entire machinery of Pope didn’t achieve that much under British rule as it will achieve under aegis of Secularism now led by Honorable Man Mohan Singh.

Common sense will also tell you that Britishers raised one of the best army of world not because of secularism or blessings from the likes of Stevens but because of elimination of missionaries, bigots who call themselves Brahmins, Kshatriyas & Muslims. Common sense will also tell you why Gurkhas are still part of British Army and not Jehadis or secularists. Common sense will also tell you that secularism led to loss of 1962 war and not lack of valor and that when role of secularism got limited post 1962 war, results were good and that if secularism was eliminated post 1962, outcome in 1965, 1972, 1990, have been much better.

Posted by Rohit | Report as abusive
 

Rohit:
I see the discussion is on. Alright. It started with Modi and now we are into Hinduism etc. It is a common sense that Modi is not some barometer of Hinduism nor is Modism pre-requisite to Hinduism. It is a common sense that disagreeing with views like yours is not equal to approving of missionaries work and proselytism. This is your twisted interpretation that seculars cannot be Hindus. Indian society due to its pluralistic nature needs secularism and you can deny discuss but you got to face it.

Read to get an idea of my general opinion on the missionaries in India:
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009  /04/28/an-indian-bible-or-a-bible-for-i ndia/
Indian Constitution is secular, so stick to it and expect the leaders, who took oath, to do so. I wish you were as proud an Indian as proud a Santan Dharrmi you portray to be. You yourself once said you “loath India” for its negatives…. You are more about religion that the country.

With your views, you stand in the same group as Islamic fundamentalists. They think they are the guardians of Islam with their twisted interpretation of the religion—mainly Jihad. Equally dangerous to the society are people with your views who think themselves to be the modern day Arjunas (who explain Modi’s actions), who think it is perfectly alright for a Hindu CM to wipe out part of the Muslim community without distinguishing between the terrorists or the innocents with your sweeping assumption that if one Muslim gives shelter, the whole community is terrorist—–this is your sick counterpart of Jihad. You do not ask question what is the alternative but you approve of approaches that worsen the problem. You use your common sense as do the Jihadis. It is not about number crunching, it about common sense and bravery that you falsely assume you have plenty and others disagreeing with you don’t.

Now:
@Now you may continue and take debate ahead that Sonia has a better vision than Shri PV Narsimha Rao and she made Manmohan Singh the primie minister”
—I am not discussing Sonia vs Rao—Rao is better than Sonia in any case. It was about giving credit to Manmohan Singh as FM, which now you finally agree with me although it took some time. I do not know why hesitation—may be because u think he is a Congressi “sickular” and Congressi Shri PV Narsimha Rao, because he facilitated Babri masjid demolition, is not. I do not admire anyone for Babri.

@His era also saw destruction of Babri structure, a good omen.
– Good omen—how? One down and how many more to go? Is it some bravery? The wars lost by your ancestors cannot be won by you. Innings is over and is written in the history. Babri issue was only for electoral value or for some people with inferiority complex who think Hinduism is oppressed and can be undone by that event. To put it politely, that was plain silly.

@ At present we have problem of Islamic Terrorism, Christian Missionary, Kashmir faith based terrorists facing hostile neighbours, Defence forces with shortage of officers and army and also drought + economic problem. You tell me, in these areas, where we will be after the reign of Shri Manmohan Singh is over.
— I am not a Congressi. So I have same question. What I know is that the way people voted Congress into power shows confidence in Congress and/or lack of confidence in BJP et al. The major challenge is INTERNAL SECURITY—huge. Economy is doing/will do better than it would have done under BJP. Religion/caste- based vote bank politics by the parties have to go if India has to move ahead. Cannot forecaste on MMS reign. He is an intelligent and strong leader.

2) Now your sickular love of Hinduism and debates on Sri Ram or Sham (you could have used a title, but it reflects secularism).
Ha! “Sickular” is your problem, not mine. To me Hinduism is a philosophy—a book, that’s it–and I ask questions, not blindly follow. I like to debate. I like OSHO-type debate on anything—be that Hindusim or anyone else. My “Vivek” tells me that things can get irrelevant with time.

@ So when it comes to taking a stand between Christianity/ Islam vs Sanatan Dharm or any other belief which doesn’t deny right of existence or which doesn’t impose itself beyond tolerance level, I will use my common sense and not indulge in number crunching to determine how many are criminals and how many are not and on which side.
—- What do you mean by taking stand? I will rephrase your question “which religion do you prefer?’ My ansr is Sanatan Dharam for its tolerance and inclusiveness. That does not mean I support Sanatan Dharamis like you or Jihadis or missionaries.

@Secularism and Gandhism/ Congressism know only to harm those who won’t retaliate like the bigots who pride themselves as Brahmins or Kshatriyas due to a surname and hide under sarees of their female clans when faced with real test of duty be it against Islam/ Christians or against VHP/ Bajrang Dal.
–If you want to discuss caste stuff, I am the wrong person. All these Hindu outfits think they are brave but reside in the safety of their Gali Mohalla. They are good for Khaki Nikkar Marshal Arts going on since decades. Islamic terrorist with few months of training come to Mumbai and kill Indians. If you and your braves are brave enough and have the balls, then why not show bravery by crossing the border and kill Dawood Ibrahim, Hafiz Saeed or at least kill Azhar whom BJP released from jail or any tiny terrorist. Peeing and drawing boundaries is no mark of bravery. I tell you one name who took revenge—Shaheed Udham Singh who went to England and waited for 2 decades for killing Gen ODwyer who ordered Jailianwalah bagh massacre. To your dismay, Shaheed Udham Singh was known as Ram Mohammed Singh Azad (to you he is a “sickular”). There were many such secular freedom fighters who did not attach the religion to their name—used names with tags of multi-religion or the country. Your non-sickular Shiv sena is good enough for opposing Valentine day only or against the North Indians (does it not explain why Mughal rule lasted so long) and now the sentinel of Hindu culture—the Ram Sena—for throwing out girls from a bar. Is there someone to tell them to stop this circus.
Here is Shaheed Udham Singh’s quote at the trial for killing Michael O’Dwyer.
“I did it because I had a grudge against him. He deserved it. He was the real culprit. He wanted to crush the spirit of my people, so I have crushed him. For full 21 years, I have been trying to wreak vengeance. I am happy that I have done the job. I am not scared of death. I am dying for my country. I have seen my people starving in India under the British rule. I have protested against this, it was my duty. What a greater honour could be bestowed on me than death for the sake of my motherland?” the key words are motherland, real culprits.

@Pakistan sponsored jehadis, persons like Steven/ Dr Zakir Naik/ Mhd. Ali Jinnah/ Graham Staines/ Aurangzeb don’t indulge in what they are accustomed to due to faith of natives. Their source of confidence is in bigotry practiced by persons who pride calling themselves Brahmins and Kshatriyas & secularism created by Christians, practiced by Congressis and persons like you.
– Lose your habit of feeding words into someone’s mouth. I do not get into this BS of casts if my inter-caste marriage is any proof. Rest all is your thinking. Perhaps breaking a mosque and saying ‘GO MODI!” will fix that.

@The issue that you raised Sikhism + MMS vs Hinduism is more due to your blind faith in religion called as secularism and denial of right to Sanatan Dharmi to exist in peace, dignity and honour.
-My belief is in the Indian constitution that happens to be secular, and you and I and especially those with authority to govern the nation are bound to follow it. If they do not, their actions are unconstitutional. I am not the one to deny right to any religion. India is independent—wake up-garv se bollo hindu hain is beyond me. Yes say this slogan and who is stopping. Do not amplify it by breaking babri.

@ No one in India except those whose bread and butter was/ is linked to GANERU clan or secularism indulged in riots, primarily confined to Delhi, strong hold of Congress.”
–You are so sure about Ganeru clan only.! No you cannot be. Also, you need to state it very clearly that in 1984, there were anti-Sikh ATTACKS, NOT RIOTS. I agree on your point about attacks by Congress—mainly in delhi. But it was not confined and spread to other parts of the country—UP, Bihar.

