Part 2: John Dayal in Breaking India

This post captures ALL the references to John Dayal in Rajiv Malhotra's path breaking book Breaking India. All the below references are taken from chapter 13 of the book Breaking India. Part 1 of this 2 part blog can be read here.

Abbreviations not elaborated in the paragraphs
DFN - Dalit Freedom Network
PIFRAS - Policy Institute for Religion and State

Recent DFN Activities In 2005, DFN representatives, along with Kancha Ilaiah, provided testimony to a US government subcommittee on human rights, in which they advocated US interventionist policies against India. The hearing was titled, ‘Equality and Justice for 200 Million Victims of the Caste System’.64 The chairman of the US Commission on Global Human Rights supported DFN’s position, saying, ‘Converts to Christianity and Christian missionaries are particularly targeted, and violence against Christians often goes unpunished’. John Dayal, who has close ties with DFN, hailed this criticism of India as a ‘historic moment’.65

All India Christian Council (AICC) 

Although DFN is based in the US, it is affiliated with the All India Christian Council, which is described as ‘the largest alliance in India of Church bodies and Christian entities’ and a ‘nation-wide alliance of Christian denominations, mission agencies, institutions, federations and Christian lay leaders’.72 It has been affiliated with Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), which is led by Baroness Caroline Cox.73 (See Chapter Sixteen for more details on CSW and the baroness.) CSW has facilitated the globalization of the Christian-Dalit axis, such as at the 2001 Durban conference, where it championed a stand against the government of India.74 One of its heroes, John Dayal, has been delivering many testimonies on India’s atrocities and calling on various Western bodies to intervene.75

In 2002, PIFRAS held a South Asia conference, sponsored by United Methodist Board of Church and Society and the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. Other prominent think-tanks (mostly right-wing or evangelism-oriented) also joined in sponsoring, including: Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House, the Institute for Religion in Public Policy, and the Apostolic Commission for Ethics and Policy. In the conference, John Dayal contended that minorities could not count on the Indian state to protect them, or to prosecute crimes committed against them. Bruce Robertson urged faith-based nongovernmental organizations (i.e. foreign Christian-sponsored groups) to provide more of the community services that governments are not providing in India. K.P. Singh, who is on the faculty of the University of Washington in Seattle, went unchallenged on his outrageous claim that ‘since India’s independence, about three million Dalit women have been raped and one million Dalits have been killed’.113

A Tehelka investigative report of 2004 showed that massive foreign funding claimed to be for HIV/AIDS programs was being used by Christian groups for evangelism. According to the report, even the official government slogan for AIDS prevention was changed by Christian NGOs. The government policy, ABC for ‘Abstinence, Behavioral change and Condoms’, was modified to replace ‘Condoms’ with ‘Convert/Christ’.114 There are also direct foreign efforts to alter the Indian law. When the Indian government felt that the foreign funds of NGOs needed more transparency, John Dayal, who presides over the All India Christian Council and United Christian Forum for Human Rights, testified against the Indian government at PIFRAS-sponsored hearings and symposiums at Washington. The institute’s press release stated: Mr Dayal has been at the forefront in addressing government allegations that the money received from foreign sources is being used for religious conversions. . . .115

Freedom House 

Freedom House is another powerful institution which relies almost exclusively on the testimonies from Christian-sponsored Dalit activists. These testimonies are highly exaggerated, sensationalized and distorted accounts of Indian political developments. Freedom House has a liberal-sounding entity called ‘Center for Religious Freedom’. However, its report on The Rise of Hindu Extremism (2003) relied heavily on ‘generous contributions’ made by Rev Cedric Prakash as well as ‘significant work’ done by Timothy Shah, Vinay Samuel, and the Director of PIFRAS, John Prabudoss. These persons, as the reader shall see, continue to appear across most of these think-tanks and the commissions and symposiums they conduct. Also involved were John Dayal and Joseph D’souza of the All India Christian Council, and representatives of the Dalit Freedom Network, the Indian Social Institute Human Rights Documentation Center, the United Christian Forum for Human Rights, the All India Federation of Organizations for Democratic Rights, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India, and the National Alliance of Women.116 There was no equivalent representation from opposing views, nor any context provided to explain the geopolitical agendas in which these individuals and groups operate. In other words, their heavy conflict of interest was simply buried, and the report’s mostly American readers did not bother to demand transparency.

At first the Indian Catholic Church publicly distanced itself from giving testimony to the commission, with the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) describing as ‘unwarranted’ the proposed hearing on religious freedom in India being held in Washington. Father D’souza stated that anti-Christian violence at the hands of Hindu extremists has not crossed the ‘gross human rights violations situation that calls for interference in internal affairs of the nation’.17 But to play both sides strategically, the Indian Church allowed John Dayal, the national vice-president of All India Catholic Union, to attend the hearing in the US and present his compilation of allegations of anti-Christian bias against the Indian government. While Father D’souza defended Indian sovereignty, he supported Dayal’s testimony in his ‘individual capacity and not as a representative of the Church’.18 Such ‘Good Cop / Bad Cop’ gamesmanship is a common strategy that Indian Christians have learned from the West. As we shall see later in this section, this Good Cop posture was temporary, and they acquiesced to the Bad Cops subsequently.

