Dear Anil, An interesting article to begin with. It has indeed caught people's interest. Hopefully, this is not the first time that you have encountered Gautier. I am taking a conversational approach here, so imagine that we are sitting together and talking over a few chais.
We do not have to be reminded by Gautier what was done in the name of Christianity in Europe. In other words, it was not Christianity that made people do things, but what was done in its name; similar to what is being done in the name of Hinduism, as well as the belief that it is Hinduism that makes people violent. And what Gautier encountered in France, is in no way a counter weight for what is happening in India, and should not be used to formulate pithy arguments. Those arguments are meant for the lizard or reptilian brain. There are an appreciable number of Christian persuasion and belief on Goanet who take Christians, Christianity and other aspects of the Christian way of life to task. We are very aware. Perhaps not entirely emancipated to be supra-free thinkers but definitely not miles away from that state either. First of all. I wonder whether the title, "What made Hindus angry in Karnataka," was provided by Gautier or the paper. Imagine if the title was "Karnataka Hindus share their concerns," or something less strident. The noun heathen means the unconverted who do not acknowledge the God of the Bible. A heathen is irreligious, and even one who is uncivilized. Of course when Gautier visited India, he forgot the bit about his zeal to be a missionary. What was he thinking? That the Hindus would be snarling at him, chasing him up and down Varanasi? No. What he saw was that the Hindus had civilised ways, perhaps unlike what he thought, being civilized meant in France; as well as culture -- unlike what he also possibly imagined too in France. He was in all certainty touched in more ways than a mind can take in anything that is different (read exotic), and humanist. It is like a Catholic going to Ethiopia, in a sense going into the pre-pre-modern, and being moved by the religiosity of Ethiopian Orthodoc Christians at Lalibela, besides the wafting mists of burning incense. These comparisons may help some of you see such writings a little differently. It is is fine to have opinions. But one has to work on those closest to us; to help change certain attitudes. I hope Gautier took this understanding back home with him to France, to his family and acquaintances. Gautier gets to it quickly when he expects the current leaders to employ the term Islamic terrorism, as in "Yet, neither Manmohan Singh nor Sonia Gandhi have pronounced once the word 'Islamic terrorism.'" And to this, one is reminded of Gautiers previous writings. More power to him, but one can do a better job at ideology, than the way he puts things. India is a professed secular country, and such statements will not be heard from their mouths of Manmohan or Sonia, or perhaps even Advani or Parrikar for that matter-- neither should they ever say that. But are they pathetic as leaders -- yes, no more than the other basket cases. One cannot label a whole people, and particularly in India. Such statements often have a way of provoking various groups of individuals, leading to the violence that ensures, from groups ranging from senior politicians, village level politicians, minor religious figures, the business class, small shopkeepers, NRIs -- from taxi drivers to doctors, engineers and professors, technocrats, students, the impoverished living in slums. The manipulations is across the board. We could at least try not to get sucked into this. Imagine how these thoughts filter down to the children. Having said this, it is absolutely clear that the Congress have always been the original party of vote bank politics, in essence having taught others as well as countries in the region how such manipulation works. The BJP learned a thing or two from the Congress. Let us also not forget that the Congress leaders did not hesitate too long before they went after the Sikhs following Indira Gandhi's assassination. Can you imagine the fallout if those bodyguards were Christians. Who would have defended the Christians -- the Muslims, the Hindus? Have we given serious thought to what could have then have happened. As an artist laborer, I think twice before painting something, since one move and the whole roof can cave in on a people -- Christians. I am not powerful, but it does not take much for someone to use an idea to propel their agenda. So agendas abound, but we may not always see them. And no, I am not censoring myself -- but being judicious in my thought and works. People can always refuse New Life. Let us attempt to operate as a civil society. Instead the politicians milk such issues. How about giving people the basics, rather than exhorting them towards mayhem and havoc. I know that none of this is easy, but we can be intelligent in our reasoning. How many times does one have to say the same thing? If they came to your home, or lets say even accosted you -- what would you do? Beat the bejesus out of them? Lets us say one could argue with them, raise ones voice, yell, raise ones fists and depending on ones frustration and even political backing could resort to other violent means. But one could still get people to go away. This would only be hard to do if one is internally dysfunctional, angry at ones circumstances, being kept on a tight lease by powers beyond ones control or goaded into taking certain action. This cannot be faulted. One will never be able to 'control' people in doing what is right for others. The frustration is over a range of issues including socio-economics, that are being ignored all the time. One expects more from any rational being. Conversions (even if Christ does not exist) have to have faith. Do Christians who were baptized at birth have a faith that is stronger or even equal than those who get converted at a latter age. Hard to say but possibly not. One can have faith for anything provides one can see the divine in it. To understand faith let us go to Walter Kaufman, in From Shakespeare to Existentialism (taken from, The Present Age by Soren Kierkegaard, Harper Torch Books); "Kierkegaard revered Abraham for the unflinching authoritarianism and the ethic of utter blind obedience that he attributed to him, however mistakenly. He admired Abraham for not looking at the content of the commandment to sacrifice his son, and for not concluding that it was not divine and could not come from God. In *Fear and Trembling*, Kierkegaard added: 'If faith does not make it a holy act to be willing to murder one's son, then let the same condemnation be pronounced upon Abraham as upon every other man.' Heavy stuff and very frightening. But one cannot have faith per se to do anything. A conscience helps. I hope when we encounter Gautier again -- that, we shall see his ideas for what they really are. I will leave alone his other ideas, including his heart which has gone to Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa. Venantius J Pinto > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:01:41 +0100 > From: "anil desai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Goanet] An interesting article > > Dear goanetters > We have been reading a lot on the subject of religious disharmony in India > with one political outfit taking most of the flak. Here is an interesting > article in today's Indian express: > > What made Hindus angry in Karnataka > > Fran?ois Gautier< > http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/searchresult.aspx?AliasName=9Sz/qRu/YvAhRnVbCZ/zGymsmOnOa/2e > > > First Published : 06 Oct 2008 02:12:00 AM IST > Last Updated : 06 Oct 2008 07:40:54 AM IST > > I WAS born in a Catholic family. My uncle was a priest, a wonderful man of > warmth and compassion and I spent most my early years in Catholic boarding > schools.