Dr. Muthuraj- a Shepherd crying wolf

A conservative Anglican ezine- 'virtueonline'- has published an article by a retired Professor and Anglican priest from my part of the world. It links a well documented historical atrocity with a wholly imaginary complaint regarding what is happening now in India. I feel this is unfortunate. It replaces 'parrhesia'- the duty to speak 'truth to power'- with paranoia. It substitutes a dirty type of hate mongering partisan politics for diakonia- Religion's duty to the poor and oppressed.

It may be that young people attracted to Evangelical Christianity benefit in some way by cultivating a sense of righteousness in persecution. Old farts like me tend to imagine that 'the tyranny of their peers' is forcing young people into wearing tight jeans, which emasculates them and turns them all into bum-boys, except for practicing homosexuals who become vegan or something equally despicable. In this context, pretending that Christians are persecuted so as to commit to being a 'Jesus Freak' is a good thing because you wear loose trousers and thus have healthy gonads, which means, sooner of later you get married, and get a mortgage, and lose your hair and get a pot belly- in a word, spend the long afternoon of your days blaming your kids for ruining your fucking life like every other normal, decent, raging alcoholic- till you get the Big C and suddenly everything is beautiful again and so you quit your loving family for Heavenly arms more welcoming yet.

The problem here is that Dr. Muthuraj- the author of the article to which I take objection-  is not young. It is unlikely he wears tight jeans- at least not around the house coz, after all, like me, he is South Indian. Thus he has no business contributing to a stupid availability cascade about how, like, the BJP is actually a Hindu Taliban and Christians are trembling in their boots across the length and breadth of India.

Christianity is not founded on a lie. Nor is its Theology a precursor of modern 'Grievance Studies'. We all persecute our Mothers when we are obstinate in error and sin. This is also true of Mother Church- the bride of Christ. St. Paul hears the voice of the Lord Pantocrator-  'I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks'. The meaning is that just as an ox maddened by the prick of the goad of the ploughman might push back against it only for its own agony to increase, so too is a rejection of Alethia, a repudiation of Truth, a 'sin against the Holy Spirit' (which is to wrongly attribute a Divine Miracle to some fallen cause), a futile type of action.

We all lie, and we all lie in a stupid manner because the Reality which confronts us is not to our liking. We may seek to persecute the Logos but it is a foolish quest. We sin against our Mother, we persecute- very foolishly- the Creator, when we behave in this miscreant fashion.

The Church of South India- for which I have the highest respect and some of whose luminaries, when I was young, moulded me and made me fit for, admittedly, a very humble and menial type of service quite inferior to that which Dr. Muthuraj and his family have rendered Mother Church and Mother India- is one of the great patriotic and progressive Institutions of our ancestral oikumene. It is perfectly 'ecumenical' in that it has always worked with any and every type of person in the cause of 'sarvodaya' or diakonia.

I feel it is wrong for a reputable priest of that Church to cast aspersions on Mother India such that any substantial section of her children are depicted as inimical to the Church. This is to create a scandal, a stumbling block to faith, because the facts are quite to the contrary.

I suppose, from the Marxist perspective-which, it is sad to reflect, seems to have enamoured some Theologians- it may be argued that the Christian Church is founded upon a lie. Christ never suffered on the Cross- indeed, according to the Bible, he was up and about within a few days. Then he harrowed Hell and went off to Heaven and became a bigger God than Hercules or Caesar or Buddha or any of them nasty heathens. Thus any and every bogus type of suffering can be bundled together under the rubric of Christian martyrdom.

In particular, charmless, gormless, lower class, narcissists with a chip on their shoulder are likely to consider such insults and injuries as they are bound to receive from their long suffering neighbors to be the stigmata of that Man of Sorrows whose Cross the rest of us must bear- unless we tell the Church that it is a big fat lying pedophile as bogus as any Swami or Caliph. However, even if this argument were accepted, surely a distinction should be made between imaginary but plausible suffering and equally imaginary but wholly implausible suffering?

It is difficult to see what possible benefit could be derived from asserting that it is-

Time to wear a "Black Armband" of mourning over the Amritsar massacre and for the Christians whose religion is being suppressed in India By Rev. Dr. Joseph G Muthuraj Special to Virtueonline
www.virtueonline.orgApril 7, 2019

 This makes it sound as if Indian Christians rejoiced at the killing of Hindus and Sikhs- some Muslims too were present- at Jallianwallah Bagh. This was because that atrocity was a calculated act of revenge for an assault on an Anglican female Missionary.

