Sandhya Jain
01 Feb 2011
The Supreme Court shocked the Hindu community when on 25 Jan. 2011, it
succumbed to pressure from Christian activists and modified its 21
Jan. 2011 judgment in the Graham Staines murder case, without the
filing of a curative petition by any party to the case; without notice
to the lawyers of convicted Rabindra Kumar Pal (alias Dara Singh) and
Mahendra Hembram; and without reference to representatives of the
Hindu community which is the target and victim of Christian
conversions in India.
The burning to death of missionary Graham Staines and his two minor
sons while they were asleep in their vehicle at Manoharpur village,
district Keonjhar, Orissa, on 22 Jan. 1999, was a grim response to
missionary provocation in the state. It was a unique crime in modern
India, matched only by the burning alive of Malegaon additional
district collector Yashwant Sonawane by the oil mafia on 25 Jan. 2011.
The Justice D.P. Wadhwa Commission of Enquiry, which submitted its
report on 21 June 1999, found evidence of the sustained missionary
activity of late Graham Staines in the form of his dispatches to
Australian missionary magazine, Tidings, reports of his colleagues,
evidence of his wife, and others.
Police arrested anti-cow slaughter activist Dara Singh from Mayurbhanj
forest in January 2000 for instigating and planning the crime; he and
Mahendra Hembram were found guilty during the trial. Singh’s death
penalty was commuted to life imprisonment by the Orissa High Court in
May 2005, because he was convicted on circumstantial evidence as none
of the eye witness accounts established his involvement in the crime.
The court noted, “There is absolutely no evidence on record that due
to individual act of Dara Singh alone the three deceased persons or
any of them died.” It added: “The eye witnesses never attributed any
particular fatal injury, for which Dara Singh can be individually held
responsible for the death of the three deceased persons or for the
death of any of them.” The High Court upheld life imprisonment for
Hembram and acquitted 11 others for lack of evidence. This verdict was
upheld by the Supreme Court.
In its original verdict, the apex court observed, “the intention was
to teach a lesson to Graham Staines about his religious activities,
namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity. All these aspects
have been correctly appreciated by the High Court, which modified the
sentence of death into life imprisonment with which we concur”. This
was modified as, “more than 12 years have elapsed since the act was
committed, we are of the opinion that the life sentence awarded by the
High Court need not be enhanced in view of the factual position
discussed in the earlier paras.”
Secondly, the sentence, “It is undisputed that there is no
justification for interfering in someone’s belief by way of use of
force, provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise
that one religion is better than the other” (the meaning of the
constitutional principle of equality of faiths and non-discrimination
in matters of religion) was replaced by “There is no justification for
interfering in someone’s religious belief by any means”.
The apex court’s original assertions came as a balm to the Hindu
community that has long been battered by jihad and crusade
simultaneously; but were bitterly attacked by Christian activists. In
a flurry of denunciations in the secular media, Fr. Dominic Emmanuel,
chief spokesman, New Delhi Roman Catholic Archdiocese, said the
bench’s statement that “the intention was to teach a lesson to Graham
Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting poor
tribals to Christianity…” and “…flawed premise that one religion is
better than the other” came as “a shock to all those who believe in
India’s secular spirit and Constitution” (Deccan Chronicle, 24 Jan.
2011).
Former journalist B.G. Verghese said attenuation of the punishment
because of Graham Staines’ converting poor tribals to Christianity was
an “appalling statement and should be expunged or reversed by a larger
bench…” He condemned anti-conversion laws in some states (Deccan
Herald).
Cardinal Oswald Gracias, president, Bishops Conference of India Mumbai
said the judgment “seems to justify inter-religious and anti-Christian
violence” (AsiaNews). The All India Christian Council, Global Council
of Indian Christians (GCIC) and Civil Society joined the fray. The
latter said “The Supreme Court ruling may in fact send the wrong
signals to courts trying cases of religious violence in Kandhamal, for
instance… It also tends to pre-empt possible challenges to the black
laws enacted by many states in the guise of Freedom of Religion Bills.
… We expect the government to ask the Supreme Court to expunge the
unnecessary, uncalled for and unconstitutional remarks”.
Perhaps the Centre, controlled by an Italian-born Roman Catholic with
obliging minions, did ‘lean on’ the Hon’ble Court and ensure prompt
redressal of Christian grievances, even at the cost of compromising
basic principles of the constitution, and the Fundamental Rights of
India’s beleaguered native community, particularly weaker sections
like tribals who are continuously preyed upon by the gargantuan
international soul-harvesting industry.
Since the plea to enhance Dara Singh’s life sentence to death penalty
was made by the Central Bureau of Investigation, it would have been
appropriate for the Supreme Court to have issued notices to all
parties before amending its own judgment, and invited a larger
national debate on its ruling that, “Our concept of secularism is that
the state will have no religion. The state shall treat all religions
and religious groups equally and with equal respect, without, in any
manner, interfering in their individual right of religion, faith and
worship.”
Today, the Supreme Court has given weightage to a trans-national
imperial religion with a history of genocide and forced conversions,
leaving no trace of original faith and culture in lands it now
dominates. Its inhuman crimes against adherent-victims, manifesting as
clergy-related sex abuse scandals in dioceses across the West, leave
no fig leaf that its mission is social service, no matter on what
pretext it enters vulnerable societies on its soul-gathering agenda.
Conversions always produce social strife and disharmony. Staines’
writings home reflect his awareness of the deep unhappiness he had
stirred in the region. The brutal murder of Swami Laxmanananda at
Kandhamal in 2008 shows how unsafe Hindu leaders are when fighting
conversions; the verdict in this case now worries the church. Sadly,
the Supreme Court has compromised its courage at a very critical hour.
The writer is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1608
No comments:
Post a Comment