2003 

The 2003 report takes a stand against India’s Foreigners Act because it regulates the free flow of US evangelists. An investigative report by an Indian journal Tehelka said: ‘The 2003 US report is a no-nonsense document that conveys the official US policy supporting evangelization. It openly admits that “US officials have continued to engage state officials on the implementation and reversal of anti-conversion laws”’. This US posture echoes John Dayal’s testimony before the Commission that, ‘It is almost impossible for a foreign Christian church worker, preacher or evangelist to come to India unless it is as a tourist’.25 Suddenly, the Catholic Church, which had until then stayed out of such report writing (while allowing its individual activists to participate in their personal capacities), now abruptly changed its stand. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India explicitly expressed unhappiness with the USA’s refusal to designate India as one of the ‘Countries of Particular Concern’ with regard to religious freedom. It openly called for the US to prosecute India for ‘a spate of violence against minority communities’. The Church ‘did not share the US administration’s decision’ that had listed alleged anti-Christian activities but not recommended sanctions against India. The Church wrote to the American Secretary of State, asking that India be placed in the category of ‘egregious religious freedom violators’ along with five others – Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. Such countries would attract punitive action under the US International Religious Freedom Act.26 The good cops in the Indian Catholic Church had given way to the hardliners. The Commission urged US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to take up the matter with India during his negotiations on Islamic terrorism in the south Asian region. In its report, the Commission said that it had met Armitage to discuss placing India on the list of Countries of Particular Concern. Given the delicate situation in the USA’s fight against the Taliban in Pakistan, Armitage told them that USCIRF should not go against India at this time. Expressing unhappiness, All India Christian Council president John Dayal said, ‘We are greatly disappointed’.27 Bishop Sargunam, who was head of the Tamil Nadu Minorities Commission, issued a statement as a press release by the Federation on Indian American Christian Organizations of North America: The US government, which stands for justice and freedom around the world, has been complacent in addressing human rights violations continuing to take place in India. Bishop Ezra Sargunam made this point forcefully in his meetings with officials of the State Department in Washington, DC, yesterday and today. On behalf of the Social Justice Movement of India he submitted a Memorandum highlighting the resurgence of attacks against the religious minorities, Dalits and the Tribal people . . . Bishop Sargunam and P.D. John also met officials at the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and on Capitol Hill . . . Bishop Sargunam expressed his disappointment in the US Administration’s reluctance to address these kinds of continuing serious human rights violations with their Indian counterparts.28 2004 During the 2004 hearings, a four-member delegation of US Congressmen visited India to investigate on behalf of the USCIRF. Its leader, the Christian fundamentalist Joseph Pitts, said that the delegation would report to Congress about ‘the anti-conversion laws, treatment of Dalits and anti-minority violence to be included in the country reports’. Pitts attacked the anti-conversion law calling, it a ‘reversal of human rights in the land of the Mahatma Gandhi’.29 Congressman Steve Chabot compared the situation in Gujarat to that of Rwanda. AICC secretary-general John Dayal said that his delegation of Indian minorities had put concrete demands before the US delegation: ‘One of our demands is that there must be reservations for minorities in the foreign companies that collaborate with India’.30 This mobilized the global Christian lobby to ask for preferences for Indian Christians as employees and in business trade and investment deals at the expense of non-Christians. What is clear is that Indian Christian leaders collaborate with the US right-wing Christians. The Indians are encouraged to dish out atrocity literature to feed into the US system, so that the Americans can use it as a justification for action. In return, these Indians are built up by their American sponsors and paraded as world-class activists and champions of the oppressed.

the rape of nuns, the destruction of churches, the assault on a priest, are ominous signals to Christians of all denominations. . . . How many perpetrators against the Christian community in India have been brought to book? Commissions of inquiry are appointed but very little comes out of them. Action? Seldom! A true picture or a distorted, engineered report? Against this backdrop we are expected to report objectively and dispassionately, to be correct and impartial. It is no wonder that those who try to do their Christian duty are branded as activists. Talking of activists, three days before I left Chennai I met John Dayal, the editor of the midday newspaper, based in Delhi. He has involved himself in the United Christian Council, which is currently involved in telling Christians about various anti-Christian activities around India, activities which, as a journalist, he obviously is privy to. We are due to have our general elections during the month of September and, the information he gave at that meeting was most valuable. I heard him and I also saw the reaction from the six hundred organisations that were represented. . . . Christian media persons like ourselves have to use the power we have to influence. 99


Gegrapha is a facilitator of Christian journalists who ground their professional work in personal faith and use their transnational connections. Stephen David is another strategically placed Gegrapha member who is the principal correspondent on political and current affairs for India Today, the country’s largest news weekly. Such journalists now comprise a rapidly growing group across India’s media, where they can act behind the scenes in framing the news. Yet, the impressions that are created internationally by John Dayal, Jennifer Arul and other high-profile Indian Christian journalists, is that the Indian media is anti-Christian, that Hindus terrorize Christians, and hence, foreign intervention is necessary for justice in India. This is music to the ears of their sponsors, who, naturally, reach for the pocket book.


Evangelization, says: Never before has this kind of information on India been so carefully surveyed, prepared, well published and distributed. . . . We do not believe it is accidental. God is allowing us to ‘spy out the land’ that we might go in and claim both it and its inhabitants for Him.104 John Dayal resonates with Luis Bush and wants all Indian proselytizers to study such population databases: Dayal suggests that all those seeking consecration or ordination from a Christian institution must be made to read and pass a simple examination based on the contents of at least the first volume, the Preface, of the multi-series book, ‘People of India’, published on behalf of the Anthropological Survey of India by Seagull Books.105

The complete bibliography referred to in the above paragraphs can also be found below.

Bibliography 

64. (US Commission Global Human Rights, 2005) 

65. (asianews.it, 2006) 

72. (AICC, 1998:2010)

73. (indianchristians.in, 2001) 

74. (CSW, 2001, 14) 

75. See the section on US Commission on International Religious Freedom for AICC/John Dayal testimonies against India.

113. (News Media, 23 July 2002)

114. (Shashikumar. VK, 2004)

115. (John. PD, 2002)

116. (Marshall, 2003)

17. the father-son Robertsons are from (Hinduism Today Archives, 1995)

18. (Hinduism Today Archives 1995)

25. The official bio of its international president, Dr Joseph D’Souza, states that he ‘lives in India and operates out of London and Denver.’ Jospeh D’Souza runs US-based Dalit Freedom Network (DFN). Significantly, he is also featured on the webpage of Gospel of Asia as the executuve director of Operation Mobilization in India. (See (GFA, 1996:2009)) DFN’s other directors include: Peter Dance (India Director-OM USA, Operation Mobilization, Tyrone,GA), Melody Divine, J.D. (Former Judiciary Counsel and Foreign Policy Advisor, Rep. Trent Franks, Rep-AZ Denver), Bob Beltz (advisor to the chairman, The Anschutz Corporation, Denver), Richard Sweeney (chief operating officer, Dalit Freedom Network, Greenwood Village), Gene Kissinger (chairman of the Board Interim President and CEO, DFN Outreach Pastor, Cherry Hills Community Church Highlands Ranch), Cliff Young (lead singer, Caedmon’s Call Houston, TX ), Ken Heulitt (VP and chief financial officer, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago), Kumar Swamy (South India Regional Director, OM India Bengaluru, Karnataka India).