@You find it convenient to project Congressis = HINDUS aka VHP or RSS or BJP or Shri Narendra Modi any other similar out fit didn’t indulge in riots but not blame the congressi having numerous MMSs in it’s fld.
-Fair point. That’s why in the beginning I said Congressi/Tytler gang (mainly hindu…OK half Hindus). For your convenience you can call them Congressi Hindus. I do not think VHP or other allied organizations et al participated, but they did not do a thing to save Sikhs—because it would have become news if it ever happened. The way you will think is Congressi Hindus = secular = not hindus. It is not JUST about Hindus, the point was about action and reaction (you can replace by A and B instead of Hindus and Sikhs). After 1984 anti-Sikh attacks, who will be the targets of reactionary attacks by Sikhs if they chose to do: Non-Sikh Congressis = Hindus and Muslims inside Punjab, where Sikhs are in majority. It is fair assumption that Sikh Congressi will not be the target of the reactionary attacks by Sikhs in Punjab. In Punjab since Muslims are a small fraction, the biggest target is the Hindu community, hence my argument. Yes now you can say how will Sikhs know which Hindu is a Congressi and which not? Just the way VHP/Bajrang Dal knew who is a terrorist and who is innocent in Gujrat. Also because if the congressi Hindus did not see if the Sikh is a congressi or not, why would Sikhs care? In Delhi, it was anti-Sikh attack irrespective of their party affiliation. But to put it correctly only some Hindus were the culprits and many were the saviors.

@ Their source of confidence is in bigotry practiced by persons who pride calling themselves Brahmins and Kshatriyas & secularism created by Christians, practiced by Congressis and persons like you.
— Brahmins and Kshatriyas—agreed—it was divide and rule in general. But this applies to you perfectly as well. You hate seculars so much that you have stated you will not care if whole Secular Congress is wiped out and I see History repeating itself though people like you, who may align with the enemy to kill you owns.
@Common sense will also tell you that secularism led to loss of 1962 war, outcome in 1965, 1972, 1990: All except 1962 are your speculations and blaming it on secularism is your own analysis. Secularism is no excuse for national security. It is the problem of the ruler. Then what happened in Kargil under BJP—Pakis sitting at the posts and no info about that and what about the release of major terrorist Azhar released by BJP under Advani Home minister who uses pseudo-secular so much.

@ Common sense will also tell you that Britishers raised one of the best army of world not because of secularism or blessings from the likes of Stevens but because of elimination of missionaries, bigots who call themselves Brahmins, Kshatriyas & Muslims. Common sense will also tell you why Gurkhas are still part of British Army and not Jehadis or secularists.
—Well all you mentioned above is correlation. Britishers are good administrators and they ruled India used Indians of all sorts including your ancestors for fighting the wars. Correlation is not a reason. But let me give you a good example of secular rule in modern army of India. Maharaja Ranjit Singh—A Sikh who was not that religious but had Hindu, Muslims and Sikhs in his every part of the govt and military. He even had Europeans—French from napoleans army, Italians, Hungarians, even Britishers, and some more Europeans generals. He made governors and generals from all communities and he created the most modern Army that even the British did not step in as long as he ruled for 50yrs. Secularism is no hindrance in anything and is the way to go, it is about the leaders and the major problem today is religion/caste vote bank politics and that applies to all parties.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Rajeev,

The only difference of opinion we have is on secularism, which is a Christian concept aimed to separate Church and it’s interference in governance.

I would leave inter case marriages because they are not a certificate to prove anything but can assure you that if you view it as achievement then won’t bog down.

You may do a bit of googling and ask Khushwant Singh to the role of Congress and role of RSS during massacre of Sikhs by Congress. You may also learn about founders of VHP, Master Tara Singh.

I still loath the quality of life in India and in general Indian mentality shaped by the human resource development policies of nation. If anyone has problems with that, let it be. I will take on the same else where in suitable post if provided.

Having said all that, I would like to close with statement, don’t harp on secularism, be realistic about what is good governance, what is secularism, what is religion. Don’t compete with Congress on secularism. It led to partition and genocide in 1947 and has already started to raise another round led by Kashmir and the muslim parties that foght elections in 2009 and change in demography throughout India.

There are lots and lots of example. A reading about Raja Bhojadeva may do good… He was not a secular person and nor were Maharaja Ranjit Singh or Guru Teg Bahadur or Guru Gobind Singh or Swami Dayanand or Swami Vivekananda or Narendra Modi or Lance Nayak Abdul Hamid… It is you who make them seculars/ non seculars.

The difference of opinion we have is due to the fact that you are unable to accept the basic difference between faith of natives and imported faiths. Imported faiths have the basic that people not belonging to their faith have no right of existence. In a highly educated and developed society/ nation like Singapore (area 270 sq km) Christians indulged in conversions of persons lying on deathbed in a hospital where Christians had dominance and pasting missionary pamphlets on doors of Hindu Temples and Muslims extorting for manly actions of Mecca. Neither Ramayana nor Mahabharata nor any other religious book from India talk about genocide/ denial of existence to person who has faith in god different that what is advocated by these books. Nor did Sri Ram or Sri Krishna or Raja Bhojadeva or Samrat Ashok or Chandragupt or Narendra Modi or Guru Teg Bahadur or RSS advocate genocide. Secular parties like Congress openly preach peace indulge in activities which breed germs of genocide.

This does not meant that individuals are at fault but there are time when section of society reacts back because the other section of society has faults. And these faults do not exist due to secularism or non secularism, it exists due to quality of governance. And the incidents do not rise because of secularism or non secularism, it is because of bad governance. Now do you blame Narendra Modi on mis governance and existence of such anti national elements within society and hold the belief that VHP / RSS are anti national?

Posted by Rohit | Report as abusive
 

Rohit:

That means you want India to be a Hindu country.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Nope… Never said so. It is your interpretation. No one in India except Christians, Muslims & seculars indulge in riots and genocide. This is a statement. One interpretation would be to apply strictures like Singapore has Prevention of Religious Harmony Act to control these religions. Second would be to link it with my name and say that this is Hindu statement. Secularism was term coined to beat negativity of word atheism and it limits role of Church. I do not know your definition of this religion secularism. But I do not give a damn to secularism. I am a firm believer in Raj Dharm or good governance and so I can say Britishers were better for governance in 1947 when two skeletons feasted on blood and flesh of Sanatan Dharmis and it’s off shoots to rule.

Posted by Rohit | Report as abusive
 

Rajeev,

Thanks, for reminding me about Udham Singh. It is inspirational @ http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/per sonalities/udhams.html

Posted by Rohit | Report as abusive
 

Good news for Pope from India.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090928/js p/frontpage/story_11550218.jsp

That’s a feat of achievement for Sickulars.

Posted by Rohit | Report as abusive
 

Rohit:

Happy Gandhi Jayanti
http://www.google.com/

To me, Secularism is the concept that the actions of government or any executive bodies should not take religious beliefs into consideration. I want no political party based on religion and the emphasis should be on the development.

What is Raj Dharam exactly? It is just a hindi translation of “Rule of Law”. But what the rule of law is and how well it is practiced is what matters.
From the articles you posted: “We had written to Sonia Gandhi early this month asking for deserving representation for Christians in the party’s candidate list, and we are extremely happy,”

This is a perfect example of not adhering to the constitution. An open declaration of “representation for Christians” is not following the constitution. Same goes for others.

This religion-based vote bank politics is polarizing and corrupting India and increasing religious fundamentalism. This must go. Only the elections will be decided on the real issues.

All this ticket business should be more carefully monitored and should be under a common body. Who gets to play is as important as who wins.

Of all “isms” Maoism is the biggest danger to India and needs to be taken care of—punishment, talks, development all should be used. This is real serious bigger than religion even.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Dear Rajeev,

Your ideal view of secularism is impossible without strictures in place to identify, profile and reign in religious torch bearers (all Missionaries, mullas, pundits, brahmins etc) so that they do not speak and act deriving inspiration from non existent/ unprovable things in arena outside Church/ Mosque/ Temple but from written law that tells exactly how to act and speak. Plus, religious torch bearers should act and preach on lines of what they submit to government in writing before they do so in Church/ Temple/ Mosques. Government should stick to job of guarantying availability of all necessities of life to live a peaceful prosperous life and leave the torch bearers only for satisfying unprovable things if needed and that also under strict control other wise the non existent/ unprovable thing makes these religious torch bearers act in illegal ways and it is impossible to punish non existent/ unprovable thing making them break the rule. Their right to propagate profs/ belief in existence of unprovable/ non existent should be restricted to those person who are able to respect finer nuances of non existent proofs around existence of non existent/ unprovable things. This would be difficult to implement in India but a strong will power will make resistance go away because common man needs bread and butter and good governance which is committed to improving his life style than dependency on unprovable/ non existent things.

But I guess we might be moving to one more 1947, slowly as the governance by various political parties keeps itself heavily involved in blind faith based politics and very few individuals interested in dispensing good governance making it out as leader of the nation.

Posted by Rohit | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/