EFI persecution
Subject: EFI NEWS Persecution Watch July 02, 2010
EFI NEWS
1. Christian’s Multipurpose Centre Sealed in Himachal Pradesh
2. Christian vehicles torched in Tamil Nadu
3. Christian priest shot in Bihar
4. Appeal to the Authorities
July 02, 2010:
Christian’s Multipurpose Centre Sealed in Himachal Pradesh
Himachal Pradesh officials sealed the Mission India building claiming that it belongs to outsiders on June 5 in Bari, Mandi district of Himachal Pradesh.
Evangelical Fellowship of India (EFI) correspondent and EFI Advocacy Desk staff, Amitabha Sarkar reported that Government officials closed down the building which functioned as a Bible study centre and an orphanage claiming that no land in the area can be owned by people who are not natives.
Director of Compassion department, Mission India told EFI that the plot was purchased by the Mission India in 2005 and a building was constructed in 2007. The Mission started using the building for a Bible Study Centre and an Orphanage in 2008.
On July 2008, the Hindu extremists lodged a complaint against Mission India of forceful conversion, demanding the shutdown of the building. Since then, the extremists visited the site accusing the Christian workers of forceful conversion, verbally abusing them of their faith, and threatening to kill them if they did not vacate the site. The extremists continue to harass the Christians to date.
On June 5, Government officials sealed the building. Mission India claimed that the land legally belongs to them and that they are ready to submit all the necessary documents.
At press time, the Christians are looking for a place to rent which will at least accommodate the 10 orphans. The Advocacy Desk of the Evangelical Fellowship of India is taking steps to resolve the matter.
Christian vehicles torched in Tamil Nadu
After opposing a Christian convention on June 17-20, suspected Hindu extremists from the Bajrang Dal on June 22 burned at least seven vehicles belonging to Jesus with Us Pentecostal Church in Mathikere, Hosur, Tamil Nadu.
Our correspondent reported that about 12,000 Christians met for a three day convention in a private owned land. The extremists staged a protest against the convention by calling on the local authorities to revoke the organizer’s permit and convinced area local Hindu shop owners to close their stores on June 18.
Subsequently, under police protection, Christians moved their meeting to another area eight kilometres from the original site.
Police had earlier arrested five extremists for disturbing the convention. However, they were released on Tuesday morning and the cars were torched on the same night.
Christian priest shot in Bihar
Suspected Hindu extremists on June 28 with their face masked shot a catholic priest, seriously injured him in Mokama, about 100 km from Bihar’s capital Patna.
Our correspondent Amitabha Sarkar reported that three masked men barged into the parochial house at Catholic Church of Mokama and shot at Fr Michael Ignatius, the bullets pierced his arms.
The priest was bleeding profusely when he was rushed to the emergency department of the hospital. Thereafter he received an immediately operation. His condition at press time was reported to be stable.
Officer in charge of Mokama town police station informed EFI that three people were arrested and police investigation is underway.
In the same area five years ago, a catholic priest Father Matthew Ujaytal was killed in an attack by suspected Hindu extremist assailant.
An appeal to write to authorities
As concerned people, kindly write to the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, Bihar and Tamil Nadu appealing to them to safe guard the rights of the minority communities and to give protection to churches against attacks and to take immediate action against the perpetrators of violence.
Prof. Prem Kumar Dhumal
Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh
Dear Solomon
I am sure that Roger Hedlund and you were trying to help EFI and our suffering brethren by circulating the following email about religious persecution in India. I appreciate your spirit. However, the first of the following stories is clearly a Law and Order problem. It is not “religious persecution” per se. Should Christians break the law and “purchase” lands in an area where they are not allowed to purchase land? What should we write to the Chief Minister – “Protect Christians when they break state law?” These kinds of stupid letters going to state-governments will only hurt the cause of Christ because they send a message that the Christian community has no respect for the law: Christians mobilize political pressure to support law-breakers.
While the torching of vehicles is clearly persecution, the shooting of a priest may or may not be persecution. Some Christian organizations have turned “persecution” into a big business and are losing their credibility. By presenting the Himachal story as an incident of “persecution” EFI makes me ask questions about the Roman Catholic priest. The report below gives no basis for assuming that this was indeed a case of “persecution” rather than a Law and Order problem. What if the priest was sleeping with someone’s wife?
Last month I said in a public meeting in New Delhi that much advertised Orissa Violence two years ago was a case of ethnic clash between two communities: it was not “religious persecution.” (Although it was right to raise funds to serve the victims of that tragic violence. But since the conflict was precipitated by (a) Scheduled Caste Christians who had launched a secular agitation to be reclassified as Tribals and had become a threat to the Tribals and (b) pro-Christian Maoists who killed a Hindu leader in defense of Christians, the church needed to repent and seek reconciliation rather than condemning Vajpayee and Advani as Fascists.) Several people from Orissa were present in my meeting as well as people like Mohan Philip who had conducted high-level investigation when it was all happening. Not one person disagreed with me.
I have written this kind of a note to Richard Howell before but since I have never had a comment back from him, this time I am taking the liberty to send the email to everyone who you wrote. I feel an in-house debate has become necessary on this issue because the champions of “persecution” will end up hurting the church by becoming agents of alienation rather than reconciliation and justice. In my opinion EFI is less guilty than AICC. To begin with, it is dishonest for a handful of self-appointed people to present themselves as “All India Christian Council.” Since they continue to slander and falsely accuse Hindu leaders of BJP as Fascists – the Church in India needs to publicly state whether it agrees with them or disagrees with them. Persecution is a reality — I was arrested several times myself and had my community burnt down by the Hindus: by a mob of Hindus led by Congress MLAs, not BJP – – – yet, false accusations against the Hindus will eventually rebound against the Church. Therefore, my feeling is that the Indian Church will hurt itself unless it publicly disassociates itself from those who have turned “persecution” into a big business.
Vishal Mangalwadi, July 03, 2010 7:29 AM
Vishal
Do you have any evidence or basis for writing, “What if the priest was sleeping with someone’s wife”? We are living in troublous times and the Disciples of Jesus Christ (I use the word disciples since the word Christian has been muddied by including the crowds or multitudes), need to be awake with Truth and not try get along by masking it.
Recently there has been intense discussion with organizations like YWAM FM and US Center for World Mission on the “People Movement Strategy”. The foolish basis is that caste and community are the same and “caste is a genetic factor, and while evangelizing one should not disturb it”! Regarding caste, one has to be very careful to distinguish it from community or people groups who are delineated by language, geography, family ancestry, etc. For example the neo Nazis and KKK are people groups too and one would never mix the two. Today the anti-social forces would love to mix the two and subtly promote the latter. I am also enclosing my flyer expressing my concern with mission organizations like YWAM FM and US Center for World Mission on the “People Movement Strategy”.
A few years ago I interacted with you (enclosed) on the role of the British in rooting the Caste System in India and giving birth globally to Racism based on one’s color. You thought, without trying to understand the facts, that this was silly! Let’s not mask the Truth so that we can coexist; it never works and, we are the salt of the earth.
And as we say in India, ‘Satyameve Jayate’ which translates as “Truth Alone Triumphs”.
Thanks and Regards,
Alex, July 03, 2010 9:30 AM
Dear Alex
This is the last email I am sending to everyone. After this we must send emails to only those interested in a particular topic.
We have three different issues below:
- PERSECUTION: I was responding to an email from brother Solomon – my neighbor and prayer partner – who was acting on Roger Hedlund’s email (Roger and I go to the same church), who in turn was distributing EFI’s email on “Persecution.” I felt that I need to express myself publicly on that issue because I have already written personally to Richard Howell etc and stated my position personally with some individuals included in the list above. I do not have any knowledge about the priest who was killed in Bihar. What I do know is that a number of my friends are involved in evangelistic work in Bihar extensively and face no persecution. That is one of the two reasons why I need more evidence to believe that killing of the priest was “religious persecution.” My other reason for wanting to know the reasons for his murder is that EFI hurts its credibility by spinning stories such as the one from Himachal Pradesh into “Persecution” story. If it is true that a group of Christians bought a piece of land that was illegal to buy and put up a building there, then they could not have done so without bribing a number of officials. That is bound to encourage other officials to seal that property to extract more bribes from them. Are the officials persecuting the mission or are they doing what they do to extort bribes? EFI’s action in circulating that story may be used by the group to raise money in America to pay those bribes. Should I respect and support this kind of a missionary activity?
- PEOPLE-GROUP MOVEMENT: You are absolutely right in rejecting the “People Group” approach to missions. American missions have blessed the world during the last two hundred years but they have also distorted missions and the Gospel. For four decades now “People-Group” approach to mission has been the greatest American distortion of the Gospel and missions. (Storying and Orality are current non-sense but the “People-Group” philosophy persists and in the hands of people like Rick Hivner [H. L. Richard] has become sinful.) I am very grateful to you that and Dr. Devakala that you stood up to white American Evangelicals who are trying to institutionalize racial segregation in Indian church (as though we did not have enough of our own sins).
American Church practiced segregation for centuries and now the Insider Movement wants us to adopt their sin. Dr. McGavran started this folly and great and highly respectable men such as Dr. Ralph Winter and Pastor John Piper became champions of misinterpreting “nation” as “people group.” Israel was 12 tribes (people groups) seeking to be one nation. When it split into Israel and Judah it became two nations. Post-exilic prophets looked forward to 12 people-groups (tribes) being reunited as one nation. One or more people group become a nation, when they are governed by one authority and are actually or emotionally connected to one land. “Nation” has to do with governing authority. That is why the Great Commission begins with “All authority is given unto me . . . “ In order to define “nation” as “people group” US Center for World Mission has had to sideline the issue of authority. If you go through 780 pages of Dr. Winter’s “Perspectives” on World Mission you will find that there are only 8 short discussions of authority. The longest is 2 pages and is empty rhetoric. This has led to a huge distortion of Christology, the Gospel and missions. I am hoping that the US Center and William Carey International University will debate this issue with me . . . but it is going to take 4-40 hours of debate and Bible study, because Dr. McGavaran’s error has evolved into a whole (distorted) missiological worldview. The reason for his mistake was simple: Modern idea of nation-state developed from the Protestantism’s return to the Bible. The Bible fashioned modern European Nationalism and missions globalized the idea during the 19th century. Indian nationalism, for example, began with Madhusdan Datt’s Bengali Nationalism. In the 20th century Mussolini and Hitler secularized biblical nationalism which led to the two world wars. That horrible reality turned secular intelligentsia against “nationalism” in late 1940s. That was the intellectual climate that produced Dr. McGavaran’s error. His error has harmed the American church and the global church influence by American evangelicalism. Now that error has been turned into a sinful strategy of caste-based segregation by people by Rick Hivner.
