« Pregnant Women Bear the Brunt of Orissa Violence | Main | A Moratorium on Conversions: Who Decides? »
October 14, 2008
Two Dead Priests, Two Opposite Reactions, and the Future of India
(originally published Sept 2008)
Today I mourn for my country. I am a proud Indian. We have achieved much and have much potential. But the death of a Catholic priest in Andhra Pradesh and a Hindu swami in Orissa caused a chain of events that is worth analysing. And, viewing the results, I worry about the future of our great nation.
Much of the world is watching how India cares for the flood victims in Bihar. And most of the world knows that, due to a recent agreement, India will now generate nuclear energy on a large scale. However, neither the wise use of sophisticated technology nor good disaster management are the signs of a successful democracy. A mature democracy is proven by the way people disagree with each other.
On Saturday night, August 23, 2008, Lakshmanananda Saraswati, a famous Hindu swami who dedicated his life to work with tribals, was murdered in Kandhamal District, Orissa. The killers were unknown assailants. The murder of the priest was brutal, and four other members of the ashram were shot and killed. The reaction of Christian groups, which had many public disagreements throughout the years with the swami about his accusations of fraudulent conversions, was unified. Christians condemned the violence. One of the largest networks of Protestant churches, the Evangelical Fellowship of India, said it “stands against every act of violence and terrorism.” The leader of the 16 million members of the Roman Catholic laity called for authorities to “arrest those responsible for the deaths of Saraswati and his associates.”
Exactly a week before the swami’s death, on Saturday night, August 16, 2008, a Catholic priest who dedicated his life to work in rural village, was murdered in Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh. The killers were unknown assailants. The murder was brutal. The body had about 20 stab wounds, had been submerged in water, and was badly disfigured with the eyes gouged out. The reaction of the Sangh Parivar – a loose-knit group of hardliner nationalist Hindu organisations – was deafening silence.
In Orissa, many of my Hindu friends peacefully mourned the death of the swami. However, the Sangh Parivar quickly rejected reports that the killers were Maoist guerillas. Without proof, they dismissed the position of the Orissa authorities and even claims of responsibility from a Naxalite leader to various Indian media. The Sangh Parivar publicly blamed Christians and called for a strike. The result was violence, including at least 35 deaths, 4,000 Christian homes destroyed, 50,000 people displaced, one nun gang raped, and over a hundred churches burned, according to Protestant and Catholic Christian leaders.
In the last week, the anti-Christian violence spread to Karnataka – home of India’s high-tech capitol, Bangalore – with 17 churches heavily damaged. Most were attacked simultaneously on Sunday, September 14, 2008. There were sporadic attacks on Christians and Christian institutions in another south Indian state, Kerala, and across north India in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Jharkhand. The central government is worried about the spreading violence and finally told the Orissa and Karnataka governments on September 18, 2008, that, under Article 355 of India’s Constitution, they must stop the ‘internal disturbance’ or face federal action.
In Andhra Pradesh, the Christian community organised a rally and protests after the death of the Catholic priest. There were meetings with government officials. About 3,000 people marched through the capital of Hyderabad on Sunday evening, August 24, 2008. The candlelight march disrupted traffic and little else.
We are the world’s largest democracy. I am proud of our pluralist, multi-faith culture. In general, our religious communities exist in harmony.
But is there change in the air? Why did the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief say at the end of her visit to India in March that we are at a tipping point? Ms. Asma Jahangir’s press statement from Delhi said, “India faces a real risk of deadly communal violence erupting again unless much more is done to deter religious hatred and prevent the political exploitation of existing tensions.”
Now her prophecy has come true.
In a democracy, citizens must respect the rule of law. We can argue passionately. We can hold opposite opinions. But the war of ideas must happen without violence. When Christians commit violent acts, Christian leaders like myself condemn them. We try to nurture peace, not revenge.
We are not always successful, but what worries me is the refusal of some groups in other communities to unconditionally condemn violence. They talk of issues, especially allegations of missionaries performed ‘forced conversions’, which have made their followers angry and uncontrollable. My Christian colleagues say these arguments are simply propaganda. And the facts seem to agree. My organisation’s request under the Right to Information Act in July revealed that, in five years, there were only three complaints of forceful conversions under Gujarat’s 2003 Freedom of Religion Act. And there has never been a conviction in any of the five states that have implemented so-called anti-conversion laws.
But here is the crucial point. Anger is acceptable. Violence is not. Sadly, my friends don’t seem to see the difference.
Violence does not help end poverty. Violence does not grow our democracy. Violence deserves unconditional condemnation. Violence requires a firm response by leaders with integrity – both in the government and societal groups.
It is time for serious soul searching in an emerging super power.
Posted by klajja at October 14, 2008 06:36 PM
Comment Code of Conduct
I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for others, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them.
I will express my disagreements with others' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally.
I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt.