Something To Think About - 04

Richest Muslim Entrepreneurs of the World.

In his article on How a Muslim Billionaire Thrives in Hindu India, Yaroslav Tromifov (Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2007; Page A1) provides the following table which gives a list of the world's richest Muslim entrepreneurs.

















It makes for some very interesting reading.


According to Wikipedia, the countries with the largest Muslim populations are:
Indonesia - 207 million, Pakistan - 160 million, India - 151 million, Bangla Desh - 135 million, Egypt - 75 million, Turkey - 70 million, Nigeria - 67 million, Iran - 64 million.


Isn't it interesting and significant that out of these 8 countries only India finds a place in the WSJ table of Muslim multi-billionaires given above? In fact India not only finds a place but tops the list. Not a single Muslim country with 50-million-plus Muslim population has a place in this table. Strangely, Russia with about 20 million Muslims fills the second and sixth places out of eight. Only Saudi Arabia (27 million), UAE (3 million) and Kuwait (2 million) fill the remaining 5 places. How about France (4.4 million), Germany (3.2 million), USA (3 million), UK (1.6 million), Netherlands, Spain and Italy (with just short of 1 million Muslims each)? Advanced countries? Developed countries? Secular nations? Equal-opportunity countries? Why not a single one of them with a Muslim multi-billionaire in the table above?


Way back in Februay 13, 1994, The Times of India published an article Secular Success of Muslim Business. (http://www.swaminomics.org/articles/19940213_muslimbusiness.htm). The very first paragraph reads as follows: "Many readers heard of Cipla, the pharmaceutical company, when its share price recently hit Rs 35, 000, making it the priciest stock in India. But relatively few readers know that Cipla is owned by a Muslim, Mr. Yusuf Hamied. It is good that Cipla is viewed in secular rather than communal terms. But it is also important to scotch notions that discrimination against Muslims in India makes it impossible for them to succeed in business. An increasing number of Muslim entrepreneurs are rising towards the top of the business ladder."


Then it goes on to list a few of those Muslim entrepreneurs -- of course Wipro of Azim Premjee followed by East-West Airlines, the biggest air taxi operator, run by the Wahid family; Wockhardt, a fast-growing drug company about to make a Euro issue, run by the Khorakiwalas, better known for owning the Akbarally store in Bombay; The Al-Kabeer group run by the Allana family. There are controversies and communal tension every time it sets up a slaughterhouse. But it is by no means confined to meat. It is one of the five top export houses (exports exceed Rs 300 crore), and has in some years been the second biggest coffee exporter; Himalaya Drug, run by the Malans, is the biggest producer and exporter of ayurvedic drugs; Patel Roadways is one of the-top transport companies; Lokhandwala, who has lent his name to a gigantic Bombay" colony, is one of India's biggest builders.


The article ends with the words: "I think it important to publicise the outstanding success of the Premjis, Khorakiwalas and Hamieds. Above all I think we need to publicise the success of Himalaya Drug in becoming the top ayurvedic producer and exporter, a classic example of secular commerce crossing religious lines. For Muslims, this is a symbol of hope. For secular Hindus it is a matter of pride."


To repeat a statement from the above report, just as a reiteration, "it is also important to scotch notions that discrimination against Muslims in India makes it impossible for them to succeed in business". Azim Premji also has made this point in his interview. While India's Muslim groups complain about facing daily discrimination, Mr. Premji says the only time he has been singled out because of his Muslim heritage wasn't in India but at a U.S. airport shortly after 9/11. In doing business in India, he maintains, "I don't think being a Muslim or being a non-Muslim has been an advantage or disadvantage. It's just been based on the merits of the opportunities."


Isn't it a fact that India has provided an environment for anybody to thrive, irrespective of caste, creed, race, religion, or whatever? It is something to think about.


Let us see some other aspects in subsequent post(s).

Something to Think About - 03

Police, Police - The Same Everywhere.

"Haneef terrorism charges dropped", says a BBC News report of Friday, the 27th July 2007. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6918569.stm) It goes on to say, "An Indian doctor has been freed from custody in Australia after charges linked to the failed bomb attacks in the UK were dropped ............ The charge was withdrawn on Friday after Australia's chief prosecutor admitted "a mistake has been made". ......... The case against Dr Haneef came under question after prosecution evidence presented in a previous hearing was disputed. Prosecutors had claimed that the doctor's SIM card had been found in the burning car that crashed into Glasgow international airport on 30 June. But it later emerged the card had actually been found in a flat in Liverpool, some 300km (185 miles) from Glasgow, where his cousin lived."

