Chau and Staines

This week witnessed the arrogance and fall of a missionary who wanted to introduce "Jesus" and "Gospel", in the face of an isolated and legally protected tribe. Chau, an American missionary [or should I say, zealot], tried to take the gospel to a group of highly secluded and protected tribals in Andaman Nicobar islands. The tribe, Sentinalese, are known to be one of the oldest surviving isolated tribed outside Africa. They are thought to have settled in A/N Islands, about 60,000 years ago. They are protected tribe, and the competent authorities consider them at a risk of extinction. They are likely to be highly vulnerable to normal pathogens that today's modern humans carry on their person.

This zealot, Chau, bribed his way into the island, breaking several rules and laws along the way, and died at the hands of the tribe - after refusing to heed repeated warnings. The reaction of most civilized people is one of utter horror and disbelief. Words such as "arrogant", "zealot", "idiocy", "intolerant", "nosey" were used to describe this man and his mission. So far so good.

But let me take this one step ahead and pose a question: what is so despicable about what Chau did? Was it breaking the law? Was it taking diseases into a vulnerable population? Was it invading someone's privacy? Which is the most heinous crime? Is the world shocked that Chau tried to invade a tribe's sanctity? Or is it shocked that he tried to invade an isolated tribe's sanctity?

Let us see it part by part. 

First: Almost everyone breaks the law in India. Almost everyone bribes in India. Almost every looks the other way, if their due has been paid in advance and in full. It doesn't matter if the person is an Indian citizen or if the person is a foreign visitor. What is so shocking in someone breaking the law in India? After all, the Right Honorable Mr. Robert Vadra has called us a banana republic [sadly, of all the things he has uttered in his life - this is the most factual one]. We have politicians who lie brazenly; and we have an executive that doesn't care two hoots about the law. So, again, what is so shocking about what Chau did?

Second: Proselytization and Conversion is a brisk business in India. India gets 17000-19000 Crore (~3B USD) every year through Church linked foreign funded (FCRA) NGOs - and a majority of this money is laundered towards religious conversion (it is illegal). Missionaries are supposed to apply for a M visa, but most missionaries to India [especially from West, like Chau] come in as visitors. They abuse the visa on arrival program, and they proselytize. They make a mockery of native religious practices, call our gods satans, indulge in all sorts of illegal activities including possibly pederasty, and just fly back. No one blinks an eye. Let me repeat: no one blinks an eye.

Is it the threat of wiping out an entire community? It happens routinely too. Last time it happened in Kashmir, no one even batted an eyelid. In fact, the West went on as if a few stray dogs had died of euthanasia.

So, if breaking laws isn't shock worthy, and missionary activity isn't repulsive enough for Indians and the outside world, why did Chau's death create such a buzz? After all, he is one of the many who come and go - right? It is likely that the possibility of genocide perpetrated by Chau could have slapped many people awake. Their conscience is suddenly filled with concern for a tribe of 40 people. One needs to ask - is it OK to murder away cultures and genocide customs? 

The Church has been doing that - through various denominations, across India. When invited as a guest to India - the Pope ungraciously stated that India is a land of darkness untouched by "light of Jesus". He also said "the third millennium" was for spreading Gospel into Asia [India included]. Christianity isn't a computer OS, for someone to dual boot it with Hinduism. It is a boot sector virus. It doesn't coexist.

Why didn't people shout at the suggestion of killing away the oldest continuing religion in the world? From none other than the pope? Why didn't anyone prosecute the various churches for illegally bringing in NGO money and using them for proselytization? Why didn't anyone support the locals when they stood up against the church? Where was the outrage when Swami Laxmanananda was gunned down by AK47 wielding terrorists in Kandhamal area of Orissa. His crime? He fought illegal conversions.

When we drill to the core of the issue, the most serious crime is the religious zealotry of missionaries that causes law and order problems. It is their inability to take a polite "no" for an answer, that forces people to give a violent "no". Finally, while condemning Chau - remember the name Graham Staines. Staines was a Chau too.

He went into a tribal area. He knew that natives (animists and Hindus) detested his missionary activity. He created social unrest in the name of spreading love. He uprooted innocent people from their faith; he converted the gullible with money. He did things that were patently illegal. Worst of all, he put his children in a hostile territory. His missionary zeal and utter disrespect to local sentiments resulted in the gruesome death of his children. And a disgruntled native went to the gallows.

Now, tell me: why is Graham Staines worthy of respect, when Chau is being dissed?