- BRITISH AND THE CASTE: I stand by what I wrote to you on this subject earlier. I think the sources you are relying upon are ideologically driven misinterpretation of British rule in India. All you need to do is to read Jotiba Phule (or even Ambedkar) who was living under Colonialism and saw it as providential rule to undo the damage done by caste to “India.” I would love to discuss this issue with you – but it is neither necessary nor do I have the time or energy to spend on this discussion at this time. Dr. Thom Wolf can give you better exposition of Phule than I can. My point is that by assuming that those bias historians are right, you unnecessarily undermine your own credibility as a good student of history.
God bless
Vishal
PS – I will send this email to the US Center for World Mission, including Richard Hivner. Please feel free to send it to the YWAM folks who are still teaching the folly of the People Group movement.
Vishal
Regarding, “I think the sources you are relying upon are ideologically driven misinterpretation of British rule in India”, I am an engineer and rely on facts not literary sources like you – “All you need to do is to read Jotiba Phule (or even Ambedkar) who was living under Colonialism and saw it as providential rule to undo the damage done by caste to India”. The history of India has been greatly distorted and it is very easy to stray from the Truth.
Regarding, “I would love to discuss this issue with you – but it is neither necessary nor do I have the time or energy to spend on this discussion at this time. Dr. Thom Wolf can give you better exposition of Phule than I can”, sure; please name the place and work out a suitable time. I live in Universal City, CA near Universal Studios.
Regarding, “My point is that by assuming that those bias historians are right, you unnecessarily undermine your own credibility as a good student of history”, I don’t sit within the safety of churches or Christians. But rather I have enjoyed debating the likes of Dayananda Saraswati in his ashram in the Poconos Mountains of Pennsylvania before the wives of the VHP of North America, and then see him run out of the room trembling. I have greatly enjoyed the likes of NS Rajaram calling his people to target me as the worst missionary in The Organiser, which is well known as the mouthpiece of the RSS. Or spending 5 years in Mylapore led by the spirit to prove my research and have God confirm why years later; “Christian missionary efforts at conversion under the guise of social work do not take place in places, say, like the Brahmin-dominated ward of Mylapore in Chennai. They are conducted in poor, illiterate and innocent tribal areas and in remote jungles far from the prying eyes of authority” (Times of India, “Mission Impossible-Putting an End to Conversion Activity”, By M V KAMATH, Wednesday, October 13, 1999) – http://appiusforum.net/kamath_challenge.html.
However, my experience with Christians has been baffling! Let’s pray that their blindness will be lifted so that they can get out of their ignorance.
Also, I sense your frustration by your language – “white American Evangelicals”; this is also concerning since I have known you for a long time and first met you in Nagod. However, I had a similar experience a few years ago with my Gideon brothers in Coeur D Alene, Idaho. One of them had travelled to India and came back with the “typical American Evangelical” perspective, stories, pictures, etc. My wife and I spent hours explaining but it made no difference. I then felt in my spirit that I was missing something in my historical research. It was then that God opened my understanding through Angus Madison’s research and confirmed the role of the British in India. Sometime later I did meet with my Gideon brothers in Coeur D Alene, Idaho. I started to explain how the region of India and China were the most affluent in the world till the onset of the British, and their role in destroying the land of India and China, and, the birth of Global Racism based on one’s skin color. I hardly took a minute or two and they all got it! One Gideon brother who had smiled sarcastically earlier was so disturbed that he got up and left before the prayer!
http://appiusforum.net/aryans.html
http://appiusforum.net/varnashrama.html
So Vishal, let’s not get frustrated but rather use what God has provided today. As Paul writes, “ For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled” (2 Cor 10:4-6).
Thanks and Regards,
Alex
Dear Bruce
I am asking Alex Harris to send you the details of Dr. Devakala’s opposition to Rick Hivner. Since Alex sees Rick as representing USCWM, I do hope that you will organize a debate on this issue. Even though I am not able to take the time to write out my critique of Dr. DM and Dr. Winter, I am ready now to debate the issue.
Vishal
Ok, Vishal, we will be glad to look at it.
Rick and I had a meeting with Alex to discuss his concerns. I think there is a perspective on history that Alex is more concerned that we accept than a theological concern with McGavran or Winter’s “people group/movement” strategy. It is difficult to be fully convinced his perspective is without question with the evidence presented. We believe it’s fine to propose alternative understandings of history. How that perspective relates to the theological issues undergirding the strategy is difficult to follow. We took the time to listen and try to better understand his thinking. I thought, as well, he understood better what McGavran and Winter actually believed and promoted in people group strategy, hearing from us more first hand experience and understanding of these men. It appears he did not want to accept those explanations.
I think your concerns deal more with the theological issues involved, but let us look at what you want to send us and try to discern what a next step might be that would take us further in our understanding.
Blessings,
Bruce
Bruce
You are being dishonest here.
You state, “I think there is a perspective on history that Alex is more concerned that we accept than a theological concern with McGavran or Winter’s “people group/movement” strategy”. I am an aerospace mechanical engineer from MIT like you with no great interest in history, but, with a very deep theological concern for God’s Kingdom which forced me to research history so that we can pull down of strong holds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Jesus Christ! McGavran or Winter’s “people group/movement” strategy deeply concerns me because it has brought the Caste System into the Church!
You state, “It is difficult to be fully convinced his perspective is without question with the evidence presented”. The meeting was adhoc with no agenda; I repeatedly asked for an agenda. You made it informal. Now if you are referring to my paper on Sanskrit (http://appiusforum.net/paper.pdf), let’s hear what you are not convinced with? Have you even read it? Do you understand the evidence presented?
And then, “We believe it’s fine to propose alternative understandings of history” – wow. If someone stated that the holocaust did not occur, it’s okay? Your fundamental problem is because you have been influenced by aryanized history and now find it difficult to receive the new evidences.
Regarding, “How that perspective relates to the theological issues undergirding the strategy is difficult to follow” – naturally as my daughter would say – dah. It’s not difficult, first you must understand the new evidences and get the right perspective of India’s history before you can define a strategy.
Then , “We took the time to listen and try to better understand his thinking” – well if you did, why were there no follow on action items?
And, “I thought, as well, he understood better what McGavran and Winter actually believed and promoted in people group strategy, hearing from us more firsthand experience and understanding of these men” – as stated earlier, I am sure that Dr. McGavran was a good man with good intentions; however, his ignorance is a very costly one today.
Regarding, “It appears he did not want to accept those explanations”, you are right since no evidences were produced and no action item for follow on were defined. Also, USCWM has removed Rick Hivner’s article on Hinduism from their web site! http://www.uscwm.org/index.php/resources/detail_page/hinduism/. However, I had made a copy which will be useful going forward. I copied the content; hence Rick can confirm its accuracy. His silence will indicate the same.
Thanks and Regards,
Alex
Alex,
Which non-literary sources do you depend on, specifically, as an engineer? Are they numismatic, architectural, or what?
Jason Fry
Jason
Your question is so simplistic after all the discussions. Please read my paper carefully; the evidences are given. Then raise specific questions which will then be meaningful to answer.
Thanks and Regards,
Alex
Dr. Harris,
I read your paper just now, and noticed that every one of your sources was not only literary, but also secondary to tertiary.
I suppose that when you told Dr. Mangalwadi that, as an engineer, you don’t rely on literary sources, you may have only meant that you don’t rely on primary literary sources, in which case your assessment of your own research would be accurate. Rather you rely on secondary literary sources, the author’s of which have based their research, to one degree or another, on the primary sources, literary, archeological, etc.
Without relying on the primary evidence yourself, though, you are relying on someone else’s biased opinions, rather than looking at the original extanct evidence yourself and then, after forming your own opinions, looking to other scholars for their opinions and conclusions based on the same evidence. This process helps to refine one’s opinions. That is one of the positive outworkings of intellectual debate; one’s theories must withstand rigorous criticism.
Telling an interested party that his question is simplistic, however, puts an end to intellectual dialogue.
Jason Fry
Alex,
That’s very condescending.
You said you don’t rely on literary sources because you are an engineer. You did not, however, elucidate the non-literary sources upon which you rely. You said you do “research,” which is good, but what sources do you rely on for this research?
I’ve read many of the documents on your website, and if you only use non-literary sources then I’m confused as to how numismatic, pictographic, architectural, and archaeological sources can lead you to the very specific conclusions you’ve made regarding the beliefs, motives, and feelings of ancient people in the Indian subcontinent. If you are excluding all literary sources, then how do you come to these conclusions? It is a simple question: what are your sources? Not simplistic, but necessary, especially if you want scholars to consider your evidence.
Jason Fry
Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
Jason
I rely on certified facts; an example is the earliest epigraphic evidence of Sanskrit and the trend in the inscriptions. I deal in core issues like the Gita, and, if you have interacted with educated Hindus you will understand; anyway I deal with this in my paper. The history of India has been distorted, and, has to be rewritten. Well established facts have to be laid out and from those India’s history reconstructed. Please read this article which appeared in the Hindu on Nov 3rd, 1998 – Project on history terminated.
http://appiusforum.net/distortion.html
The libraries of the world are contrary to my thesis on the dating of Sanskrit, and, you should know that if there was the slightest weakness in my thesis, the VHP would have been all over me. But rather I have enjoyed debating the likes of Dayananda Saraswati in his ashram in the Poconos Mountains of Pennsylvania before the wives of the VHP of North America, and then see him run out of the room trembling. I have greatly enjoyed the likes of NS Rajaram calling his people to target me as the worst missionary in The Organiser, which is well known as the mouthpiece of the RSS. Or spending 5 years in Mylapore led by the spirit to prove my research and have God confirm why years later; “Christian missionary efforts at conversion under the guise of social work do not take place in places, say, like the Brahmin-dominated ward of Mylapore in Chennai. They are conducted in poor, illiterate and innocent tribal areas and in remote jungles far from the prying eyes of authority” (Times of India, “Mission Impossible-Putting an End to Conversion Activity”, By M V KAMATH, Wednesday, October 13, 1999) – http://appiusforum.net/kamath_challenge.html. The Brahmins of Mylapore would always say that they would get back but I am yet to hear from them!
However, my experience with Christians has been baffling! Let’s pray that their blindness will be lifted so that they can get out of their ignorance.
Thanks and Regards,
Alex
Jason
You state, ” every one of your sources was not only literary, but also secondary or tertiary”. Can you point out a couple? Regarding, ” you are relying on someone else’s biased opinions”, can you highlight a couple?
Or, have you found a convenient way out?