Only now, 100 years later do the Indian Christians think it is time to wear a 'black armband'. However the only reason they are doing so is because they have a bogus complaint of religious persecution to lodge with their American or European brethren.

I, as an Indian living India and as a member of a united church within the Anglican Communion, I read with some interest the speech made by the honourable Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby on March 13 to the trustees of the Deo Gloria Trust on the subject of evangelism.

 The Archbishop's beautiful speech contained the following passage

' I’d like to suggest that one of the most effective ways for Christians to learn about ethical evangelism is for us to experience what it is like to be witnessed to by someone of another faith in ways that don’t seem to respect our own integrity or freedom, so we can then recognise where Christians sometimes act in that way.

Dr. Muthuraj is not being persecuted. Nor are his fellow Christians in India. This may not be known to Anglicans outside India. But it is known to Dr. Muthuraj's fellow citizens. Christians, like other people, may magnify their own supposed sufferings. But when they do so, they alienate their neighbors. They undo any good their Church may otherwise do under the rubric of diakonia. If their missionaries go into remote places and among savage people, it appears that it is to store up grievances against non Christians. They delight in martyrdom, not to bear witness to a Soteriological Truth, but to have at last found proof that all non Christians are bestial. George Bernard Shaw observed that Missionaries would go off to pester cannibals in remote places only to end up in the cooking pot. This would then justify annexation to an European Empire. Trade would follow the flag. Thus Christian martyrdom became an essential lubricant for Financial Capitalism.

If I am not mistaken, Archbishop Welby warns against this bogus type of martyrdom.

If you haven’t experienced this first hand, then I would encourage you to some imaginative process of empathy that might shape the practise of our evangelism.
In 2009, the Christian-Muslim Forum agreed a text suggesting how both communities could share their faith with mutual respect and understanding. Islam is another tradition that believes it has universal application and so Muslims are committed to their equivalent of evangelism: “da’wah”.
The guidelines for witness acknowledged that we could freely hold contrasting claims with universal implication, but that putting ourselves in the other’s shoes would help us do this with genuine respect.

Dr. Muthuraj says Christianity is being suppressed in India. He is lying. It does not occur to him that he is defaming not just his non-Christian neighbors but also the Indian judiciary and administration in whose higher branches Christians are very well represented.

As well as rejecting coercion and inducements, one of the guidelines asserts that “We will speak of our faith without demeaning or ridiculing the faith of others”.

Dr. Muthuraj explicitly demeans and stigmatizes the faith of proponents of Hindutva. He is explicit in condemning Indian nationalism which, for some bizarre reason, he equates with British colonialism.

It seems odd that he could have read these words of the Archbishop, yet persisted most contumaciously in his error.

Let me just pause for a second. Because how often do we hear Christian proclamation about Islam that, either through ignorance or deliberately, demeans the faith of the other? We seek to persuade people of the love of Christ by pointing out their own deficiencies rather than the beauty and wonder of the life offered in Christ.

This is a big statement but it’s based on the golden rule: would I want to have a discussion about my Christian faith, what is most precious to me, if the other person spent their time ridiculing my faith? I would want to know the other person were listening to me and taking me seriously.
If I would want that, then I should give that freedom to others.
In the Anglican Church Calendar, we remember Sadhu Sundar Singh. He was an Indian follower of Christ, living the itinerant life of a holy man at the beginning of the twentieth century. Sundar Singh had known the transforming power of Christ Jesus and wanted to tell others about Jesus.
He would tell stories that represented his understanding of this free gift. One such story that speaks to the heart of our ethics of evangelism is of a man in a dark house. This man can see only by the light of a candle.
Sundar Singh said, “Do we quench the candle, or do we open the doors and the windows to let in the light of the sun?” Let us never be guilty of demeaning the light that others have, just show them something of the light we know.
Let’s tell people about Jesus and witness to what he has done for us, without feeling the need to presume to tell others of their inadequacy.

Sadhu Sundar Singh was an unusual figure who, it is believed, had found a 300 year old ascetic on Mt. Kailas and this proved that a group of Secret Missionaries had been operating in India since the time of St. Thomas the Apostle. They had supernatural powers and performed many miracles. I imagine the highly educated Christians of South India may not have been comfortable with this type of charismatic figure who was very much in the vernacular tradition- which, to be clear, consisted of being as crazy as a bedbug.

