Tag Archives: saint

DO YOU APPROVE MOTHER TERESA BEING MADE A SAINT? (answer yes or no & why)

Pope Francis on Tuesday formally approved Mother Teresa’s elevation to sainthood and set 4 September as the date for her canonisation.
This news will be greeted with applause by the cream of India’s intelligentsia, such as Vir Sanghvi, who always defended her, or Navin Chawla her biographer and Sonia Gandhi’s friend. I have a two questions however:

1) What does Mother Teresa really stand for?

2) Why do Indians defend her so ardently?

Foremost one should say in defence of Mother Teresa that she certainly is doing saintly work. After all, there is no denying that it takes a Westerner to pick up dying people in the streets of Calcutta and raise abandoned orphans, a thankless
task if there is one. Indians themselves, and particularly the Hindus, even though their religion has taught them compassion for 4,000 years, have become very callous towards their less fortunate brethren.

This said, one may wonder: What did Mother Teresa really stand for?
Was caring for the dying and orphaned children her only goal? Well, if you have observed her carefully these years, you will have noticed that she did not say much. She did speak against contraception and abortion, in a country of more than one billion, where an ever growing population is spiking whatever little economic progress is made, where the masses make life more and more miserable, invading the cities, crowding their streets and polluting the environment; where for 70 years the Indian government has directed a courageous and democratic birth control program (this must be said, for China has achieved demographic control through autocratic means).

What else did Mother Teresa say: she spoke of the dying in the streets of Calcutta, of course, of the poor of India left unattended, of the misery of the cities. Fair enough, but then it should have been pointed out to her, that she projected (and still project even though dead for so long) to the whole world an image of India which is entirely negative: of poverty beyond humanity, of a society which abandons its children, of dying without dignity. OK, there is some truth in it. But then it may be asked again: did Mother Teresa ever attempt to counterbalance this negative image of India, of whom she was the vector, by a more positive one? After all she lived here so long that she knew the country as well as any Indian, having even adopted Indian Nationality. Surety she could have defended her own country? She could for example have spoken about India’s infinite spirituality, her exquisite culture, the amazing gentleness of its people, the brilliance of its children…

Unfortunately, Mother Teresa said nothing. For the truth is that she stood for the most orthodox Christian conservatism. There is no doubt that ultimately Mother Teresa’s goal was utterly simple: to convert India to Christianity, the only true religion in her eyes.

Did you notice that she has never once said a good word about Hinduism, which after all is the religion of 780 million people of the country she said she loved, and has been their religion for 6000 years. This is because deep inside her, Mother Teresa considered, as all good Christians do, particularly the conservative ones, Hinduism a pagan religion which adores a multitude of heathen gods and should be eliminated.

For make no mistakes about it, there has been no changes about the Christians or Protestant designs on India since they arrived with the Portuguese and the British.

Listen to what Lord Hastings, Governor General of India, had to say in 1813: “The Hindoo appears a being limited to mere animal functions…. with no higher intellect than a dog or a monkey”! Mother Teresa was much more clever than Lord. Hastings. She knew that on the eve of the 21st century, it would have looked very bad if she would openly state her true opinion about Hinduism: so she bade her time. But ultimately is not charitable work, whatever its dedication, a roundabout manner to convert people? For without any doubt the people she saved from the streets ultimately became Christians – and if you ask those “elite” Indians who knew her well, such as the photographer Raghu Rai, a great admirer of her, she would always come out after some years with: “it’s now time for you to embrace the true religion” (Rai politely declined).

The second point then is: why did and does still India’s intelligentsia, the Vir Sanghvis, Rajdeep Sardesai, Navin Chawla’s, all of whom are born Hindus, defend her? These are intelligent, educated people, they must surely have had some inkling of Mother Teresa’s true purpose. Or did they? Do Sanghvi and Sardesai (there is a rumour that Sardesai’s father converted to Christianity), or Naveen Chawla, Mother Teresa’s ever admiring biographer, understand what Mother Teresa really stood for? That she was someone basically hostile to their culture, their religion, their way of life? Does Sanghvi know that Hindu society has always been the target of Christians since their coming here? Does he understand that he and a thousand of his peers, who belong to the intellectual elite of India and keep praising Mother Teresa, are doing harm to their country and opening it to its enemies? The Christian influence is very strong in India today: it shapes the minds of its young people, in a subtle way, through its schools, which many of the children of the rich attend. It moulds the thinking of the tribes it has converted, particularly in the North-East, where the missionaries have always covertly encouraged separatism (see the remarkable book “Indigenous Indians” by the Dutch Scholar Konrad Elst).

But ultimately it must be concluded that the Indian intelligentsia who defend Mother Teresa and are constantly attacking Hinduism, as Sanghvi, or the @IndiaToday group during @SriSri’s recent World Cultural Festival, are a product of three centuries of English and Christian colonialism, which successfully created an Indian elite cut off from its roots and hostile to its own culture. Mother Teresa is an incarnation of Western post- colonialism and the Nobel Prize she got is their endorsement of her work,

As for the Indian government’s stand on Mother Teresa, it is like biting one’s own tail and it seems quite stupid. Why make Mother Teresa a national figure when she represented and still represents today the worst publicity for India at a time when the country is trying to shed its image of poverty and backwardness? Surely Mother Teresa deserves praise for her work. But there are hundreds of other selfless, courageous individuals in India, who do not hog the limelight and go on with their service to the nation in true Christian humility. Sri Sri, for instance does a hundred times the sewa of Mother Teresa. The deeds of Mother Teresa should be reviewed in their proper perspective. Let us hope the @BJP4U Govt understands that.

