Calling Sangh organizations to account: What Hindus conceded via inter-faith - III
by Radha Rajan on 03 Nov 2011 34 Comments

While there is no denying that Swami Dayananda Saraswati has spoken out strongly against religious conversion and the extermination of entire religions, nations and peoples, he has also spoken in praise of Article 18 of the UN Charter of Human Rights which guarantees to all people of the world the inalienable right to freedom of religion.

The catch in Article 18 is that the right to freedom of religion includes the right to change one’s religion.

The end result of a Christian or Muslim becoming a Hindu is not the same as a Hindu changing religion to become a Christian or a Muslim. Religious conversion to the Abrahamic cults is linked inseparably to the political objective of both cults – to convert the entire world to Christianity and Islam; until that happens both religions use religious conversion to bring religious demography of a region to a critical mass from which to trigger separatism followed by secessionism. Swami Dayananda Saraswati ought to have kept the history of the Abrahamic cults in mind, how they expanded across continents, when he spoke in Montreal thus in 2006 –

§ The Human Rights UN charter has the article number 18, which talks about the right to change one's religion. If one wants to change one's religion, one must not be denied that freedom. One can change one's religion in private, and in community, and one should be able to profess one's religion. It is a good thing that we have in the Charter of this global body, a clause protecting religious freedom, but then this freedom, like any freedom, has certain responsibility.


§ Therefore, I have the right to be a Christian, a Muslim, a Parsi, or a Hindu. As it is, it is my responsibility to see that I do not destroy the Christian culture and religion; I cannot retain the culture and tradition unless I retain the Christian. You cannot protect Islam, without protecting a Muslim. To protect is to allow the person to have his or her form of prayer, tradition, and culture. You cannot protect dharma, without protecting the dharmi. A live culture or religion is protected by protecting the one who lives it. A practitioner of Islam or Christianity has a right to practice and preach his or her religion. Whatever your rights, I will defend them at any forum, but this cannot give you a sanction to have a program of aggression and destruction".

HDAS and all those who legitimise its creation and continuation must explain to the Hindu community why the Convener HDAS felt compelled on foreign soil to declare that he personally would defend the right of Christians and Muslims to retain their religion and culture by citing Article 18 when he knows that retaining one’s culture and religion is only one half of the said Article, while the other half of Article 18 gives them the right to obliterate other religions and cultures through religious conversion which they insist on doing without hindrance.

An impression has been created that the Convener HDAS managed to make a significant intervention to Article 18 at a multi-religious conference organized by the United Nations to re-visit the Charter on Human Rights. The intervention, as reported on the website of the HDAS reads as follows:

8. We note with serious concern the increase of intolerance in matters relating to religion or belief, of cases of incitement to religious hatred, overt or covert. While emphasising the importance of the freedom of expression, we deplore portrayals of objects of religious veneration which fail to be properly respectful of the sensibilities of believers. We consider the freedom to have, to retain and to adopt a religion or belief of one’s personal choice, without coercion or inducement, to be an undeniable right. Furthermore, the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief in any form of worship, observance, practice and teaching may only be subject to carefully defined limitations consistent with generally accepted principles of international law. (Excerpt from Faith in Human Rights, The Hague, December 2008)

However, the truth is that Article 18 of the Charter remains exactly as it was and Pujya Swamiji’s intervention has not altered a comma or a full-stop.

§ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. (UN Declaration of Human Rights, December 2008)

At the multi-religious conference organized by the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue (PCID), Vatican City, and the Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, on religious conversion in Lariano, Italy in May 2006, Hindus who participated in the conference (there is stubborn silence about the identity of these Hindus), as reported on the website of the HDAS, signed resolutions to the effect

§ That right to freedom of religion includes not only the right to practice one’s religion but also the right to change one’s religion

§ That all religions (this includes Hinduism) are equally guilty of crimes against humanity

§ That service activities undertaken by Christian missionaries is to be commended

At the inter-religious conference between Jews and Hindus in Jerusalem in February 2008, the HDAS eagerly explained to the Jews that Hindus are not really idolatrous and are not polytheists. Idol worship and polytheism are intolerant doctrines of the Abrahamic monotheisms; so why did HDAS seek to explain Hindu dharma through the Abrahamic idiom and more insultingly, why did HDAs and the bunch of self-appointed scholars which includes Cult 1 and Cult 3, who accompany Convener HDAS on every inter-religious jaunt, legitimise the Abrahamic right to demand explanations from Hindus about their customs and traditions?

Cults 1 and 3 is to HDAS what Gandhi was to the INC

HDAS is to the Generic Church what Gandhi was to the British government. HDAS was not created to empower and strengthen Hindu society to confront the predatory Abrahamic cults, just as Gandhi’s INC did not empower Hindus to confront the Muslim League effectively to avert vivisection. Vivisection became a reality at the beginning of the 1940s decade when Gandhi still refused to empower the Hindus and when other leaders of the INC abdicated their responsibility to the Hindu nation to get rid of Gandhi from the political arena.

The Muslim League wanted the whole of Bengal which included Assam, the whole of the Punjab and the North-west

§ Rajaji wanted to salvage whatever could be salvaged and wanted Assam to be de-linked from Bengal, Bengal itself to be divided and the Punjab too with total transfer of population

§ Gandhi postured to the world that Rajaji’s formula was tantamount to vivisection and therefore asked Rajaji to quit the INC and campaign for his formula from outside the Congress; he declared such a partition would occur only over his dead body (sounds eerily like the ‘engaging with other religions’, ‘purvapaksha’ delusory phrases)

§ Political leaders outside the INC like M.R. Jayakar did not want Gandhi or the INC to agree to any formula, not even to the idea of partition. By 1946, as the INC continued to tap-dance within the so-called freedom struggle without getting anywhere while the Muslim League was only two steps away from its desired objective, Gandhi suggested to Jinnah that he was willing to consider partition of the country as partition between brothers; this was towering Gandhian foolishness beyond belief because Gandhi’s semantics apart, partition of the country whether between multi-religious ‘brothers’ or as between “two nations” as Jinnah put it, is still vivisection and is still final and irrevocable.

Greatly enthused that even Gandhi had finally veered around to accepting partition (fact which establishment historians deny and continue to propagate the ‘over my dead body’ myth), the Imperial Government sent the Aga Khan to prevail upon Gandhi to speedily implement the idea. Let this be doubly emphasised – as late as February 1946, a month before the Cabinet Mission arrived in India, last ditch efforts were made to get Gandhi to publicly concede partition.

Gandhi had already rejected Rajaji’s formula publicly in 1942 and could not do a u-turn and accept it in 1946; but the Muslim League even in 1946 was determined to get the whole  of Bengal including Assam, and the whole of the Punjab in its formula for partition.

The Aga Khan was sent to India to push both the INC and the Muslim League towards the climax – the Aga Khan was mandated to get Gandhi to agree to the idea of partition and Jinnah to accept the truncated partition formula as proposed by Rajaji. Not surprisingly, Jinnah refused to meet him because the Muslim League resolutely refused to even consider the truncated prescription. The idea therefore was to get Gandhi to agree to it so that it became binding upon the INC and through the INC upon the ordinary people of the country.

Sensing the dangers of the Aga Khan’s proposed meeting with Gandhi and correctly reading the intent behind asking Gandhi to accept partition, M.R. Jayakar shot off a frantic letter to Gandhi –

Dear Mahatmaji, You will kindly excuse this letter, which is consequent on the eventful news in today’s press that H.H the Aga Khan is meeting you on the 20th at Poona. This is an astute move, which he foreshadowed during his interview on reaching India a few days ago. Why should he be bothering you with his attention instead of meeting Mr. Jinnah, it is not difficult to understand. You have done your best to meet Mr. Jinnah’s point of view by offering a division of India, though on the basis of a friendly transaction between two brothers. Mr. Jinnah contemptuously spurned it wanting the division as between two separate nations. With this background, the Aga Khan should be busy in meeting Mr. Jinnah and not you. But he won’t do this because he knows that Mr. Jinnah will show him the door, if he tried to interfere. So he turns in your direction. I need not say anything more. I am aware, as you said in one of your replies to me that you will not be wanting in caution, remembering that anything which you think of conceding, it will be difficult for the country later to avoid.