Justin was my contemporary at the Cranmer Hall, Durham in the early 1990s during which time I also had the privilege of being part of the pastoral team of the diocese of Durham for a period of two years. Here is my response.
My ancestors began their Christian journey beginning June 1877 when 40 families in a village in south India decided to become Christians by handing over two Hindu temples in which they worshipped for Christian service as marks of their turning to Christianity. The Bishop from the SPG mission Robert Caldwell (1814-1891) dedicated these temples to the God of light by removing 53 idols from them which the people dumped into a nearby well. One temple was converted into a church and a parsonage was built with the other. Although more than half of the families relapsed back to Hindu worship some remained strong in Christian faith and they are so until today.

I think the author is explaining that Religion in India is linked to caste solidarity. A change in Religion has the potential to divide a 'jati' and jeopardize its status in the local hierarchy. A family too slow or too quick to change is at risk of being ostracized and not being able to find suitable marriage partners. Furthermore, the attitude of the Government is crucial as it affects educational and employment opportunities.

It is inevitable that a change in Religion will cause offence to some section of the community. In this case, the 'dumping' of 'idols' is mentioned as well as the fact that a portion of the community returned to their ancestral religion. The author does not tell us whether the majority which had returned to Hinduism got back at least one of their temples. I suppose not. The Administration would have sided with the Christians who had shown such callous contempt for the Religious sensibilities of their neighbors.

It is an undisputable fact that colonialism and Christian mission twined in and out of each other.

This fact is indisputable for Dr. Muthuraj because his type of Christianity was founded on Colonialism. Christ did not matter. British military power was what worked the miracle of metanoia. The White Man must continue to exert a 'neo-colonial' type of power so as to keep faith with their Brown brethren in the New Commonwealth.

Both shared the same objective as Bishop Stephen Neill has acknowledged, 'The Churches have tended too easily to identify themselves with the colonial powers and to believe rather too naively in the mission of the white man to civilize the rest of the world'.

For a white man to have a naive belief in this respect is not necessarily a bad thing. But for a brown man, who does not believe Whites are superior by nature, it is not naive, but cunning and reprehensible to demand that Whitey continue to exert a neo-colonial type of power to benefit a small and anti-national minority in a distant land. This is more particularly the case now, when the White Man's power has ebbed. The time has long gone when the appearance of gunboats could put an end to a massacre of Christians. What, then, is the point of writing as Dr. Muthuraj does? Is he consolidating the Christian vote or contributing to the  consolidation of an anti-Christian vote in India? Either way, the man is up to mischief.

I find the views of the Archbishop on evangelism quite radical considering this statement of Bishop Neill, a famous Anglican missionary-historian. The archbishop deserves appreciation as he has moved far beyond Winston Churchill's remarks 'I hate Indians, they are a beastly people with a beastly religion' and 'these are men of straw of whom no trace will be found after a few years'. God bless Churchill!

It appears that Dr. Muthuraj thinks of India's former Colonial masters as Racist thugs. Still, in so far as they considered Indians who had converted from a 'beastly religion' to be beastly merely by reason of their race, Muthuraj is prepared to call down blessings on that stripe of White Man. No doubt, this is very ecumenical of him, but this is the ecumenism of an unthinking beast.

The fact is, many countries which have never been colonized by Western powers have a burgeoning Christian population. Japan and South Korea are examples. China is reported to have 54 million Christians. If Churches there work with the Communist Party this number is likely to increase.

Words like 'heathendom' and 'pagans' the watchwords of evangelism of colonial era seem to have disappeared in his homily on evangelism.

But Muthuraj will repair that omission by replacing them with 'Hindutva'.

His comments on the nexus between cultural imperialism and preaching the good news show the refinement necessary in understanding his neighbours in Britain.

Surely the Archbishop is saying there is no such necessary nexus. The thing was an error to be repented. Edward Said, a Palestinian Protestant, pointed out that the American Episcopalian Church became uncomfortable with its history of Missionary work in the Middle East. Perhaps it would have been wiser to work with the established Churches in the Region. Harvesting souls for their own version of Christ, translated into G.Is in body bags coming home to roost. Karma, even Christian karma, is a bitch.

It is a delight for an Indian living in India that the native British Christians themselves (rather than hiring someone from India to deal with the Hindus) are turning to the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in Britain to dialogue and share God's word rather than just inviting them occasionally for Garden-Tea in the Church-yard of bishop's mansions.

I wonder whether British Anglicans think 'outreach' to Islam has worked. Pakistani Christians settled in England are skeptical in this regard as are Chaldean and other Middle Eastern origin Christians. Sikhs, it must be said, think references to Sadhu Sundar Singh are lol worthy. By contrast, militant South Indian Hindus like myself have long campaigned for the substitution of idli and sambar for the wine and wafer of the Eucharist. Also, Archbishopji should wear sari. He will look so nice. His wife will get jealous and join Brahma Kumaris.

In his discourse on evangelism, Archbishop Justin has alluded to the most obnoxious incident in Indian history happened exactly one hundred years ago namely the massacre of 1000 unarmed men, women and children with many others left seriously wounded in a place called Jallanwala Bagh near the Sikh Golden temple in Amritsar, Punjab.

Muthuraj means the Jallianwalla Bagh. Jalan means envy. Jalanwala Bagh would mean the garden of the envious person.

A team from the Lambeth Palace visited the site recently as a tourist spot to trace the colonial past. Referring to this display of imperial aggression one hundred years ago, the Archbishop said, 'The Church often, not always, by no means always, colluded with that racist view, and it was a thoroughly un-Christian worldview.'

Archbishop Welby's remarks were of a 'broad brush' type and uttered for a homiletic purpose. They were not meant to be scholarly or historically accurate. He said-

The ideology underlying the British Empire was largely predicated on the racial superiority of the British.

This is not true. Racialist theories came into vogue only in the second half of the nineteenth century and reached a peak in the Nineteen Thirties. Benthamite Utilitarianism could be considered the official ideology of the Raj. Evangelicals certainly helped spread its praxis but there were severe limits placed on missionary activity. In general, missionaries were only allowed to convert those whom nobody else wanted. In any case, where they gleaned 'High Caste' converts they found they had made a rod to their own back because such Christians took the lead in Nationalist agitation.

The fact is a black man or woman could easily prove superior to a white person in theology and knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic and so forth. Raja Ramohan Roy- the founder of the Brahma Samaj- supplied much needed ammunition to the Unitarians whose subsequent trajectory was often towards an irenic humanism which soon shaded into Feminism and Socialism and other such Godlessness.

The Church often, not always, by no means always, colluded with that racist view, and it was a thoroughly un-Christian worldview.

It is perfectly proper for a National Church to be Nationalistic. What else could it be? If the Anglican Church is becoming more inclusive of 'colored people' is it not because such people are British Nationals and can be just as nationalistic as anyone else? Of course, in saying this I am excluding highly educated people like myself who only hate the French and the Belgians and all them other unclean Continentals because they objected to Nigel Farage waving our flag in Brussels. Those ungrateful bastards should go down on their knees in gratitude to us. Who gave them football and football hooliganism and Milton Shakespeare and Nelson Mandela? Where would they be without us?

A number of my colleagues here at Lambeth Palace have recently come back from India. As part of that trip, they visited the site of the notorious Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar.
In 1919, hundreds of Indians were killed by the British Army while publicly and peaceably gathering to celebrate a local festival.

They were killed by the Indian Army. They had gathered for a public meeting protesting the Rowlatt Act.

The machine gun magazines that were emptied on innocent men, women and children have left indelible marks on the remains of buildings in the park, the site of the massacre, and on the consciousness of Indian Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims.

The machine guns could not gain entrance through the narrow alleyways leading to the garden. Thus only rifle fire was used. Elsewhere RAF planes bombed and machine gunned villagers returning from the fields.

Whether we like it or not, this atrocity, and so many others, was perpetrated by Christians and done in the name of Christian Society.

It was done in the name of the Government of India which was not a Christian Society by any manner of means.

It’s not good news; it’s not of God; it’s not Christ-like.

Thus it has nothing to do with Christianity or Evangelism. Incidentally, Brigadier Dyer was made an honorary Sikh by the elders of the Golden Temple. A peculiarity of the Indian Army is that there are Regiments where the ranking officer is obliged to take part in the Religious ceremonies of the soldiers. Between 1947 and 2005, British officers in Gurkha brigades participated in the 'Durga puja' ceremony even if they were devout Christians.

So, how might our witness hear the concerns by people of other faiths that we might, instead, be embarking on another imperialistic and dehumanising venture?

Christian priests- let alone Anglican Archbishops- aren't embarking on 'imperialistic' or even ordinary commercial ventures. They have better things to do with their time on Earth.

If the incident was mentioned by the Archbishop to enforce the view that the Church colluded with the un-Christian worldview, he should be reminded why no Government or Church official from Britain until today has felt any need to offer an apology or even say "sorry" over the atrocious event.

I don't know the reason why no apology has been tendered. Perhaps the issue is one of legal liability.

Queen Elizabeth II visited the memorial at Jallanwala Bagh in 1997 and the Prime Minister David Cameron visited in 2013 - both showed their respect yet carefully avoided making an actual apology when the British had apologised on other matters.
We read in India that the Indian-origin British parliamentarians, Lord Meghnad Desai and Lord Raj Loomba, had initiated the debate in the House of Lords on the massacre's centenary. Just two months ago, the Punjab assembly unanimously passed a resolution seeking an apology from Britain for the massacre. The Indian novelist Shashi Tharoor is at the forefront demanding not just an apology but for setting up a museum in Britain to educate British people of the wrongs committed by the colonial rule.

Tharoor belongs to a party which was responsible for the extra judicial killing of over 50,000 Sikhs. Did Rahul Gandhi apologize for 'Operation Blue Star' when he visited the Golden Temple last year? Of course not.

Indian people need to be educated about Jallianwallah Bagh. Why? Because armies on both sides of the border have done worse things in the last few decades. Pakistani planes have been bombing its own people decade after decade. Even democratic India has seen army and paramilitary action of a lawless kind.

Without any post-mortem on the British Raj, we look through a rear-view mirror. In history, Colonel Dyer who was called by the Sikhs "Butcher of Punjab", was not 'a wooden and preposterous a character' as portrayed by Edward Fox in Attenborough's 'Gandhi'. Colonel Dyer, ordered the firing of 1650 rounds without any warning given to the crowd entrapped within the locked gates. According to one official report, an estimated 379 people were killed, and about 1,200 more were wounded. An Indian media estimated the death approximately 1000. He prevented any medical treatment for the thousands wounded. Such a man enjoyed much support in Britain as he returned to huge applause in his own country. The House of Lords gave him a sword inscribed with the motto "Saviour of the Punjab."

I think it was the Brits in India who gave him the sword and a large purse they had collected for him.

Why was Dyer such a hero? Other British Army and RAF men were also butchering innocents. What made Dyer different was that a month after Jallianwallah Bagh, he defeated the invading Afghans and put them to rout. Furthermore he boasted of his barbarism so as to send a clear and unambiguous signal. This helped what would become the 'Unionist Party' of Punjab which, more often than not, demanded 'the smack of firm Government' from British authorities.

Many celebrated Britons supported him too, including Rudyard Kipling who called him "the man who saved India" and the Governor of Punjab Michael O'Dwyer who termed the tragedy a "correct action".

O'Dwyer was the villain of the piece. Had he declared martial law in Amritsar, then Dyer could have ordered a curfew immediately on arrival. Then he could quite legally shoot anyone on the streets. It was the extra-judical nature of the operation which made it so repugnant and deleterious to British rule in India. The corollary is not far to seek- Politicians must take decisive action as is permitted by law. To pass the buck to the army or the reserve police while pretending 'normalcy' obtains is a recipe for disaster.

Another approving voice came from Miss Marcella Sherwood, an Anglican missionary teacher, who had spent 15 years in Amritsar (who was saved by a Hindu family when she was attacked and left half-dead in a street in Amritsar) called Dyer 'Saviour of Punjab'. In 1920, the Morning Post opened a fund for Dyer. It is reported that the rich, the poor, the clergy, the Army from Calcutta to Colombo contributed to make the total of £28,000 ($36,500).

These were voluntary contributions. It is not the case that the Church, as a matter of official policy, defied the Secretary of State for India, or the Viceroy, to gather money for the butcher of Amritsar.

The incident is remembered as an illustration for the failure of church and society to confront the British Raj; it means that the missionary enterprise barring few exceptions was another ugly side of the unjust colonial project!

If I am not mistaken, the most influential Anglican in North India at that time was Rev. C.F Andrews who certainly did express great horror and remorse at what happened. The American Missionary Samuel Stokes- who converted to Hinduism in 1932- joined the Congress Party and was sent to jail for sedition.

Indians of my generation do not associate White Missionaries with 'Imperialism'. On the contrary, we honor them for helping to develop our Vernacular languages and literature. As for Indian Christians, they have always been associated with Nationalism and Social Reform.

It is a different matter that a small number of them create a nuisance. But there are plenty of secular NGO activists who are much worse.

'White guilt' may be all very well. But there is absolutely no grounds for a 'Christian Guilt'- at least with respect to India. In any case, Christianity- like Judaism before it- has flourished in South India for two thousand years. It can scarcely be called alien.

We need to locate this acute wrong against the backdrop of colonialism and Indian struggle for freedom and reflect on how British society and the Anglican Communion which consists of former colonisers and the colonised deal with this horrific aspect of the past. The Archbishop has admonished us to 'put ourselves in the other's shoes would help us do this with genuine respect.' Shouldn't we apply the 'Golden Rule' as proposed by Justin Welby to give freedom to others to present their meta-narratives?

