IndiaStar: A Literary-Art magazine

Mother Teresa’s Hidden Mission in India:

Conversion to Christianity

By Dhiru Shah

[Editor’s intro: Dhiru Shah is an Atlanta-based writer.]

We must praise and respect any person involved in selfless humanitarian work irrespective of his or her religious belief. But as soon as that work is done with ulterior motive, it no longer remains a saintly deed. Mother Teresa’s work falls into the second category. Unfortunately, glowing tributes were paid to her by the pseudo-secularist leaders of India, Indian newspapers, and several Westernized Indians, without examining her mission in India.

Mother Teresa was wedded to the Catholic Church, particularly the Vatican establishment, whose main mission is to convert people in developing countries into Christianity by any means, now that Europeans are abandoning church membership and Christianity in increasing numbers. (But for imported Indian priests and nuns many European churches would have to close doors because Europeans seminaries are unable to fill their vacancies with Europeans.) In the early days of Christianity, those who refused to believe in Jesus were first branded as heretics and witches and then killed or burnt at the stake. In the name of the holy wars, military missions were sent which resulted in millions of people being massacred in South America. To perpetuate the forces of imperialism in Asia and Africa, the Western powers fit like a hand in glove with the


Gandhi: “If I had the power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytising.” (Collected Works, Vol 61, page 46-47)


Christian Church and used their military might to convert the natives into Christianity. Following the dictum ‘the end justifies the means,’ the Christian Church had to devise new means to convert Asians and Africans into Christianity after the demise of the Western Imperialism. Along with this came a breed of Christian evangelists guided and financed by the Vatican and the Western powers to carry on the crusade by using the label of “poverty and disease” as their weapons. That is exactly what Mother Teresa was doing in India.

Mother Teresa portrayed India as a poor, starving, and a diseased land to her Western donors who responded by filling her coffers so that she could continue her mission of converting the poor and illiterate of India. She effectively used the converted Indian nuns for this purpose and thereby achieved her major mission of the Church. Mother Teresa, the founder of the “Missionaries of Charity “was “a crafty user of public relations” as pointed out by Christopher Hitchens in his recent book, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.

The Western media played a big role in projecting her as a saint and savior of the poor. This powerful media at the same time told the world that Indians, particularly the Hindus, don’t care for their helpless people and hence a foreign Christian saint has to perform that job.

The Christian Church and the Western media succeeded in convincing many of the Indian leaders and the westernized Indians that Mother Teresa was a great saint and therefore should be given a state funeral, an honor reserved only for great leaders of India. She was equated by one of the Indian leaders with Mahatma Gandhi. In doing so, then Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Gujaral, and leaders of other political parties excepting the BJP confirmed to the world that the Indians are incapable of taking care of their own poor and sick people. Indian leaders like Gujaral have insulted Gandhi by equating Mother Teresa with him.

Gandhi was extremely articulate in opposing the conversion activities of Christian missionaries in India and questioned their motives in establishing educational institutions and other services in India. The following are cited from Arun Shourie’s 302-page book, Missionaries in India New Delhi, ASA Publications, 1994):

“There was a deeper problem with these services, and Gandhiji drew attention to it again and again. The services were incidental. They were the means. The objective was to convert the natives to Christianity. “The Collected Works of Gandhi” contain several accounts as do Mahadev Desai’s “Diaries” in which missionaries acknowledged to Gandhiji that the institutions and services are incidental that the aim is to gather a fuller harvest of converts for the Church.

“To gain access to non-Christian households, counsels the ‘Catholic Dharma ka Pracharak,’ [How to Preach the Catholic Religion] the preacher should know something of medicine. He will then be sought after whenever there is some illness in the house. Once there, he should try to prevail upon the parents that he should be allowed to baptize the child as the baptism would aid the child’s recovery. If they do not agree, says the guide: ‘If it is clear to you that the father is not going to agree to the child being baptized, and, as far as you can see, the child is close to death, then, on the pretext of administering some medicine, sprinkle water on his head in some secret way and pronounce the words of baptism. O, preacher, should the child die, you would have opened the gates of heaven for this child. Is this not a good deed? Now, if every preacher were to devote himself to his work, then how many children would they send to heaven in a year?’ “(Shourie, page 7-8)

Shourie goes on to question the motives of Mother Teresa.