The Indian Police establishment must be enjoying this piece of news thoroughly. After all they are often at the receiving end of stinging criticism, not only at the hands of Western 'holier-than-thou' commentators, but also of western-oriented, and probably western-funded, English language media in India, about their incompetence and ham-handed handling of cases. This, in spite of many highly publicised success stories like: the conviction of British operator, Peter Bleach, for gun-running; the investigations in the match fixing scandal involving Hansie Cronje and others which shocked the cricketing world; the successful, though highly delayed, convictions of the perpetrators of the 1993 Mumbai blasts; and so on.

On the flip side there are occasions when the police and other investigative and enforcement agencies have exhibited unethical, unprofessional, illegal, inhumane behaviour. The notorious Bhagalpur Blindings incident in which the police blinded 31 undertrial/convicted prisoners by throwing acid in their faces is just one such example. But it would appear that most such incidents are due to the frustration the police personnel experience because of frequent political intervention in their activities. It is a very common experience in India that when the police arrest some goondas (thugs, antisocial elements), their prosecution is obstructed by political bosses whose patronage the goondas enjoy. When, over a period of time, the policemen who do their job conscientiously and professionally, and justifiably expect appreciation for their good work, get the stick instead for daring to lay their hands on some blue-eyed boys of the ruling party, it is no wonder they reach a condition called 'temporary insanity' and behave like a bull in a China shop.

Very often the enforcement agencies also gear up their behaviour to be in tune with what they think their masters expect of them, and would approve of. If the American soldiers exhibited some unacceptable behaviour in the Abu Ghraib episode in Iraq, it is mainly because of the environment, the mindset created by the ruling junta in the United States of America. Unfortunately the rulers, the politicians, who are the real perpetrators of these misdeeds, get away scot-free and it is only the small fry who are left to face the music.

That seems to be the case in this Dr. Haneef episode too. Another report by Nick Bryant of BBC News the same day, "Why the Haneef case disintegrated", says: "Clive Porritt, the prosecuting lawyer, delivered his most compelling nugget of evidence: that the mobile phone SIM card which Dr Haneef was alleged to have given to his second cousin in Britain was found in the burning Jeep rammed into Glasgow airport. ...... The case against Dr Haneef disintegrated because that proved to be false information. The SIM card was discovered not in Glasgow but in Liverpool. ............ There were other problems and inconsistencies. The police claimed he offered no explanation of why he tried to leave Brisbane on a one-way ticket to India. A transcript of his first police interview, leaked to the press by his defence team, showed he did: he wanted to see his wife, who had just given birth to their child." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6919399.stm)

Police certainly go overboard in submitting false information, and suppressing/manufacturing evidence which will help them get a conviction on terrorism charges. That will surely bring them into the good books of Howard and Bush and Cheney and Blair in the present environment of 'war against terror'. But when the case blows up in their face, whose face gets blackened?

Here is how John Howard, Australia's Prime Minister has reacted to the situation. In his report Nick Bryant says: "On a visit to Bali, where Australians have twice been the victims of attacks, Mr Howard sought to distance himself from the debacle at home."

Quoting Howard he says: "Bearing in mind that the detention of the man was undertaken by the police and not at the request or direction or encouragement of the government, and that the case was prepared by the director of [public] prosecutions, I think that the right thing now is for those two men to explain the process and explain the reasons."

Of course Howard and his Australian government had nothing to do with this case! What hypocrisy!! But how come Kevin Andrews, the immigration minister, decided to cancel Haneef's visa and keep him detained under immigration laws in the first place? That too "when the magistrate at that hearing in Brisbane, Jacqui Payne, had decided to grant the 27-year-old Indian doctor conditional bail". Obviously the left hand of Howard's government does not know what the right hand is doing.

The BBC report goes on to say: "That immediately gave the case a political edge, with critics of the government claiming Dr Haneef had been caught up in the turbulent undertow of an election year. ...... With the John Howard government lagging way behind in the polls, as it has done for the past six months, Mr Andrews was accused of political opportunism: of trying to burnish the government's anti-terror credentials and focusing attention on national security, an issue which polls repeatedly show favours Mr Howard."

