• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Thomas In India? History Of Christianism In India
Husky, page 37. It relates to a 'dispute' where a certain church in Tanjore had a certain land portion in its compound, which they claimed to have been granted them by the king. Land aparantly was big enough that the converts made some properties on it. They claimed king had granted permission to them, (and not to the Church). Church demanded the christians pay the rent, which the congregation refused. Then adding to the dispute were sectarian infights. Lutherian Vs. Anglican. Reading few pages before it, it would seem that a christian sect would prefer its converted flock to go back to the 'paganism' rather than to go to its rival christian sect. http://books.google.com/books?id=ML2EsnDAt..._brr=1#PPA37,M1
Post 5:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Sep 3 2006, 09:19 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Sep 3 2006, 09:19 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>For those, who say Christians opposed untouchability and castism in India:</span>
Captain Swanton's Memoir Of The Primitive Church Of Malayala
Presented to Royal Asiatic Soceity on January 5th, 1833
By Captain Charles Swanston of East India Company, Madras
This and next 3 posts contain excerpts taken from:
<b>Northists and Southists: A Folklore of Kerala Christians</b>, Richard Michael Swiderski, <i>Asian Folklore Studies</i>, Vol. 47, No. 1. (1988), pp. 73-92.

<b>Several things to be noted on the excerpts: </b>
(1) There are two groups of the early community of Syrian Christians in India. They had long been divided into the Southist (Knanaya) and Northist sides. Both sides have <i>numerous myths explaining their origins and the origin of the division</i>.
(2) Both sides try to say they are racially pure and claim the other is 'low' ('low-caste' origins and even slave origins, or derived from Thomas' concubine or even someone else's concubine).
(3) These two subsects of Syrian christians in India have long been arguing within themselves, like christians have been doing all over the world. Europeans in India have written on their disputes which sometimes led to one side killing members of the other.
(4) Both look down on 'low-caste' converts and think it is a slight to have any in their ancestry. So much for christianity having always been for equality.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Christians have distinguished themselves into two mutually exclusive sections, the Northists and the Southists. While Kerala Christians today seldom acknowledge this division, it has been the theme of bitter polemic in the past and remains a basis for the invention of tradition in the present. The Malayalam names for the Christian divisions are always Tekkumbhagar-Vadakumbhagar, but the English equivalents may be Nordhist-Suddhist or Northerner-Southerner, though Northist-Southist is most common. I first learned of them in discussions with Knanaya, members of a Kerala Christian ethnic group, who say they were once called Southists and occasionally repeat older legends to explain the name. Though there are no living oral traditions to this effect, written sources record that early Brahmin settlements in Kerala grouped themselves into " northern " and " southern " divisions around two rival centers (Veluthat n.d.). The Nayars, an important Hindu caste in Kerala, also recognized a north/south dividing line (Fuller 1976). Another important dual classification, the rightlleft caste division which some Tamil communities (Beck 1972; Appadurai 1974) employ, I have not found in Kerala usage. It is quite possible that the Christians copied the north/south division from the prestigious Brahmin community as they copied so many other Brahmin traits.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->"Quite possible" = speculation here, as the christians themselves variously trace their mutual exclusivity to the wives of Thomas of Cana, see next post.
Even here they attempt to transfer the blame for this christian community's divisive practises onto Hinduism.These Syrian Christians of Kerala divided themselves based on <i>their own ever-changing myths</i>.

<i>One</i> of the Southist myths on how the N-S division came about:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->DIVISION BY LOCATION
A succinct legend expressing the northist/southist division was set down by Mr. V. J. Jacob in the Foreward to the volume produced for the consecration of St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church, Calicut (1982):
[boring myths related to a Thomas of Cana coming to India]
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On landing in Cranganore in <b>345 A.D.</b> they were greeted by the King Cheraman Perumal and the native Christians there. The Perumal honored them by confirming many titles and privileges and allowed them to settle as a separate Community in a tax free land gifted to them on the Southern side of the Mahadevapuram Township nearby; the northern part already occupied by the native St.Thomas Christians. Thus the Division as Southerners and Northerners among Syrian Christians in Kerala. These immigrant Syrian Christians known as Knanayits maintain a separate Caste type Community even to-day, confirming their marriages within their race only.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The narrative describes the transfer of Syrian Christianity to Malabar while asserting Patriarch's (which Patriarch is another matter) control over the Christians in that area. The mission of 400 under the leadership of Thomas of Cana are vessels of that transfer and agents of the Patriarch's authority. They settle in Cranganore under a mandate to preserve their cultural and racial identity in contradistinction to the " native St. Thomas Christians " (cf. Brown 1982, 70-71). In Mr. Jacob's version of the legend the immigrants' distinctiveness is ratified by the location of their settlement: they establish themselves on the south side of the city apart from the native Christians on the north side, becoming Southists as opposed to the Northists (cf. Tisserant 1957, 8). Mr. Jacob, himself a Knanaya, in this narrative derives his own group directly from Southists emphatically set apart from Northists.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->(1) The version of the myth related above is <b>not the earliest</b> myth on the N-S divide that the Syrian christians used to give. The earliest ones come in the next post.
(2) Remember the date given above: "345 A.D." Because in a later post, another myth on how the N-S division came about will be related. In it, you'll find mention that they fled to India due to <i>islamic</i> invasions... which cannot be in 345 because there was no islam then!