Just how strongly Gandhi felt about Christian missionaries in India can be gauged from his recorded comments:

  1. Gandhi’s writing: “The cultured Hindu society has admitted its grievous sin against the untouchables. But the effect of Christianity upon India in general…has been disastrous.” (Shourie, p.6)
  2. Gandhi to Krezenski, a visiting professor of Philosophy from Poland, who had told him that Catholicism was the only true religion: “The idea of conversion, I assure you is the deadliest poison that ever sapped the fountain of truth.” (Shourie, p.11)
  3. Gandhi to a visiting missionary nurse: “The other day a missionary descended on a famine area with money in his pocket, distributed it among the famine-stricken, converted them to his fold, took charge of their temple and demolished it. This is outrageous. This friend goes and gets it demolished at the hands of the very men who only a little while ago believed that God was there.” (Shourie, p. 17)
  4. Gandhiji: “If I had the power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytizing.” (Collected Works, Vol 61, page 46-47; Shourie, p. 38).
  5. Several missionaries tried to convert Gandhi. When they failed, one of the reverend gentlemen, writes Mahadev Desai, “retired with the imprecation…’Mr. Gandhi, soon there will come a day when you will be judged, not in your righteousness, but in the righteousness of Jesus.’ “(Collected Works, Vol 60, p.323; Shourie, p. 240)

Gandhi worked for the poor and the diseased without any selfish motive. He was a great philosopher, teacher, intellectual, and above all a great world leader. None of this can be said of Mother Teresa. Her helping of poor and downtrodden was only a facade behind which she carried out her real assigned mission of converting the miserable lot. Hitchens calls her as a “Christian Fundamentalist” who described the suffering of the poor as a gift from God. She called abortion as the single greatest threat to the world peace in her Nobel Prize speech. She was against attempts to resist injustice and inequality and though she called herself as “non-political,” she expressed sympathy for conservative Catholic forces in Latin America and Southern Europe.

Was Mother Teresa truly a holy, selfless person and completely dedicated to the service of the poor and the wretched as she has been projected by her mission and the world press? No, says Hitchens. She befriended the rich and powerful and was a defender of Western big business. Though she proclaimed her devotion to the poor and downtrodden, she urged the Indians to forgive Union Carbide for the gas leak in Bhopal which had killed more than 2000 people. She visited Haiti in 1981 to accept that nation’s highest award from the Duvalier family and made a glowing speech in which she said that the dictator ‘Baby Doc’ and his wife, Michele, not only loved the poor but were also loved by the poor!

Hitchens further reveals that Mother Teresa went to Albania in 1990, at that time the most oppressive of the Balkan Stalinist states, and laid a wreath on the grave of the dictator, Enver Hoxha, and embraced Hoxha’s widow while remaining silent on human rights. In 1992, Mother Teresa gave many lucrative endorsements, including a character reference to the court for Charles Keating, the biggest fraud and embezzler in the American history who stole a total $252 million from mainly small and poor depositors. Hitchens claims that Keating gave $1.25 million in cash to Mother Teresa and allowed her to use his private jet. The court had asked her to return the donation given by Keating but she never replied to the request.

Hitchens describes how Mother Teresa urged the faithful in the Republic of Ireland to vote against the referendum on the divorce issue but when asked in an interview in “The Ladies Home Journal” about Princess Diana’s impending divorce, she said, “It is good thing that it is over. Nobody was happy anyhow.” Thus she preached morality and obedience to the poor but forgiveness and indulgence for the princesses.

Hitchens doubts her celebrated concern for the poor and the weak. Hitchens cites testimony from the leading American and British physicians about the extremely low standard of medicine practiced in her small Calcutta clinics. There are no pain killers and the syringes are washed in cold water. He goes on to claim that no public accounts are made available for her Missionaries of Charity, but enormous sums are known to have been raised.