Regarding, ” That is one of the positive out workings of intellectual debate; one’s theories must withstand rigorous criticism”, God chose to prove this with the VHP. I don’t sit within the safety of churches or Christians. But rather I have enjoyed debating the likes of Dayananda Saraswati in his ashram in the Poconos Mountains of Pennsylvania before the wives of the VHP of North America, and then see him run out of the room trembling. I have greatly enjoyed the likes of NS Rajaram calling his people to target me as the worst missionary in The Organiser, which is well known as the mouthpiece of the RSS. Or spending 5 years in Mylapore led by the spirit to prove my research and have God confirm why years later; “Christian missionary efforts at conversion under the guise of social work do not take place in places, say, like the Brahmin-dominated ward of Mylapore in Chennai. They are conducted in poor, illiterate and innocent tribal areas and in remote jungles far from the prying eyes of authority” (Times of India, “Mission Impossible-Putting an End to Conversion Activity”, By M V KAMATH, Wednesday, October 13, 1999) – http://appiusforum.net/kamath_challenge.html. In the US I am out in Artesia with my tracts and enjoy discussion with the teachers of the Divine Light movement using my research.
But, Christians and their apathy baffles me. They always seem to find a convenient way out and mask it with statement like, ” Telling an interested party that his question is simplistic, however, puts an end to intellectual dialogue”. After all this discussion your email was simplistic. However, if you will diligently read my paper, avoid sweeping statements and be specific, we can certainly discuss further. This would educate the Church worldwide.
Thanks and Regards,
Alex
Alex,
What I mean by primary, secondary and tertiary sources when dealing with history:
I define a “primary source” as the thing in question, or a contemporary of the thing that sheds light on it. Looking at a completely different context for the same terms, when figuring out whether the Bible is historically accurate, one must look to the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Biblical texts, and then look at contemporary evidence, such as the writings of Josephus, the annals of the kings of Medo-Persia, etc.
A “secondary source” would be an analysis of the primary source. That is, original research on the primary source, commentary on it, interpretation of it (including the compilations of and translations of the Bible we have today) and any presentation of the evidence (e.g., an archaeologist’s pictures of his dig in Jericho, where artifacts from ancient Jericho are primary sources). These sources are always biased. Scholars try to minimize the impact of bias through the peer-review process when it comes to historical analyses, as well as simply trying to be aware of one’s own presuppositions and taking them into account when looking at evidence – the former is the only one with accountability, though.
“Tertiary sources” are commentaries on commentaries, summaries of analyses, etc. It’s third-hand knowledge.
A good starting point for more information on these terms is Wikipedia, in my opinion. Wikipedia itself (like most encyclopedias, including Encyclopedia Britannica) is a tertiary source in most cases, providing a summary of secondary sources by other authors and researchers, who in turn analysed the primary sources in question. At the bottom of each Wikipedia article, other sources are listed – primary, secondary, and tertiary, though they aren’t labeled as such.
Here are links to the Wikipedia articles:
Primary source
Secondary source
Tertiary source
How those terms apply to your sources:
In your paper,”Christianity and the Origin of Sanskrit,” on page two, you say, “One of the Greek inscriptions [of Asoka] is a translation of the Kalinga Edict,” and as a reference you cite pages 38 and 39 of Nirad Chaudhari’s book, Hinduism, published in 1979 by Oxford University Press. It is a secondary or tertiary source because it is a scholar’s commentary on the two sources in question (the Kalinga Edict and a particular Greek inscriptions of Asoka), rather than your own analysis of the two original sources. I haven’t read Chaudhari’s book, so I don’t know if he himself analyzed the two sources, in which case his book is a secondary source, or whether he is citing someone else’s analysis, in which case it is tertiary. All of the sources listed in your bibliography are, as far as I can see, secondary or tertiary. In the paper itself, you have a primary source in the introduction: the quote by Professor Irfan Habib (the newspaper article, since it’s based on an interview, is the primary source, although some might argue that the primary source is the audio recording of the interview itself, and the paper is a secondary source). So your paper, quoting that newspaper-article primary source, becomes a secondary source for that quote.
There is nothing wrong with using secondary or tertiary sources. Those are, however, literary sources and, like all non-primary sources, are biased (and some primary sources are biased too). The question is not whether they’re biased, because that is not in question, but rather it is whether or not their bias is pointed in the “right” direction, and that’s where arguments over what is trustworthy and whose presuppositions more closely correspond to reality come into play.
All I’m trying to find out is why you insist that your sources are not biased literary sources but are rather certified facts and thus unquestionable. The only indubitable things are those that are true by definition: “I think therefore I am,” “A square is a two-dimensional figure with four right angles and four sides of equal length,” and so on. The things you’re discussing are not true by definition, and therefore are able to be doubted. Who does the certifying of those facts you mention? Who certifies that the inscriptions of Asoka were created in the third century B.C.? I agree with that being a ‘fact’, but I agree not because it’s a ‘certified fact’ but rather because the primary evidence (the inscriptions themselves) have been shown by scholars to most probably date to the third century B.C. (their analyses are “secondary sources”), and since the overwhelming weight of scholarship favors that view and I have no good reason to doubt it, I accept it. I am, though, basing my opinion on the opinions of other humans whose viewpoints are always biased, but in this case I don’t believe their bias has gotten in the way of the truth. They are ‘certified’ to be true by scholars in whose conclusions I choose to place my trust, for the moment. Saying they’re ‘certified’ isn’t good enough, though. Who certifies them to be true, and why should that person or those people be trusted?
You base your conclusions on other people’s analysis of the source materials, not on your own analysis of them. That’s fine, there is nothing wrong with that, but to place your conclusions above the opinions of others and claim some kind of objective point of view is unrealistic. You are biased, so are the people with whom you’re dialoguing, and so are the people who did the analyses cited by both you and your opponents of the primary sources. So the question is not “whose sources are certified facts” but rather “whose point of view most accurately describes reality”, and we figure that out by analyzing all the data we can on the primary sources, looking at the biases of the secondary and tertiary sources to see if someone might be choosing to overlook evidence that doesn’t support their viewpoint, and analyzing the deductive logic to see if any unsound leaps have been taken. That’s good intellectual dialogue.
And yes, I’m biased, as I tell you what is “good”. It’s my opinion and is open to criticism.
It seems that most of your opinions about the origins of Hinduism, Sanskrit, and the caste system come to you by way of D. Devakala, and that you are an ardent supporter of her conclusions but that she is the one who has done the analysis of the primary sources, not you. Is that correct? In one of her books that I have, in the introduction, it states that one cannot understand the history of Christianity in India without a deep understanding of classical Tamil and Sanskrit. Does this preclude the vast majority of scholars who have tried to analyze the history of Christianity in India? Does it mean that one must simply accept her conclusion as being valid and her arguments as being sound, without any skepticism? I do feel skeptical towards your viewpoint, since it differs so greatly from the conventional (and still controversial) understandings. That’s not to say that I agree with RSS-revisionist histories or with colonial British Orientalists’ constructions, because I don’t agree with them, but to hear that the Hinduism we see today, along with Mahayana Buddhism, originated in the Apostle Thomas’ teachings is surprising and the onus is on you to prove it, looking at the primary evidence and showing us skeptics why you’ve made these conclusions. Telling me that Hindus you talked to got upset or didn’t know what to say in response proves nothing. Showing me the Sanskrit and Classical Tamil and proving that it supports your view is what is necessary. I’m no scholar, but I trust that there are many scholars who are interested in looking at the evidence if you can show it without insulting them, calling their questions “simplistic”, or being otherwise condescending. Those things are not academic argument, they’re just being argumentative, and it makes a big difference in whether anyone wants to continue dialoguing with you.
In short, I hope you see that I’m not trying to escape from your evidence, I’m only asking for honest dialogue, and I’m asking for evidence based on analysis of the primary sources. If scholars can see the evidence and can follow your deductions, then they can decide whether they think you’ve come to a sound conclusion and they can point out what they think are fallacies in your reasoning, to which you can respond by clarifying or correcting, so that they can understand you and you can hear out their feedback.
As to my own interests, as a non-scholar who simply enjoys scholarly discussions and a business guy with an interest in practical as well as theoretical issues, I want to know: what do you think ought to happen in India regarding Jesus, the Bible, evangelism, etc.? I’ve read a lot in your emails and papers about what you oppose, but I’m not sure what your vision is for India. You propose that everyone should abandon the people-group approach. Fine, with what shall we replace it? You say that Vaisnavism and Saivism are actually St. Thomas Dravidian Christianity. Okay, what does that mean for Vaisnavites and Saivites right now? You say that racism was brought into India by outsiders and that caste should be done away with. Sure, but what of the ethno-linguistic affinity groups that are part of the fabric of Indian society today? Would you require that all Indians convert to some other culture instead of staying within their current cultural identity? If so, which sub-culture in India is the one to which they must conform?
I’m looking forward to further dialogue. Happy Independence Day and I hope you have a good Sunday.
Thanks,
Jason Fry
1
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Alex’s Response: Good definitions; let’s use this as a basis going forward.
How those terms apply to your sources: In your paper, “Christianity and the Origin of Sanskrit,” on page two, you say, “One of the Greek inscriptions [of Asoka] is a translation of the Kalinga Edict,” and as a reference you cite pages 38 and 39 of Nirad Chaudhari’s book, Hinduism, published in 1979 by Oxford University Press. It is a secondary or tertiary source because it is a scholar’s commentary on the two sources in question (the Kalinga Edict and a particular Greek inscriptions of Asoka), rather than your own analysis of the two original sources. I haven’t read Chaudhari’s book, so I don’t know if he himself analyzed the two sources, in which case his book is a secondary source, or whether he is citing someone else’s analysis, in which case it is tertiary.
Alex’s Response: The above analysis is fine except you have missed the core focus and context – the first evidence of Sanskrit. Please review again carefully from this light and respond.
2
All of the sources listed in your bibliography are, as far as I can see, secondary or tertiary. In the paper itself, you have a primary source in the introduction: the quote by Professor Irfan Habib (the newspaper article, since it’s based on an interview, is the primary source, although some might argue that the primary source is the audio recording of the interview itself, and the paper is a secondary source). So your paper, quoting that newspaper-article primary source, becomes a secondary source for that quote.
Alex’s Response: Professor Irfan Habib is an eminent scholar and his statement on the VHP as recorded by a newspaper like the Hindu is a fact. I am absolutely baffled by your distractive arguments when so many critical issues were outlined in the previous page of my paper and you bypassed them and start a discussion on this! Maybe as a foreigner you are totally unaware of the tactics and deceptive strategies of the VHP. Yesterday I took time to educate you on this – The history of India has been distorted, and, has to be rewritten. Well established facts have to be laid out and from those India’s history reconstructed. Please read this article which appeared in the Hindu on Nov 3rd, 1998 – Project on history terminated.
http://appiusforum.net/distortion.html Yet you ignore that and you come up with the argument above! This is a distracting spirit Jason and this is not the first time you have done this and reading later certainly not your last.