It seems both Northists and Southists are now Catholic? (Because of the persecutions and conversions by the Portuguese, I assume.) Then they're no longer of the supposedly 'Orthodox' form of Syrian christianity - see here:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In several places-Kaduthuruthy, for instance-Southist churches stand a short distance away from large churches of the same denomination (Catholic) intended for non-Southists, or Northists. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Related to post 81:
The long-lasting division within the Syrian christians has been explained by the N and S communities themselves through many different origin myths. Most of them have to do with different myths on Thomas of Cana's two wives, which have likewise changed with the times as have their other usual myths (when they came to India, which Thomas brought them there, which communties this Thomas evangelised, and more). The section THOMAS OF CANA'S TWO WIVES explains several of these:
(1) The Southists were the descendants of his W-Asian Syrian wife, the Northists of his Indian Nair wife.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Northist/Southist legends all trace the division back to the arrival of the Syrian immigrants. A complex set of variants narrates the division as separation of two sides from a single point. A Society for the Propagation of Christian Literature missionary, the Reverend Thomas Keay, collected a legend (1938, 20) which further qualifies the Southist-Northist geographical division. The Southists, dwelling on the south bank of the Periyar, were the descendants of Thomas of Cana's union with a West Asian wife he had brought from Syria; the Northists, on the opposite bank, arose from his union with a native Nayar woman.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The author of the article, being an anthropologist (so it's expected of him), has to read some Brahmin-Nair concubine story into (1).
(2) The Southists were the descendants of his Nair wife, the Northists of his Indian Mukkuvan wife (fishing community, article describes them as 'low caste').
The author then remarks that (2) is similar to the Abraham-Sarah-Hagar case.

Anyway, version (2), though rarer, probably dates from a later time: when the Syrian immigrants wanted to entrench both Syrian Christian communities as a (partly) local community - both wives of this thomas got to be Indian in the second version.

In the above versions of the myth, the Southists (Knanayas) got to trump the Northists, due to some 'better' ancestry. More of the same, but the following bit also shows the Syrian christians <i>always</i> had many versions of the Thomas and Wives tale, and that the two groups were always quarrelling:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Knanaya today very infrequently allude to the <b>story of Thomas of Cana's two wives</b>, but the <b>older written sources contain numerous versions of the story</b>. Keay's unnamed Southist informant used the story to legitimate his group over the Northists. Keay himself printed the tale to show that the native Christians are engaged in a bitter quarrel over legitimacy and require guidance from the outside. This has long been the reason why outsiders recount the two-wife narrative. The first reference to the two wives of Thomas of Cana is in a letter written by the Jesuit missionary Monserrate in 1579 (Brown 1982, 176). Monserrate remarks that both wives were noble Malabar women but one was a slave because she was born under an inauspicious sign. He does not specify the racial or caste identity of either wife, nor does he mention Southist or Northist descendants. Monserrate's letter simply tells of a division within a polygynous native family without particular consequence for subsequent history. Monserrate wishes to demonstrate that superstitious Malabar Christians require the firm hand of European ecclesiasts to discourage barbarous practices and achieve the restoration of authentic Christian faith. Monserrate's legend does not take either the Northist or the Southist side, but deprived of this crucial specific still serves his purpose.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The above gives an additional bit of info: the catholic church (Europe) thought these Syrian christians are barbarous and practising the 'wrong christianity'. It is a fact of history that the catholic church decided to persecute the syrians christians in India and managed to convert many to catholicism.

Note how the myths keep changing: now a <i>modern explanation</i> of the N-S division, which describes christo-casteist sentiments of the Southist community - can't blame this one on Hinduism:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Contemporary Southists, the Knanaya, do not find the Nayar-Mukkuvan story intelligible. The caste differences upon which the narrative relies to achieve its Biblical analogy are not so strong today. The Southists do not ascribe Northist apartness to a polluted ancestress. They speak of Thomas of Cana's paternity, and of the two wives, but instead of identifying the social or caste standing of either they stress the divergent policies of the children. Those dwelling on the South side maintained rigid endogamy and did not welcome converts from low Hindu castes into their church while the Northists not only accepted converts but intermarried with them (Mundadan 1970, 97, n. 35). In one narrative I recorded from a Knanaya Jacobite priest, Thomas of Cana's two wives disappear entirely and the division is once again geographical in nature but now it is chiefly a division in conversion and marriage policy.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->. . . The Christians who went to live in the north of Cranganore accepted converts into their churches and they mixed together with them. The others <b>remained pure. They resisted mixing.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This version responds to a present-day social issue: the admission of former " untouchables " into Christian ranks and their assimilation into Christian society. This is a " caste " matter within the Christian community. A group of " late " converts, the <b>Latin Catholics</b>, has taken shape in Kerala since the Portuguese domination. They themselves are divided into a number of ranked sub-groups (Ayyer 1926, 253-300), and despite their numbers have been confined to their own churches and barred from free intermarriage with the " older " Christians. The Latin Catholics have lately gained near equality to the Syrian Christians, though the stigma of their origins is recalled and intermarriage between Latin Catholics and the older Christian group is still difficult (Koilparambil 1982, 5-6; 264). There are yet more recent groups of converts who are <b>" New Christians,"</b> and not even classed among the Latin Catholics. <b>The Knanaya, ever sensitive to the issue of their purity</b>, have developed a legend which extends the category of Northists to include all of these converts in a mass opposed to the stalwart Southists. This justifies the Southists' policy of endogamy as nothing less than sustaining down to the present the Patriarch of Antioch's ancient enjoinder to keep the faith and <b>racial purity</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And more on this racial purity, anti-mixing with 'low castes':
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bilateral division narrated as a difference in long-term policy is clearly milder than the various two-wife stories, which identify the Northists as <b>low-caste mixed-bloods</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In other words, going by their own long-held myths of the how and why of N-S segregation, it was pure racism that was the cause of these two groups' division.