Mother Teresa had spoken with pride of having opened more than 500 convents in 125 countries, “not counting India.” It is obvious that the money donated by well-wishers (or guilty-conscience Westerners?) for the relief of poor was being used for the purpose of religious proselytizing by the “Missionary Multinational.”

India still remains poor after 50 years of independence. This does not speak highly of the Congress party. The only objective of Congress politicians has been to remain in power. Most Congress leaders have been naive and shallow who have never bothered to read and analyze the Christian and Islamic histories and understand their present and future strategies of conversion of poor and helpless people of India.

India has already been divided into three countries thanks to the pseudo-secularism of Nehru and his dynasty. The Congress under Sonia Gandhi and their leftist supporters want the government to follow the same policies which will eventually divide India further. The current problems in Kashmir, Nagaland, and Assam are the results of the failure on the part of the Indian leaders to recognize the threat of the Christian and Islamic conversion factor. In any country, such leaders would have been branded as traitors for selling their country to foreigners.

Unfortunately, many westernized Indians in India and abroad have shown the same ignorance, indifference, and insensitivity on the above subject as their leaders. Their minds are so Anglo-Americanized that they read and believe only in the Western media which always wants to propagate the Western religion, culture, and history in the developing world. Most of the leading Indian newspapers and magazines have also followed this trend. They have joined hands since independence with the Indian politicians in criticizing the Hindus and ignoring the real danger of the Christian and Islamic conversion jihad which is being carried out currently in India, supported and financed by the Vatican Establishment, Western powers, and Islamic countries. Millions of dollars are pouring into India every day from these sources to convert and subvert India.

By glorifying Mother Teresa, the world has been made to believe that there are no other persons in India, excepting her who are engaged in caring for the poor and helpless folks. This is a lie perpetuated by the Christian church and the Western media slavishly supported by some section of the Indian press and the dishonest politicians.

There are many Indians involved in similar noble humanitarian works like Mother Teresa but without her ulterior motives. Pandurang Shashtri Athavale had dedicated himself in selfless ‘Lok Seva’ for many years. He and his followers have made a tremendous impact on the lives of poor and helpless fishermen on the West Coast of India. Until he won the Templeton Award, he was not recognized by the Anglo-Americanized Indians or the Indian government.

Acharya Shri Chandananji, a Jain nun, has been carrying on a crusade of uplifting the illiterate and poor section of the society in Bihar since 1973. She founded an institution called “Veeraytan” at Rajgir, Bihar with the clear objective of ‘providing unflinching service in the field of community health, education, and employment’ which has created a total social transformation of that locality. It teaches ‘the practicality of religion to the modern scientific world, a religion totally honest to mankind and entirely free from the sectarian prejudices.’ The institution has set up a hundred bed charitable eye hospital along with other medical facilities which is basically managed by the nuns supported by a medical team of surgeons, doctors, nurses, and medical students. Veerayatan is also involved in uplifting the lives of thousands of deprived local children by providing free meals and education. It also provides training facilities in vocational courses like carpentry, pottery, and medical staff attendants. Acharya Shri Chandanaji has been able to prove in spite of several problems and challenges that it is possible to serve the poor and needy without any sectarian bias.

The list of such dedicated humanitarians is inexhaustible. In every nook and corner of India one can find such workers who devote their lives to the caring and service of the poor and weak sections of the society. Some of them are so humble that they don’t want their names to be brought into limelight. Unfortunately, westernized Indians have the tendency to recognize our great people only when there is a stamp of approval of the Western world. We did not give the state funerals to such great humanitarians like Vinoba Bhave or Jayprakash Narain, but our leaders thought it fit to give that rare honor to Mother Teresa in order to please the Western powers, the Vatican, and the minority at home.

Instead of creating a true secular state where all citizens are governed by the same laws and wherein all people irrespective of their faith are treated equally, our self-serving politicians in India have not only enacted separate laws for minorities but also have given special preferential treatment to them, solely for the purpose of getting their votes. Any person from the majority community objecting to this type of pseudo-secularism is branded as a “Hindu Chauvinist” or “Hindu Fundamentalist.”

It is unfortunate that neither the Indian leaders nor the educated people from the majority community have learnt any lessons from the last 800 years of India’s bloody slavery. Today India is being subverted from within as well as abroad by the Christian and Islamic forces who are bent on disintegrating India with the active help of some greedy and selfish politicians and the indifferent majority. Those who do not heed the truth of history must perish.


Dhiru Shah

From: Harish Sharma < >

Why can’t Indian Americans be more Indian?

By Francois Gautier Source : SIFY


(Skanda987’s answer: Dharma glaani; not knowing the Vedic dharma as it is, and not living per the dharma. However, I think that all the Indian Americans are not as this article describes.)


It’s lunchtime at the home of the Consul General of India in New York, Dnyaneshwar M. Mulay.

A young Hindu American arrives. Her name is Suchitra Vijayan and she teaches part time in Columbia University, one of the most prestigious in the USA & plans to start there a course on South Asian Human Rights.


She says that she is first going to travel to India to interview Kashmiri Muslims and Christian Nagas – obviously an anti-Indian agenda – while her Indian consular mentor smiles proudly…

Welcome to America, the home of millions of Indians, some of whom make a living out of bashing India in American universities and in US publications.


Let’s face it: Indians who immigrate to America most of the time merge totally into the American way of life and their children never come back to their homeland.


The culprit, of course, is Indian education that mass produces brilliant Indians, who are only good for export, because students are not taught to be proud of their own culture, the way French are proud to be French or the Americans proud to be Americans.


As a result, Indian Americans know nothing about Kalidasa, probably one of the greatest poets ever, or Shivaji Maharaj, who is on par with Napoleon, or Sri Aurobindo, India’s greatest contemporary philosopher- but all about Shakespeare, the latest Dan Brown novel, or the best Italian restaurant in New York.


This is the greatest brain drain in the world, which allowed the Silicon Valley to flourish (80% Indian engineers), or the American medical system to expand (60% Indians).


Compare this to the American Chinese: Not only do they unabashedly stand out as Chinese, but they repatriate many of their funds to China and even go back to the mainland, to be part of the great Chinese economic boom.


American Indians rave about the American way of life, but it burns out a human being in 30 or 40 years. They start early for work – by 7 am, America’s millions of highways are already clogged with traffic.


There is fierce competitiveness in the work place – you can be fired in a minute for no reason. Imagine the late hours and heartburn produced over the years by food too quickly swallowed on the run or in the car, the immense stress at airports where security – thanks to continuing terrorism – has reached inhuman proportions…


If only American Indians did retain a bit of their Indian-ness…


Today’s Hollywood stars all do yoga, India’s gift to the world. Yet not only it is not taught in Indian schools and universities as it should, but our Hindu Americans do not practice it.

What else? Pranayama is the ancient Indian science of breathing. Through it you can not only gain more energy, but also de-stress naturally and balance your mind.


It is also a perfectly secular science: Respiration has no religion and a Muslim, a Hindu or a Christian breathe the same air.

In fact, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who has revived and modernized pranayama, has many Muslims and Christians teachers and disciples. Yet, neither is it taught in India, nor do our Indian Americans seem to practice it much.


What about meditation, this most ancient technique that has again no religion, and can be practiced by anybody, with wonderful effects on the mind and the body?


In fact, American companies have begun introducing meditation in their seminars and it is becoming mainstream in the US. Does that mean that meditation is taught in Indian schools, as it should be, or that our Indian Americans practice it? Not at all.


What about Ayurveda, the oldest medical science still in practice that understood 3000 years before western medicine, that many diseases have a psychosomatic origin? Do our Hindu Americans use Ayurveda? Unlikely.


Yet, what would happen if Indian Americans practiced a little bit of that Indian-ness? They would shine, be an example to their fellow Americans, and make India proud.