There is nothing wrong with using secondary or tertiary sources. Those are, however, literary sources and, like all non-primary sources, are biased (and some primary sources are biased too). The question is not whether they’re biased, because that is not in question, but rather it is whether or not their bias is pointed in the “right” direction, and that’s where arguments over what is trustworthy and whose presuppositions more closely correspond to reality come into play.
Alex’s Response: Yes the underlying evidence is the key.
All I’m trying to find out is why you insist that your sources are not biased literary sources but are rather certified facts and thus unquestionable. The only indubitable things are those that are true by definition: “I think therefore I am,” “A square is a two-dimensional figure with four right angles and four sides of equal length,” and so on. The things you’re discussing are not true by definition, and therefore are able to be doubted. Who does the certifying of those facts you mention? Who certifies that the inscriptions of Asoka were created in the third century B.C.? I agree with that being a ‘fact’, but I agree not because it’s a ‘certified fact’ but rather because the primary evidence (the inscriptions themselves) have been shown by scholars to most probably date to the third century B.C. (their analyses are “secondary sources”), and since the overwhelming weight of scholarship favors that view and I have no good reason to doubt it, I accept it. I am, though, basing my opinion on the opinions of other humans whose viewpoints are always biased, but in this case I don’t believe their bias has gotten in the way of the truth. They are ‘certified’ to be true by scholars in whose conclusions I choose to place my trust, for the moment. Saying they’re
‘certified’ isn’t good enough, though. Who certifies them to be true, and why should that person or those people be trusted?
Alex’s Response: Again a lot of distracting arguments with no focus on the core issues facing the
propagation of the Gospel. Regarding certification please re-read the link above.
You base your conclusions on other people’s analysis of the source materials, not on your own analysis of them. That’s fine, there is nothing wrong with that, but to place your conclusions above the opinions of others and claim some kind of objective point of view is unrealistic.
3
Alex’s Response: How did you suddenly jump to this conclusion since you have missed the key focus, core evidences and analysis in the paper?
You are biased, so are the people with whom you’re dialoguing, and so are the people who did the analyses cited by both you and your opponents of the primary sources. So the question is not “whose sources are certified facts” but rather “whose point of view most accurately describes reality”, and we figure that out by analyzing all the data we can on the primary sources, looking at the biases of the secondary and tertiary sources to see if someone might be choosing to overlook evidence that doesn’t support their viewpoint, and analyzing the deductive logic to see if any unsound leaps have been taken. That’s good intellectual dialogue.
Alex’s Response: Yes I am biased to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and, have pieced together evidences to show the impact of early Indian Christianity. If anyone wishes to disprove any of the evidences I have used, I would be most happy to reconsider and reconstruct my thesis; the VHP are still trying after all these years. However, on the other hand there is no intellectual thought in your discussion after supposedly reading my paper except for vague references without context
to distract the discussion.
And yes, I’m biased, as I tell you what is “good”. It’s my opinion and is open to criticism.
Alex’s Response: Absolutely, and the Church will be educated.
It seems that most of your opinions about the origins of Hinduism, Sanskrit, and the caste system come to you by way of D. Devakala, and that you are an ardent supporter of her conclusions but that she is the one who has done the analysis of the primary sources, not you. Is that correct?
Alex’s Response: Again a distraction. I am an ardent supporter of the Truth. She has done her research and I have done mine; again, the spirit of distraction. Focus on the core issues Jason.
In one of her books that I have, in the introduction, it states that one cannot understand the history of Christianity in India without a deep understanding of classical Tamil and Sanskrit. Does this preclude the vast majority of scholars who have tried to analyze the history of Christianity in India? Does it mean that one must simply accept her conclusion as being valid and her arguments as being sound, without any skepticism? I do feel skeptical towards your viewpoint, since it differs so greatly from the conventional (and still controversial) understandings. That’s not to say that I agree with RSS-revisionist histories or with colonial British Orientalists’ constructions, because I don’t agree with them, but to hear that the Hinduism we see today, along with Mahayana Buddhism, originated in the Apostle Thomas’ teachings is surprising and the onus is on you to prove it, looking at the primary evidence and showing us skeptics why you’ve made these conclusions. Telling me that Hindus you talked to got upset or didn’t know what to say in
response proves nothing. Showing me the Sanskrit and Classical Tamil and proving that it supports your view is what is necessary. I’m no scholar, but I trust that there are many scholars who are interested in looking at the evidence if you can show it without insulting them, calling their questions “simplistic”, or being otherwise condescending. Those things are not academic argument, they’re just being argumentative, and it makes a big difference in whether anyone wants to continue dialoguing with you.
Alex’s Response: Jason, I am yet to see you respond to Dr. Devakala; do you think this is a game? Just because you don’t get it does not mean anything. I have abstracted evidences and then built a thesis on it. If HL Richard or Dayanand Bharathi or any others you back want to present an alternate thesis based on evidences, I would be most enthusiastic to hear it.
4
In short, I hope you see that I’m not trying to escape from your evidence, I’m only asking for honest dialogue, and I’m asking for evidence based on analysis of the primary sources. If scholars can see the evidence and can follow your deductions, then they can decide whether they think you’ve come to a sound conclusion and they can point out what they think are fallacies in your reasoning, to which you can respond by clarifying or correcting, so that they can understand you and you can hear out their feedback.
Alex’s Response: Jason why are you talking when the “scholars” you have backed are being quiet?
As to my own interests, as a non-scholar who simply enjoys scholarly discussions and a business guy with an interest in practical as well as theoretical issues, I want to know: what do you think ought to happen in India regarding Jesus, the Bible, evangelism, etc.? I’ve read a lot in your emails and papers about what you oppose, but I’m not sure what your vision is for India. You propose that every one should abandon the people-group approach. Fine, with what shall we replace it? You say that Vaisnavism and Saivism are actually St. Thomas Dravidian Christianity. Okay, what does that mean for Vaisnavites and Saivites right now? You say that racism was brought into India by outsiders and that caste should be done away with. Sure, but what of the ethno-linguistic affinity groups that are part of the fabric of Indian society today? Would you require that all Indians convert to some other culture instead of staying within their current cultural identity? If so, which sub-culture in India is the one to which they must conform?
Alex’s Response: Where did I say that “Vaishnavism and Saivism are actually St. Thomas Dravidian Christianity”? Please be diligent at least in reading my paper and not distract by misrepresentation. The fact that you are not a scholar is not the issue, but your ability to distract and then hide behind this is an issue. Anyway, let the “scholars” you back do the talking. By the way, did you fund the meeting in Gurukul? What is your objective in India Jason? As someone used the term “American Evangelicals” who conduct such meetings, quietly video tape them
for “back home” fund raising purposes are of grave concern since they don’t have a clear objective or understanding of the issues. Such individuals can do great damage to missions in India. Also, you were deceptively quiet when I earlier requested for a transcript of the meeting at Gurukul. Later in an email below, when the matter was exposed, you state, “I’d be glad to allow you to come to my home and watch it”, and, you indicate that you are in Chennai. I am yet to see the same offer to Dr Devakala who lives in Chennai and had requested the same! I trust it will be made available now.
I’m looking forward to further dialogue. Happy Independence Day and I hope you have a good Sunday.
Alex’s Response: Sure. I have included all our previous discussions below for future reference and edification of the Church. The PDF is locked against edits but the copying of text is allowed.
Thanks,
Jason Fry
Thanks and Regards,
Alex
8
Saturday June 26, 2010
Hello Jason
I can understand the sensitivity of the certain participants and attendees, however, the simplest way to solve this is to distribute the audio portion only which would solve the sensitivity issue and preserve authenticity. Also, the audio file is much smaller and can be sent even by email. Transcribing is a very difficult process and is prone to errors. Regarding caste, one has to be very careful to distinguish it from community or people groups who are delineated by language, geography, family ancestry, etc. For example the neo Nazis and KKK are people groups too and one would never mix the two. Today the anti-social forces would love to mix the two and subtly promote the latter. I typically come to India in Jan/Feb of the year. However, I encourage you to meet with NILT (GJ Pandithorai) and the Deivanayagams both in Chennai. I suggst starting with NILT to understand the fundamentals of the new evidences. Also NILT has put together excellent courses and are seeing good fruit. Bro Pandithorai can walk you thru all these. With this knowledge, one can then understand the strategy and work of the Deivanayagams. By the way did you observe the incredible iconography in Dr Devekala’s attachment? Buddha with nail piercings! I showed it to a Jewish colleague at work and he was blown away. Regarding Rick, I met with him in Mylapore somewhere in 1996/97. I explained my thesis on Sanskrit and he asked me to leave his home; D Bharathi was with him at that time. A few weeks ago I met with Bruce
Graham and Rick at USCWM. This time Rick walked out of the meeting. My perspective is that Rick has gotten himself deep into aryanized history and has based his writings and teachings on it. And now, like many others I have met over the years, find it very difficult to change since they now have to admit error. In 1996/97 Rick had a very good opportunity to look at the new research, but now with all his books and articles, it is going to be very very difficult. Since the talks with YWAM and USCWM have stalled I have taken this matter to the world-wide church
with my tract on the subject. And as we say in India, ‘Satyameve Jayate’ which translates as truth alone triumphs.
Thanks and Regards,
Alex
9
Saturday June 26, 2010
Alex,
Sorry I won’t be able to distribute the video as many of the participants and attendees do not want their presence disseminated on the internet. The only way to ensure their privacy remains intact is if I control the only existing copy of the video. If I have time to learn how to blur out people’s faces from the video, then perhaps I can send you a copy, but it will be a long time before I can apply my attention to learning that kind of video editing. I am, however, slowly attempting to transcribe the entire event. After I’ve transcribed it, I’ll be glad to send you the document. It may not be for some time, since I’m quite busy with other duties at the moment. If you want to see the video for yourself, I’d be glad to allow you to come to my home and watch it, so long as it doesn’t interfere with my schedule too much; we would need to find an evening or weekend time that would work for both of our schedules. I’m in Chennai now and will be in the US next year. As to whether it is ridiculous to assert that caste is genetic, I think it depends on what you mean by
“caste”. Is being Irish or German or Comanche or Apache genetic, and if so, can the word “caste” be used synonymously with a phrase such as “Indian ethnic affinity group”? That is how I use the term. What do you mean by it? Is there a single word that better encapsulates this meaning? I’ve heard that the Sanskrit word that best conveys that meaning is “jati” or “jat”, and that the word “caste” has several disparate meanings so it shouldn’t be used, and that it’s not an internally-used word anyway, the European Orientalists imposed the word on India, so it should be abandoned and replaced with more precise and indigenously-relevant terms like jati, varna, and community (what my English-fluent Hindu friends here say instead of “caste” or “jat”). What is your opinion regarding these terms? I know from many long conversations with H. L. Richard that he is open to discussing whether or not certain terms are imprecise and whether they ought to be abandoned and/or replaced with terms that effectively convey what one really means. I also know that he
is not in favor of oppression or prejudice when it comes to the barriers people use to separate themselves from one another, as the Bible says, neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free, and wants to see India both “in Christ” and free from oppression and hatred. Looking forward to hearing back from you.