26. (Fahlbusch, Bromiley and Barrett, 1999, 642) 

27. (www.omusa.org 2002)

28. (Cademon’s Call, 2004)

29. (DFN, 2003:2010)

30. (www.ccu.edu)

99. (www.rightwingwatch.org, 2008)

104. (Sharlett, 2008, 260-72). These pages offer a revealing portrait of Senator Brownback.

105. (Towns, 2 Augyst 2001, 18 March 2003)

Reproduced from the Kindle version of the book Breaking India with permission from the author.

Part1: Encounter with John Dayal

This blog will be in two parts. Part 1 is this particular post which deals with Rajiv's meeting with John Dayal in Delhi in Jan 2015. Part 2 will chronicle all the references to John Dayal in Rajiv's book Breaking India.

January 31st saw Rajiv Malhotra engaged in a full day conference titled "Towards a rational Government policy for NGOs" organised by Madhu Kishwar's Manushi. The details of this conferenc can be read at the thread here. He was supposed to have a one on one with John Dayal at this conference.

After the conference Rajiv posted this on twitter

Rajiv Malhotra @RajivMessage · Jan 31

Just left great all day conference on foreign funded NGOs. Packed hall. Good interactions. Indians certainly becoming aware & concerned.

and John Dayal tweeted this

JohnDayal @JohnDayal · Jan 31

Sanghi think tanks working for ban on FCRA foreign funding for NGOs? Christian groups main target.

Following are a couple of Rajiv's tweets in response

Rajiv Malhotra @RajivMessage · Jan 31

@madhukishwar In the seminar @JohnDayal was a classic GOOD COP praising RSS, his Hindu daughter-in-law etc. Tweet shows BAD COP side

Rajiv Malhotra @RajivMessage · Jan 31

@JohnDayal Glad to have met you. Lets continue the conversation where we can agree and disagree with mutual respect. @madhukishwar

Rajiv then briefly summarized the day's interaction at the forum thus:

John fizzled out in the meeting. Spoke about his family mainly, evading the topic. 

After my talk he could say v little. 

I asked point blank what should be done to those Indians who go to Washington to testify against India. He said they should be tried for treason. 

Being goody-goody, loves Hindus, praised RSS, etc.
Later in his tweets he showed his bad Cop face.
Today, in pvt emails to Madhu and me, he is full of contradictions and mumbojumbo.
V. disappointed how this giant sits deflated and angry...

Video will take time to prepare but it will get uploaded - pls wait.

Bharat contributed to the conversation with this:

John Dayal wanted access to Tirumala Hills for conversions

This was an open letter response by Francois Gautier to John Dayal few years back

Dear John Dayal,

A few years back, you wrote a letter to Jenab Mohammad Hamid Ansari, then Chairman, National Commission for Minorities, where you complained of harassment of nuns and Christian workers at bus stops and rail stations in Tirupati government-owned areas and objecting to a request to have the Constitutionality of the Seven Tirumala Hills being made out of bounds to Christians.

Do you really think that for instance the Government of France would allow Hindu proselytisers in Lourdes, one of the most sacred places for Christians? 

Never. 

The French Government even has a branch of the Home Ministry looking into what they call ‘sects’. Amrita Anandamayi of Kerala is on that list. 

Although she has not committed any crimes except embracing people and although her followers are doing remarkable social work, as good as any Christian organisation in India, she is being harassed in France, the accounts of her group are being scrutinised, she faces difficulties in buying land and she has to keep a low profile.

Tirupati is one of the most sacred places for Hindus. 

Why should nuns and missionaries go there to convert innocent Hindus? It’s an affront to the majority community of this country who have always respected the Christian faith. 

Remember that the first Christian community of the world is the Syrian Christian in Kerala?

Do Christians in India realize how much freedom they have here? 

Any preacher from abroad can come to India, rent huge grounds, organize prayer meetings, advertise in the national press, get media coverage…. Just try to do this in Saudi Arabia, or even China and see what will happen to your preachers!

Then you go on complaining of a “sustained hate campaign by the religious fanatics” of the so-called Sangh Parivar in Andhra Pradesh. 

But you must be knowing that thanks to Chief Minister Rajshekhar Reddy, who died in a helicopter accident, nearly 20% of Andhra Pradesh has converted to Christianity. 

His son Jagan Reddy is very much a Christian too – he has even erected a cross over his massive new house in Hyderabad. Yet his name sounds Hindu. Do Christians in high places need Hindu names to fool the gullible masses of Hindus?

Come on, Mr John Dayal, you are the one who is waging a systematic campaign of hate against Hindus. 

As a born Christian, I can see how Christianity is evolving slowly in the West, where it is becoming more and more accepted in the masses that there are other religions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism which have their own values. 

Yet in India, Christianity is becoming more and more rigid, more and more of a proselytising spirit, like it was fifty years ago in the West. 

Christians in India represent only 2.5% of the population, yet they make so much noise, they occupy so much space in education, health care, journalism [and politics] that you would think that they constitute the majority of this country.

Again recently, you have targeted Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, respected not only by millions of Hindus, but also by many Christians in western countries and even by Muslims (he was received warmly last month in Pakistan). 

By doing this, you are showing that you are practicing a Christianity that is obsolete, aggressive and maybe even dangerous.

It is time Christianity in India becomes a little more humble and quieter. 

Nobody is contesting your faith, but please leave alone ancient places of worship like Tirupathi and great sages such as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. 

And remember: Sonia Gandhi may not be here forever …

Yours

Francois Gautier 

It transpires that post conference there was a private mail exchange between Rajiv and John Dayal which has been compiled below. Rajiv shared it on the forum and it is reproduced in full here.