Anything goes in the name of election. And anything goes in the name of anti-terrorism too. When Bush and Cheney and their Neocon gang can cause the death of close to one million Iraqi civilians and label it as collateral damage, when they can declare that the Geneva Convention is null and void as far as USA is concerned, when they can defy the world in carrying on with their unlawful detention centres in Guantanamo Bay and other unspecified locations elsewhere, what matters this little bit of aberration on the part of Howard? After all hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Something for us all to think about, about the calibre of the people we elect.

Something To Think About - 02

Are the Natives of the Americas Savages?

This is in effect a sequel to my earlier post, necessitated by some interesting comments from someone who has identified himself/herself as only Anonymous. I believe that this person has made the comments with serious intent and not in a flippant, facetious manner. But he/she apparently belongs to the Roman Catholic Church and finds it difficult to stomach the thought that the Catholic Church or the Pope can ever be capable of any wrong-doing. To be sure this person represents millions and millions of people who are followers of the Christian faith and belong to the western world, and have grown up with the thought that theirs is a civilised society of culture and refinement, whose leaders, spiritual, social and political, are engaged in providing compassionate, philanthropic, humanitarian services, in the true tradition of Jesus Christ, to the rest of the world, populated by uncivilised brutes and savages with no religion, who need to be converted to Christianity. If only they make an effort to know something of the real world!

Mr/Ms Anonymous says, "The brutality of the pre-Christian Indian cultures was, everyone agrees (!!), horrifying — human sacrifices, brutal slavery, mass killings, etc. No wonder the Indians converted so readily when they were told of Christ. Pope Benedict was right." The ‘Indians’ refers to natives of the Americas.

It’s a pity that in this 21st century when the internet and the world wide web (WWW) are flush with tremendous amount of authoritative information on all subjects under the sun, people do not make any effort to get to the truth of the matter.

I can't do better than reproduce some excerpts from this piece, "A Spanish Friar Indicts the Conquistadors for the Massacre of Indians, 1542" (From Bishop Las Casas. An Historical and True Account of the Cruel Massacre and Slaughter of 20,000,000 of People in the West Indies by the Spaniards, [1542]. [Translated from the French edition. New York, J. B. Publishers, 1898. Originally published 1620.]) (http://historicaldocuments.com/SpanishFriarIndictstheConquistadores.htm)

"In the year 1492 the West Indies were discovered, and in the following year they were visited by the Spaniards. The islands were inhabited by an infinite multitude of people who were without fraud, without subtlety or malice, and faithful and obedient to their Princes. ………….. To this quiet and peace loving people, the Spaniards came like tigers, wolves, and lions, enraged with hunger. ………….. At Hispanola, where the Spaniards first landed, they took captive their women and children to serve them as slaves; but not satisfied with this, they commenced to assault the highest and mightiest among them, and when the natives attempted to retaliate, the Spaniards started on their campaign of devilish cruelty and slaughter, sparing neither women nor children. ……... They often laid wagers as to who was the most dexterous in cleaving a man's skull open, cutting him in the middle, or taking an arm or leg off in a single blow. The treatment accorded women, and the indignities their bodies suffered, cannot be related. ....... ...... In the year 1511, they landed in Cuba, a fertile country, filled with a comely and intelligent people. Here, too, their lust for gold and thirst for blood devastated the island, putting more than 800,000 people to the sword. ........ Among the many enormities committed by the Spaniards in Cuba, the following deserves notice: A certain Nobleman or Prince presented to the Spaniards, on their arrival, 15,000 crowns. They, perceiving that he must necessarily posess vast treasure, tied him to a stake, and stretching his legs apart, built a fire under them, offering him his liberty if he would give them more. Unable to bear the torture he sent for more, but notwithstanding this, they began to torment him again, increasing the fire so that the marrow dropped from the soles of his feet and he expired....... In the year 1522 a band of Spanish adventurers went to the Island of Nicaragua, a country fertile beyond comparison, inhabited by a docile and industrious people. It was here that the natives suffered the most severely, as their island did not posess mountains into which they could flee from their conquerors. The Spaniards seizing upon all the products of the country and driving the men from the usual sowing and harvesting, famine followed quickly, from which none could escape. So that from sheer necessity, the natives became cannibals. I saw one woman in such dire extremity that she killed and ate her suckling infant. ………… There is no language, no art or science, that can avail to recite the abominable and bloody actions committed by these human monsters. Neither is it possible to exaggerate their detestable deeds."