Jason Fry
Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
10
Friday June 25, 2010
Hello Jason
I am glad you have videotaped the presentation including the Q&A session. It is very important that we all get to review it since I am greatly concerned that according to Rich Hivner “caste is a genetic factor, and while evangelizing one should not disturb it”.
Caste being a genetic factor is absolute nonsense; hence it is of utmost importance to determine if Rick did present this. Please make this video available so that all facts are established; I will make sure you are reimbursed for costs incurred. It is quite simple to convert to a DVD.
Thanks and Regards,
Alex
Friday June 25, 20
D. Devakala Deivanayagam,
I would like to clarify one point: The microphone was not taken from you on Mr. Richard’s instructions. I was at the seminar and I was videotaping the presentations as well as the Q & A sessions. In the video, which I have reviewed, you finish speaking and give the microphone back to the MC, who takes it, but at the last moment before you let go, you appear to change your mind about relinquishing the microphone, and hold onto it for a moment while conferring with your companion. Meanwhile Mr. Richard attempted to respond to your statement. Only then, the MC took the microphone and moved onto one of the many other people who were waiting to ask a question. Saying that it was taken from you on Mr. Richard’s instructions is blatantly slanderous
and doesn’t inform people as to what actually happened.
Jason Fry
Chennai
Note: The above was Jason’s response to Dr Devakala’s statement on June 25th 2010 – “even before I could finish speaking, the microphone was taken out of my hand since Mr.H.L.Richard had instructed the volunteer to take the microphone away from me”.
On this issue, Dr Devakala responded on June 26th 2010,
Glad to hear that the presentations as well as the Q & A sessions were videotaped. You wrote that,
“In the video, which I have reviewed, you finish speaking and give the microphone back to the
MC, who takes it, but at the last moment before you let go, you appear to change your mind
about relinquishing the microphone, and hold onto it for a moment…”
11
According to your statement,
1. I have handed over the microphone back to the MC..
2. (“who takes it”) Now the microphone is with the MC .
Again you are saying that “and hold onto it for a moment”
3. If I have handed over the microphone back to the MC…then how come you are saying that I
was handling it? 4. Who handed over the microphone back to me?
I remember that the microphone was taken out of my hand since Mr.H.L.Richard had instructed the volunteer to take the microphone away from me. Since you have videotaped the whole session, the unedited copy of it will help all of us to understand what really happened there.
I infer from your mail that you are based in Chennai. I am also in Chennai. So please let us know how we can get a copy of it? If you write the address, amount and your convenient time, we will send some to pay the amount and collect it. If the video shows that I have misunderstood the situation, surely I will apologize to Mr.H.L.Richard.
To this Alex responded on June 26th, 2010
We are side tracking from the core issue. The Caste System is a poison in our society and has entered the church and is a stumbling block to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
One has to be very careful to distinguish caste from community or people groups who are delineated by language, geography, family ancestry, etc. For example the neo Nazis or KKK are people groups too and it would be foolish to mix the two. Today the anti-social forces would love to mix the two and subtly promote the latter.
Thanks and Regards,
Alex
Note: Jason though requested earlier never disclosed that he had videotaped the
meeting at Gurukul. On May 6th I requested Rick, Ajoy or Jason for a transcript of Rick Hivner’s talk. Ajoy responded that Jason had done some recording; however, there was no response from Jason to my request at that time!
12
From: Alex Harris [mailto:appiusforum@alum.MIT.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 6:27 PM
To: ‘Jason Fry’
Cc: ‘Ajoy Varghese’; ‘Rick Hivner’; ‘GJ Pandithurai’; ‘Dr Devakala Deivanayagam’
Subject: RE: Seminar at Gurukul
Hello Jason
I have been reading this ongoing discussion and I appreciate what you’re saying. I also value open discussion and interaction. Dr. Devakala was not mistreated at the seminar. She made a full statement, then gave the microphone back. Rick gave a short response, and though he disagreed with what Dr. Devakala said, he responded graciously. The time allotted to Rick for his presentation and Q&A was drawing to a close and other people had questions also, so the Q&A moved on. There was an hour for Q&A scheduled at the end of the day, but Dr. Devakala left at the morning coffee break, so we supposed she had all of the discussion she desired on the matter. In fact, I felt shocked that they never asked a question but instead stood and gave a statement, and then left at the break. It made me feel that they were not really interested in mutual understanding and uniting with brothers and sisters for the sake of the
Kingdom, but had come only to make a statement and then leave. I know that some of the other
attendees felt the same way, because we talked about it after the seminar finished.
Alex’s response: Hmmm. I know that they came at the request/insistence of a local pastor and had to rush off. It was an extremely busy time and they were in the midst of preparation for the classes they were conducting. Also she is recovering from an extreme illness and I will ask her to articulate her thoughts in this discussion when she is able to. However, on the contrary, and regarding “interested in mutual understanding and uniting with brothers and sisters for the sake of the Kingdom”, my experience with Rick is that he is not open to mutual understanding and uniting with brothers and sisters for the sake of the Kingdom! Years ago around 1996 when discussing the new research in Mylapore, he asked me to leave his house. I now live in Universal City in Southern California and when took the time and effort to reach out to him and USCWM, both have been very distant. Jason, are you a part of USCWM? I have written 2 mails through their web site and no response. I have spoken to Rick in California and he has not responded either. So if Rick or USCWM think that they can be silent and continue to propagate the People Movement Approach which is based on an erroneous understanding of Indian history, they are sadly mistaken since this has caused a serious issue in the Church – influx of the caste system. I spoke to some friends in Chennai and their feedback was quite different on the seminar.
If Dr. Devakala felt offended or mistreated, then it is most unfortunate and is a misunderstanding, as I know the presenters and organizers wanted everyone to be able to ask their questions and fully understand the ideas being presented. If she feels she was not able to finish asking her question, or that Rick did not make himself fully understood, then that is unfortunate and it’s understandable that she felt disappointed.
Alex’s response: After having battled forces like the VHP, neither Dr Devakala nor I feel offended by Rick’s behavior either in the past to me or the present to Dr Devakala. However, both of us are extremely sad that people like Rick can’t be interested in mutual understanding and uniting with brothers and sisters for the sake of the Kingdom, However, Truth is a double edged sword, and, Truth always prevails.
13
Thank you for being concerned for your friend. If she feels that anyone mistreated her, I would encourage her to practice biblical conflict resolution and contact that person directly in hopes of reconciliation, and if she’s unsure of the name or contact info of the person who offended her, then she can email Ajoy and myself and we’ll pass it along to the people whom she feels mistreated her. We definitely want an attitude of love and mutual understanding and cooperation to prevail among the believers in South India, even when there may be disagreement regarding strategy, beliefs about history, and some theology.
Alex’s response: Well Jason, I have and you can ask Rick to respond. Also if you are a part of USCWM and other organizations propagating the “People Movement Approach”, please encourage these to be interested in mutual understanding and uniting with brothers and sisters for the sake of the Kingdom. By the way, are you American? If so, which part of the US do you reside? Which organization? Etc? Thanks and Regards,
Alex
On 7/4/2010 10:09 AM, Alex Harris wrote:
Greetings,
I want say that I cannot affirm the tone of these emails (agreeing with Becky L.) Alex H. says Bruce Graham is “being dishonest” and Rick Hivner’s motives are impugned as if he is malicious. Why? Debating ideas is fine, but why this ad hominem attitude, as if these brothers have some sinister agenda?I know that both Bruce G. and Rick H. are sincere followers of Jesus who are doing the best they can to fulfill the Great Commission and honor God. I don’t directly “have a dog in this fight”, but I don’t like the tone of the fight, so I thought to register that.
Bill Bjoraker
Dear Vishal,
Here’s my two pennies worth… with prayer.
Despite the fact that an e-mail exchange like this runs the risk of being acrimonious and may push each one of us to hold on to our opinions more rigidly without seriously considering the point of view of the other brother, this is a risk worth taking. We need to talk to each other.
Among your addressees, there are people I have learnt a lot from. I have been blessed by their writings and personal contacts. My only hope and prayer is that we come closer to each other through a dialogue, not necessarily a debate. And even if it sounds like a Utopian idea, I believe that there is some reason to strive for unity of mind and purpose (II Cor 13:11).
I see an opportunity here of not merely a new emergent understanding of mission in the 21st-century India but also of a fresher insight into Indian history, society and culture, which, of course, will inform our missional engagement. I see it as a foremost need among the disciples of Lord Jesus to develop a channel of dialogue on these issues. For example, colonialism was indeed detrimental to our nation (whatever form it had before the British arrival) as it was based on some racist presuppositions, at the same time we cannot deny that it did have a liberating influence on the lowest of the low in the subcontinent. Similarly there are nuances that different people are sensitive to differently when it comes to issues like persecution.
I hope we respond to these issues and not react. Sometimes even silence is a reaction, more vitriolic than diatribes.
Regards,
Ashish
Bill
As indicated earlier I have enjoyed debating the likes of Dayananda Saraswati in his ashram in the Poconos Mountains of Pennsylvania before the wives of the VHP of North America, and then see him run out of the room trembling. I have greatly enjoyed the likes of NS Rajaram calling his people to target me as the worst missionary in The Organiser, which is well known as the mouthpiece of the RSS. Or spending 5 years in Mylapore led by the spirit to prove my research and have God confirm why years later; “Christian missionary efforts at conversion under the guise of social work do not take place in places, say, like the Brahmin-dominated ward of Mylapore in Chennai. They are conducted in poor, illiterate and innocent tribal areas and in remote jungles far from the prying eyes of authority” (Times of India, “Mission Impossible-Putting an End to Conversion Activity”, By M V KAMATH, Wednesday, October 13, 1999) – http://appiusforum.net/kamath_challenge.html.
However, my experience with Christians has been baffling!