[The email exchange with John Dayal below took place immediately after the Jan 31 conference on NGOs. It is instructive as to how their minds work. At the end of the day, he refused my offer to debate on camera in Delhi, where both of us are based for much of February. He wants a sponsored foreign trip to Princeton, and there, too, he is likely to waste time evading the issues. But what he has done for many years is well documented in BI. I hope people here will summarize his background in testifying against India before foreign governments, inviting sanctions against India.]

Madhu Kishwar:

Dear John,

Really saddened by your dubbing yesterday's meeting as a "Sanghi" conspiracy in your tweets. I have been against foreign funding of NGOs from the very start of Manushi. That is why we kept saying No to offers from donor agencies. Wish you had heard my opening remarks or read my essays on the subjects written long years before BJP came to power. In fact, BJP is not willing to support me in this because Hindu organizations connected to BJP also depend heavily on raising funds abroad. Any way I am glad you came. I am sure you will agree we gave you a fair chance to put forward your concern. My NGO friends rarely invite people with contrary views. They prefer to talk only to like minded people.

John Dayal:

Dear Madhu

Greetings. The great thing about you which I have admired for three decades and more is your integrity and honesty. You have never made any bones about your views.  Nor the words you chose to express them. That is why I agreed to come to the seminar. I am glad you called several people, though many did not come. I am also glad that PRS and CHRI were allowed to present their views. I was disappointed, but not surprised, at the presentations of our common friends from Princeton town and Bangalore. I understand their focus and preoccupation.  I so wish their data had a comparative component. BTW, I tried hard to reach Prof Vaidya's website to download his PPT, which he said was on the Net. I could not find it. My SMS and emails to him have not borne any fruit. In fact, the SMS seem to suggest the number was perhaps unreachable. I would be grateful for the texts of these two presentations. Will write my own and send it to you.

I agree money, local, FCRA bank-routed, hawala, "donations" to local Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Hindu, communists, cannot be used to sabotage  the Indian state and the harmony, freedom of faith and civil rights guaranteed by the constitution.  I may differ with others' definitions of nationalism, patriotism, and other issues such as nuclear power for civil and military use. all violations of Indian laws must be prosecuted after investigations that are fair, scientific and in due process.

I wonder if you noticed that even before I began my presentation, and  hours before my Tweet, I had read out the sort of Tweets that were flying off from the  people present  at the Rotunda of the IIC, including  from some key presenters. I hope to continue this conversation with you, and with the speakers.

Rajiv Malhotra:

Dear John,

The issue Madhu raises is not one of views of any person - we are each entitled to have ours. Rather, the issue is of BRANDING others. I did NOT brand you in the discussion. Nor did anyone else. So why did you BRAND people in your tweets? What is sad is not that person x disagrees with my views or that I cannot agree with his. What is sad is the branding - too many Indians are unable to think for themselves and the branding is a substitute for critical thinking skills.

Secondly, my views are the same regardless of the forum. You, on the other hand, presented a different face to us than what you project elsewhere.

John Dayal:

Dear Rajiv

The one point, perhaps the only point, I made was that NGOs are needed, as government has failed, over the decades. If you have listened to me in the past, I present the same face everywhere -- polite, non abusive. My ideological preferences do not change. So what was it that took anyone by surprise?

BTW, you said you would be "debating" with John Dayal. And I had been invited to a day long seminar or discussion, not a debate. I am of course, like you, always open to a debate, too. BTW, did I refer to the IIC discussion in any of my tweets? or FB?

Rajiv Malhotra:

I had looked fwd to debate you - honest exchange of views where we might differ, and nothing personal. But you barely discussed the topic of the conference and spoke autobiographically about family etc. Fair enough.

But why go about branding the participants as "sangh" etc. Are people in India incapable of having their own intellect positions unlinked to political parties?

John Dayal:

Dear Rajiv

I did debate your thesis, rejected it. But of course the meeting was supposed to be in the nature of a conclave / consultation / discussion / seminar, and not a debate. Your presentation lacked comparative data, focussed on one sub-sector, if I can call it that, and had its own definitions of criminanility, nationalism, and citizenship. BTW, so did one more presentation, at least. And therefore why brand Christians?

I speak because I KNOW that People in India are capable of having their own intellectual positions, and faith independence too -- both unlinked with definitions invented by political groups.

Did I name the IIC meeting organised by Ms Madhu Poornima Kishwar of the CSDS as a Sanghi? Where? Would be happy to see it. As always, I am also also happy to discuss, debate and exchange views with anyone. Nothing personal. And I am proud of my family, and the example we set. Nothing personal, of course.

Rajiv Malhotra:

Dear John, whatever my presentation was, you had the chance to discuss it there and then. That is what the event was for. But you did not say any such thing then.Why? And why say all this now, since we are no longer able to have an on camera discussion back and forth? In any case, the video will speak for itself and the viewers can decide.

What this shows is that you are unable to function in your old bombastic self, once the patronage you enjoyed is gone. What does that tell us?

John Dayal:

Dear Rajiv

I changed my bombastic style to suit the speakers and he audience, and of course the backdrop. Did I take you and others by surprise? Seminars and consultations are, of course, not debates. Though I am always happy for a debate. I noticed you remained the same.

And I hope your patronage remains. And what does THAT tell us? I hope the text of the presentations will on ms Kishwar's site, and groups. I can wait.

Rajiv Malhotra:

Dear John, you and I should have a one on one friendly chat on video - agreeing and disagreeing as we choose. That would be better, as we can focus more. If you agree I can set up the arrangements.

John Dayal:

Will be happy to do so, Rajiv.

In fact, offer to join you in your Princeton centre investigating  US research on India in its entirety.

I am currently focussing on those who are in India and working against constitutional values.

Rajiv Malhotra:

Dear Abhishek, pls see email exchange with John Dayal below. We have both agreed to have a conversation between just the two of us. Please arrange a room and video grapher and let both of us know. Pls ask John which of my dates in delhi suit him.

Abhishek Jalan:

Dear John Dayal ji, The meeting could be held on the 18th afternoon or anytime on 19th, 20th or 21st. Kindly let me know what date and time will suit you.

