The following is a beautiful rejoinder written by Sri Shankar Bharadwaj to Sri karan Thapar’s article in the Hindustan Times titled ” Who’s the real Hindu?”
Karan thapar’s original article can be viewed at
Rejoiner By Shankar Bharadwaj
Karan> “Does the VHP have the right to speak for you or I?”
Shankar > Only as much as the Pope or a Church represents entire Christian community. If you do not endorse the views of an organization, it is your problem, not theirs. They are not okay to you, you are not okay to them. End of it.
Karan < “I imagine there are hundreds of millions of Hindus who are peaceful, tolerant, devoted to their faith, but above all, happy to live alongside Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Jews. If any one of us were to change our faith how does it affect the next man or woman? “>
SB < What is the relation between living tolerantly and changing faith? So you understand that being tolerant to those is equivalent to changing faith? >
KT< “Arguably you may believe you should ask them to reconsider, although I would call that
interference, but you certainly have no duty or right to stop them. ” >
SB < Similarly, who are you to ask VHP not to oppose conversions? If you want to convert, you convert as an individual. Either you say conversions are bad and oppose them, or keep quite in both conversion and anti-conversion matter. If you say conversions are correct, then Hindus are equally correct in converting Christians using the same methods that Christians use. If not, then you are not honest.>
KT < “We cannot accept the desecration of churches, the burning to death of innocent caretakers of orphanages, the storming of Christian and Muslim hamlets even if these acts are allegedly done in defence of our faith.” >
SB < But you can accept the desecration of Temples, burning to death of innocent Hindus and volunteers of Hindu organizations, murder and rape of Hindus at a scale of thousands (which is hundreds of times bigger
than what the so-called Hindu militancy does), which are not allegedly, but being overtly done? Your mind remembers Staines but not the recent Swami who was involved in service unlike trade as Staines? Your brain does not remember Kerala? Not Kashmir? Not north-east? It does not remember Orissa when Hindus are killed? It does not remember blasts and flight hijacks? >
KT < ” Is this how we want our faith defended? “>
SB < 1. “Our” faith defended? Whose faith are you talking of? When you said you are ready to trade with it, what right do you have to speak as if you are a representative of Hindus? Those who are talking “as if they represent”, do so because they feel they belong to it. You have expressed in no unclear terms that you have no loyalty to it. Then what right do you have to talk of it? >
2. Do you want the Hindu faith to be defended at all, leaving the “how”?
This is one part, to answer the logic part. Now, I put the point back to Karan Thapar. He is not a common Hindu, irrespective of whether he is a Hindu, he is a journalist – his profession is to bring out truth, to represent it, to give unbiased and accurate report to common man. That is his livelihood. He lives on people by giving them information. And what has he done to his duty of giving information to people? He twists it, he trades with it. He reports when one Christian is killed, but not when tens of Hindus are killed by Christians, Muslims or Communists. He not only hides the proportions of attacks, but the intentions of attacks – while Hindus resort to violence as matter of defense, the others resort to it to terrorize and subvert
Hinduism. I do not have to give any justification to Karan Thapar about how true these are, it is his duty for feeding on the money of common man, to be answerable why he does not represent facts properly.
He trades not only with his faith, but his fundamental responsibilities towards his profession. He is answerable to common man for being dishonest to truth, not any one else. Karan Thapar who is unworthy of being fed by the common man of this country is answerable.
He can be free to trade his faith, but as a journalist his primary duty is to keep his opinions aside and present facts without distortion. What justice did he do to it?
What has he done, how much of study or how many programs on national security, bad politics, bad education system, on the severe insecurity of our border states, about naxalism, about caste violence, how much of public awareness did he generate on these in a way that people realize what threats they are facing? What has he done in the capacity of a journalist to persuade the state to take up these issues? Where is the justification to the money he and his channels are looting? Are they funded by Hindu Indians or by their enemies in the first place? And is such a low human being to question others?
These fellows are arrogant enough to put back questions to people’s representatives on channels, like “who are you to question my patriotism” – every citizen and his representative reserves the right to question these parasites, put them in the bone and ask what have they done in return to the loot they are doing. And that day is not far.
End of rejoinder
Also note the following comments by than Gandhiji on converisons :
Gandhiji on Christian Missionary activity
(November 5, 1935) :
If I had the power and could legislate, I should stop all proselytizing. In Hindu households the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink .
(Young India: August 8, 1925)
As I wander about through the length and breath of India I see many Christian Indians almost ashamed of their birth, certainly of their ancestral religion, and of their ancestral dress. The aping of Europeans by Anglo-Indians is bad enough, but the aping of them by Indian converts is a violence done to their country and, shall I say, even to their new religion.
One more excellent comment by Bandyopadhyay Arindam
My reply for the above..
First one is that its the hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jains and jews who are living tolerantly. Definitely not the christians and muslims.. its highly evident from kashmir, kerala, and North east..
Secondly, the question is not about any of us changing our faith.. rather, those dangerous missionaries converting people by all possible ways..
When a girl voluntarily elopes with her boy friend out of love and compassion, its natural and her choice.. But, if a womaniser targets innocent girls and seduces them, it has to be nailed to the root.. it is highly unethical, illegal, and a crime, even if the seduction is done with girl’s consent..
what missionaries are doing is forceful seduction of people using religion..
Thirdly for the question how does it affect the next man or woman.
1. The next man woman loses co-operation from the christian convert.
2. The next man/woman faces religious abuse from the christian convert, like “You are idol worshippers, your god is false.. etc”..
3. When large number of people convert, its endangers the peaceful living of the next man/woman, because, when the convert gets majority, the next man/woman faces discrimination..
Excellent reply sir.. The pseudo secularists should be confronted with such counter views more vigorously..