Instead they want to become more American than the Americans. In this process, they drop their unique identity and are a loss not only to India, but also to America, as they bring nothing new to American culture.


And because they do not stand out, they allow these multiple South Asian groups that sprout everywhere, to be dominated by hostile Indian Americans, who, for instance, convinced the US Government for ten years to deny Narendra Modi a visa.


At the same time, it is true that America, whatever its faults, has always stood up for freedom and democracy. It did so during World War II, when it saved Europe from Nazi domination. It is doing so today, by being the only country in the world willing to take on terrorism head on.

Americans are friendly, hardworking, and it should soon dawn upon them that India is their natural political ally, in an Asia confronted with terrorism born out of Pakistan, Afghanistan or Indonesia. It is also the obvious democratic, pro-western and liberal economic destination to counterbalance China’s aggressive hegemony in Asia.


Meanwhile, it is very unfortunate that the second highest Indian official in the USA, endorses and promotes anti-Indian agendas, whereas he should be the first one to hunt them out. This Nehruvian mind-set in diplomats has got to stop.


The author is the editor in chief of the Paris based La Revue de l ’Inde.

From: Narain Kataria < >



By Kristina Fried

In order to curb the diabolical activities of radical Islamists  who have brutally and mercilessly  murdered hundreds of  innocent Chinese in the name of Allah, Chinese Government  made  imams to dance and swear on oath that they would not teach religion [Islam]  to children …..  Teachers in the district were forced to take a similar oath, also swearing to teach their students to stay away from mosques.

(The Muslims in kafir countries need also to be forced to not force Islam on their children and their women. -Skanda987)

 Hundreds of Indian Muslims have been radicalized by social media and recruited by IS (Islamic State).  However, it is a matter of great regret and concern  that so far Government of India has not yet formulated a clear cut and solid strategy to nip in bud the traitorous  designs  of  Jihadists  whose sole aim is to destabilize, balkanize and consequently Islamize India. 


Narain Kataria

From: Mohan Natarajan < >
Religious Freedom: Whose freedom is it?
by Virendra Parekh < >
Thanks, but no thanks. That would be the reaction of discerning missionaries to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s much awaited intervention in the ongoing discourse on tolerance and religious freedom. He has obliged them at last, but with a twist which negates much of the favor.
On the face of it, it would be a matter of immense satisfaction to the church that the political head of a non-Christian secular country attended a purely religious function (organized by the Catholic Church to celebrate the sainthood of Kuriakose Elias Chavara and Mother Euphrasia) and spoke of ‘tolerance’, ‘freedom of faith’ and ‘the individual’s right to adopt the religion of his choice’.
The satisfaction was heightened by the context. Having availed of India’s hospitality for two days, the US President Barack Obama thought it fit and necessary to harangue us heathens on the virtues of tolerance and religious freedom. “India will succeed so long as it is not splintered on religious lines,” he intoned.
The hypocrisy of this moral grandstanding was astounding. Mr. Obama’s remarks were made shortly before he flew to Saudi Arabia, a country which openly denies religious freedom in theory and practice. Pakistan routinely and systematically persecutes its Hindu and Christian minorities, but remains America’s frontline ally in the so-called war on terror and receives guns and dollars in large quantities. Yet, “Nowhere is it more important to uphold religious freedom than in India.” Back home in Washington he bemoaned the “acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji.”
The hand of the missionary network behind the remark was too obvious to be ignored. It was no coincidence that the US Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which was instrumental in the blacklisting of Mr. Narendra Modi after the 2002 Gujarat violence, and believes that religious freedom in India is comparable to that in Afghanistan and Turkey, welcomed the President’s remarks. In fact, Mr Obama, like Mr Bill Clinton before him, is connected to Southern Baptist groups who have global missionary networks, but they would not mention this in public or condemn the bigotry of Southern Baptists, who would not accept the Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh paths as valid.
An editorial in the New York Times asked the Prime Minister to break his deafening silence on religious intolerance.
And now, Mr. Modi has spoken what was expected of him, but with important improvisation. For the missionaries, it is bad enough that he wants every Indian (and not just Hindus) to have equal respect for all religions. He appealed to ‘ALL’ religious groups (and not just Hindus) to act with restraint, mutual respect, and tolerance, in the true spirit of this ancient nation.
He went on to say, “My government will ensure that there is complete freedom of faith and that everyone has the undeniable right to retain or adopt the religion of his or her choice without coercion or undue influence.” This reference to the right to adopt a religion of one’s choice is no doubt a big (and reckless) concession to the Abrahamic creeds. But there is a double qualification here. The right to retain one’s ancestral faith precedes the one to choose anotherSecondly, the change of religion has to be made ‘without coercion or undue influence’, if at all. The standard Hindu position is that we should stick to the tradition we are born into, while respecting and learning from other traditions. Mr. Modi went as close to that as possible under the Constitution.
But Hindu intellectuals and organizations need to go further.
For Abrahamic religions, religious tolerance and freedom of religion is a one-way street. According to The World Christian Encyclopedia, tolerance means that Christians should “show genuine religious tolerance to other expressions of faith in Christ.” But so far as other, non-Christian religions are concerned, religious toleration “does not deny their convictions about Christ and his church or abandon proclamation, evangelism or conversion”. The Christians retain their right to “believe other religions false and inadequate” and to “attempt to win (adherents) to faith and Jesus Christ.” (The World Christian Encyclopedia, David B Barrett, OUP: 1982, reviewed by Ram Swarup in The Times of India, July 14, 1985)
This view of religious tolerance and freedom of religion is implicitly accepted by the modern West in its dealings with other, especially eastern traditions. But they run into a big problem: How to sound liberal without ceasing to be diehard. You scratch them a little and the old theology of Christian superiority shines forth undiminished.
In the last hundred years, western scholars have developed a new intellectual apparatus to attack non-Christian religions and gods. The language of this attack is not theological but psychological. Brazen attempts to subvert and destroy other traditions are paraded as right of the individual to practice a religion of his choice.
This touching concern for individual rights is a cloak for theological arrogance. In Christian theology, a pagan is more than just a nasty physical fact; essentially, he is a lost soul needing to be saved by Jesus and his church missionaries. Thanks to the powerful missionary lobby in the UN, its universal declaration of human rights 1948 states that every individual has a right to embrace the religion or belief of his choice. This has been interpreted as the right of the church to seek converts among the world’s peoples without hindrance by whatever means and regardless of the consequences to the man and society. It has opened the doors for questionable proselytization and conversion tactics with lethal consequences to native traditions across the world. The missionary apparatus is a real threat to the genuine freedom of faith.
The church claims the right to freedom of religion, by which it means its own right to convert others, and never the other way round (recall its strong condemnation of ghar wapsi). Christian evangelical efforts in the world today constitute nothing less than an open declaration of war on the other religions. What it forgets is that if missionaries have a right to preach the gospel, ancient societies professing pacifist non-proselytizing religions have a right to defend themselves.
Hindu organizations should work for a new and equitable definition of freedom of religion to end this theological warfare and bring peace among religions. The UN must recognize explicitly that countries, cultures and peoples of tolerant philosophies and religions who believe in live and let live too have a right of protection against aggressive, systematic proselytizing. The new charter will assert that an individual’s right to religious freedom includes the right to practice his faith in peace free from uninvited attacks upon his faith and family, and not to be forced to compromise his faith as price of accepting help in times of societal or personal upheaval.
This is the view that Mr. Narendra Modi should articulate next time he holds forth on freedom of religion. Most of the non-Christian world, targeted by the church, will endorse this view. He could also share with his buddy Barack a few things Gandhiji said about the missionary activity and conversions.
In a note to a missionary, Dr. Thornton, Gandhiji wrote, “if the missionary friends will forget their mission viz. of proselytizing Indians and of bringing Christ to them, they will do wonderfully good work. Your duty is done with the ulterior motive of proselytizing. When I go to your institutions, I do not feel I am going to an Indian institution. This is what worries me.”
Gandhiji’s advice to the missionaries was five-fold. First, stop conversions altogether as “it is the deadliest poison that ever sapped the fountain of truth.” Second, if you must convert, direct your efforts to those who are in a position to assess these matters properly. Do not target the poor, the illiterate or the destitute. Third, even for that effort, it would be better for non-Indian missionaries to return to their countries and attend to problems there. Those problems are large enough to engage all the missionaries that can be made available there. Fourth, in doing any kind of work among people, compliment the faith of the people, do not undermine it. Do not de-nationalize them. Finally, instead of living the life of the Church, live the life of Jesus, of piety, of the Sermon on the Mount. Let that life, that example, persuade people to embrace Christianity if they will, not this salesmanship.
Like the Mahatma, many modern Hindus have wondered why the Church cannot emulate the example of the Ramakrishna Mission and make the tribal understand his own religion better. What is the need for introducing him to Christ, the Bible and Christianity when his own objects of devotion, veneration and spirituality can serve him equally well?
Like communists, the church too has contributed a lot to the corruption of language, loading innocuous phrases with self-serving but sinister meanings and connotations. It is time to undo the damage not just to the language but also to the thought. That will be the beginning of real tolerance and freedom.