John Dayal:

Dear Rajiv

I repeat what I said in my earlier post. I would love to come to your office in Princeton [is it part of the University?] and study with you all the anti India work going on in the US against India by all religious groups. I would be also happy to  assist you in India to study the work of all groups working against national unity and development in the country. Will be happy to debate with you on the basis of comparative and verified non selective data.  Let us have this debate in Princeton, US. I am sure you will agree.

Meanwhile, I wonder if you have seen many of your admirers on Twitter who think they can best express their support and admiration for you only abusing me in rather unprintable language. God bless you, always

Rajiv Malhotra:

Are you saying you wont discuss with me in India? Whats your need to travel overseas for everything?

John Dayal:

Rajiv

Am just trying to mirror your strategy. May flummox some friends

Rajiv Malhotra:

I guess our friend John cannot meet me for a debate this month in Delhi. Unless we pay for more globetrotting, he is not interested. When he has been going around Indian media and forums, where was this "data" he needs"? anyway, so it goes.....

John Dayal:

Dear Rajiv

My data is from US and Indian, non Christian, sources about funding of groups that you do not want to investigate for reasons best known to you. Maybe i should shift to Princeton myself.

Will be interested in your work in US universities and media. Will be happy if you can identify someone like a US version of CSDS which can organise a debate/discussion in Princeton.

Rajiv Malhotra:

John, quit playing games pls. I asked you for an on camera debate. In that debate you are free to cite whatever data you want. OK?

Reason you cant face me is that you have given testimony against India many times before foreign authorities, and this is on official record. Tides changed and this is now a liability to your credibility. At Madhu's event you said point blank that such persons should be punished as traitors. So are you a traitor?

What does this point have to do with wanting even more foreign travel? Have yo not had enough free travel around the world lambasting against India? Lets get honest please. You have the right to decline my offer to debate, but you are digging a deeper hole for yourself.

John Dayal:

Rajiv

I will continue to be polite. We know the quality of your data. And your ideology. You are entitled to it. No purpose will be served in trying a dialogue with you and your fans as patently you are not keen to have it in Princeton while I speak at seminars regularly in India. Easier and more fruitful to converse with state actors

Rajiv Malhotra:

John, lets end this useless exchange - that you are evading is obvious. I will continue to take the debate to the public, which is where it belongs.

John Dayal:

Why are you avoiding Princeton university?

Rajiv Malhotra:

John, Pls come any time but at YOUR expense, not mine. I dont want to sponsor your travel, but you can come and be my guest at my home. Your sponsors have lots of money so you can get them to pay.

John Dayal:

Surely the university can afford it?

Rajiv Malhotra:

I am not affiliated with any university. You can approach them if you like. So maybe you try some human rights groups among the ones that sponsored you over so many years. Surely, those who paid to get you in front of US government bodies to testify against India must h

[Rajiv: I had an image of John Dayal until now as a strong thinker against Hinduism, expecting him to argue with substance. It now seems we over rated hm for these decades. He is a mediocre thinker at best, propped up as a convenient voice to display at international forums against Hinduism. He played that role and enjoyed the patronage, which has now ended.]

A person who tweets with the handle @RichardFoxYoung has been deliberately misleading by quoting selectively from the above compilation claiming that John Dayal has agreed to debate Rajiv in Delhi or in Princeton. Readers can now verify for themselves from the above reproduction and by following the discussion thread on yahoo group discussions here

The post to follow this will detail references made to John Dayal in Rajiv Malhotra's book Breaking India.

Does Devdutt Pattnaik know the meaning of cult?

Here is Devdutt Pattnaik's original article.

And here's a great original rebuttal by Rajiv Malhotra forum member Jithu

Dear Devdutt,

               A writers job is to curb the use of unnecessary words, letters etc. You have used one letter too many. Whereas your article could have been titled "Delightful truths of cult leader', you have very incorrectly made the leader a plural. Because lets face it, its all about Rajiv Malhotra. Though you've touched upon Rampal in the intro, no Hindu with a slightly endowed intelligence would ever accept him as his Guru. Of course he could still be classified as a cult leader. 

               As you could have easily guessed by now, I am a fan of Rajiv's works. Actually have been for more than a dozen years. And at the same time I'm not a fan of your works because, how can I put it? Let me take a shot it. Oh I got it:  its pretty superficial simple, probably a lot like your readers. I know you are the golden boy of the urban educated Hindu who is anxious of the ignorance of his own culture but just doesn't want to know it enough that he may have to seriously spend some quality time in knowing it and doing something about it. Thats where you come in. You talk about 'myths', about  gays, draw some crazy figures on a slate and lo wallah, you are their savior: a little bit of history, a bit of modern psychology. By the way, were you not in some way advising or coaching Rahul Gandhi?  Its really difficult to say who rubbed their intelligence on whom.

              But this reply has not been instigated by Rajiv though I read your article through his forum. And my first reaction was where are the cult leader(s) and where is the cult? Its very obvious that the whole article is about RM, although you sprinkle about other 'rational' leaders' , just as a writing exercise. I wasn't sure which ran longer, your dislike or put more strongly, your hatred for Rajiv or your knowledge of cult leaders. Either way, it makes a poor display of your supposed 'knowledge' 'expertise'.
             Firstly, I'm not sure if you know about this, but for any crime thats been committed the detectives always look at who benefits by the crime. So suppose if RM committed the crime of writing books and debating people, one has to ask, what does he achieve by it? Money, fame? As you already know he used to run multinational companies, so money can't be the goal. He could have been much more famous by writing mundane books: look at you. But he didn't. So what is the end goal of his crime, I wonder!

             Secondly, about the cult. Sure he does ask help from people for his books, research etc. And he does have a lot of fans, readers, supporters etc. He also does rejects people's help when they don't fit his needs, including yours truly. Most of the times when people complain, he asks them to do what needs to be done by themselves, rather than getting himself involved because of his limited resources.Which brings me to the question: Do you really know the meaning of 'cult' ? Or does your definition goes only as far as when Bollywood calls one of its monstrosity as a 'cult' film? For a cult to exist, there should be a cult leader who promises something at the end, usually something pretty looney if I may add, like the Heavens Gate cult, Mormon cult etc. Some even call Christianity and Islam as a cult because they promise an afterlife in heaven. It might surprise you that Rajiv hasn't promised any of his readers or his fans any thing. He doesn't arrange gatherings or even satsanga. And he for sure hasn't announced that there is going to show the light at the end of the tunnel. Frankly he is more interested in his own swadharma and his sadhana. And speaking of 'Swadharma' he is a kshatriya by the way and hence if he takes up the case for 'intellectual kshatriya'  he is just doing his duty. Alas you are far from being a Brahmin. 

             Sure he wants people to carry on his legacy, continue his works. But if you apply your definition of 'cult' for that then you should also apply that for every guru, every sage in India. There should be a Vyasa cult, Ramana cult, Aurobindo cult, Sankaracharya cult etc.

             And thirdly regarding his 'demands' for invitations to speak. You probably haven't heard the phrase 'right of way'. Anyone who learns driving in the U.S would know it. You 'demand' your right of way if you are obstructed while driving on your permitted legal route by others. So if Rajiv demands to be invited to speak, he in fact is entitled to, especially in programmes that have no balancing act of their one sided agenda. Why don't you attend them and participate, debate the other side? Rajiv has done so many debates with people from the opposite side, I don't see you doing it. You sit on your lazy ass and have the arrogance to ridicule him if he takes up the initiative to counter their arguments! Oh wait, you are the other side, nodding to everything Doninger says, shamelessly selling out as soon as seeing some white skin.
             May be she instigated you to write the article. May be you are just afraid that your works wouldn't sell if more people got to know about RM's works or you are frightened how much of a 'sepoy' you are with no hint of original thought. May be you are just jealous. Or may be you are just a little 'cuckoo' in your head. In any case I would prescribe a little reading of RM's works or watch his videos. They might help you to learn something. Or may be sit somewhere silently and meditate. That also clears up the mind. But for Godsake don't put your readers through such banal and petty articles such as the one you published in Mid-day. We don't deserve such punishments.

Cheers,

Jithu

Added reading is another post on this forum which discussed the issues of plagiarism by Devdutt Pattnaik. Here is the link.

To join the discussion group please register on yahoo. The thread can be followed here. 

Valson Thampu has no business talking about godmen

The following is an article that appeared in the Deccan Herald, Bangalore on Nov 28^th 2014.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/444229/mistaking-crooks-saints.html

The author is Valson Thampu. Now a cursory google search for this person throws up a Wiki link, the first line of which says he is an educator and more importantly, a Christian theologian. Here’s the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valson_Thampu

Moreover, the author belongs to the Church of North India (CNI) whose basic creeds are the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed of 381 AD which therefore means that CNI makes a distinction between its adherents and non-Christians. This essentially means that they declare that they and only they follow the true religion and that all non-Christians pray to false gods.

If that indeed is a major vocation of his, he should have been truthful by stating in the byline for the article that he is a Christian theologian. But his byline reads only thus. “The writer is Principal, St Stephen’s College, Delhi”. This is intellectual dishonesty since the reader is not aware of the fact that his vocation as a theologian could also colour his views on a particular subject.

Further, this person was nominated to the National Integration Council as this report in The Hindu states.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/valson-thampu-nominated-to-nic/article92688.ece

Also see this post in Christianity Today. The author is in the company of people like John Dayal who has been named in “Breaking India”, written by Rajiv Malhotra.

http://www.christiantoday.co.in/article/outspoken.christian.journalist.noted.academician.appointed.members.of.national.integration.council/876.htm

This author has also petitioned the then PM on atrocities against Christians in Kandhamal, Orissa as is evidenced by these reports.

http://www.identitynetwork.net/apps/articles/default.asp?articleid=50508&columnid=

http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2005/20050902-minorities-rights.htm

In writings elsewhere this author barely conceals his hatred for what he calls right wing extremism. He has been close to Swami Agnivesh too as you can see from the below link

http://www.swamiagnivesh.com/valson.htm

Here is another link that is not quite so flattering to the Rev. Dr. Valson Thampu

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/st-stephens-acting-principal-thampus-phd-fails-ugc-test/284719/

This report shows that the author had to quit as principal of St. Stephens in 2008. However he seems to have been reinstated later that year. Both the stories in below links.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/valson-thampu-quits-st-stephens/article1221048.ece

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080913/jsp/nation/story_9827149.jsp

At the outset, it is important to understand that I hold no brief for Sant/Baba Rampal who he has ostensibly attacked in his piece. I have no particular view on the subject and I refuse anymore to believe all the canards put out in the mainstream media for they’ve cried wolf so often now, that one refuses to take them seriously and I cannot accept trial by media. Also, it’s a curiously skewed situation when crimes committed by assorted padres and mullahs find hardly a mention in the ever shrill media. I believe the law of the land will therefore treat his case on its merits and he will be acquitted or convicted as the case may be. However, I do have a problem with the broad brush Mr. Thampu takes to generally trash all so called “godmen” which is a term that seems to be exclusively used for gurus from the Dharmic faiths. It is a fact that all padres and mullahs and rabbis in churches, mosques and synagogues are also godmen. But this pejorative is very selectively applied only to those coming from the Dharmic faiths.

With the above introduction, I present below some of the observations that I made on his article using the ideas that I picked up from reading “Being Different” by Rajiv Malhotra and also watching, listening and understanding how he uses purvapaksha and the Dharmic lens to refute positions taken by his opponents.

Para 3, line 3: “How come people in this sophisticated age armed with a critical, sceptical spirit, fail to distinguish between an ‘ashram’ and a fortification that looks anything but an ashram?”

The writer has put “ashram” in quotes. Why? Is it because there is a mental picture of the ashram? As a reader I would like to know what that mental picture is and what the author thinks an ashram should look like.

Para 4: “The canards on which the conmen of religion build their empires pertain to their ludicrous ideas about god and their pretensions to having special powers.”

I assume since in the previous paragraph he has underlined our “secular culture and scientific temperament” the above quote can be applied to all religions equally. I move ahead assuming this is so, for I believe the author will have no difficulties accepting that conmen exist in all religions.

Para 5: “For centuries we have been brainwashed to believe that gods are partial to their own religious communities, cults, locations and individuals. The Christian god cares only for Christians. Hindu gods are partial to Hindus. Lord Buddha, Prophet Mohammad, Lord Mahavira and Guru Nanak, likewise, are irrelevant to those outside their fold. Such people are excluded from help or relief.”