(Letter from MR Jayakar, Bombay, February 8, 1946, CWMG Vol. 89, page 461; Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and His Freedom Struggle, Chapter 6, The Indian National Congress’ Last Hurrah, footnote on page 339)

This is precisely the idea behind getting HDAS to do inter-religious dialogue and participate in multi-religious international conferences – what is conceded by Convener HDAS at these conferences will make it difficult later for our dharmagurus and dharmacharyas to deny, reject or refute (or so it is hoped).

A case in point is HDAS’ obdurate refusal, even in the face of strong protests, requests and reasoned arguments, to withdraw the statement of endorsement issued by Swami Dayananda Saraswati as Convener HDAS to the HAF report on caste. The endorsement continues to be flaunted by this anti-Hindu group as its medal of honour. And that is why the writer was compelled to pen two blistering essays about how the HDAS was a piece on the global chessboard and why the writer thought HDAS was going the way of Gandhi’s INC.

None of which explains why, if there is so much anger and resentment among VHP functionaries in Chennai about the HDAS, are Shri Ashok Singhal and Dr. Subramanian Swamy standing with one leg in the VHP and the other in the HDAS? And that is why the writer maintains that the VHP allowed itself to be made inconsequential, with Nagpur unwilling to deal with the crisis brought upon itself by the rise of the culture of personality cults.

American PIO, Clooney and Rashtrapati Bhavan

The obnoxious American PIO author, built up and promoted as another Cult and foisted upon the RSS by Cult 1, HDAS and some RSS intellectuals, has rubbed all Hindu noses in the dirt by seeking and receiving endorsement for his second book from Francis X Clooney, Director of the Centre for Study of World Religions at Harvard Divinity School.

Clooney is not simply another drum-beating Pentecostal missionary on the street who on every important Hindu festival day cries out to all sinners to see the light of Christ or the bible-thumping tele-evangelist demagogue. Francis X Clooney is a high Vatican official whose self-confessed differences with the Vatican are like the writer’s differences with the RSS, all within the family.

Clooney is more dangerous than the drum beaters and the bible thumpers because he is soft-spoken, suave, courteous, and engages not with the ordinary Hindu, but with Hindu scholars of repute, with senior RSS functionaries like Cult 1, and go-getters like Cult 3. Francis Clooney, after serving his Church in Nepal with great success, has now turned his attention to Tamil Nadu. He writes books about comparative religion in practice, which are actually step-by-step manuals in Inculturation for the Churches of Tamil Nadu.

If churches are now using words like Veda, Vedaagama, Sadhu, Rishi, and Ashram in their writings and speeches, if Christians are now carrying the kavadi to churches which have been planted close to temples atop hills, if missionaries are wearing saffron robes, these cancerous trends owe their success in no small measure to Francis X Clooney’s fertile Jesuit brain.

Clooney makes annual visits to India and his prolonged stay in Tamil Nadu includes several lectures which he gives not just in Christian institutions, but also to students in reputed Hindu colleges. This simply would not have been possible but for idiot and villainous Hindus welcoming Clooney into their kitchens. The writer drew pointed attention to Clooney in 2010 in the course of her critique of the HDAs and the cult phenomenon.

§ The Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue comprises of thirty members who constitute its apex body and fifty advisers who are called ‘Consulters’. These consulters are experts and specialists in religious studies and inter-religious dialogue. Francis Clooney, a Jesuit priest, is a regular visitor to India. In Chennai he had made great advances in penetrating the Srivaishanava mathams.

§ Such is the monumental ignorance of important Hindus about the politics of religion that Clooney was a welcome visitor in several Srivaishnava homes; Chennai’s Srivaishanava scholars fought among themselves for the honour of teaching Clooney the nuances of Srivaishnava texts. Clooney is the author of several books on comparative religion and Srivaishnavism.

