Christian Subversion And Missionary Activities - 6

[Bharatvarsh2]

Staines verdict should not have been amended



The Supreme Court’s decision to amend its judgement in the Graham Staines case by excising those portions of it that dealt with the activities of Christian missionaries and the conversion of poor tribals through fraud and inducement is extremely regrettable and unfortunate. It is absurd to suggest, as has been done by a group of busybodies who masquerade as India’s ‘civil society’ and whose only claim to fame is their proximity to certain individuals associated with the Congress who wield tremendous clout at the moment by virtue of the political and constitutional posts they occupy, that the Supreme Court, in its original judgement, had sought to minimise the horrific crime committed by Dara Singh and his associate Mahendra Hembram who have been held guilty of setting the vehicle in which Staines and his two young sons were sleeping on fire resulting in their death. The ghastly incident happened more than a decade ago in a remote village of Odisha where tribals had begun to resent missionaries converting fellow tribals to Christianity, thus upsetting social equilibrium and morphing their cultural identity. The Supreme Court’s judgement is a stern reiteration of the fact that the guilty men acted in an unconscionable manner and deserved the punishment meted out to them: Life imprisonment. But to the credit of the Bench, it also provided a context to the crime because it was neither committed in isolation nor motivated by factors other than to protest against evangelism aimed at ‘harvesting souls’. Such elaboration is perfectly acceptable and, in this newspaper’s opinion, added balance to the judicial verdict. Yet, those who seek to be seen as patrons of unrestrained evangelism and missionaries who misuse the freedom to preach and propagate religion guaranteed by the Constitution chose to cavil against the judgement and launched a vitriolic campaign of calumny, attributing political motives to a verdict of the highest court of the land and demanding the Government’s intervention. The Supreme Court should have stood up to those questioning its integrity. Tragically, it chose to capitulate, setting a dangerous precedent. In future, every time a judgement goes against the political interests of a devious few, they will cite the amendment of the Graham Staines judgement to demand similar revision.



It is equally important to remember that removing certain sentences from a particular verdict will not change facts on the ground. The people of India are fully aware of missionaries and evangelists converting the indigent and the illiterate to Christianity through means that are fraudulent, coercive or inducement. It’s not for nothing that State Governments have adopted anti-conversion laws, although these are held in contempt and violated with impunity by those who claim to represent the Church. Nothing has changed since the time when the Niyogi Commission recorded the questionable activities of missionaries. On the contrary, with more money coming in as ‘aid’ for evangelical missions, the scale of the fraud being committed in the name of faith has increased. There is nothing charitable about missionaries who foray deep into India’s interiors looking for souls to harvest; it is antithetical to everything that our Constitution stands for. This is precisely the point that was made by the Supreme Court in its judgement in the Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh case. Will that judgement be expunged from the court’s records now?



http://www.dailypioneer.com/313454/A-tra...ation.html

The first judgement was by the bench of Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan;Justice Sathasivam, wrote the judgment for the bench. The changes/ expunges/ clarifications were made by a bench comprising judges Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.



Is this normal? Why are the changes made by a different bench withindays because of criticism in the media and by christian organisations against reference to conversion?