Muslims feels they getting a rough deal


भारत के काफिरों – संविधान बदलो बदलो बदलो!


Defects of Democratic Constitutions

By Suresh Vyas


Democracy means a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. It is a government for the people and by the people of a country. The people draft a constriction, and then agree to live by it.


The defects in most constitutions of the current democratic countries are:


  1. Protection of minorities
  2. Freedom of religion
  3. Separate laws for different groups of people
  4. Majority (even if unrighteous) rules


Each of the above is discussed below.


  • The constriction says to protect the minority, but a minority can be righteous or unrighteous, tolerant or intolerant, divine, or demoniac, etc. There is no need to protect unrighteous, intolerant, or demoniac group whether a minority or majority. In a healthy body, a cancer cell is a minority. To protect it (let it live in the body) is suicidal. Same for a nation.


  • The constitution assumes that all religions are equally good. This is not correct. Some religions are not tolerant of any other faiths, and constantly act to wipe out other religions and cultures from the world. Islam and Christianity are such religions. In contrast, the Vedic dharma is universal religion for mankind. Any two religions can be objectively compared to see which religion has higher potential to cause peace at personal to national and global level. Universal criteria for comparing religions is stated at below site:




The constitution needs to say that all tolerant religions will be legal, and intolerants will be illegal.


  • In one country there cannot be separate laws for separate groups. The Muslims always have asked for separate law—Sharia—for them, separate prayer rooms, etc. This cannot be allowed in non-Muslim countries.

On a related point, the government should not favor—give benefits—to any group over other group. This is discrimination. E.g. in Hindustan the gov’t has special quotas and benefits for so called “dalits” or oppressed group of people. Such favors backfire, because the dalits (the shudras) want to remain dalits for ever to rip the free benefits even when no one is oppressing them. Instead of favoring dalits, the gov’t should punish those who oppress others. The Hindus need to undersand this:


The Vedic society is made of four varNas: Brahmins (the spiritually intellectual class), Kshatriyas (the protectors of the society), the vaishyas (the traders), and the shudras (so called dalits now for mean political purpose) who provide labor and service to society. Now according to Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas, this varNa I defined by one’s guNa (qualities) and karma (one’s actions and aptitudes). It is not defined by one’s birth. Additionally, dharma does not tell that a varNa should oppress or hate any other varNa. So, the gov’t needs to force the Hindus to live per the Vedic dharma, and stop providing quotas and benefits to dalits.


  • Majority Rules. If the majority people are less intelligent, or barbaric, or greedy, or criminals, or violent, they will rule. Such governments, e.g. that of Pakistan, cause suffering for themselves and for other countries. The majority need to have wisdom to elect those who are really intelligent, capable, and righteous leaders.

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.