For make no mistake about it, the wonder that is India, its great culture, its philosophy, its inner spiritual genius is today under mortal threat. It is attacked both from within by its minorities – of which the Christian lobby, although not the most visible, is essentially hostile – and in the process they may make allies with the Muslims, the other monotheist religion, with whom they partake of the same hate for Hinduism. And from without, by hostile neighbours. And what will India become if the Mother Teresas’ of this world, helped unwittingly by Sanghvi and his peers have the last word? It will lose what makes Her unique on this earth, different from all others, above most of them and become another Westernised, Christianised, standardised society, having lost its soul along the way. Thank you Vir Sanghvi and Naveen Chawla.

FG

http://www.firstpost.com/world/mother-teresas-elevation-to-sainthood-approved-canonisation-will-take-place-on-4-september-2676216.html?utm_source=FP_TOP_NEWS

Advertisements

Not India’s first woman saint

Francois Gautier, Pioneer

Indian media went into a tizzy while covering the canonisation of Sister Alphonsa, an obscure nun, to prove its secular credentials! Indian journalists forget that this country has had other women saints too.

As a Frenchman, I was coached right from childhood that logic, what we in France call cartesianism, is the greatest gift given to man and that one should use one’s reason to tread in life. Thus, I taught to my students in a Bangalore school of journalism, the SSCMS, that the first tool of a good reporter is to go by his or her own judgement on the ground, with the help of one’s first-hand experience — and not go by second hand information: What your parents thought, what you have read in the newspapers, what your caste, religion, culture pushes you into…

Yet in India, logic does not seem to apply to most of the media, especially when it is anything related to Hindus and Hinduism. One cannot, for instance, equate Muslim terrorists who blow up innocent civilians in market places all over India to angry ordinary Hindus who attack churches without killing anybody. We know that most of these communal incidents often involve persons of the same caste — Dalits and tribals — some of them converted to Christianity and some not.

However reprehensible was the destruction of the Babri Masjid, no Muslim was killed in the process. Compare that with the ‘vengeance’ bombings of 1993 in Mumbai, which killed hundreds of innocent people, mostly Hindus. Yet Indian and Western journalists keep equating the two, or even showing the Babri Masjid destruction as the most horrible act of the two.

How can you compare the Sangh Parivar with the Indian Mujahideen, a deadly terrorist organisation? How can you label Mr Narendra Modi a mass killer when actually it was ordinary middle class, or even Dalit Hindus, who went out into the streets in fury when 56 innocent people, many of them women and children, were burnt in a train?

How can you lobby for the lifting of the ban on SIMI, an organisation which is suspected of having planted bombs in many Indian cities, killing hundreds of innocent people, while advocating a ban on the Bajrang Dal, which attacked some churches after an 84-year-old swami and his followers were brutally murdered?

There is no logic in journalism in this country when it applies itself to minorities. Christians are supposedly only two per cent of the population in India, but look how last Sunday many major television channels showed live the canonisation ceremony of Sister Alphonsa, an obscure nun from Kerala and see how Union Minister Oscar Fernandes led an entire Indian delegation to the Vatican along with the Indian Ambassador. It would be impossible in England, for instance, which may have a two per cent Hindu minority, to have live coverage of a major Hindu ceremony, like the anointment of a new Shankaracharya. What were the 24×7 news channels, which seem to have deliberately chosen to highlight this non-event, trying to prove? That they are secular? Is this secularism?

The headline of the story “India gets its first woman saint”, run by many newspapers, both Indian and Western, is very misleading.

For India has never been short of saints.

The woman sage from over 3,000 years ago, Maithreyi, Andal, the Tamil saint from early in the first Millennium CE and Akkamahadevi, the 15th century saint from modern-day Karnataka, are but a few examples of women saints in India.

What many publications failed to mention in the story is that this is the first woman Christian saint — not the first Indian woman saint.

This statement is ok, when it comes, for instance, from the BBC, which always looks at India through the Christian prism (BBC ran a few months back an untrue and slanderous documentary on Auroville), but when it comes to the Indian media, it only shows the grave lack of grounding in Indian culture and history of most Indian journalists.

As a result, they suffer from an inferiority complex.

This inferiority complex, as expressed by television’s live coverage of the canonisation of Sister Alphonsa, is a legacy of the British, who strove to show themselves as superior and Indian culture as inferior (and inheritor of the ‘White Aryans’, a totally false theory).

Is it not time to institute schools of journalism, both private and public, where not only logic will be taught, but where students shall be made aware of Indian history and of the greatness of Indian culture, so that when they go out to report, they will use their own judgement and become Indian journalists, with a little bit of feeling, pride and love for their own country?