When Mr/Ms Anonymous says, "The brutality of the pre-Christian Indian cultures was, everyone agrees, horrifying — human sacrifices, brutal slavery, mass killings, etc.”, how much does that statement correspond to the truth? One has to wonder who the savages are - the original inhabitants, the natives, or the so-called 'civilized', 'Christian', marauders from Europe.

He/She has quoted: "No wonder the Indians converted so readily when they were told of Christ. Pope Benedict was right." Sorry, Anonymous, it was not the natives, wrongly referred to as Indians, who needed to be converted to Christianity. It was the 'Christians' from Spain, Portugal and other European countries who needed to be told about Christ. And Pope Benedict was nowhere near being right. He was far far away from the truth.

Anonymous has begun his/her comments with the query: "Would you care to cite any evidence that the Catholic Church engaged in forced conversions or had anything whatsoever to do with any alleged “genocide” in Latin America? Lefties make this baseless claim based on this:
http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/analysis/details.php?content=2004-02-26"

Let us take a look at what others say about this, starting with the Goa Inquisition in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries.

http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1111142225
Details of the Goa Inquisition Posted March 18, 2005 Christian historian, Dr. T. R. de Souza

"The Goan inquisition is regarded by all contemporary portrayals as the most violent inquisition ever executed by the Portuguese Catholic Church. It lasted from 1560 to 1812........... So harsh and notorious was the inquisition in Goa, that word of its brutality and horrors reached Lisbon but nothing was done to stop this notoriety and escalating barbarity and it continued for two hundred more years. Nobody knows the exact number of Goans subjected to these diabolical tortures, but perhaps it runs into hundreds of thousands, may be even more. ........... Dr. Trasta Breganka Kunha, a Catholic citizen of Goa writes, "Inspite of all the mutilations and concealment of history, it remains an undoubted fact that religious conversion of Goans is due to methods of force adopted by the Portuguese to establish their rule. As a result of this violence the character of our people was destroyed. The propagation of Christian sect in Goa came about not by religious preaching but through the methods of violence and pressure." “

"Historians consider the Goa Inquisition the most merciless and cruel ever" Excerpts from interview with Richard Zimler, author of Guardian of the Dawn, by Lindsay Pereira of Rediff.com (14 SEP 2005) (http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/14inter1.htm)

Q. “Portugal, today, is still a country deeply steeped in a Catholic tradition. Do you think people are aware of the Inquisition and what it meant back then? Would they look at this as a re-opening of old wounds?” A. “No, few people here know anything about the Inquisition. Many of them would rather not examine what their ancestors did, both in Portugal and its colonies. But others are very curious about what they didn't learn in school about their own history. Yes, in a sense I am opening old wounds. But I think it's important to do that. I think that we need to face the bad things we do -- both individually and as a society. …………… ........... Guardian of the Dawn has been a Number One bestseller here, for instance. A great many readers tell me I have opened a door to a part of their history they know nothing about. I'm proud of that.”

Q. “Re-examining the Inquisition seems apt, more so at a time like this when religious fanaticism is changing the world in ways unknown to us. What do you, as an author, believe we ought to take away from a study of it?” A. “I couldn't agree with you more, and that is one of the reasons I wrote Guardian of the Dawn. Put simply, I think we all need to be alert to the intolerance in our societies and in ourselves. We ought to maintain government and religion completely separate -- such a separation is the only guarantee we have of freedom of expression. We ought to learn from the ancient Asian tradition, which is to respect the religious beliefs of others and not impose our own Gods on them.”

Let us see how the Catholic Church behaved in the rest of the world in the same time period.

During the French Wars of Religion (1562-1598), in three days from August 24, 1572 Catholic forces massacred about 25,000 Protestants. Known as the St. Bartholomew Massacre, "this was the single most bloody and systematic extermination of non-combatants in European history until World War II." After this, "Protestants no longer viewed Catholicism as a misguided church, but as the force of the devil itself. No longer were Protestants fighting for a reformed church, but they suddenly saw themselves fighting for survival against a Catholic church whose cruelty and violence seemed to know no bounds." (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/) "In March, 1562, an army led by the Duke of Guise (Catholic) attacked a Protestant church service at Vassy in the province of Champagne and slaughtered everybody they could get their hands on: men, women, and children—all of whom were unarmed. Thus began the French Wars of Religion which were to last for almost forty years and destroy thousands of innocent lives." (25000 in three days. One has to wonder how many were killed in the 40 years).

