Christian Subversion And Missionary Activities - 6

[Bharatvarsh2]

What was worse was that every church, every missionary who set foot on Indian soil had been preaching that the British must rule India for the benefit of Indians themselves - material and spiritual. Those pagans who worship stones were sinners who must be taught the truth of the Bible and spread its message. Christianity must have a firm hold on India for the stability of the British Empire. There are plenty of extracts to support this, let just take two –

* When the East India Company got control of whole of India, Mr Maugles, one of its Directors gave evidence to House of Commons and explained the Company’s policy of rule in India. He said, “.. Providence has entrusted the extensive empire of India to England in order that the banner of Christ should wave triumphant from one end of India to the other. Everyone must exert all his strength that there may be no idolatrousness on any account in continuing the grand work of making all India Christ.”

* Now let us see what Reverend Kennedy said in 1856 –

“.. Whatever misfortunes come on us, as long as our empire in India continued, our chief work is the propagation of Christianity in the land. Until Hindusthan from Cape Camorin to the Himalayas embraces the religion of Christ, we must use all power and all the authority in our hands until India becomes a magnificent nation, the bulwark of Christianity in the East.”Letters of Prof Maxmuller and Macaulay whom our people had regarded as liberals had the same dreams. This is evident from their letters recently published. For further details, readers should refer to my book

Indian War of Independence 1857 – chapter entitled Adding fuel to fire.

One must stress that the Christianity here was not the one of ‘turning the other cheek, but the ’ Christianity’ to stabilise British power. When the British went around the world to conquer, they had Rifle in one hand and the Bible in the other. They knew from experience that a Hindu once forced to become a Christian, becomes lost to Hinduism forever. His progeny too automatically become Christian. They in turn became enemies of Hinduism and supporters of the British rule in India. They considered the British Raj as their own.



The position of the British people was like the drunken monkey. They would send its representatives to the House of Commons, only those who would keep a firm grip on British power in India. It was the British Parliament thus elected by British people who would be responsible for sending administrators to India from Viceroy to Collectors. These administrators (ruling class) were called – Anglo-Indians. They were not independent, but mere puppets of the British people. If any one of them had behaved in a way not liked by the British people, they would have insisted on sacking of such officers – even Viceroys. If need be, they would have even toppled their own government. When examples of repression, torture, and injustice in India were known, the British people showed no concern. They always honoured barbarians like Robert Clive, Dalhousie, Canning or Curzon. Thus, in reality, the British people and the Anglo-Indian ruling class in India were no different. Lord Curzon had declared on many occasions in 1904-05, “We will not relinquish our power to the last drop of our blood.” And he dismissed the Queen’s declaration of 1858, which the Congress leaders worshiped, as ‘an impossible charter.’ Though the words were spoken by Curzon, they reflected the thinking of the British people.

(Notes -

1 Times (of London) says on 18 February 1930, page xi, col A, “Up to 1909 or so there was no doubt what sort of Government India had….. Constitutionally speaking, the supreme power rested with the electors of this country, who made and unmade Ministries, and therefore called the Secretary of State for India and the whole Cabinet to account if unacceptable things were done in India.” -

That is exactly what Savarkar was saying in 1906.

2 One should remember that statue of General Havelock, who was involved in barbaric suppression of Indians during the 1857-59 uprising in India, was erected in London, Trafalgar Square in 1861, by public subscription.

3.Savarkar’s views were also fully justified by what happened at the time of Jalianwala Bagh massacre in 1919. Readers of The Morning Post (London) collected funds totalling £20,000 and honoured Brigadier General Dyer with a sword publicly!)



http://www.savarkar.org/content/pdfs/en/...p.v001.pdf

I wonder what the "Indian" followers of this cult have to say to this?



On a side note: