Lost in Cyber Space

“Hinduism is a false religion….Hindus are lost and spiritually blind. They are without hope in this world and in the next. Only Christ can release them,” claims Juge Ram, a Christian convert from Hinduism and Pastor of Emmanuel Church in Birmingham. He makes these atrocious comments that ridicule 1 billion Hindus worldwide in the July 2000 edition of Nucleus, a magazine of the Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF), an evangelical organisation which claims the membership of 4500 UK doctors dedicated to spreading Christianity. The article is also posted on the website of the CMF.

In the article, Pastor Juge Ram offers advise on how to convert Hindus to Christianity by befriending Hindu women when their husbands are out at work, gaining their trust while they are alone, and slowly indoctrinating them with the ethics of the Bible.Magazines and internet sites like these that have derogatory content, often intended to incite hatred, ridicule other religions and seek mass conversions to their own have become numerous and unregulated. There are hundreds of sites like this that make fun of Hindu Gods, attack Hindu scriptures, spread malicious and false propaganda against Hindusim, and yet almost always get away scot-free.

I remember receiving a howler a couple of years ago from a Muslim who claimed that Prophet Muhammed was in fact, the Kalki incarnation described in the Srimad Bhagavatam, and therefore all Hindus should accept whatever the Prophet (read Kalki) said through the Qur’an. I took great pleasure in tearing down his logical framework word by word, letter by letter, and distributing it back.

Later, I  called Peter Saunders, General Secretary of the Christian Medical Foundation to ask him if thought Pastor Juge Ram’s remarks on their site was acceptable. His Accountant, Audrey answered and said, “Ah, he is not here, but will be back at 9.45 AM.”

“Ah, can he call me when he comes in?” I asked her.“Ah, actually he would expect you to call him,” she replied.“Ah, I think it is more important for him to speak to me than it is for me to speak to him,” I explained.

After Ah-ing a few times, she finally agreed to take my number down. Later, Ian Taylor the Public Relations spokesperson for CMF called me.

I asked him what the views of CMF were on blasphemy and religious offences, particularly since the present law on Blasphemy protected only the Church of England.“Some Christians are keen to maintain the law as it is. Others see as it as an anomoly. It does seem discriminatory in its present form. You either abolish the whole law of blasphemy or make it applicable to all faiths,” he informed me. “I am a great believer in Evangelism, but I also believe in equal rights. Incitement to religious hatred should be punishable since it is a grievous crime.”

Referring to Pastor Juge Ram’s statement that Hinduism was a false religion, I asked him if he considered it a balsphemous statement intended to incite religuous hatred. “I agree with his statement, and I don’t think it is inflammatory,” he said rather emphatically. “Hindus could object and disagree with the statement, but it is not blasphemy and it is not incitement.  You either have a situation where everyone is covered by blasphemy, which is not going to work, or you abolish blasphemous laws altogether.”

I enquired whether a statement that said that one billion Hindus were spiritually lost was not blasphemous to Hindu scriptures.“No,” he maintained. “If you cross the line, then it is bad. We live in a free country and can express our views as long as we are polite and respectful.”

I asked him if he thought Juge Ram’s statement was polite and respectful. He wavered a bit and finally said, “I think you better speak to Mr Peter Suanders about this question.”

I reminded him that my question was based on his own remark that a person was free to express views provided they were polite and respectful, and had nothing to do with Saunders. Reluctantly, he said, “It is not impolite.  If it was a personal attack on a Hindu person, then that would be wrong. But for somebody to express a view that Hinduism is not the way to salvation is not something I would disagree with. And it is not disrespectful.”

Taylor’s views and Juge Ram's article highlighted the methods by which many zealous denominations are bent on converting Hindus and others to their fold.


Ratilal Chohan, Chairman of the Hindu Council expressed shock. “Virulent attacks by one faith on the beliefs of other faiths show a distinct lack of sensitivity. It also demonstrates that many people have no understanding of other faiths, and lack a basic security in realising the truth of their own faith.”

Mike Whine of the Community Security Trust (which is responsible for protecting Jewish buildings in Britain) has shown how incitement and intimidation inevitably produces violence. He points to the fact that some Muslims in the past few years become "so wound up by what they have heard in the mosque or what they have read that they have gone out and attacked the nearest Jew."

What is ironic is that under the common laws in Britain, neither blasphemy of religions other than the Anglican faith, nor incitement to religious hatred is a punishable offence. Thankfully, the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences has been meeting faith community representatives and seeks “to consider and report on the law relating to religious offences.”

The two main issues the Committee is considering are:

1. Should existing religious offences (notably blasphemy, which protects only the Anglican system of belief) be abolished altogether or replaced with a new act that protects all faiths?
2. Should a new offence of incitement to religious hatred be created, and if so, how should the offence be defined?

Although the above changes, if put in place, may offer some choice of redress, the very unregulated nature of internet contents and the blurred legality of responsibility of the contents makes it unclear how internet sites  can be prosecuted. Sites like the CMF which are not guilty of incitement to religious hatred, but of expressing extreme views ridiculing other faiths will not be covered under any new legislation at all.

“We believe that registrant of the internet site must be made responsible for its content. All internet service providers and owners of individual sites should therefore have adequate screening procedures to check contents that incite religious hatred,” explained Venilal Vaghela, chairman of the Hindu Council of Brent. “ Moreover, each country should have common law that allows them to prosecute the site owner and the author of the contents if it is in violation of local laws of blasphemy or religious offences.”

Wonder who in Whitehall is listening to this. For those Hindus  brave enough to check the CMF site’s offensive contents, log on to: http://www.cmf.org.uk/nucleus//nucjul00/hindu.htm.


HOME