Again, Duke of Alba, sent by Philip, the King of Spain, a staunch Catholic, to quell the growth of Protestantism in the Netherlands, "imposed a tribunal, the Council of Troubles, to question and sentence heretics (Protestants). The Dutch called this council the "Council of Blood," for it managed to publicly execute thousands of people before Alba was forced from the Netherlands."

Further, in the Thirty Years War, 1618-1648, between Catholic and Protestant forces, primarily in Germany but joined by other countries too, "The sheer amount of casualties and human destruction made this war the most calamitious and disastrous war of European history before the nineteenth century."

These massacres were all the result of the Catholic Church’s campaign to put down the Protestants whom they labelled as heretics. The Catholic Church had arrogated to itself the right of deciding dogmatically what was orthodox doctrine, and declared any other interpretation of the doctrine as heresy, and anybody who dared to put up a different concept as a heretic. If this was the level of their hatred for people of their own Christian faith who had a different view of what Jesus Christ said, their level of intolerance and arrogance was much more virulent against the Hindus of India, the natives of the Americas and others whom the Catholics labelled as pagans and heathens,and whom they murdered or converted. While the Western world looked the other way when the millions of ‘pagans’ and ‘heathens’ in India and the Americas were slaughtered, they suddenly woke up and took notice when six million Jews were massacred by Hitler and his Nazis with the tacit blessing of Pope Pius XII.

When the ‘heretics’ finally survived the onslaughts of the Catholics and established a place for themselves under the sun, they, the Protestants, Baptists and all other brands of Christians, too, in turn, have behaved in the same intolerant, arrogant way as the Catholics, and have engaged in conversion of people from other religions. Why? Haven’t they learnt anything, from their own experiences, about tolerance for and acceptance of other thoughts and ideas?

When Mr/Ms Anonymous says, "The brutality of the pre-Christian Indian cultures was, everyone agrees, horrifying — human sacrifices, brutal slavery, mass killings, etc.”, against such massive evidence of barbaric, brutal, savage behaviour of ‘civilized’, ‘CHRISTIAN’ folks from Europe, it leads one to wonder whether it is naivete or innocence or ignorance.

However, the purpose of this discussion is not so much about whether the Europeans were more savage than the native Americans, or whether the Christians are more savage than the Muslims or the so-called pagans, but to highlight some fundamental aspects of life, of which religion is just one component.

The Bible says God made man in His own image. Then the Bible goes on to say that God took out one rib from Adam and fashioned the woman, Eve, out of that. Does it mean woman is not made in the image of God just as the man? Does it mean God loves man more and loves woman less, allowing the idea to develop that woman is inferior and subservient to man? Is it not an insult to God to suggest that He, who created the earth, the oceans, all the animals, the birds, the fishes, and the man, could not create woman also in the same way, but made her out of a body part of the man? In fact it is the woman who is made truly in the image of God in the sense of the spirit of God such as love, compassion, ability to create life and so on. Is it not arrogance on the part of men, more so men who have come in the tradition of Jesus Christ, to treat women as inferiors?

So, God made man in His own image. Does this term ‘man’ stand for just one person, called Adam, as the Bible says, or is it a collective term which denotes a pair of man and woman in every single country or region in the world, who subsequently populated the entire world? Is there a white skinned God who created the white people populating the European and American countries, a brown skinned God who created the brown skinned people of the Indian sub-continent, a dark skinned God who created the ‘blacks’ of Africa, a pint-sized God who created the pigmies of Africa, a yellow skinned God who created the yellow tinted Mongoloid people and so on? When man with his limited mental and intellectual capacity can create so many different models and brands of cars such as Ford, Buick, Chevrolet, Austin, Rolls Royce, Peugeot, Daimler-Benz, Skoda, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Ferrari, Audi, Citroen, and many many more, is it difficult to understand and accept the simple fact that the one God (who is the same for everyone), in His own infinite wisdom and love of variety and diversity, has created all the different types of people in His own image, and endowed them all with the same type of feelings and emotions, skills and abilities? “Love thy neighbour as thyself,” is what Jesus said. And he added, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Is that the way the European ‘Christ-ians’(??) have behaved with the Aborigines of Australia, the Maoris of New Zealand, the natives of the Americas, the ‘blacks’ of Africa and any other local populace of the countries they colonized? While the American natives received the Europeans with a smile, with love and kindness, the inhuman monsters from Spain, Portugal, England and France repaid all that loving welcome with barbaric, brutal, savage attacks. It is immaterial which brand of Christ-ianity they professed, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Presbyterian, whatever, they were all equally horrid. The love, the compassion, the peace which Jesus Christ stood for, were conspicuous by their absence. Is this not primarily because of the lack of love, lack of respect, lack of tolerance, lack of acceptance of people who seem different from them, even though they are also made in the image of the same God, the one and only God who is the same for all?