The casteism in India's Syrian christian community developed from their earlier myth where all the Southists descended from Armenian/Syrian Thomas of Cana and his Syrian wife vs Northists who were his half-Indian descendants.
Then eventually, this "we're racially pure you aren't" infight between the two groups developed into not mixing with 'low caste converts'.
And then, both Northists and Southists still don't generally intermarry with the later Latin Catholics because of the "stigma of their (Latin Catholics') origins" - as per the text above. And the even more recent converts, the "new christians", are in for a long wait before they will be considered acceptable.
Related to post 81:

Those were some of the Southist versions of the myths. The Northists also have their tales of the same, but turn it all around to make it pro-Northist. And they mention another group: the 'indigenous christians'. According to the Northist version, the Northists were themselves not originally Indian, but claim they were willing to marry the indigenous <i>'St Thomas christians'</i> (itself a term invented after the middle of the 2nd millennium - kind of dating this origin legend).
Interesting that Northists - unlike the Southists - never claimed they stayed endogamous. However, they claim <i>both</i> sides intermarried - the Southists too - but say that the Southists did so with 'low caste converts'. So, before feeling sympathetic to the Northist side for the supposed 'inclusiveness' of their version, note that they were casteist too.

Reproducing this section:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->THE NORTHIST RESPONSE
The Southists obviously have not told their stories without a counter from the Northists, or the non-Southists. An article by an anonymous Catholic priest published in an English language Kerala newspaper on 26 March 1924 recounts the division of the Syrian immigrants but inverts the ranks of the parties formed (George 1964, 83-86). <b>The Northerners were the " upper class "</b> of the immigrants, including Thomas of Cana. They settled in the North of Cranganore, intermarried with the indigenous St. Thomas Christians, received a set of privileges from the monarch and were considered the equals of the Nambudiri Brahmins. <b>The Southerners were their attendants and formed marriage alliances with the indigenous low caste converts.</b>
" The St. Thomas Christians sedulously kept themselves apart from the Sudhists. This is the origin of the two classes in Malabar." Both sides accept converts and intermarry but now the Northists ally themselves with the indigenous Christians (unmentioned or degraded in Southist versions) while the Southists, already a lower class, amalgamate themselves with new Christians of low rank and are consequently kept from associating with the Northists. They may worship in Northist churches but are relegated to " the lower half." <b>This narrator is careful to approve the universal Christian communion but maintains that the Southists are " lower " members of that communion. The " purity " of the Southists is born of their exclusion from any intermixture with the higher orders of foreign or native Christians.</b> The author states that this negates the " high pretensions " which the Southists express in their legends. An aged Syrian Christian woman echoed the attitude of the 1924 article in informing me that the Southists today have great pretentions, but when she was young she and her family always recognized that they were " a little bit lower " than the Syrian Christians.

Other Northist stories are not so kind. They trace the origins of the Southists to a <b>dobi, a washerwoman</b>, whom Thomas of Cana took as concubine. The mother of the Northists is not even mentioned.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Southists are called accharan kettikal, " ash-tiers," from the custom they reputedly once observed of carrying a little ash in the corner of the sari or dhoti. This, Northists explain, commemorates the dobi ancestress since dobis typically use wood-ash as a source of caustic soda in their washing work, and often appear sullied by the substance. Southists agree that they once tied ash but deny any descent from a dobi. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The article then narrates 3 different myths that the Knanaya/Southists give just for this 'ash-tying practise'. Apparently everything concerning Syrian christians requires multiple mutually-exclusive legends and myths to explain.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The legend of the two wives of Thomas of Cana has been narrated to serve the purposes of different parties: to assert the superiority and exclusiveness of the Southists; to promote an image of Malabar Christians suited to the uses of missionaries or of ethnologists. Both stories agree that the ash-tieing practice sets the Southists apart, but disagree fiercely about its import. The issues are the same as in the other division narratives: <b>purity/impurity of bloodline, legitimacy</b> and continuity of tradition.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a different Northist myth explaining the N-S divide there's more casteism:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Northists attempted, however, to subvert Southist reactions to their version. In an elaborate story collected by Hambye, the translator of Cardinal Tisserant's volume (1957, 9n), the dobi was not Thomas of Cana's concubine but merely under his protection. He married her to a boy of the Marar caste (a low caste) and the seven daughters born of this union married seven of the Syrian immigrants living on South St., giving rise to the Southists. <b>This insulates Thomas of Cana entirely from the Southist bloodstream, matches a dobi with a low caste boy and introduces their blood into the pool of the Syrians.</b> Numbering seven daughters married to seven male Syrians covers the Southist claim of having come to India in seven exogamous clans. This prevents the Southists from saying that the dobi married into only one clan and that clan fell away. All the clans are equally her offspring, and equally not descended from Thomas of Cana.
This legend derives the Southists from a dobi, removes them from Thomas of Cana's bloodline and runs down another of their pretentions at the same time. Perhaps there were other legends in which Southists took account of Northist legends degrading Southists and vice-versa. The remaining fragments suggest the bitterness of the antagonism between the two groups.
A Syrian Catholic journalist offered me a timely derivation of the Southists from the dobi.<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One time the dobis working for the Maharaja of Cranganore went on strike. The Maharaja sent to Syria for new dobis. Their children are the Cananites.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Now with that final statement just above, which introduces Canaanites, the Southists are made to have slave ancestry ancestry and from foreign shores too.
Why do I get the feeling the N and S Syrian christians hated each other...
Final post related to #81:

Then the article goes onto Europeans narrating the tales of the origins of the division between the two groups, as well as infighting that resulted in fatalities even:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In 1603 the Jesuit J. M. Campori, in the train of Archbishop Roz as he made his episcopal tour of villages in Malabar, wrote a letter to the Jesuit general Aquaviva giving variants of the two-wife story and a picture of Northist-Southist relations (Ferroli 1939 : 295-301):
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]
In the two castes we have mentioned everyone pretends to descend from the legitimate wife, and contends that those of the opposite caste are descendants of the slave. Therefore they don't intermarry and in the bazaars they have separate churches for each caste. They communicate in everything else, nevertheless there occur amongst them frequent quarrels and strifes.
This year there were so profound dissensions between two bazaars of different castes, that it was impossible to affect their reconciliation. They came to blows and on both sides some were wounded and killed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Campori seems to stand outside the social divisions he describes by treating them equivocally. [...] The Jesuit narrators tell it from the viewpoint of European missionaries opposed to both Northists and Southists. Campori is the representative of an outside power which proposes to bring order to the irrationally divided natives. They can live in peace -he avers that they " communicate " in all things-if their meaningless differences are settled.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then the article comes to another variation on the origins of the divisions - favouring the Knanayas as the 'superior' ones once again. And talking about racial purity again:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A major section is devoted to a remarkably extended division narrative. Instead of beginning with the advent of the Syrian expedition in Malabar Chazhikaden pushes the division all the way back to Biblical times. The original Southists, his legend proposes, were the people of the Southern Hebrew kingdom of Judea. The Assyrians invaded and dispersed the Northern Hebrew kingdom, Israel, sending its people into exile and debasing intermixture. The Southern kingdom persisted, however, thanks to the protection of Alexander the Great, and its subjects retained both their racial and cultural uniqueness. The Romans finally conquered and destroyed the Southern kingdom but they could not compromise Southist cultural solidarity. When the Southists, who had turned to Christianity but still retained their identity, fled before the Muslim invaders to Cranganore, Cheraman Perumal welcomed them but the native Christians, of Northist descent, spurned them when they refused to intermarry and dilute their blood.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(The 'islamic' reference after the mentions of Alexander and the Romans dates their arrival in India to sometime late in or after the 7th century!)

And if you thought this infighting over the many myths - all of them ridiculous - should have ended a long time ago:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Northists, or non-Southists, continue to deliver narratives and publish pamphlets (e.g. Jose 1983) refuting and ridiculing Southist pretense, such as Chazhikaden's.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And here comes an explanation as to <b>why they keep inventing stories</b> and also <b>why the church now wants to present a united front by dismissing the division</b> as something of the past, consciously a legend.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Today there simply is a multiplicity, a pluralism, of legends. The same person may utter a fiercely partisan version then later criticize that version and offer a conciliatory alternate. There is no way to be sure that this was not always the case; that the content of individual legends says nothing definite about the identity of the teller. <b>A legend may be snatched from the air and presented to make a point in a discussion.</b> A person who has not lived in this environment cannot easily assess the role of the division legends in forming the expressing identity, which may be far less fixed than it is convenient for an outsider to assume. Only the context can be observed. <b>Recently there has been a move toward ecumenicism in divided Indian Christianity. This emphasizes history and doctrine common to all the denominations. As foreign governance is reduced it becomes necessary to formulate an indigenous history of Christianity and to frame indigenous legends.</b> This may also coincide with a growing homogenization of Kerala society as class divisions replace the former rigid caste divisions and intermarriage between Christian groups as well as with other religions grows more common. An ecumenical icon, the St. Thomas Christian Encyclopedia, published for the 1900th anniversary of the martyrdom of the Apostle to India, St. Thomas, offers a field open for the play of a variety of even contradictory histories of the same events, including the Northist-Southist division. The contemporary legends described in this article are partially in the social context of Northist-Southist antagonism, but also in the increasingly pervasive context of Indian Christian ecumenicism. The division is increasingly narrated as common history of an emergent Indian Christianity. The division is " of the past "; it is consciously a legend.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->See, christianity is always rewriting its history: "We've always been one. We've always got along. We've always been for equality"

They're always 'formulating history' and legends about themselves, and even involve other people. And their legends keep changing to adapt to the times.
Like Syrian christian stories about (1) the various dates Syrian christianity first arrived in India, (2) who murdered their non-existent <i>apostle</i> thomas, and (3) which communities thomas converted. These stories all keep changing. I wouldn't have minded their silly myths when it concerned only inter-christian bickering. But then they had to invent libel to accuse Hindus of persecuting their fictional thomas. As usual, unable to stick to one story, many different Hindu communities were accused of killing the same st thomas depending on the time period of the martyrdom-story update.

<i>From excerpted bit above:</i> "A legend may be snatched from the air and presented to make a point in a discussion."
Something christianity tends to do quite often, so one can't hold Syrian christianity in India solely responsible for that. Examples include christianity pretending it's all for equality and that Hinduism brought forth a racist social institution. While the latter has never been proven (and there's significant indication that it had nothing to do with ethnicity), the former claim is totally wrong: the earliest form of christianity in India (however late it may have arrived) has been ethnicity-conscious, racist and casteist from the start.