Do they not have that freedom already? I suppose, Dr. Muthuraj means, 'freedom within the Church'. But parrhesia should be alethic. It can't be based on 'fake news'. I don't say that the Archbishop should not invite me to preach a sermon in St. Paul's Cathedral on the naughtiness of Iyengars who are pitilessly persecuting Iyers but who do so in such a cunning manner that I alone notice. However, mine is a special case.

It cannot be called evangelism or dialogue when the British colonial past is recharged to fortify national myths by bringing it back to memory the colonial achievements. Modern missiologists in Britain such as Brian Stanley works on an underlying thesis that colonialism is basically a morally justifiable enterprise and so it is a matter of pride.

Brian Stanley and Andrew Porter certainly have helped combat a pernicious view of Christianity as a 'Trojan Horse' for Imperialism. Recall that the Armenian genocide was justified by this simplistic view. The position of the Assyrian Christians in Iraq may also be mentioned in this context. However, anti-Christian persecution in Pakistan- where a Catholic Bishop was driven to suicide- probably has more to do with caste than religion. In India, anti-Missionary activism had another source- viz. fear that this was linked to the CIA and had an anti-communist aspect. Since then, the opposite point of view has gained salience- 'Liberation Theologians' are a Trojan Horse for the 'Naxal' militants. However, the basic problem remains that poor Hindus or Muslims are all to aware that they are falling behind. To insult their Gods is to shift blame on to their own ancestors for their woeful plight.

Can imperialists within the Anglican Communion unwrap themselves from the colonial garb and find ways to interact on a footing where there is mutuality in speaking and listening?

Are there imperialists within the Anglican Communion? But who in their right mind would want to colonize distant countries? Look at Iraq or Libya. Both have a lot of oil, but it is cheaper to buy it from them than put 'boots on the ground'. As for handing out bibles- Reagan notoriously sent a Bible to some Ayatollah during 'Iran-gate' much to the merriment of the Iranians.

The Equal but Opposite Reaction
The Indian society in 1919 handled this cruelty in its own way. The episode was a decisive step towards the end of British rule in India as it stirred up the national feelings among Indians. First of all, the 20,000 men and women who gathered at Jallanwala Bagh on 13 April were not 'innocent' crowd as the Archbishop has noted. They were there to hear speeches opposing the Rowlatt Act just introduced by the British Raj.

They were an innocent crowd in the sense that curfew had not been declared so this was a lawful assembly.

The purpose of the unpopular Act was to curb the growing Indian nationalist upsurge in the country for stricter control of the press, arrests without warrant, indefinite detention without trial, etc. The Act angered many Indian leaders and the public, which caused the government to implement repressive measures.

After Jallianwallah bagh, Gandhi dropped the anti-Rowlatt act agitation. Indeed, it was counterproductive in the Punjab where 'rowla' became synonymous with anarchy and the scum of the City running riot.

The Indians opened up a new perspective of encountering that dehumanising activity. Rabindranath Tagore (first Asian Nobel laureate) renounced his 1915 knighthood immediately after the massacre. O'Dwyer, the Governor of Punjab who endorsed Colonel Dyer's action was assassinated by Udham Singh in 1940. He did not try to flee or resist arrest and went with the Police with smile on his face. Singh was hanged for his crime.

Anita Anand, the TV presenter, has just published a well written book on Udham Singh. The Punjabi Revolutionaries were motivated by a comprehensive anti-Imperialist ideology which linked up with the 'Ghadar' movement among the American, but also the East African, diaspora.

I may mention Amba Prasad Sufi as a highly effective 'Pan Islamist' preacher who sought to influence Indian troops in Mesopotamia. However, Dyer's 'Seistan Brigade' prevailed and a an anti-Imperialist coalition in the region failed to materialize.

The Archbishop remarked, 'The machine gun magazines that were emptied on innocent men, women and children have left indelible marks on the remains of buildings in the park, the site of the massacre...' One ought not to look for the marks of the bullets in the buildings of the park but in the history of the people who fought for freedom. The marks on the buildings bear testimony only to the targets missed by the British army led by Colonel Dyer. Dyer throughout his life was seen struggling to accept the blame for anything that happened in Amritsar on 13 April 1919. On his deathbed, he is believed to have said, "So many people who knew the condition of Amritsar say I did right... but so many others say, I did wrong. I only want to die and know from my maker whether I did right or wrong."
It is strange that bishop Stephen Neill (who blessed me by laying his hands on me months before he died in 1984 when I visited him in Oxford) echoes Dyer's views when he wrote, "The history of Christian mission in the colonial period must in the end be left to the judgement of God, who alone knows all the facts, and who alone can exercise a perfectly objective and merciful judgement." Can such divine voices be heard through other people on earth in their life-time? They must listen to Moses and the prophets when they are still on earth. Moses and the prophets speak objectively and their judgements are true. Lazarus cannot be sent back to teach the rulers' kith and kin.

'Judge not lest ye be Judged' seems to contradict 'Ye are as Gods!' but only apparently. Not unless we are called for Jury Service are we forced to decide on questions of fact, though questions of law are clarified for us by the learned.

The Emergence of Gandhi and the Birth of Non-Violence
It marked a decisive turning point in India's march to independence. Gandhi raised to prominence after this horrifying event as a leader who could inspire and lead the Indian people towards independence with his teaching of non-violence. John Haynes Holmes (1879-1964) a prominent Unitarian minister in the city of New York, who publicised his interactions with historical Gandhi from his pulpit published a book entitled My Gandhi (1954) He narrates: 'The British', Gandhi wrote, 'want us to put the struggle on the plane of machine-guns. They have weapons and we have not. Our only assurance of beating them is to keep it on the plane where we have weapons and they have not.' The massacre, however, changed him forever. It transformed him to an implacable opponent of British rule.

Sadly, Gandhi changed his mind and, in 1922, dropped the Non Cooperation Movement just as he had previously given up the anti-Rowlatt agitation.

The Archbishop said, 'Whether we like it or not, this atrocity, and so many others, was perpetrated by Christians and done in the name of Christian Society.' He then acknowledges, 'It's not good news; it's not of God; it's not Christ-like.' If the Amritsar massacre was contrary to the good news of Christ, not of God and was not Christ-like, then by what standard shall we call the dehumanising act as performed by Christians and in the name of Christian society? Dyer's action was a sheer display of a nationalist spirit backed by a racial and a cultural supremacist agenda.

Dyer, like his father, was born in India. He belonged to the ruling class of India and was prepared to wade through a sea of blood to ensure this remained the case. But our dynasties and military juntas have done exactly the same thing.

Colonialism is an outgrowth of nationalism.

Nonsense! Colonialism either pays for itself or ceases to interest nationalists. Nobody wants their nation to be drained of resources.

Therefore, any remorse or apology from the British side must be accompanied by a commitment to combat right-wing nationalist crimes such as the one happened in Jullanwala Bagh, be it committed by anyone in the history of humankind.

Such a commitment would mean that Britain gets bombed to buggery by Trump. Nobody in Britain wants our Archbishops to go crazy and start challenging right-wing nutters around the globe to fisticuffs.

The history of colonialism makes nationalism look very bad indeed.

So Indian nationalism looks very bad indeed because of India's colonial history.

The kind of nationalism that is fast growing in India may bring about an incident similar to what happened in Jullanwala Bagh in 1919.

What was done in Jallianwallah Bagh was illegal. Curfew had not been declared. The BJP's nationalism goes by the book. Its actions are legal. The message is sent while the forms are maintained. Extra judicial killing is the real danger. That is guarded against by an observance of the Law.

India is moving from territorial nationalism to a Hindu nation theory determined by religion which makes Christians foreigners as they follow a foreign religion.

What about Pakistan? It was always a Muslim State. India is a Hindu nation which however has chosen not to make Hinduism the State Religion. In practice, each State can be as Hindu, or Christian, as it likes.

It is reported, "In August 2017, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) ranked India's persecution severity at "Tier 2" along with Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, this ranking is completely bogus. Bangladesh is ranked as 'Tier 3' yet, according to Wikipedia, According to the BJHM (A Hindu organization) report in 2017 alone, at least 107 people of the Hindu community were killed and 31 fell victims to enforced disappearance 782 Hindus were either forced to leave the country or threatened to leave. Besides, 23 were forced to get converted into other religions. At least 25 Hindu women and children were raped, while 235 temples and statues vandalized during the year. The total number of atrocities happened with the Hindu community in 2017 is 6474.[29

Mainstream Protestant and Orthodox Christians are targeted far less frequently than Catholic, Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians. According to the All India Christian Council, there was an attack on Christians recorded every 40 hours in India in 2016." As I closed this article, a video clip was passed on to me in which a young girl in Madhya Pradesh state is beaten severely by a crowd (and it is further reported that she was later burned to death) for attending a Christian prayer meeting.

No doubt, Christians from groups who like beating each other to death get beaten to death when not beating others to death.

