Marco Rubio was all praise for missionaries in his address at the Munich Security Conference. We need to tell him something about missionaries in India—they failed to take over Indians in large numbers.
The Nirouyeh Vijeh Pasdaran Velayat, or NOPO, was the only force Ali Khamenei trusted.It was founded in 1991 and is more feared than the Revolutionary Guards.
Rating democracies is a tricky business. I am only using the simple metric of who in the Indian subcontinent has had the most peaceful, stable, normal political transitions and continuity.
What if Bharat simply amended its Constitution to prohibit organised religious conversion? Not a debate about democracy or dictatorship — but a straightforward assertion of a civilisation’s right to preserve itself culturally, spiritually, and linguistically from alien, externally-driven projects.
Abrahamic religions spread historically through war, military conquest, missionary indoctrination, and ideological pressure. In doing so, they committed cultural genocide across entire regions that were living perfectly coherent lives on their own terms. That is historical record, not prejudice.
Hindus have no equivalent history of conversion ‘in the western sense’. Ramakrishna Mission and Arya Samaj are not conversion machines — they are reform and consolidation movements, and their very existence is a deterrent to predatory proselytization, not a mirror of it.
Had this been addressed cleanly at the founding in 1947, much of the reactive identity politics we see today may never have taken root. The illiberal responses we now witness are downstream consequences of a wound that was never treated.
Many countries restrict proselytization without being considered uncivilised. Bharat has every right — and arguably the responsibility — to do the same. The real question to Bharat’s citizens is: how long will you wait?
To be fair to history, Muslim, then Mughal, rule did not make India an Islamic country. Nor will the slightly higher rates of reproduction for Muslims, as compared to Hindus, in India in future.
What if Bharat simply amended its Constitution to prohibit organised religious conversion? Not a debate about democracy or dictatorship — but a straightforward assertion of a civilisation’s right to preserve itself culturally, spiritually, and linguistically from alien, externally-driven projects.
Abrahamic religions spread historically through war, military conquest, missionary indoctrination, and ideological pressure. In doing so, they committed cultural genocide across entire regions that were living perfectly coherent lives on their own terms. That is historical record, not prejudice.
Hindus have no equivalent history of conversion ‘in the western sense’. Ramakrishna Mission and Arya Samaj are not conversion machines — they are reform and consolidation movements, and their very existence is a deterrent to predatory proselytization, not a mirror of it.
Had this been addressed cleanly at the founding in 1947, much of the reactive identity politics we see today may never have taken root. The illiberal responses we now witness are downstream consequences of a wound that was never treated.
Many countries restrict proselytization without being considered uncivilised. Bharat has every right — and arguably the responsibility — to do the same. The real question to Bharat’s citizens is: how long will you wait?
Wait for the next census. You might get a shock.
To be fair to history, Muslim, then Mughal, rule did not make India an Islamic country. Nor will the slightly higher rates of reproduction for Muslims, as compared to Hindus, in India in future.