Christianity can keep its little 'we don't have casteism and inequality' dawaganda to itself. The supposedly oldest christian sect that spread outside christianity's 'birth-place' (India's Syrian christians long claimed - wrongly - to have got to India before Europe was christianised) was the sort that made its own two groups hate each other on grounds of the other being 'racially impure'. And from there on they progressed to discriminating against Indian converts and 'mixing' with them because (1) they were Indian; (2) 'low' caste origins and other nonsense.
<b>The Capture of Maryam-uz-ZamAni's Ship: Mughal Women and European Traders</b>, Ellison B. Findly, <i>Journal of the American Oriental Society</i>, Vol. 108, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1988), pp. 227-238.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Finally, and most troubling, the Portuguese used their trading activities as a vehicle to carry out an extensive missionary front amongst both Hindu and Muslim Indians. The real reason for their presence was, at least ideologically, a zeal for Christian converts, and their proselytizing vigor was nowhere more obvious than in a <b>1594 papal bull commanding the forcible conversion of all Hindus. </b>This missionary agenda was, in fact, set forth by Albuquerque himself upon his arrival in India in 1509 when he called for, among other things, the expulsion of Islam from India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That last bit on Albuquerque calling for "among other things, the expulsion of Islam from India" is a laugh. Europe barely managed to get rid of the islamics in their own lands, and that too after several crusades, the involvement of <i>many</i> European countries and the deaths of millions.

In the India of that time (which included today's TSP, Afghanistan, Bangladesh) there were <i>way way WAY</i> more islamis than they could have dreamt up in their worst nightmare. I mean, we're talking about people who had Arabia for appetiser, Afghanistan for a snack and Persia for lunch.

Would have made for an 'interesting' sight no doubt, had the christo-colonial tyrants from Portugal tried throwing themselves at islam - if one could ever call the sight of a mass-murderer throwing himself in front of an oncoming train 'interesting'.
About that medieval christo Jesuit missionary from Italy, Nobili, who used inculturation and pretended he was a Hindu to trick people into converting. In post 78 of the christo subversion thread has a bit of Joseph McCabe's writing on how the means of proselytisation which Nobili used were considered heresy, and how an archbishop therefore recalled him to Rome to appear before the Inquisition.

Well, it appears that Nobili and his methods weren't greatly favoured by at least one of his own order: another Jesuit missionary who'd also worked in India. In fact, the two wrote to charge each other with demonism.
The other missionary happens to be the one who converted the Parava community in the 16th century.

As usual, christians bickered: even Jesuit missionaries trying to harvest the same souls for their cannibalistic gawd. But, for a change, these two didn't do away with each other.

Following is the intro from
<b>Aristocratic Analogies and Demotic Descriptions in the Seventeenth-Century Madurai Mission</b>, Ines G. Županov, <i>Representations</i>, No. 41. (Winter, 1993), pp. 123-148.

Most of the article looked a bore to me, written as it is from a European POV which is interested in these characters and the way Jesuits disputed about theological matters. But a few bits are of some interest to Hindus and other inconvertibles:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Two Jesuit missionaries confronted each other in 1610 through letters and treatises, following what appeared to have been an intense, though brief, cohabitation in a distant mission at the heart of Tamil country. Roberto Nobili, a Roman aristocrat, schooled in the Collegio romano and a relative of the Cardinal Bellarmino, in his early thirties with about five years of experience in the "Indian" apostolic field, came under fire from an older colleague. His adversary was Goncalo Fernandes, a semi-literate Portuguese ex-soldier who for fifteen years had cultivated his Madurai Mission of Paravas, a low caste of fishermen converted by St. Francis Xavier.

The controversy started over the correct method of conversion, but it issued in two distinct proto-ethnographic accounts. The differences at stake can be understood at various levels: personal animosity, age difference, apostolic experience, status in an institutional hierarchy, national feeling, and social class. In the heat of the argument the two Jesuits came to perceive each other as "other." <b>In European seventeenth-century terminology, they suspected each other of falling victim to demonic influences. The translation of the smallest personal, political, or theological conflict into daemonomachia was a standard Jesuit (and not only Jesuit) strategy of both containment and annihilation.</b> And it was precisely the discovery of this otherness within the European colonial, or in this case proselytizing, enterprise that fueled their opposing cultural descriptions of Tamil alterity.

The gravity of demonic charges and counter-charges, although relatively subtle and prudent in the case of the controversy between Nobili and Fernandes, produced, to the historian's delight, a plethora of written documents bearing witness to the intellectual labor that brought them into being as well as their contingent, improvisational, and contesting origins. Nobili and Fernandes forced each other to assume in detail, as if on a distant horizon, the divisions and epistemological rifts that tore the European social and cultural fabric from within. While Nobili drew upon an aristocratic and humanist theological universalism as a catalyst for cultural incorporation, Fernandes's demotic impulses stood with a different technique based on the belief that radical others could and should be approached by direct sensory perception. He rejected Nobili's moves endlessly to supplement a familiar context, the product of scholarly sophistication, for inscription and description of Tamil customs and religious behavior and desperately defended his experiential authority over the singular, though not unique, "pagan" field of the Madurai Mission. For Fernandes the only measure of the truth and authenticity of external things and events was the self-presence of the "here and now." No memory, no trace of absent experience, no learned analogy could replace the moment of the eye/I contact. At issue, I would argue, was the crystallization in Fernandes's and Nobili's accounts of what would become in contemporary anthropological jargon, proto-emic and protoetic cultural approaches.