The Christians say there is only one God, the Muslims and the Jews also say the same thing, and the Hindus too say there is only one God. Then what is the problem? Just a qualitative difference between what the Hindus say and what the others say.

The Vedic scriptures which govern the Hindus say that there is only one God, the Supreme Being, but the learned people call IT by various names. So the Hindus recognise and accept that God can be denoted by not only the Hindu names like Rama, Krishna, Vishnu, Siva, Ganesa and so on, but also as the Father of the Christians, as Allah of the Muslims, as Yahweh of the Jews, as Ahura Mazda of the Zoroastrians (Parsees), and by any other name as well. It is because of this basic acceptance that all religious thoughts are equally valid that Jews as well as the Parsees found ready asylum in India when they had to flee their own countries, without any persecution by the Hindus. So it has never been in the ethos of the Hindus to force Hinduism down the throats of anybody.

On the other hand it has been the style of the Christians to refuse to accept as valid anything other than their own faith, so much so they label them as pagans, heathens and so on, and develop the urge to convert them to Christianity by force or eliminate them. Isn’t it a shame that this is all that they have learnt from Jesus Christ in whose name they call themselves Christ-ians? Jesus Christ was an embodiment of love, compassion, mercy, gentleness, peace. How far removed from Jesus Christ and His teachings are these Christ-ians!

Respect for and acceptance of the fact that the one and only God has created everyone in this world in His own image and all are entitled to their place on this earth on an equal footing without negative impact from others, and respect for and acceptance of the fact that the one and only God has revealed Himself not only to the prophets who gave birth to Christianity but also to other prophets, sages, rishis, elders etc whose teachings brought forth the other religious faiths in the world all of which should be treated by everybody as equally valid, are two primary requirements for people to live in amity and peace in this world. As Richard Zimler said, “We ought to learn from the ancient Asian tradition, which is to respect the religious beliefs of others and not impose our own Gods on them.”

Just think about it.

Something To Think About - 01

Criticizing the Catholic Church is "Terrorism" says Vatican.

A Reuters News Agency report of May 2, 2007, says, "The Vatican's official newspaper accused an Italian comedian on Wednesday of "terrorism" for criticizing the pope and warned his rhetoric could fuel a return to 1970s-style political violence."
(http://www.unknownnews.org/070502-papalcomplaint.html)

It seems a presenter of a televised May Day rock concert, which is sponsored by Italy's labor unions, had launched "vile attacks" on Pope Benedict in front of an "excitable crowd." An editorial in the newspaper says, "This, too, is terrorism. It's terrorism to launch attacks on the Church. It's terrorism to stoke blind and irrational rage against someone who always speaks in the name of love, love for life and love for man."

What a tall claim that the Vatican and the pope always speak "in the name of love, love for life and love for man"!! More than anything else, the primary thing missing in this is the Love For Truth.

In 1999, just before the visit of the late Pope John Paul II to India, Rediff On The Net carried an interview with Dr David Frawley, director of the American Institute of Vedic Studies. Here are some excerpts from that interview which shows how much the Vatican, the Christian Churches, the popes and all other Christian religious leaders speak and behave in the name of love, love for life and love for man.

--- "The bloody history of the Church in America, Africa and Asia is an open book and well known. The Native Americans where I live in the United States still tell stories about how the feet of their people were cut off for refusing to walk to church or their tongues cut off for refusing to recite prayers. The church has claimed that its intolerance is a thing of the past. Yet even if one accepts that it has stopped today, which is debatable, it certainly went on well into this century. That the church was prominent in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and never really opposed Hitler or Mussolini, should not be forgotten."