Can the author clarify where Hindu gods or Buddha or Mahavira or Guru Nanak say that only their followers or “chosen people” will be preferred? If he cannot cite sources, we must then think that he is making his sweeping generalization based on the Abrahamic gods who indeed say so very explicitly that they are partial only to their followers.

Para 6: “God is, besides, contracted to certain ‘special agents’ whom he favours with special powers. Like a politician to his coterie, god reveals his cards only to these minions. The rest of us are condemned to receiving his favours second-hand.”

This is the perfect understanding of the people of the book. But wholly flawed when talking of Dharmic traditions where first person empiricism is the norm. Nobody from the Dharmic traditions is condemned to “receiving his favours second-hand” and everyone has the potential to achieve oneness with the Brahman. So, one has to conclude that the author is applying Abrahamic principles to understand a Dharmic phenomenon when the worldviews itself don’t match.

Para 7: “There is no knowing, however, how god chooses these middlemen. On current evidence, god appears to have a preference for crooks and criminals.”

Even allowing for the first sentence to be true, it follows then that the Christian god (granted that he is the purported son of god, but that still does not absolve him from being a middleman) on whom rests the Christian faith is a crook and criminal. The same also holds for Mohammad who is the prophet of Allah in Islam and therefore the middleman for that faith. As for the Jews, their crook middleman is still in the making.

Now to deconstruct the first sentence, while it is true that one doesn’t know why God should chooses his middlemen in the Abrahamic faiths, (He apparently plays tic tac toe and wherever his finger points that person is chosen) the sentence is not even applicable to Dharmic faiths. In Dharmic faiths, the human being chooses to realize his God potential and a person from these faiths achieves the so called “middleman” status based on the extent to which s/he evolves in consciousness through individual yoga. Moreovers/he is not sole arbitrator between god and his followers. He is only the guide and helps his followers choose their path. Eventually, each one of his/her followers evolves according to his own experience. These faiths also subscribe to the view that all of creation is imbued with God potential.

Para 8: “It is as though he has an air of condescension towards the rest of us, the common folk, to whom mercies will be sent only by proxy.”

Repetition that an Abrahamic worldview is being applied to a supposedly Dharmic person (Baba Rampal’s arrest drama which I understand is what the author wants to target). Dharmic peoples simply do not receive god’s mercies “by proxy”. A Baba/Guru/Sant is only a means to follow on a certain path and its up to the follower/shishya to evolve individually through tapas and sadhana.

Para 9, line 2: “We are sure to be forgiven if we disobey or disrespect God, which we do all the time. But we are sure to be exterminated if we try the same with these middlemen.”

Following from the sentence in bold, one can safely assume then that “extermination” is what happened in Europe during the crusades and in the US with the genocide of the native Americans and also what happened in Australia with the indigenous peoples of the land. When applied to Islam of course, this is the narrative that has played itself out numerous times since the advent of Islam. Genocide and extermination are exclusive achievements of these two Abrahamic faiths. It would be good to know if the author can produce an account of similar proportions with respect to Dharmic faiths.

Now, for the first sentence. There is no concept of forgiveness within Dharmic faiths because sin is not associated with these faiths. Dharmic peoples are fully responsible for their actions and will therefore reap its consequences (good or bad) as explained by the concept of karma. So where is the concept of forgiveness then? Now, applying this sentence to the Christians, their disobedience is forgiven by God or God’s middleman in the church called the Father? Thus if the Father is the middleman of God then he is of course a crook since the author has previously stated that. And then we have to conclude that it is these very same crooks who are forgiving Christians in the name of God. I don’t know enough about Judaism and Islam to apply it to them. However since these faiths also rely on middlemen for access to God, the transaction must perforce go through these crooks (as per author’s representation).

Para 11, line 1: “Also, he used to wake up once a week per community (on Fridays for Muslims, Saturdays for Jews, Sundays for Christians) and limit his presence to designated places of worship (mosques, synagogues, churches, temples etc.) “

Asserting his secular credentials, he has targeted all faiths in terms of when God “wakes up” to affix his signature “to designated place of worship”. So far so good. He talks about Fridays for Muslims, Saturdays for Jews and Sundays for Christians. Where is the day for Hindus? No day for the Hindus (or for Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs for that matter). He leaves that out for he doesn’t find any references. That is fair enough. But when he continues he says “his presence to designated places of worship (mosques, synagogues, churches, temples etc.” Why have temples been added when he did not find a specific day for the Hindus, why did their place of worship find a mention? This can only be construed as ill-informed or most probably deliberate false extrapolation?

Para 13: “The Creator is present in, and available to, all parts of creation. Anyone who claims to be a privileged agent of God is a cheat and a de facto atheist. He flies in the face of the quintessential spiritual vision of vasudaiva kutumbakam.”

Now for the first sentence: he means God is immanent in all of creation. If so, I’d like to ask him if is he divine? Is a dog divine? Is a tree divine? Is a stone divine? If he answers yes to it, I would then like to ask if he will then be willing to worship himself, a dog or the stone? If he still says yes, I would ask if he would allow me to bring my Ganesh murthi into his church and pray to it. It is a stone and I think of it as divine and I have carved it in the form of Ganesha. Will he let me do it in his house, in his church? Abrahamic faiths do not essentially believe in an immanent god, else why would they object to worshipping a stone?

Let’s deconstruct the second sentence. Let’s assume that as a Hindu I have no qualms in saying that this Hindu “godman” who “claims to be a privileged agent of God is a cheat and a de facto atheist”. By the same token, then Jesus of the Christians, Mohammad of the Muslims and the yet to come Messiah of the Jews, are all cheats too since they claim to be privileged agents of God.