<b>Roberto Nobili</b>, born in 1577 in Rome, was the eldest son of an aristocratic family from Montepulciano. His decision to join the Society of Jesus, and later the Indian Mission, did not meet with easy approval. The resistance of his kinsmen led him to some dramatic escapes and mysterious disappearances in the fashion of a would-be saint or a martyr, until his family bowed to his wishes. After his novitiate in the Jesuit college of Naples and then theological studies in Rome, Nobili left Europe for good aboard the Sao Jacinto bound from Lisbon for Goa on 28 April 1604. When he died in 1656 in the Portuguese city of Mylapore, today one of the urban areas of Madras in the state of Tamil Nadu, he was a well-known missionary, considered a founder of the Madurai Mission. However, he <b>never achieved the sainthood that he so eagerly desired and felt predestined for because his fame or, according to his adversaries, his notoriety remained forever overshadowed by the controversy over the adaptationist method of conversion.</b> <b>As a partisan of the accommodatio to certain customs and rites of the "pagans," first developed by Alessandro Valignano for the Japanese and Chinese missions and then put more firmly into practice by Matteo Ricci, Nobili founded "his" Madurai Mission on the same apostolic methods designed for those missionary fields that still remained beyond Portuguese or Spanish military and administrative control. Although Jesuits resorted to accommodation whenever and wherever it seemed the only or the most efficient instrument, it was developed as a theory and practice, mostly by Italian missionaries, in and for the Asian missions.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Since the other Jesuit missionary was not recalled to be sent to the Inquisition, it would be fair to take his opinion: Nobili's conversion methods (<i>inculturation</i>, appears to be 'accomodatio') prove his was infested by 'demons'. (Never mind I don't believe in 'em. Them christos do.) Hence, his strategy is 'Evil'. Q.E.D. And that's exactly what the Protestants have been yelling about inculturation since Day One; and the catholic hierarchy in Nobili's time too, as mentioned by McCabe. If it worked it might have been something. But 'twas a leaden ship. You'd think they'd have learnt from it by now...

Second para of the excerpt above: "daemonomachia" <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> You learn a new word every day. Now, if only I could find some use for it in my daily speech <!--emo&Wink--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
THOMAS Fables:
I have always tried to summarise the Tamil Quotes by Authors in a shorter way, but as Friends want Literal translation I Give in detail the following.
In post 61-
Here Former Professor of Chennai University Head of the Department of Archeaology Professor-Dr.K.V.Raman in Tamil says-
Searches made near Kodungallore, at several places considered belonging to the Oldest places, and based on this we can come to a following Temporary conclusions.
The Places in and around Kodungallore, many places where Archeological survey made researches, every where all the artifaces got where Uniform and took us to CE 8th or 9th Century only, this is throughout the area uniformly. The First Human Inhabitation at Kodungallore and surroundings could have taken place only in CE 8th or 9th Century. We have got very good materials on Chera Kulasekara Dynasty, but nothing on prior to that Period.
ThiruVanchikalam- All the articles found can be dated from 10th or 9th Century CE, nothing before that. ThiruVanchikalam, Mathilakam aor Karuppathana- such names are taken literally and seen as Old Vanchi the Capital of Cheras or Karur the later capital belonging to Sangam Period. But the Archeological survey made researches, all of them take us to CE 8th or 9th Century 2nd Chera Dynasty and not the Sangam Cheras. Hence these places cant be Old Vanchi or Karur.
We need to find where was Musiri Port, and is important but it cannot certainly be Kodungallore.//
Professor also says that Virgin Soil without any Human habitation is found at the level of CE 8th Cen.
My previous Summarisation as follows: I summarise it in English, Professor refers to the Archaeological research work done under Mr.Anu John Achhan and after analyzing all the findings says First Occupation of Humankind in Kodungallore Belt and surroundings happened in 8 or 9th Century AD, as Virgin Soil without Any Human Occupation came then, all researches in the surrounding areas took us to the Second Chera period of and certainly Kodungallore is not the Musiri the famous Port referred in Sangam Literature.
On Post-69
This was basically from a book called “Sri Mylapur Temple- Literary and Historical View, by Prof. Dr.S.Rajasekaran, 1989, which was Doctral Thesis done in 1986, on the Same name at Madras University, the Author was then working as Tamil Professor at Nandanam Govt. Arts College, Chennai.
The Kapalishwarar Temple now is not on the Sea Coast but inside, and the existing temple is built only 300 years back at this present location, and by whom etc., are available. However a group of Scholars maintained that the present Temple was built on the same place after the Previous was destroyed, or new renovation. Many other Scholars maintained that the Old Kapalishwarar Temple was on Sea Shore and the learned Scholar Prof. Dr.S.Rajasekaran, 1989, which was Doctral Thesis done in 1986, after going through over various stone inscriptions in Chennai,
The Author Analyses various Stone Inscriptions not just in Temple but also and Archeological findings from Kapalishwarar Temple and Santhome and other stone inscriptions in Chennai gives his views.
The Kapalishwarar Temple as sung by Nayanmars cannot be the Temple in its present Location but on the Santhome Sea Shore, this is more because many Archeological findings at shore is the main reason.

In 1923, Archeological findings inside the Church include Stone Inscriptions, Pillars and God Statues. Stone Inscriptions refet to the Sivan Temple., A Murugar Statue with Peacock was found. Rev.Housten in 1921 found an Sanskrit Inscription- which says –“ all buildings including the Karpagraha belongs to famous Sivan Temple at Mylapur. Another Inscription says Poompavai at ThiruMylappu. All this clearly proves that Old Temple was on Santhome sea Shore.
Arunagiri Nathar in Thirupugal refers to the temple of Kapalishwarar on sea shore, hence ProfessorK.KRaman felt the Temple must be in Shore till 15th Century.
Quotes Census of India-1961; Temples of Madras State, 1 Chingleput District and Madras City, P.204-In early 16th Century the Temple in the Santhome Seashore must have been Destroyed by Portuguese, and the present temple and Tank was built by Muthiappa Muthaliar and his generations 300 years back.

Author analyses various books on Mylapur Temple and comes to the Conclusion as below, and he before concluding quotes the Historic fact- refers to a book by A Short History of Mylapore- S.Kalyanasundaram- that after getting the news that Portuguese has demolished the Temple the Vijaynaagar King Ramarayar in 1558CE, Fought over Portuguese and defeated them and renovated the Temple.
Doctral Thesis done in 1986- Author concludes that Kapalishwara Temple was on Sea Shore of Santhome till 16th Cen, and destroyed by Portuguese and the Present Temple is built in late 16th Century by Nainiappa .Muthiappa Muthaliar
Dr. Deivanayagam’s work being analysed by Christian Tamil Scholars
திருக்குறளில் கிறித்தவம்-மெய்த்திரு (டாக்டர்) எஸ். இராச மாணிக்கம், S.J.
Rev. S.J.Rajamanikam was the H.O.D of Tamil Dept at Loyala College then, and he was asked to present a Paper on –Presence of Christianity in ThiruKural, at Venkateshwara University – Thirupathi in Tamil; here Learned Scholar explains the ideals of Valluvar and how it varies with the important ideals of Christianity- and finally comes to Deivanayagam and I quote-

// I have read several books by Deivanayagam, and I am not able to accept His view Point. Deivanayagam says that Valluvar dos not accept rebirths; Inthavithavan- One who has controlled five senses as Jesus in the first “Praise of Lord” and , Kural’s Van that is Second chapter Glory of Rain as Holy Spirit; i.e., Van is not Rain by Holy spirit, and Kural’ Niiththaar-Ascetics as Christ and Sandror as Chrisians.
Deivanayagam’s these views or the methods adopted by himdoes not Satisfy our minds. The Special principles of Christianity, not even one of them is in Kural. Not even the name of Christ is not there in Kural; where aws th Hindu VEDIC Gods names such as Inthra(25), Vishnu( 610,8,103), Lakshmi(167,84,617) Muthevi(167,617)’ yama(375,765,1050,1083,269,1085), Manmatha(1197); Devas(906, 1073,18, 346) Devalog(58,234,213,290,966,1233) etc., are in Kural. And these are in the book called திருக்குறள் கருத்தரங்கு மலர்-1974,(Thirukural Karuththarangu Malar-1974) Edited by Dr.N.Subbu Reddiyar.

After the First World Tamil Conference; at the request of Annadurai, Thirukural is asked to be researched by various Universities of Tamilnadu; and Madurai Kamarajar University got Kural’ Dharma(Aram).

Lecturer. Kamatchi Srinivasan, was given to write on “Kural and Bible”, and “Kural and Religion” ; she has authored 2 more books. She was from SriLanka and Saivaite by birth; and Physically Handicapped. She got treatment at Vellore –Christian Medical College(CMC) AND was converted to Christianity when she took treatment at Vellore CMC. It was the peak when Deivanayagam’s bluffs where at Peak and University knowing her Integrity and also that She was a Christian then; gave her above topics.
Lecturer. Kamatchi Srinivasan, on reading the Historicity behind Bible lost her faith on Christianity; completed her research and was dead and all her books were published posthumously by University. Here the Author says-“ “மு.தெய்வநாயகத்தின் நூல்களைப் படிக்கும்போது அவர் திருக்குறளைச் சரியாக புரிந்து கொண்டாரா என்பதனுடன் கிறிஸ்தவ சமய வரலாற்றையும் எவ்வளவு கற்றறிந்தார் என்ற ஐயமே ஏற்படுகிறது.- when one reads Divanayagam we get a feeling that whether Deivanayagam understood Kural and also whether Dvanayagam knows or properly learnt Christian History”

I am trying to Understand postings on Knanayas. But basically as per Acta Indica’s Author P.V.Mtthew, analysis the visit of Knanaya Thomas and comes to the clear conclusion that this visit could be in 745CE, and they are the builders of various churches named in Ramban Song; as most of these places where below Sea till then.

That Kodungallore is not Musiri, as I have shown above but I am giving link to website referring the recent archaeological position. http://nasrani.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/mu...xcavations-iii/

The Sanskrit Inscription referred in the above found in 1921, by Rev.Houston and as per Prof.Dr.Rajagoplan, which clearfly refers to the Shiva Temple’ picture with others are available at the following website, only that claiming that could not be interpreted.
http://www.stthoma.com/Museum_sculpt.html#...t%20Inscription . This Stone Inscription as per Archaeological Dept. Tamilnadu has been numbered as 1967/244.
I have just made a Blogsite-http://stthomasstories.blogspot.com

Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai are dated to 250-300CE, both written in Kerala refers to a Discussion of all Religious branches but nothing of Christianity, However Christian Professors have been Wantedly Falsely claimed Sangam Lit and Manimekhalai ( the proper name Siva and Vishnu apprars in this only first time)comes says of Presence of Chrisitians. I will expose them in my next post.

Devapriya solomon
Dear Shri VedPrakash,

Kindly go through the following thread


and give your suggestions.

Are you the Author of the Tamil book referred by Ishwar Charan' book.

Kindly start posting in that thread.
Dear Friends,

I was planning to publish a book on frauds on Thomas visit.

But I wanted personally meet Mr.IshwarCharan and Mr.Vedaprakash before finalising my Draft.

My Earlier attempts have all failed.

I thank INDIA FORUM, now I have reached both thro this Thread.

I have met Mr.Vedaprakash, who is a Great Historian of Repute fighting with WITZEL and shall be meeting Ishwar Charan next week..

Let me also post more of them shortly.
More of the typical lies from the Church:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Church plans mega-budget movie on St. Thomas
June 12, 2008

KOCHI: The Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore is planning to produce a 300 million rupee movie on St. Thomas, one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus Christ, revered as the apostle of India.

Archbishop A. M. Chinnappa, who heads the archdiocese, presented 30 crore project before a meeting of Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council seeking their support this week.

The project, scheduled to be inaugurated by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi is expected match Hollywood big-budget movies such as Ben-Hur and the Ten Commandments in budget and in quality.

