‘The Battle for Sanskrit’ – A Preview of Rajiv Malhotra’s latest book

Following his seminal and voluminous works published in three books, Rajiv Malhotra (RM) is about to launch his fourth book, ‘The Battle for Sanskrit’. The following briefly describes the main points of this forthcoming book and the import of the cover page of this book. This is based on RM’s essential points on his new book discussed within his Discussion group recently. The texts under inverted commas are his original words. The underlined text and italicised text in parentheses are my additions to RM’s words, which have been inserted for the sake of clarity to the article. Moreover, some Sanskrit words are also italicised.

This forthcoming book is a continuation of RM’s thesis published and disseminated previously. It is therefore recommended by RM himself that readers wishing to read this book, and get the most out of it, should get acquainted with RM’s thesis. He specifically gives references to his recent lectures at the World Sanskrit Conference (Bangkok - June 2015), Goa (Feb 2015), and Delhi University (Jan 2015). The youtube links to these videos are provided below for ease of access. His previous three books are Breaking India [2011], Being Different [2011] and Indra’s Net [2014]. Of course, there are a host of other public lectures by RM, but the aforementioned lectures are focused on the nature of Sanskrit studies in the West.

At the outset, RM makes it clear that this current book is a Purva-Paksha on the West regarding their Sanskrit scholarship. Purva-paksha, for those who don’t already know, is an integral part of the ancient Indian practise of debate (called Shaastraartha) between different philosophical views where one school of thought diligently educate themselves on the ideologies of the other school and vice-versa. For instance, the Buddhist school would do a Purva-paksha on the Vedanta school and vice-versa. As such, this book is not political nor is it an angry response. Continuing along the lines of the ancient Indian tradition of Shaastraartha, subsequent to the Purva-paksha, one school would challenge the ‘leader’ of the other school. The story of Adi Shankracharya of the Advaita Vedanta school challenging Mandana Mishra is one for the ages. With this in view, RM has identified Sheldon Pollock as the leader of the Sanskrit studies in the West. This book is respectful towards Pollock and as RM states, “there is no ad hominem attack on anyone”. RM believes that “both sides stand to come out ahead in such debates by explaining their positions better”. He also hopes that “both will also benefit from the opposing stance and ought to reconsider their own in some cases”.

So which are the two sides, i.e. ‘both sides’ that RM refers to? The schools of thought that differ in ideas about Sanskrit have been called the ‘Insiders’ and ‘Outsiders’ by RM. These are the two sides. The ‘Insider’ camp holds a Traditional view of Sanskrit while the ‘Outsider’ view looks at Sanskrit from a purely Social studies point of view. Here I have used the word ‘Traditional’ and ‘Social science’ as proper nouns, i.e. labels for the point of view in question. Thus the distinction between ‘Insider’ and ‘Outsider’ is solely on the basis of their respective point of view. Indeed, RM is categorical in stating that the ‘Insider’/’Outsider’ division is “not based on race, ethnicity or nationality”. Thus, while in general the Western view looks at Sanskrit with a Social science lens, any Westerner holding the Traditional viewpoint on Sanskrit would be called an ‘Insider’. By the same token, Indians holding a Social science point of view would come under the ‘Outsider’ camp.

RM’s thesis is his concern about the Western view of India and the Sanskrit studies with the Western lens of Social science falls under this purview. This is amply depicted in the proposed cover of the book itself that shows an artwork of the motif that is still being displayed at the University of Oxford.

Motif depicting Sir William Jones at the Oxford University. Getting a picture of this motif was not straightforward. RM had to spend a year getting this picture! (Source: http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com)

The motif shows Sir William Jones on an elevated seat surrounded by people of Indian origin listening to what Jones is articulating. The message underneath reads “He formed a digest of Hindu and Mohammedan Laws”. The irony of the motif is not lost on those who know the history. RM explains the marble carving motif. ”It is Sir William Jones (in late 1700s) talking down at the pandits. Earlier he had learned at their feet, but back home he claimed to have 'discovered Sanskrit' and 'given the Hindus their laws'. Hence it is an image of arrogance.”

