Why would a man of his intellect stoop to the level of the pamphlets issued by right-wing fringe elements of Christianity, and write a book that obtains as a mirror image of the pamphlets he denounces? Why would an otherwise savvy politician see a conspiracy under every metaphorical stone? Why would he warn us in some detail against the mammoth conspiracies of the Christian missionaries to convert all Hindus at best, and break up the country at worst, when all they've succeeded in doing is to convert about roughly a little over two per cent of our population in the 200 years of British colonialism?
Above all, why would he take the trouble to point out historical and logical inaccuracies and fallacies in representations of Christianity, when every human being with a little common sense knows that religion is all about mythology and belief, and that it can never be proved to be either logical, scientific, or historically authentic? And finally, why would he see Christianity as a unified and monolithic religion when sects of this religion have done nothing for years except declare war on each other?
I accepted the invitation to review the book because I wanted to know who Shourie actually targets. As my eyes were glazed by the sheer ire that comes out pouring through the pages, it became clear that Shourie's prime enemy is not the Christian missionary, though that may well be the (un)intended consequence of his tirade. His enemies are the secularists who battle communalism. His enemy is the tradition of religious tolerance that lets people be with their beliefs. His enemy is ultimately, democracy, for in the last pages of this book he invites us to follow the example of China, which has taken a strict line against missionaries. The result is utter insensitivity and even lack of humanity. Shourie's so busy trying to show that the burning alive of Staines and his sons was not a conspiracy hatched by the lunatic elements of the Sangh parivar, that there is neither a word of regret nor any condemnation of the dastardly act.
The second casualty of his tirade is lack of theoretical rigour. He does not even wonder why people who presumably belonged to Hinduism - and whether the adivasis are Hindu has proved an irresolvable problem for anthropologists for sometime now - feel the need to convert. Surely, all of it cannot be coercion and bribery. And if people are readily bribed to convert, isn't there something wrong with the body politic? He would do well to ponder this point. The problem is Shourie doesn't argue out his case, elegantly or otherwise. He declaims, he denounces and leaves no space for dialogue or persuasion.
Sorry Mr Shourie, the days when writers laid down absolute truths have been over for some time now. The postmodern moment today tells us that all notions of ultimate truth may be pure fiction. All we can do is search for the truth, but this can be done only when we engage with others by respecting their points of view. As to why he writes this book, the accompanying note in the book may give us some insight: "The author alone is responsible for the views expressed in this book. They do not in any way reflect the views of any unofficial or official organisation with which he may be associated." Methinks the gentleman doth disclaim too much. The overlap between his purpose to legitimise our gods, our scriptures and that of the political formation that speaks in these words, cannot be all sheer coincidence.