Church officials plan to launch the project on July 3, the feast day of St. Thomas, in the San Thome Basilica campus in Chennai. The 70-mm, two-and-half-hour feature film would have the bigwigs of Indian film industry on the credit line.

Indian Cardinal Ivan Dias, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of Faith, supports the project along with the bishops in Tamil Nadu, media said quoting Archbishop Chinnappa.

St. Thomas is believed to have arrived in Kerala in 52 AD and established seven churches on the western coast. Tradition also holds that he was martyred in 72 AD in Mylapore. Hence the Churches in Kerala and Tamilnadu have special importance for the movie, said the archbishop.

The Archbishop also hoped that a film on the life of St. Thomas would have spiritual consolation for people of all walks of life as it evolved around the theme of human equality and dignity for all.

The film will be made in Tamil first, then in Malayalam and Hindi and later dubbed into various other languages, including English and French, according to church officials.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The project, scheduled to be inaugurated by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Even the charnel house of Rome has accepted Thomas in India is a fraud. Hindus just zzzzZZzzzz'ing as usual.
More info on teh film.
Deccan Chronicle , 3 July 2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rajini may act in St. Thomas film

Chennai, July 2: <b>Superstar Rajinikanth may play the role of ancient Tamil poet Tiruvalluvar in the Rs 50-crore plus movie St. Thomas being produced by the Catholic Archdiocese of Chennai-Mylapore.  The film will also have actors like Ajith, Vijay and Vikram in guest appearances, according to the film crew.</b>

"The film is to be launched by the Chief Minister, Mr M. Karunanidhi, on Thursday. We are in discussion with Hollywood actor James Caviezel who played Jesus in Passion of the Christ. He may act in our film as Jesus. Some other Hollywood actor will play St. Thomas," said Dr Paulraj Lourdusamy, the chief researcher and script-writer of this film. <b>"An important part of the film is St. Thomas’s meeting with sage poet Tiruvalluvar. We thought Rajinikanth would fit that role perfectly. We are trying to discuss the subject with him,"</b> he added. :?:

<b>Dr Paulraj who has three doctorates earned from various foreign universities spent one year in libraries across the world to find the existing literature on St. Thomas.</b>  Well-versed in French, he did the script in French first and then in English.

"The script is currently being translated simultaneously into Tamil and Malayalam. The film will be made in Tamil and Malayalam first. The shoot will be conducted in Idukki and Munnar region in Kerala which still preserves the 2,000-year old bio-diversity intact," said Mr Sekar, the production manager of the film.  The film is to be produced in the name of St. Thomas Apostle of India Trust, which has Archbishop A.M. Chinnappa, Deputy Archbishop Lawrence Pius, Treasurer of the diocese Mr Ernest Paul and Dr Paulraj as office-bearers.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An important part of the film is St. Thomas’s meeting with sage poet Tiruvalluvar<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It is their thesis that Kural has been copied or lifted from Bible and valluvar was christian and/or disciple of Thomas. I wonder if the movie is made from M. Deivanayagam's "Tiruvalluvar Christhuvara?".
Dr. Deivanayakam Gets His Due
Just posting here so that any Titus-worshipper ("Christian") or psec who wanders in here may know that not only is thomas a fake, but jesus is a made-up story too. (See the link in my signature). Apart from that, enjoy your Titus-worship and keep eating your "eucharist", in fond memory of Mary of the House of Hyssop eating her roasted son. <!--emo&:f*(k--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/f*(k.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='f*(k.gif' /><!--endemo-->

History-hoax movie on mythical Thomas in India

the headline is misleading
Rajnikanth, Kamal to attempt a Ben Hur!
What happens when two superstars unite for a film? You expect fireworks, of course.
It's time for the fans of Tamil cinema to rejoice, as Rajnikanth and Kamal Haasan are all set to star in a film based on the life story of St Thomas, the apostle of Jesus Christ.
The film will be on the lines of Hollywood classics like The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur.

<b>Produced by the Madras Archdiocese, the film will be financed by the Government of Canada and the Vatican. </b>

Besides the two superstars, the film will also star leading stars like Ajith, Vijay and Vikram.
The film was launched by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi during the feast of St Thomas at Saint Thomas Cathedral, Chennai recently.
from Rajeev's blog
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"truth by repeated assertion": the guy with the 2 skeletons rides again
jun 9th, 2008

the pseudo-secular insist on "proof" when it comes to the rama sethu. but they happily support christist mythology. there is no "proof" that this thomas blighter ever arrived in india, or that he established churches, or that he converted nambudiris.

the simple matter is that
a) there were no nambudiris in kerala in 52 ce, as the place was buddhist/jain then
b) thomas died in ortona, italy, as certified by the vatican itself
c) ratzy himself said thomas's arrival in south india was a myth
d) even if thomas had arrived in kerala, and there were nambudiris there, they would have been completely insane to listen to the rantings of a barbarian shouting insanities ("ye children of serpents" etc.). let us remember than in 52 ce, paul had barely managed to make up the jesus hoax, and the christists had no money. so a guy waving "mutilated-corpse-of-dead-arab-stuck-on-a-stick" was not even possible then, and if he were, he would have been laughed at
e) the portuguese were the ones who conveniently conflated the story of thomas of cana, a refugee fleeing i think chrisitist bigots around 345 ce after the council of nicae and was given refuge in india (that was pretty dumb in hindsight) and the fictitious 'saint' thomas
f) the 'saint' thomas is truly miraculous: he has left 2 skeletons, one as a young man in chennai, and one as an old man in ortona, italy

lies, lies and more lies.

<!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)