The 'Hindu' nation or kingdom implies that the Hindus are of one blood, one race and one common civilization and Christians and Muslims will have no part in it. This ideology called Hindutva subjects Christians to acts of violence at the hands of Hindu nationalists which include arson of churches, vandalising Christian statues, desecrating the symbols, conversion of Christians to Hinduism, inflicting physical violence on Christian evangelists, sexual assaults on nuns and tribal women, torture and murder of Christian priests and destruction of Christian schools, colleges, and cemeteries.

So, if you don't convert these guys and get them to beat your enemies, they end up beating you. That's what Missionary activity in backward places amounts to. But the same could be said about Naxalism.

It is now growingly becoming a life-threatening experience in many parts of India to bear names like John, Joseph, Peter etc. These names cannot hide behind initials as the Hindu nationalists of fascist bend can dig out your full name and treat you publicly with contempt and hatred.

Which is why Christians are fleeing India to go to Bangladesh or Pakistan. They would also go to Sri Lanka but then the Muslims might bomb them.

It is estimated that 100 to 200 attacks against Christians happen every year.

That figure looks too small. Surely a population of 28 million would experience more attacks?

From time to time we watch videos in which the preachers of Indian missionary organisations in parts of North India are beaten with sticks and rods in public. But only cases such as the murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons in 1999, the Kandhamal riots in 2007-2008 in the state of Odisha where at least 100 Christians were killed and 600 churches were destroyed and thousands were left homeless got reported. The large number of perpetrators of violence against Christians have not been brought to justice. Many suffering Christians do not go to Police to complain.

Sensible people would runaway from such places. Indeed, that's what they do, irrespective of Religion.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014 with Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister, militant Hinduism has increased steadily in India, as have systematic attacks on Christians.

Stupid lies told by Christians may have increased- but that is not because Christianity requires any such thing. It's just that people like climbing on a bandwagon of victim-hood. I personally have been raped, beaten and used as an item of furniture by the notorious Iyengar hate-monger known as Beyonce (real name, Balasarasvati Srinivasan) who was jealous of my superior twerking skills.

Several states outlaw conversion to Christianity and Christians are reconverted to Hinduism by force and through violence with Government paying no attention.

They are also being pitilessly raped by Beyonce acting on the direct orders of President Trump (real name Damodaran Tyagarajan)

It is most feared that the political movement advocating Hindu nationalism and the establishment of a Hindu state if the BJP is voted back to power as 800 million Indians go to poll in April-May. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is a militant Hindu nationalist group linked with the BJP; they have stated that they want to see India free of Christians and Muslims by the end of 2021.

But this was only stated by them while they were being raped by Beyonce.  Believe me, a man is not responsible for what he says at such times.

If the BJP gets elected for another term of five years, attempts will be made to see that that agenda is implemented. It is already the ugliest campaign season in India's history. Some former Judges of the Supreme Court and University ex-Vice Chancellors have recently asked the people of India not to vote for BJP as it would mean death for Indian democracy and Hindu nationalists who abhor the minorities, namely Christians.

So, stupid people have told stupid lies. Some Christians feel they too need to jump on the bandwagon.

It is appropriate that we wear a black arm-band on April 13 in honour of the people who were killed by a right-wing nationalist Colonel Dyer, 'the butcher of Punjab' and also as a form of protest against the upsurge of Hindu nationalism which shows hatred towards minority Christians in India.

It is also appropriate to write any nonsense that comes into your head and send it off to some gullible White dude to publish.

The Dyers of India could stage the next massacre and this time the Christians will be the prey whom they look at as the dregs of western colonialism.

Only if people pay attention to this gentleman and his strange views.

Alas, there are churches and famous evangelists who befriend the BJP and RSS leaders and in some CSI dioceses the moneyed Hindu fanatics provide the financial sponsorship to the election/selection of bishops and secretaries. Whom will such men serve and obey?

A more pertinent question is- what will happen to the flock if the shepherd spends all his time crying wolf? For decades now, some Christians have pretended that the BJP is a Nazi party which will kill all the Christians. Yet, there have now been three BJP administrations at the Center and many more in the various States. Nothing untoward has happened. The Church has not apologized for the blatant partisanship and anti-national activities of some of its luminaries. In the process, the Spiritual qualities of the Church has grown dim and become occluded.

Thus, Christianity in India stagnates while, according to the Chinese Government, there are now more Christians in China than India. Indeed, it has been suggested that China will have the largest population of practicing Christians by 2030. However, if Christianity appears anti-national- i.e. if stupid Chinese Christians keep asking Whitey to intervene in their favor- Chairman Xi will crack down on them. It appears that the Vatican- alarmed at falling so far behind the official Chinese Protestant denomination- has bent the knee to Beijing. If it acts sensibly, it may be back in the race.