Years ago around 1996/97 I was in Rick Hivner’s home in Mylapore, India trying to explain my thesis on Sanskrit; he abruptly told me, “please leave”. Then after Rick Hivner’s meeting in Gurukul this year, the discussions (enclosed along with my flyer) culminated in the meeting at USCWM. I was shocked at Bruce’s email. So Bill help me understand.
By the way, both of us are connected with Pastor Ken Walters and West Valley Christian Assembly. Maybe we should have a sit down with him? We had earlier interacted on Kaballah and Monism and I had shared my tract with you (enclosed). I am still looking for a Jewish Christian man to have lunch with my Jewish colleague at work to whom I have been witnessing using this research. Our office is close to the intersection of Wilshire and Highland in Los Angeles.
Remember being sincere does not justify or cover up. As I indicated earlier, I am sure that Dr. McGavran was a good man with good intentions; however, his ignorance is a very costly one today. Hence it is very important to have the right perspective of history in order to define the right strategy. These discussions are all about “getting the Gospel effectively TO them”.
As Paul writes, “ For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled” (2 Cor 10:4-6).
Thanks and Regards,
Alex
On Jul 3, 2010, at 12:37 PM, “Vishal Mangalwadi” <vishal@vishalmangalwadi.com> wrote:
Dear Friends / Mr. Rich Hivner,
I am glad to see the present discussion, taking place between the great scholars and committed missionaries, in continuation of the discussion regarding the seminar held at Gurukul, raised on the International floor by Dr. Alexander Harris. Since the discussion is taking place on the International floor, in continuation of our interaction at the seminar held at Gurukul, I like to give a brief analysis.
Careful analysis on our discussion regarding the seminar reveals that it has two major parts.
I Issue on casteism
II key persons involved in this discussion
Let us analyze one by one.
I Issue on casteism :
According to Mr. Rich Hivner, caste is a genetic factor.
This concept should be analyzed in depth. This is not a concept of an individual, but of a system, that involves in evangelism, based on this concept.
II key persons in these discussions:
Key persons in these discussions are
1. Mr.Rich Hivner
2. Dr.Devakala Deivanayagam
3. Dr.Alexander Harris and
4. Mr.Jason Fry
Mr. Rich Hivner’s talk on casteism is the central theme of our discussion.
And hence he is in the first place in this crucial discussion.
I remarked his theme talk on casteism and Hinduism. And before I could finish, the microphone was taken out of my hand upon his instruction. Hence I am in the second place in this discussion.
Dr.Alexander Harris raised these issues regarding casteism and the microphone on the International floor and he is in the third place in this discussion.
When the issue of the microphone was raised, instead of Mr. Rich Hivner, Mr.Jason Fry started giving explanations, and hence he is in the fourth place in this discussion.
Two systems of thoughts:
Though the issue on the microphone seems to be a minor issue, in fact it is not an issue between just two individuals but between two systems of thoughts, one restoring casteism and the other striving to extirpate caste discrimination. I have already pointed out about casteism, as the root cause for the failure of Christianity in India. That’s why we can infer, from the incident that happened at the seminar at Gurukul, that the system, which restores casteism, is trying to restrain the other system that has been striving to uproot casteism.
In the seminar at Gurukul, during tea break I had given 2 of my books to Mr.Rich Hivner, in order to have a healthy discussion.
The Titles being
· Hindu Religion is the offshoot of St.Thomas Dravidian Christianity – A Brief Sketch, and
· Creeds and Doctrine of Trinity in St.Thomas Dravidian Christianity.
Why the silence?
Mr. Jason who promptly replied on 26th June 2010 to my email dated 25th June 2010, said that Mr.Rick Hivner’s speech and the incident correlated with the microphone were videotaped, and when I asked him for clarifications on the basis of his statement and asked for a copy of the videotape, till date there has been no response from him. Why he is silent about the video?
All of us are eagerly expecting to view the videotape to know what really happened at the seminar at Gurukul, not with the intention of blaming each other, but to analyze the issues that are the root cause for the failure of Christianity in India.
Will Mr. Rich Hivner reply and clarify us?
We can summarize the issues as follows:
The issue on casteism being a genetic factor, as was explained by Mr. Rich Hivner and the issue on the microphone, were not denied by him till date.
We expect Mr. Rich Hivner, who is in the first place in these discussions, to clarify these issues, since the whole discussion is based on his talk, and it is the discussion between the two systems of thoughts and not just between two individuals.
Let me place the following questions to Mr. Rich Hivner for clarification: (not to offend but to reanalyze)
· Didn’t you explain that casteism is a part of the Indian culture and caste being a genetic factor, while evangelizing one should not disturb it?
· Didn’t you instruct to take away the microphone from me before I could finish speaking?
· Has it not showed that the system, which restores casteism, is trying to restrain the other system that has been striving to uproot casteism?
Expecting your kind reply.
[let us try to address the issues and to resolve it rather than accuse each other. It will be more comforting to see it all resolved and move on to build the Kingdom of God in unity. ]
Thank you.
In Christ,
Devakala Deivanayagam.
Dear Friends,
I am indeed glad to have this opportunity to reach out to you through this mail. Though I could not take part in your discussions, I was pleased to hear your various views. After a long gap I have had the opportunity to send this mail, sharing with you all about our interaction at the Seminar held at Gurukul. Before sharing about the interaction, let me just share my testimony with you.
I have done my doctorate on Saivism, Vaishnavism, now known as Hindu Religion i.e., St.Thomas Tamil Christianity, on the topic Origin and Development of Bhakthi Movement (in the light of Bible), from the Madras University. I have dedicated my life for ministry, and God is using me in the Research Ministry. Eleven months ago I had sufferred from a severe back ache for about a month. I was asked to undergo a MRI Scan, which I did on 29th June 2009.The report revealed that I was sufferring from cancer (stage IV), which had spread from my breast to my stomach, my thyroid glands and had also corroded my spinal column . The doctor disclosed to my father and my brother that I would live only for few months, and if treated I could live to a maximum of two or two and half years. He also indicated that the medical expenses would be rather high. Both my father and brother decided to give me the best possible treatment, irrespective of the cost.
I was not afraid of the cancer that was spreading in me, as I knew that I was in the hands of God. Besides, God had clearly revealed that the affliction was not for death but for the Glory of God (John 11.4) After having undergone 6 chemotherapy sessions and 12 radiation sessions, the scan report revealed that I was 90% cured of cancer. Though the cancer in me was medically incurable, and I was bed-ridden for 5 months, God miraculously healed me, and I have started working again. It is God who is using me again in this research ministry and I am thankful to all who prayed and helped me with a great burden. Nothing is impossible with God!!
Having shared this testimony of mine, I would like to share about the interaction that I had at a seminar held at Gurukul, and the need of the hour for all of us is to analyze the position of Christianity in India.
Pas.Jeyakaran Immanuel invited me and my father Dr.M.Deivanayagam on 26th Feb 2010, for “A seminar / workshop on “Christ and Indian Classical Traditions” conducted on Sat, 27th Feb 2010 at Gurukul.
We could only spend a few hours during the forenoon session at the seminar, as we ourselves were conducting another meeting in the afternoon. And we were making arrangements to conduct a 10 day course for the Missionaries, Evangelists and Pastors on the theme ‘St. Peter Christianity and St.Thomas Christianity’ under the title ‘Santhome Church built where Kapaleeswarar temple was’.
We spent some time in the seminar listening to Mr.H.L.Richard delivering a lecture ….
One of the key points to be clarified in his message was about casteism in India. He spoke about casteism and said that it was a part of the Indian culture. According to him caste is a genetic factor, and while evangelizing one should not disturb it.
During the question and answer session, I remarked that Racism and Cateism were not a part of the Indian culture, but that was an alien culture – Aryan culture. Before the 7th c.A.D. there was no reference to racism and casteism in Indian literature. Only after the period of ‘Aryavardha’ i.e., after 7th c.A.D. racial and caste discriminating principles were devised by the Aryans who captured political power in India.
In his talk he was using the term ‘Hinduism’ while referring to the ‘Hindu religion’.
I told that ‘Hinduism’ is totally different from the ‘Hindu religion’. [Using the term ‘Hinduism’ to denote ‘Hindu religion’ reveals that the difference between ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindu religion’ was not identified.]
Before 1794 AD, we do not come across the terms ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindu religion’.
The term ‘Hinduism’ refers to the principles of law of Manu. According to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India “Hindusim is not a religion. It is a way of life”.
The former Prime Minister of India Mr.Vajpayee had once said that, ‘there is no theistic concept in Hinduism’.
Whereas the term ‘Hindu religion’ refers to Saivism and Vaisnavism, denominations of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity. Only after 1794 AD, we come across the terms ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindu religion’.
These in a nutshell, were some of my clarifications, even before I could finish speaking, the microphone was taken out of my hand since Mr.H.L.Richard had instructed the volunteer to take the microphone away from me.
During the tea break which followed, I gave 2 of my books to Mr.H.L.Richard.
The Titles being
· Hindu Religion is the offshoot of St.Thomas Dravidian Christianity – A Brief Sketch, and
· Creeds and Doctrine of Trinity in St.Thomas Dravidian Christianity.
After the tea break we had to leave the seminar for the next scheduled meeting.
I guess, the aim of the seminar that was conducted at Gurukul was to bring India to Christ. At this juncture, I would like to point out the need of this hour, which is to analyze the reasons for the percentage of Christianity being microscopic minority in India.
Part – I
Why Christianity could not succeed in India?
Percentage of Christianity in India – Racism and Casteism:
Missionaries have all along been striving to bring India to Christ. When British were ruling India, they presented the gospel with a royal adhesive and though it was preached for more than 150 years as a royal religion, a census report of India shows frail results. To date, the percentage of Christianity in India is not even 4%. According to the census report of India of 1991, the percentage of Christianity was 2.6 % which has come down even further to 2.3%, declares the census report of India of 2001.
Why is it that Christianity could not succeed in India although a lot of missionaries have dedicated their life and preached the gospel earnestly?
Understanding the mindset of the Indians is necessary to comprehend the reasons for the low percentage of Christianity in India.
According to the mindset of the Indians who are non – Christians,
1. Christianity is a foreign religion;
2. Christ is a Foreign God and
3. Becoming a Christian means becoming a low caste.
Hence the immense sacrificial efforts taken to bring India to Christ become null and void.
Some years ago, nearly 10 lakhs of people belonging to the Scheduled caste community embraced Buddhism. It should be noted here that Dr.Ambekar decided to give up ‘Hindu religion’ since it was under the clutches of ‘Hinduism’ i.e., caste discrimination, and spent 24 years to analyze religions, before he could decide as to which he could embrace. When evaluating Christianity, he found that there was caste and racial discrimination deeply rooted in Christianity, and hence finally embraced Buddhism. Because of his conversion to Buddhism, a large number of his followers are embracing Buddhism till date.