According to RM, the goal of the book is “to highlight how, why and by whom the Traditional [Insider] views are being replaced by the social sciences [Outsider] views”. This book also explains ‘the implications [of this replacement] to the future of the Tradition’. Those familiar with RM’s thesis will readily see the continuity of his work in this book. RM’s major concern is that the ‘Insiders’ are blind to this, and hopes that this book will help raise awareness about this hidden agenda amongst the ‘Insiders’. He hopes that after reading the book, the ‘Insider’ will find a gateway to perform a thorough Purva-paksha on the ‘Outsider’ camp vis-à-vis Sanskrit studies in the West. Keeping this in mind, the book looks at Sanskrit studies from an ‘Insider’ (Traditional) versus ‘Outsider’ (Social science) viewpoint. With the ‘Traditional’ vis-à-vis ‘Social science’ viewpoint the book is written within three sub-themes - Is Sanskrit: Dead or Alive? Oppressive or Liberating? Political or Sacred? These form the bylines of the title. While ‘Alive’, ‘Liberating’ and ‘Sacred’ are the ‘Insider’ views based on Tradition, the West/’Outsider’ view takes a Social science lens at Sanskrit and calls Sanskrit ‘Dead’, ‘Oppressive’ and ‘Political’. Within these sub-themes the book discusses Philosophy, Metaphysics and History as seen under the two ideologically different lenses. The book argues that there are parallels between the Social science view and the William Jones’ motif and raises concern that this Social science view is a deliberate attempt at hijacking the Traditional view of Sanskrit. As an aside, it should be clear that this book does not teach Sanskrit grammar or how to converse in Sanskrit!

This book on Sanskrit has been welcomed by all in RM’s Discussion group. The book cover-page has also been discussed within the Discussion group and several good points were raised – the motif, title and the artwork of the motif. Attempts will be made to incorporate these comments as the book launching date nears. Indeed, several group members have already placed bulk orders ranging from 10 to as many as 100 books, for distribution in their local communities.

'Outsider' community campaigns against Rajiv Malhotra prior to his book release

Finally, an important comment on the recent turn of events which has some bearing on this book. About a fortnight ago, a plagiarism charge was laid against RM on one of his previous books by Richard Fox (RF). RF works in a seminary in New Jersey and his work supporting conversions in India was exposed in RM's book 'Breaking India'. These plagiarism charges against RM have since been proven to be false by independent scholars, and a petition filed by Madhu Kishwar supporting Rajiv Malhotra's outcry against the 'Outsider' academia has more than 10000 signatures in support so far. A lot has been written in the last few days both for and against RM. This link  provides a compiled list of articles in support of RM, with articles against him nested within the support articles. Of special mention is Western Indologist Koenraad Elst's post, who takes a neutral stance. He states,"Do I agree with Malhotra? Firstly, we don’t entirely work on the same subjects. Secondly, where we do, there are still differences,...". However, he does go on to emphatically say that the powerful Western academia on Indology has a few questions to answer. Revealing the modus operandi of the 'powerful establishment', Outsiders in this case, Koenraad states, "...serious debate is indeed being avoided. The first step of an establishment against a vocal opponent is always to deny him legitimacy, [KE's original writing in bold] then to pretend that there is no real debate, only a querulant rebelling against established common sense. These mechanisms can be seen at work now against Rajiv Malhotra".

We wait in anticipation for the book to come out!