Now for the “vasudaiva kutmbakam” of the Hindus whose most abused usage has gained ground. First, until this point, the author has exhibited an ability to elaborate his point only from an Abrahamic worldview. Therefore, from where does this sudden recourse to a Hinduism tenet come in? it does come in so let’s now look at it. Does vasudaiva kutmbakam comprise everyone and everything indiscriminately? Then even an Osama Bin Laden or a Hitler as Rajiv ji says forms part of that kutumbakam. Or an approaching swarm of locusts should be allowed to create havoc just because they are also part of vasudaiva kutumbakam. The author assumes that a spiritual quest is devoid of fighting forces that are harmful to the concept of vasudaiva kutumbakam. And that is certainly not how Hinduism envisages this concept. Yes, vasudaiva kutumbakam is extended to all those who live by the principles of pluralism which also involves Rajiv Malhotra coined term “mutual respect” operating while conducting inter-faith encounters. The very fact that this author has so far written his viewpoint pontificating from his Christian exclusivist worldview, indeed he does not qualify to be part of my vasudaiva kutumbakam. He cannot be until he offers me the respect which I will offer him for his worldview.

Para 14: “The implied insinuation that God practices untouchability vis-à-vis almost the whole of humankind and dispatches his mercy and charity to them, therefore, only via some conmen deputies should provoke derisive laughter.”

This para is laughable for it tries to forcefully bring in the concept of untouchability and to my mind this is a blatant attempt to malign the Hindu faith with the prevalent divisive discourse of caste.

However, assuming for a moment that this is an unbiased observation, we shall look at the facts. Yes, there have been and there still are problems within the Hindu faith. But has it been a case of Hindus not doing the churning from within to correct these problems? The facts would not say so. We shall start with the Arya Samaj. In the page “About us” on their website, the Arya Samaj says this. “Arya Samaj was established by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in the year 1875 to get rid of social evils of Hindu society. Arya Samaj is a bona fide Hindu-Vedic organization. It is non-denominational authentic Hindu-Vedic religious organization dedicated to remove superstition, orthodoxy and social evils such as un-touchability etc., from society.”  So it is a fact that Hindus have a tradition of reforming from within and the Arya Samaj is just one example which is pan-Indian. Then there is Dr. B.R Ambedkar and there have been local reformers, for example in Kerala, Mahatma Ayyankali and Sree Narayana Guru who stayed within the faith and worked towards reform. Their contributions especially those of Mahatma Ayyankali have largely not been acknowledged and it is now that the Modi Government is educating Indians on icons such as him. There was also the temple entry proclamation by the Travancore king which was a landmark and forward looking decision to change the bad practices that had crept into the Hindu faith. The proclamation signed by Sree Chithira Thirunal reads thus. “Profoundly convinced of the truth and validity of our religion, believing that it is based on divine guidance and on all-comprehending toleration, knowing that in its practice it has throughout the centuries, adapted itself to the needs of changing times, solicitous that none of our Hindu subjects should, by reason of birth or caste or community, be denied the consolation and the solace of the Hindu faith, we have decided and hereby declare, ordain and command that, subject to such rules and conditions as may be laid down and imposed by us for preserving their proper atmosphere and maintaining their rituals and observances, there should henceforth be no restriction placed on any Hindu by birth or religion on entering or worshipping at temples controlled by us and our Government.”

The emphasis in the above quote is mine to underline the fact that this ground breaking reform was achieved from within the faith.

Apart from these examples, since independence, the Government of India, no matter whichever ideology, is committed to affirmative action to overcome the injustices of the past and towards that has so many programs intended for the upliftment of the oppressed. As a result, we have so many successful leaders today who are drawn from the Dalit fold. And no one better exemplifies this than the ascent to the premiership by Modi ji who himself is drawn from among the backward castes. We have also had a person from the oppressed castes as President in K R Narayanan. Apart from all of this, I am very sure that many of us in our daily lives, knowing the situations of the past do our utmost in our individual capacity to correct such imbalances. All these examples are showcased in order to reinforce that while Hindus understand that there are many problems within the faith, they can never be accused with a single broad brush of not having done anything about it as Mr. Thampu seems keen to underline.

The issue of the caste system and its continued presence and the tensions its creating within Christianity itself is brought out by these two articles.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Do-Christians-also-practise-caste-system-asks-SC/articleshow/2218560.cms

http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201301/caste-26818

Now, since the author is wholly unbiased, the above sentence I believe he would have no problem in extending to the Jews, Christians and Muslims of the world. They are also untouchables, for God’s word is propagated if anything more centrally and principally in these faiths through his “conmen” prophets. So, yes the laughter is indeed derisive for it has exposed the author as someone who threw a stone from a glass house only to have his own windows broken.

Para 15, line 1: “Enlightened souls feel embarrassed when special powers are attributed to them. Extravagant claims of special powers are made only by the wheeler dealers of religion.”

That’s why Jesus, Muhammad and the yet to be born messiah are also “wheeler dealers of religion” along with all the Dharmic ones he insinuates.

Para 16, line 1: “It is a nightmare that temples of light are today overshadowed by ashrams of darkness.”

Author seems to be using binaries associated with exclusivist ideologies which hardly holds true for Dharmic faiths in which “yes”, “no” and “maybe” also operate.

Para 16, line 3: “Why obscene wealth should punctuate the conmen of religion is an enigma that we dare not face.”

While this can and does need to be questioned for Dharmics, the same also applies to churches and mosques where conmen operate in the guise of padres and mullahs. Don’t they also possess obscene wealth?

Para 17: “In point of fact, it is the glare and glitter, the scale and size of their megabucks that blind us to the subhuman realities that shroud these corrupters of our species.”

Repeat the same point as before that author fails to realize that the same words could equally apply to the church and mosque who many feel are “corrupters of our species”.

For the scale of Christianity’s intervention in India it will just suffice to go through this blog which does a fantastic job of exposing the designs of such interventionists by accessing the available data n the Government FCRA website.

http://sighbaboo.blogspot.in/2014/04/state-specific-top-20-organizations.html

To conclude, one has to say that there are repercussions when one talks from a lofty pedestal on issues where one’s worldview is shaped by a certain exclusivist ideology. Every faith and every culture has its problems and the author while being a citizen of pluralistic India, if he wants to contribute positively to the change needed within the society must work shoulder to shoulder with its vast majority who do understand the need for change for the country. However, it seems as if this author is interested only in playing up the faultlines in the society and one seriously questions his motives for doing so.