Why is Buddhism preferred and not Christianity?
Careful analysis on this issue makes it clear that the practice of racial and caste discrimination in Christianity is a big barrier for embracing Christianity.
Unless the practice of racial and caste discrimination in India is extirpated, evangelization in India will not be successful.
[Regarding racism and casteism, my father and I have written a book titled “International Racism is the child of India’s casteism – A Historical perspective and an appeal to UNO” and presented it to the High Commissioner of Human Rights, at the Conference on Racism, held at Durban – South Africa, convened by the UNO in 2001, and after some months the UNO, that could not understand the problems of casteim previously, had accepted that there caste discrimination existed in India. ( The Origin and development of racism and casteism is explained in this book historically).
For continuation Please see Part II that contains the following:
Part – II
What is the solution?
I
Strategies to make India to realize the Truth – seven stages
II
How do Hindus gladly accept the Newly Found Facts:
III
Solution for Religious and Communal conflicts
IV
Our Request
In Christ,
D.Devakala Deivanayagam.
Dear Dr. Devakala,
I am not confident that any meaningful interaction can happen in this kind of email interaction with copies to over a dozen people. I am also not at all sure that there is sufficient common ground between us regarding principles of interpretation and communication to make any significant progress. Those points, plus the general busy-ness of life, explain my failure to invest in the discussions that have taken place up to this point. I am also afraid I cannot in this communication make any serious commitment to ongoing interaction via this medium on the issues being addressed. But if my silence has caused distress or furthered misunderstanding, I am truly sorry for that.
I admit to being a bit flabbergasted at the controversy over who did what with a microphone at the Gurukul seminar, and I appreciate your recognition that this is not a major issue and especially that we should not be in the business of accusing each other. From my perspective, there was a seminar hosted by the Rethinking Forum at Gurukul, and clearly an RF perspective was going to be presented and there was space provided for questions and answers. If anyone was given the impression that there would be public debate and an opportunity for lengthy refutations of presentations, this was certainly never indicated to me. Thus my feeling at the seminar was that your effort to refute what I presented was inappropriate, since the floor was opened for questions, not for attempts at refutation. I appreciated your seeking me out and giving the booklets, and although I considered writing to you to express my disappointment at your taking advantage of a Q&A time to give a mini-counter-presentation, I consciously decided not to communicate that feeling to you. In light of this perspective it was especially shocking to hear my behavior at that event being spoken against.
Regarding the more substantive issue of caste, I do not hold to any position that can be neatly summarized and encapsulated in a few words, and insofar as one might insist on doing this the words would most certainly not be that caste is genetic. If I said at Gurukul anything resembling that “caste is genetic” I would hope it was qualified in many and various ways and was in the context of the exceeding complexity of the topic. It is quite unbelievable to me that I would have said that my basic view of caste is that caste is genetic, because I do not believe that and have never thought in that way. Since I was not reading a carefully prepared paper at Gurukul, it is possible that I said something I do not really believe, and I hope you will have the grace to accept that and drop this unhappy phrase from further discussion.
Your suggestion below that there are two perspectives in play, one pro-caste and one anti-caste, is also not an analysis that I can accept. The topic is far too complex to reduce to a simple either-or. You also talk about caste-ism, which historically has often been used (whether appropriately or not would be a valid debate) as a very different topic from caste itself. Caste of course involves both varna and jati; again there is room for debate as to whether these two concepts need separate treatment (I would think so) or whether a single broad-brush analysis can cover over both. This perhaps introduces the fact that historical aspects of Christianity and caste issues are also exceedingly complex. For example, I do not think your statement below “about casteism, as the root cause for the failure of Christianity in India” represents the position of any serious historian of Christianity in India. If you have interacted in detail with Duncan Forrester’s presentation in “Caste and Christianity”, which is the classic presentation on the topic, I would be interested to see that. (By the way, I do not agree with Forrester’s conclusions, but his historical overview is still the outstanding presentation of the data).
I have written some comments on caste in a number of published papers and anyone wanting to refute my position can best begin there. This paper perhaps best presents where I stand although it is not very directly about caste as such: http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/24_4_PDFs/185_Richard.pdf. I am afraid that a paper that more directly approaches (albeit very briefly) paradigms for caste I am afraid was published in a journal that is not online; Evangelical Mission Quarterly vol. 40 no. 3, July 2004 pp. 308-315. Since that material is not easily available, let me copy a few paragraphs for you here.
Caste
This leads naturally to a discussion of just what caste is and just where it did come from. This is a subject so vast and so full of varying opinions that anything resembling a comprehensive overview is impossible in this paper. There is a general scholarly consensus that the origins of caste are unknown and unlikely ever to be fully traced out, as stated by Bernard Cohen:
The origins of the caste system are undoubtedly very complex, and its direct history will probably never be known. No single theory – be it race prejudice; the manipulation of small groups in the society, such as Brahmans who wanted to buttress an exclusive social position; differential variations of occupations, which led to the valuing of some occupations and the despising of others; attempts of some groups within society to maintain their culture in the face of outside pressures; or the development of the idea of pollution and power, which led to fear of loss of power if one had contact with the food or body wastes of another group – has accounted for the origin of the system. None of the single-causal theories has proved satisfactory, and today most anthropologists and sociologists feel it is fruitless to spend much time in trying to find the origins or trace the history of the caste system to its beginnings. (2000[1970]: 62)
To think clearly on the subject of caste, two quite different paradigms for caste need to be defined.
Various Hindu scriptures teach about a four-fold caste system, and most books introducing Hinduism refer to this. This is caste as varna; Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra caste (varna) groups, with the Dalits (traditionally, outcastes or untouchables) as a fifth group outside of those four. It is quite possible that caste in this sense was never other than a theoretical construct that did not clearly relate to ground realities; certainly today this is not particularly relevant (especially when vocations are assigned to the different castes, as is often done in textbooks) and the simplicity of the construct too easily conceals the dynamism evident in caste as it has developed and changed over many centuries.
Caste as jati is much more true to ground realities; there can be no final list or count of jatis. Within the Brahmin caste there are many; among the Dalits there are thousands. Individuals relate to their family and jati with a deep sense of belonging and security within each. Caste (jati) has been the fundamental social order in India for many centuries, and has deeply influenced both Islam and Christianity in India despite the theoretical claims of those religions to transcend caste.
More recently, in a massive sociological survey of India begin in the 1980s, the Anthropological Survey of India decided to define the basic units of current Indian society as “communities” rather than as “castes”. Modernization and urbanization are impacting traditional caste structures, but still most of the “communities” of India are caste(jati)-based.
One enters a caste by birth, and with exceptions for some modern conversion-to-Hinduism sects, that is the only way to enter either Hinduism or a caste. There is some debate as to whether caste affiliation was always so strictly tied to birth. The idea that birth in a higher caste is due to the merit of previous lives is a deeply problematic idea in light of biblical teaching; yet this is a doctrine which is not taught today nearly as widely or as strongly as it was in the past.
What is the relationship of caste to Hinduism? In the old paradigm of Hinduism as “a religion”, one would have to say that caste was a social system sanctioned by but clearly transcending that religion. In the new paradigm of Hinduism as a civilization, caste is the fundamental social order of that civilization. To present the gospel of Christ within the Hindu context is thus to present it within a caste-based social order which can only be changed by gradual processes within the civilization (a process that is radically underway, as evident by Dalit uprisings and a Dalit president and a Dalit speaker of the Parliament in India in recent years).
I recently added in a footnote to this presentation, picking up points from another published paper that is not available on line. That paper is “Evangelical Approaches to Hindus”, Missiology, 29:3, July 2001, pp. 307-316. This is another paper worth reading to understand my position, but let me at least copy the main comments on caste here.
1. Caste is no longer today what it was even a century or two ago, and the theology of superiority by birth of “higher” over “lower” castes is no longer the dominant ideology. (Superiority educationally and economically, and structural hindrances to the lifting of “lower castes” remain as massive problems quite on a parallel with racial issues in the Western world.)
2. Caste normally defines only social and not spiritual concerns; inter-caste marriage is scandalous but inter-caste worship is not. Caste-based churches are thus not implied in this contextual ministry, although in some cases these may develop even as they have in the past in spite of Christian anti-caste teaching and attempted practice.
3. Caste and community are both dynamic concepts and no one can foresee what the future holds in this complex area. Contextualization must also be dynamic and in no way blindly conservative.
4. The burden of proof and defense surely does not lie with incarnational witness within Hindu civilization, which means witness within caste structures. Those who wish to supplant Hindu society with an entirely new society and civilization certainly carry a heavy burden of proof in light of New Testament revelation.
5. Far from paving a smooth path for the new disciple of Christ, this model leaves him or her in limbo. His or her family and society know the antecedents of confession of Christ and “know” he or she will soon betray them. Christian disciples of Christ are aghast and fail to comprehend what is being attempted and why, and so shun rather than encourage the new disciple. Only patient biblical discipleship can prevail. (Richard 2001:312-313)
One more paper, this again on-line, can be considered to understand my position. “Religious Movements in Hindu Social Contexts: A Study of Paradigms for Contextual ‘Church’ Development” can be read at http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/24_3_PDFs/139-145Richard.pdf.
Let me close this too-lengthy email ensuring that I have responded to your three specific points addressed to me. I copy your email, and respond in square brackets.
Let me place the following questions to Mr. Rich Hivner for clarification: (not to offend but to reanalyze)
· Didn’t you explain that casteism is a part of the Indian culture and caste being a genetic factor, while evangelizing one should not disturb it? [No, this is not my position, as I trust the many papers referred to above demonstrate. If I gave this impression in Chennai it was poor communication on my part.]
· Didn’t you instruct to take away the microphone from me before I could finish speaking? [I hope this was not the case, if so my apologies that we had differing perceptions about that gathering.]
· Has it not showed that the system, which restores casteism, is trying to restrain the other system that has been striving to uproot casteism? [No, I do not think the complex issues under discussion can be adequately summarized in this way.]
Yours in grace,
Rick Hivner (H L Richard)
Dear bro. Rick Hivner,
Thank you so much for initiating such a good and worthwhile response .
My heart felt appreciation for a mail of this nature to explain your position to us.
I thank God for giving us this good opportunity to understand each other. Our common goal as missionaries is to bring India to Christ. If we put our minds together and draw up a strategy, we can do more to evangelize very effectively in India. Standing together for the common goal will yield more fruit.
It will be good if I clear the air of some outstanding issues before we move on to the stage to work on the common goal.