§ The writer is convinced that Clooney is quite possibly one of the fifty Consulters of the PCID to implement the war strategy called inter-religious dialogue. Monumental ignorance and towering arrogance have always done the Hindus in. Our enemies know our weakness for flattery, disunity and the crustacean tendency to pull our own down. (Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha heading the way of Gandhi’s INC -3, April 11, 2010)

Cult 1 was in the forefront of promoting Cult 3’s book in Chennai and Delhi through the agency of the organizations he has spawned allegedly for the Hindu cause; the RSS parivar is just as guilty for allowing Cult 1 untrammelled power to promote individuals with dubious credentials and for planting his sycophants who follow instructions without question. In Delhi, Cult 3 hobnobbed with an important Congress Rajya Sabha MP to promote his book. This tendency to wine and dine with the enemy, openly cuckolding Hindus, has taken root within Hindu circles only because Nagpur has condoned the silencing of strong critics.

Cult 3 has announced to all the world and wife that one scheduled stop in his book promotional tour will be the Rashtrapati Bhavan. Just so anyone is tempted to gatecrash upon this elite assembly, Cult 3 has informed us all that it is a private gathering and by invitation only; and to make sure Hindus in India know what Rashtrapati Bhavan is, he has explained it kindly in parenthesis as being “(President’s House)”.

Cult 3’s book promotion in India deserves to be severely castigated this time because this individual with the contempt he feels for lesser mortals which includes Hindus in India, which he never cares to hide, has asked Francis X Clooney to endorse his book; this notwithstanding very strong reservations which important people in Chennai have already expressed about the Vatican’s Harvard Jesuit.

But just as Swami Dayananda Saraswati refuses even now to withdraw his endorsement of the HAF report on caste, Cult 3 has gone ahead and legitimised Clooney through his book. This does not however explain why Hindus in India, including Convener HDAS, Cult 2 and others who should know better are promoting the man and his book.

Even more outrageous is Cult 3’s visit to the Rashtrapati Bhavan. Hundreds of books are written every year; it would be interesting to know how many get a hearing from the President of India. It is important to mention here that the incumbent President owes her position to the UPA Chairperson; therefore the Rashtrapati Bhavan engagement could not have happened without the consent and intervention of very high officials in the Congress; it may not be too far-fetched to state that this consent would have been facilitated by foreign agencies with clout in the Congress.

Cult 3 and his book is the Trojan horse with Clooney in the belly. If the HDAS legitimised the UN and its Church-driven Charter on Human Rights, then Cult 3 supported by Cult 1, Cult 2 and HDAS has legitimised Francis Clooney.

When the writer took serious exception to Cult 3 influencing HDAS to see Nityananda’s experiments with sex as being legitimate tantric exercises, the individual commissioned his minions to author a slander document with inputs from the co-author of his first book.

For inviting the Iraqi Ambassador to India to speak from the Vigil forum on the eve of the American invasion of Iraq, and for organizing a meeting in Chennai close to Poes Gardens to pay obeisance to Pujya Kanchi Periava who had been released from prison, RSS Chennai prevailed upon Swami Dayananda Saraswati to evict the writer from Thinkers’ Meet. Nagpur stood by and allowed it to happen, as it stood by and allowed Cult 1 and Cult 2 to come together to sabotage the Vigil meeting organized to inform public opinion about how a jihadi outfit Tauheed Jamaat had successfully threatened the police with law and order problems if they did not dismantle an exhibition on Aurangzeb.

The writer distanced herself from the Chennai RSS without affecting her relationship with the larger RSS and parivar; but the ‘outside the sangh’ phenomenon has been caused only because these cults will not permit any critical voice or any view contrary to their own America-centric worldview. One elderly lady who expressed serious concerns about Clooney and about Rashtrapati Bhavan was treated to vintage Cult 3 high prose –


Earlier on the same thread to the lady,


It is time to call to account all Hindus doing international politics of religion and claiming to speak for the Hindus of the world. Nagpur can longer remain a silent witness to the calibrated disempowering and destruction of Hindus on Hindu bhumi that is underway with complicity from sections of Hindus.

The author is Editor,
User Comments Post a Comment

Back to Top