--- "The Church has harmed many Hindu families and Communities and is still willing to do so, by turning people against their native beliefs and customs....... The Goa Inquisition was probably the worst (crime) and involved torture and murder of thousands of Hindus and the destruction of many Hindu temples over a period of several decades. It was done by the same groups that promoted the genocide of Native Americans."

Pope Benedict XVI's Love For Truth shows up in full splendour when he insists that Latin American Indians wanted to become Christian even before European conquerors arrived centuries ago. Addressing a regional conference of bishops in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the pope is reported to have said that pre-Columbian people of Latin America and the Caribbean were seeking Christ without realizing it. "Christ is the savior for whom they were silently longing." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/sns-ap-pope-indians,1,2129852.story?coll=chi-religion-topheadlines)

The report by VIVIAN SEQUERA, Associated Press Writer, in the Chicago Tribune of May 16, 2007, goes on to add:

-- But Paulo Suess, an adviser to Brazil's Indian Missionary Council, said Monday that the comments fail to account for the fact that Indians were enslaved and killed by the Portuguese and Spanish settlers who forced them to become Catholic. Benedict "is a good theologian, but it seems he missed some history classes," said Suess, whose council is supported by the Roman Catholic Church.

-- Marcio Meira, who is in charge of Brazil's federal Indian Bureau, said Indians were forced to convert to Catholicism as the result of a "colonial process." "As an anthropologist and a historian I feel obliged to say that, yes, in the past 500 years there was an imposition of the Catholic religion on the indigenous people," Meira said.

One has to wonder whether Benedict XVI is capable of understanding the simple TRUTH contained in these comments, or the cutting sarcasm expressed in them.

The Vatican newspaper charges that the Italian presenter in that rock concert had launched "vile attacks" on Pope Benedict, and says, "This, too, is terrorism." My goodness!! What about the "Terrorism" indulged in by all Christian missionaries in India engaged in "vile attacks" against Hindu culture and traditions in their vile venture of converting Hindus to Christianity?

Isn't it the Christians of all hues who have indulged in atrocious terrorist activities all over the world down the centuries since Jesus Christ? Christ, the apostle of love and peace, must be not just turning in His grave but spinning furiously in His grave at the shenanigans indulged in, in His name, by the people carrying His name. And this pope says any criticism of the church or the pope is "terrorism".

GOD LOVES FUN

The FIFA Soccer World Cup (in 2006) gave rise to some interesting exchanges between me and my relatives. It all started with my receiving a mail forwarded by one of them.

The Subject Line said: Who will win the 2006 FIFA world cup?
and the message ran as follows:

Brazil won the world cup in 1994. Before that, she had won this title for the last time in 1970. If you add up: 1970 + 1994 = 3964

Argentina won the world cup for the last time in 1986. Before that only in 1978. And 1978 + 1986 = 3964

Germany won the world cup in 1990. Before that, Germany won in 1974. Look: 1990 + 1974 = 3964

This could lead us to guess the winner of the World Cup in 2002, since it should be the winner of the 1962 World Cup (3964 - 2002 = 1962). Brazil had won the world cup in 1962!
And, voila, Brazil indeed won the 2002 WC

This numerology seems to work..... And now, who would be the winner of the 2006 world cup? Let's see, 3964 - 2006 = 1958. And who won in 1958?.... BRAZIL..!!! So, it should be Brazil indeed. (PS. For the record, it failed this time)

It is so uncanny and interesting, I forwarded it to a big group of my relatives.

The first response was from my son who said: "It fails for 1998, right? France had never won the World Cup before that".

All I could offer was a weak "Every rule is supposed to have some exception. THAT is the supreme rule.

However a cousin of mine took up the refrain and said: "After a bout of numerology, it is now time for a bit of Chinese astrology!

"The Chinese zodiac moves in a 12-year cycle, named after animals, starting from the Year of the Rat and ending with the Year of the Pig. The FIFA World Cup is held once in four years and therefore, all world championships are held in the years of the Dog, Horse or Tiger only. This year (2006) corresponds to the year of the dog. In previous Years of the Dog, Brazil has won it three times - 1958, 1970 and 1994; Italy has won it twice - 1934 and 1982. The odds hence favour a Samba encore!"