You have written that,
“But if my silence has caused distress or furthered misunderstanding, I am truly sorry for that”.
Thank you so much for putting an end to the silence and sharing your feelings and opinions with us.
What really transpired?
“If anyone was given the impression that there would be public debate and an opportunity for lengthy refutations of presentations, this was certainly never indicated to me. Thus my feeling at the seminar was that your effort to refute what I presented was inappropriate, since the floor was opened for questions, not for attempts at refutation.”
Kindly allow me to explain the situation for my counter presentation.
The need for a counter presentation:
During Q&A time, Sadhu Chellappa raised a question on casteism. You replied saying that caste is a genetic factor which was contrary to reality and hence I had no other choice but to refute this statement. Besides, you have also written that,
“Since I was not reading a carefully prepared paper at Gurukul, it is possible that I said something I do not really believe, and I hope you will have the grace to accept that and drop this unhappy phrase from further discussion.”
And regarding the microphone issue, you have written that,
“I hope this was not the case, if so my apologies that we had differing perceptions about that gathering.”
Yes brother, since our common goal is to bring India to Christ, let us focus on the strategies that will bring India to Christ. We need to draw up these strategies together in order to build the Kingdom of God.
Admitting the facts:
Thank you for admitting the fact that the origin of casteism is unknown…
“This leads naturally to a discussion of just what caste is and just where it did come from. This is a subject so vast and so full of varying opinions that anything resembling a comprehensive overview is impossible in this paper. There is a general scholarly consensus that the origins of caste are unknown and unlikely ever to be fully traced out…”
To understand the origin of casteism, we need to analyze the classical literatures of India which are in Tamil and Sanskrit.These are the only two classical languages of India.
Between these two classical languages, Sanskrit was never a spoken language of the common people, but a literary language of the scholars alone. Hence we cannot see the natural developments taking place throughout the ages in Sanskrit, as we see it in natural languages. So, the origin of casteism cannot be traced in Sanskrit literature.
The literature in Tamil, a language of the common people as well as the scholars, can be classified in three different stages, in correlation with the caste system.
They are
- The Literature before the formation of the caste system i.e., Ancient Sangam literature (Classical Tamil
Literature)
2. The Literature after the formation of the caste system i.e., Medieval literature and
3. The Literature after the establishment of the caste system i.e., Later literature.
It should be noted here that the referred classifications in correlation with caste system, couldn’t not be seen in Sanskrit as clearly as in Tamil. The natural developments are seen only in spoken languages from time immemorial.
In the Ancient Sangam literature there is no reference for the caste stratification but occupational variations, which occur not only in India but also in the world society. Many confuse occupational variations with casteism since they are not aware of the intricacies of casteism in India.
To understand the culture of the Ancient Tamils and the Indians, before the formation of the caste system, careful study on Sangam literature i.e., Classical Tamil Literature is highly indispensable.
Reference for the practice of the caste system in the society after the formation of the caste stratification, is explicated in the Medieval and Later literature.
Only after the period of Aryavardha, i.e. after 7th c.A.D, the caste stratification (Law of Manu) was devised by the Aryans. From 9th c.A.D. caste stratification was evolved into a caste system. It was Adi Sankara who incorporated the principles of casteism with Saivism and Vaishnavism, through Advaita Philosophy, and had given religious sanction to the caste stratification which in turn evolved as a caste system.
Now we can see two different systems as follows:
System No.1. – ‘Hinduism’
Aryan Brahminism ( caste system) now known as ‘Hinduism’ / ‘Hindutva’- System that upholds casteism, was devised in Aryavardha;.
Hindutva leaders define the term ‘Hinduism’ as follows:
‘Hindusim is not a religion; but a way of life. It has nothing to do with the concept of God.’
The Supreme Court of India also confirmed it.
Mr.L.K.Advani, leader of the Hindutva Movement said that,
‘Hinduism’ is different from ‘Hindu Religion’. We are not religionists. I am ready to debate with anyone on this issue’. His speech-dated 25.05.2003 had been published in the News papers.
The term ‘Hinduism’ refers to the principles of law of Manu.
It should be noted here that before 1794 AD, we do not come across the terms ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindu religion’.
System No.2. – ‘Hindu Religion’:
Hindu Religion – Tamilar Samayam, originated in Tamil land.
Saivism and Vaishnavism, the religions of the Bhakthi Movement, emerged and evolved in Tamil land in Tamil culture and in Tamil language are known as ‘Hindu Religion’ after 1794 AD.
Saivism and Vaishnavism were emerged and evolved in Tamil land due to the mission of St.Thomas, who worked and martyred in Tamil land and Christianity that developed in Tamil land, in Tamil culture and in Tamil language from 1stc.A.D. is now known as ‘Tamilar Samayam’.
The following are the five fundamental doctrines of the religions of Saivism and Vaishnavism, developed in the post-Christ era.
1. Doctrine of Trinity
2. Doctrine of Avatar (Incarnation)
3. Doctrine of Fulfillment of Sacrifice
4. Doctrine of Forgiveness of Sin and
5. Doctrine of Salvation by Faith
St. Thomas Tamil Christianity is explained in different aspects in Indian literature and they are as follows:
1. Historical aspect
2. Mythical aspect
3. Literary aspect
4. Theological and Philosophical aspect and
5. Iconographic aspect
To comprehend the two different systems, let us elucidate the difference between the terms ‘Hindu Religion’ and ‘Hinduism’ as follows:
A Tank – Weed:
‘Hindu Religion’ of the Tamils, natives of India, is a beautiful tank with plenty of crystal clear water .
‘Hinduism’ of the Aryans, group of foreign invaders and traders, is a mass or weed that has clouded and defrayed the beauty of the tank.
‘Hindu Religion’ can be explained as a system that upholds equality, brotherhood and unity, the principles of Christ.
‘Hinduism’ is a system i.e. casteism that upholds discrimination, against the principle of Christ.
Crystal clear water i.e. ‘Hindu religion’ (system of unity) can be unveiled if the mass i.e., ‘Hinduism’ (system of discrimination) that dominated and defrayed the beauty of the tank, is removed.
Aryans:
The groups of foreign invaders who came in various periods, without any religion of their own, are Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Kushanas and Huns, were denoted by a common term ‘Aryan’ by the Indian Dravidians. The different periods of their invasion of India are given below:
- Persians – 6th c.B.C.
- Greeks – 4th c.B.C.
- Sakas – 2nd c.B.C.
- Kushans – 1st c.A.D
- Huns – 4th c.A.D. and
- Romans – 4th c.B.C. They were not invaders but they came for trade purpose and were also included in the term ‘Aryan’ since they also came without any religion of their own.
Until 7th c.A.D. the invading groups were not united together. They were not united and lost political domination.They were also waging war against each other.
During the period of the great emperor Harshavardha, all of them lost their political power. They later united together on the basis of their light or pale colour, in order to regain the political power, The invading groups joined together and formed a United Front at Mount Abu of Rajasthan, They plotted against the emperor Harshavardha and killed him. Because of their united effort, they were able to capture the political power from the Indian Dravidians in North India and they formed ‘Aryavardha’, the Kingdom of the Aryans.
Once the Aryans captured political power, they devised the principles of casteism and wrote the Law of Manu. In 9th c.A.D. caste stratification got religious sanction. Let us now see the origin of casteism as follows:
[It should be noted here that we could not see reference for the Rajputs before 7th c. A.D.]
ORIGIN OF CASTEISM
FOUR STAGES FOR SLAVERY:
First stage – Ethnic Groups
Society living as ethnic groups all over the world.
Second stage – Political Power:
Amongst the ethnic groups political power emerges – Petty Rulers.
Third Stage: – Control over other ethnic group:
When one ethnic group defeated and won the other ethnic group it started controlling the defeated ethnic group.
Fourth Stage: – Slavery:
The conquering ethnic group starts enslaving the vanqished ethnic group and rules over them. When the defeated ethnic group regains political power, it starts enslaving the other ethnic group. Thus slavery is perpectuated.
These Four stages occur all over the world through the ages.
POLITICAL POWER ALONE IS THE ROOT CAUSE FOR SLAVERY.
OFFSHOOT OF SLAVERY IS RACISM
Fifth Stage : Racism
When a ruling ethnic group wants to permanently maintain slavery over an other ethnic group once defeated by them,they will formulate new philosophy to justify enslavement. In this manner Racism emerges as a philosophy. Biological factors, genes, skin pigmentation, colour differentiation and similar factors… are focused and described as various criteria to justify racism.
POLITICAL POWER AND PHILOSOPHY JUSTIFYING ENSLAVEMENT ARE ROOT CAUSES FOR RACISM.
It should be noted that Political power and a philosophy justifying enslavement are based on external factors. It has nothing to do with internal religious beliefs.
OFFSHOOT OF RACISM IS CASTEISM :
Sixth Stage: Casteism:
If the ruling ethnic group is a minority and the enslaved ethnic group is majority, it is natural for the ruling minority to have a fear about the majority group that they would unite together and dethrown the minority at any opportune time. Therefore the ruling minority group is forced to keep the majority weak by fragmenting them into so many divisions and making the divisions to hate and degrade each other. In India, this has been achieved by introducing a graded group of system called caste system.
For the majority to be fragmented into so many divisions and making them to hate, degrade and fight against each other, the religious beliefs of the majority have been utilized. For this, the minority has twisted and misinterpreted the religious beliefs of the majority according to their selfish interests.
It would be of interest to note that this can be done only in respect of a nation where the ruling minority has no religion of its own and the majority ruled by them have their own religions. If the ruling minority has a religion of its own, it would not opt to follow the religions of the majority and manipulate it according to the interest of the ruling minority.
THUS,
(1) POLITICAL POWER,
(2) PHILOSOPHIES JUSTIFYING ENSLAVEMENT AND
(3) RELIGIOUS SANCTION BY TWISTED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE MAINTAINING CASTEISM.
· Root cause for Slavery – Political power
· Root cause for Racism – Political Power + Philosophy
justifying enslavement
· · Root cause for Casteism – Political Power + Philosophy
justifying enslavement + Religious
sanction by manipulated religious beliefs.
OUR GOAL :
You have written that,
“I am not confident that any meaningful interaction can happen in this kind of email interaction …..”
Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Yes, we cannot explain everything through email. Since our goal is to bring India to Christ, kindly form a committee of scholars and dedicated missionaries, to analyze the different perspectives, comprehend and build strategies to evangelize very effectively in India. Standing together for the common goal will yield more fruit.
Expecting your kind reply.
Once again I thank you so much for initiating a good relationship between all of us in the Lord Jesus Christ by your kind and touching response.
In Christ,
Sis.Devakala Deivanayagam.
Leave a Reply