First ever video on the BATTLE FOR SANSKRIT that is under way

Follow Rajiv Malhotra on Twitter: @RajivMessage Are Sanskrit Studies in the West becoming a new Orientalism? (in Hindi with some English) By Rajiv Malhotra Delivered at Sanskrit Department, Delhi University, January, 2015 I felt honored to be invited by Delhi University's Sanskrit Department to deliver their annual memorial lecture this year. My topic pertains to my latest book scheduled to come out this year. Many Indians feel proud whenever their heritage is the subject of study by the West, without bothering to first examine in detail the nature of that study. They fail to ask critical questions like: Is the study fair or is it biased? Are there Western assumptions being superimposed, intentionally or otherwise? Are the conclusions undermining our own traditional understanding? What are the implications and consequences of such conclusions - both in shaping the image of India outside, as well as within India where such Western conclusions often become adopted blindly? Are Indians losing control over the discourse of their own tradition - becoming followers rather than leaders, consumers rather than producers, of the discourse about themselves? There are many advantages to being studied by outsiders. In the past there were debates between opposing views, and both sides benefited. But today, Indians tend to be in such awe of Westerners who study them (the inferiority complex craving "we have arrived on the world stage"), that there has been virtually no independent Indian response to some major works by Westerners. I was recently shocked at the blindness with which wealthy Indians, traditional Hindu organizations and media, all lined up in support of what I felt was an interpretation of Sanskrit in serious conflict with tradition. For instance, I found the following views pervading the works that are being celebrated by Indians, none of whom could acknowledge having read these Western works adequately. The conclusions I contest include the following: That Sanskrit is inherently an abusive language That Ramayana is a myth designed to oppress, and has anti-Muslim resources built into it. That Sanskrit is a dead language, killed by Hindu kings long ago. That Sanskrit was never a language of common usage, and never in use as a spoken language. That Sanskrit's role as the lingua franca of India must now be replaced by English. Hence Indian vernaculars must get Anglicized and de-Sanskritized. Etc. This lecture served to bring the issues to the attention of several hundreds of Sanskrit scholars present. None of them have engaged this scholarship, even though they acknowledged its huge influence in India today. One problem is that such scholarship is written in very dense and high flown English (by mostly Americans and the Indian students trained by them), that hardly any Sanskrit scholar in India is able to figure out what is being said. Hence, there has been no response from the traditional side. My forthcoming book hopes to change this. I want it to provoke a debate with both sides represented. If you have interest in the discourse on Indian sanskriti and Sanskrit, and how these are increasingly controlled by Western scholars and institutions, please watch this video. Regards, Rajiv Recommended for further reading: Geopolitics and Sanskrit Phobia (Sulekha blog, 2005) The Sanskrit Wars have begun Hijacking Sanskrit Away from Hindu Dharma  The strange case of the re-de-re-colonized Ananya Vajpeyi

Two Letters by a Native American on her dharma

What happened to the Native Americans
(first letter: July 2014)
A person of Native American ancestry has written a couple of important and moving letters to Rajiv ji that were shared on the forum. Excerpts are posted here. It is worth reading the letters in its entirety on the forum via the links provided.

I'm reading through the archives from end to end, a little bit every day while I read the basic books like the Bhagavad Geetaa, Upanishads in my search for answers.

I would like to say that I have Native American ancestry. I think it's important to get EVERYONE (all Sanaatanis) on board about this, or the fate of the Native Americans will be yours. Today, we are thoroughly scattered, with but a very small population with reservations here and there, supposedly sovereign, but still subject to government definitions of what makes one a real Native American..., and how this is used to further divide up the surviving Native American communities and ultimately destroy all linguistic, religious, and cultural traces of Native Americans, save for the appearances of our bodies.

DON'T END UP LIKE US!

(second letter: February 2015)
I have finished reading all of your articles at rajivmalhotra.com  I have already read several books and papers, like “Invading the Sacred,” “Arise Arjuna!” “Forum of Intentional Liars,” “Radical Universalism,” “Kali’s Child Revisited,” “Mythology Wars,” “All religions are not the same.”


I am currently reading the "Mandala of Indic Traditions” web site and "The Ten Principal Unpanishads" .. and soon, I’m getting ready to read Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, Ramayana for now. I want to read your books such as “Being Different,” etc...

I read your article about Sanskrit phobia. I want to learn Sanskrit ... I realize now that there is so much knowledge in Sanskrit works and Indic civilization that stand to be lost to the world at large if they are not translated to a non-Indian language, or worse, if the people don’t bother to learn Sanskrit in order to know exactly what is written instead some western scholar’s biased “interpretation/translation” of a given text.

It has also become clear to me, just HOW CRUCIAL it is that Indic civilization not go by the way side and become a footnote of history. Our survival depends on it... We need this, where we have a balance between living within nature and carrying on a form of harmonious civilization, and no poor people. I feel that the reason we have poverty within the Western world is because of money, control, the structure of the industries and educational systems, not to mention the “wood burning” mentality as opposed to the garland making mentality of the Indic civilizations. This makes people who are of strong enough constitution refuse to participate in the former civilization and live under a bridge instead...

Rajiv, I had come to the understanding two weeks that I’m a Sanaatani. I’m very early in the stage of developing an understanding of Sanaatana Dharma (SD), and it’s entirely possible that I may only be able to progress to a early stage of Dharmic development and stay there because of my upbringing during the Deaf Years (first seven and a half years of my life), in which I did not have functional use of language and social norms, nor did I know anything about religion. I’m referring to a time when the Vedas were just beginning to be revealed as inner science to the people...


Also, Rajiv, I had come to an understanding that it appears my goal in life is to protect the Dharmic way of life, or consequential view of life. The consequential view of life that I have as an Ancient (having lived without the three lenses of civilization - language, social or cultural norms, and religion) says that there are consequences to everything you do in this world, whether it be those that benefits those around you and yourself, or those that hurt, destroy, tear down people and ultimately yourself in the process). You can either tear yourself down, or you can work to build up the world around you, preserve it, help others, and be helped when needed.

...It will not be okay if Sanaatanis go the way of the Native Americans. Native American knowledge is largely lost to me because of the Anglicising of my Cherokee ancestors. This is my fight to prevent what happened to my ancestors from happening to Sanaatanis.


But first, something tells me that I have much, much reading to do and learning. At the least I have learned to look at myself as a white person and how that has affected me as a deaf minority person, other white people, and how that affects anyone else who is of color.

Ignorant Hindu leaders invite Rambachan to represent Hinduism

Have they read Indra's Net?
March 2015

The attached invite:


for a May debate between Hinduism and Catholicism features Anantanand Rambachan representing the Hindus.

But he is the same person featured in my book Indra's Net as espousing the thesis of Neo-Hinduism, according to which modern Hinduism is:

• An artificial construction done by Vivekananda
• Is incompatible with vedanta. 
• Was done by Vivekananda because of his inferiority complex from the West. 
• This modern Hinduism is based on appropriating critical elements from Christianity. 
• Hence it is more properly called Neo-Hinduism. 

He is positioned as a leader in the academy spreading this Neo-Hinduism thesis. He is also the official (honorary) Hindu appointed by the Vatican. Can he speak for both sides?

For the record: He is probably a good human being on a personal level, and this is not any ad hominem against him personally. But his life work (from his PhD onwards) has been on this thesis that creates internal conflicts within Hinduism, especially between Shankara and Vivekananda.

I have said that such internal debates have always been there, but there is not in our best interest to go to vatican and educate them and other anti-Hindu academics on how to defeat Hinduism. Rambachan has supplied the arguments being used to undermine the legitimacy of modern hinduism.

The Washington DC Hindu leaders doing this are known to me and support my work. They ought to have organized a debate in which Hinduism is represented by someone else. Encouraging a scholar who speaks from both sides is a bad idea.

Rambachan also has said many great things about Hinduism. He criticizes evangelism, for instance. But many Jesuits also criticize proselytizing. The Good Cop face does not offset the damage done by the Bad Cop side of the same person.

These Hindu leaders are unaware of the strategy of the College of Catholic Bishops in having such "interfaith" events. The poster talkes of promoting "common interests" - but do you know what these are? It is the digestion of Hinduism.

I just want to put this on the record for people to ponder. I come across such half baked Hindu leadership all over India, USA, etc. Am I wasting my life?


Rajiv ji followed up after his India trip with this additional comment:

For an honest debate, there cannot be a conflict of interest between the debaters. Rambachan has worked for the Vatican's interfaith organization as their official Hindu face. How can he be "our" representative? Its like allowing the opposing cricket team to appoint our captain. He has been extremely cozy with Francis Clooney for decades, and now these two men will pretend they are really debating "against" each other?

Why cant the Vatican debate with me, for instance? What did Sant ji learn by watching my recent debate in Houston with a prominent Christian theologian? Was Rambachan selected based on any such prior experience in public?

Secondly, the debate Rambachan must be invited ought to be on his Neo-Hinduism thesis. Instead, this setup proposed in DC will hide that side of his work, and let his Neo-Hinduism go on. That would be a way to detract away from my Indra's Net book.

My sense is that this move is Vatican's way to protect their "Hindu asset". They want to restore his credibility among Hindus.

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.