One of my brothers added (in response to my son's comment):
"So far as I can see, one has to find two years which add up to 3964. The complementary number to 1998 is 1966 - when England won the cup. Perhaps one should see France and England as complementary (definitely not COMPLIMENTARY) to each other. Alternatively one could say that France and England do not obey the laws of God, man or numerology."

I responded to that with: "Yes, that's a good one. If you look at my signature at the bottom, it has a quote from Guruji Sri Sri (Ravi Shankar) which says, "To me God is very mischievous; God loves Fun." He does love fun, doesn't He, to pair England and France in this calculation."

And he replied: "I appreciate your remark about God loving fun. To my mind, that is the great difference between Hinduism and other major religions, the concept of fun. There is so much in common between our religion and quantum physics. It may be sacrilege to criticise Einstein, but when he said "God does not play dice," I think he was patently wrong. Randomness is the basis of life and fun."


Yes, isn't it the element of uncertainty, unpredictability that provides quite a bit of spice and fun in life. If everything goes on in an orderly, routine, planned fashion, life becomes too boring to enjoy.


Take, for example, the simple predictions like weather reports. We, in India, have our daily dose of entertainment with the forecasts put out by the Indian Meteorology Department (IMD), which usually reads like, "Light showers or thunder showers are likely over the northern or central or southern Tamil Nadu some time in the morning or afternoon or evening." The IMD may be handicapped by having only a million dollar worth of equipment with which they cannot make more accurate forecasts. The Americans have billions of dollars worth of equipment in their numerous weather centers, and they fill the TV screens with moving images of how a hurricane is expected to move. The picture looks like a Chinese (or Japanese) fan, with one fringe pointing to Arizona with a 5 per cent chance, the opposite fringe pointing to Florida with again a 5 per cent chance, and the rest anywhere in between. That is probably why George W. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and their Neocons did not know where exactly Katrina was headed for, while almost all others thought it was New Orleans. It is quite likely that George W., with his Born Again Christian faith, was hoping or praying, or even for that matter knew for sure that Katrina will move away from the American coast and hit Iraq instead. Dubya and his Neocon friends are still recovering from the shock and awe of what Katrina dished out.

One may feel offended that a tragedy like Katrina's is taken as a subject for light-hearted comments and as a matter of fun. But just look at the way a child plays. He/she builds a structure using building blocks with absolute concentration etched on his/her face, but then knocks it down, and claps his/her hands and laughs and laughs and rolls on the floor laughing. That's the way God is.

God puts up patiently with people getting bloated with their own sense of supermanship and strutting about on the world's stage as if they are Gods, and periodically comes up with a Tsunami or Katrina or earthquakes to show where these guys and gals really fit in. But does anybody care to learn. They do provide the stage for God to have His fun.

Talking of Iraq, George W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and all other Neocons rushed into Iraq with glee (like children with their building blocks), announcing that Saddam Hussain and the Iraqis are in for Shock and Awe. That was in March 2003. Now, four years later, Dubya and his bunch still do not know what hit them, and when and how they themselves will get out of the shock and awe they have gotten themselves into. Dubya had a golden opportunity to get out of this mess and enjoy it all from outside, if only he had allowed a Democrat to become the President in 2005. But it was not to be. God probably wants to enjoy some more fun out of him.

Then Tony Blair. Should we talk about him? Maybe later.

God certainly loves His fun and enjoys it.

The Cat's Out Of The Bag

"President Bush marked the 400th anniversary of Jamestown's founding Sunday by praising colonists' indomitable spirit in the face of disaster and holding up the English settlement as a milestone on the path toward building American democracy," says a Washington Post report datelined Jamestown, Va, May 13 (2007). (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051300412.html)

President Bush is reported to have said further that there are "parallels between the nearly hopeless condition of the settlement's first days and current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan." The report goes on to say,"Jamestown's adventurers set out imagining gold and paradise in the New World, he said. The reality was far more grim................. As the first permanent English settlement, Jamestown planted the seeds of free enterprise, rule by law and representative government, he said. But Bush noted that its legacy has a dark side in the displacement of Native Americans and the enslavement of African Americans."

Doesn't this well and truly reveal the design with which President Bush and the neocons embarked on this Iraq Adventure? To make it their own colony in the image of the United States of America, and effectively lord over the world's oil supply. And if, in this process, the native Iraqis are enslaved or driven out into the neighbouring countries, it is just collateral damage.