Crusade and the rape of Secularism

India has endured the influences of foreign cultures for over a millennia now. The Muslims reigned on India from the 10th century until the Christian invasion in mid-18th century, rendering Indian-identity sparse and dilute. Today, most educated Indians would seldom engage in politically sensitive debates in the fear of being dubbed a Nationalist or worse a fundamentalist. The media intellects dispute this as a expression of democracy (for what it is worth) and the willingness of people to accept changes. Could it be possible that it simply was a glorified gesture of irresponsibility and inability of individuals to call a jackal “a jackal”? Not anymore. Recent uproars in the western media and most English publication in India focused on a program that promotes among other things ‘the restitution of tribal Indian heritage’ by ‘restoring dignity’ of the less fortune. Many of who were earlier exploited in the name of faith. Critics and many Christian leaders feared this gathering and for good reason; activities such as the Shabri Mahakumbh aims at shining light on the sinister undertakings of Christian missionaries who engage in forceful conversion. This has long been a well-kept secret for eons and no one, particularly those engaged in such activity want it out. The 2001 Census of India reveled that the Muslim population had gone up by 29.3 per cent and the Christian population by 22.1 per cent. This disproportionate increase in population of Muslims in the border States of Sikkim, Assam, Manipur and Tripura and Christians in Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura and Dadra is an indication that the more socio-economically backward states are targeted for mass conversions. Secularism confers upon a individual the rights to do what he/she pleases as long as religious ideologies do not interfere with or be integrated into the public affairs of that society. This is the founding principle of separation of church and state in the United States and laïcité in France. So if religion and politics are to be treated independently, why did the All India Christian Council seek Central government interference in to a peaceful Hindu gathering? Also, 1. Why the intense criticism on part of those restoring faith in those originally misled, while the primary (forceful) conversion process not condemned or debated? 2. Is it rational for Muslims or Christians to convert indigenous people, who for most parts are Hindu’s? If so, why is re-conversion questioned? 3. Does secularism and democracy not guarantee indigenous people the same rights as others? If not, why is the ability of individuals to oppose oppression dubbed extremism, while the process of conversion by others coined altruism? Tolerance is a virtue that not all individuals possess, it is outright recklessness on part of anyone to undermine the integrity of an individually based on his/her socio-economical status. Extreme poverty, unemployment and the lack of basic infrastructure have rendered parts of India vulnerable for exploitations by the privileged. No charity is charitable if it comes with self-serving agendas. The recent Hindu congregation only highlights the underlying issues that have gone unnoticed for years. If anything, this should be a clear message to those eying the East that “there are no free lunches here” either, so take your crusade elsewhere. And for those Christians who disagree with me, forget not the golden rule “do ontu others as you would want others to do unto you”, I bet you will not like it either if I told you “there is no god but my god”. For a skewed version by an outsider, visit http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/s06020078.htm
Track this story @ headsetoptions.org