devadmin

Bharatendu Harishchandra (1850-1885) became the father of Modern Hindi Literature, because he understood Lord Macaulay better than Hindu intellectuals of today, who condemn the Macaulay Minute (1835) without having read it. Bharatendu grasped Macaulay’s Protestant view that a mother-tongue is far more important a tool of nation-building than a sacred but dead language, such as Sanskrit. He agreed with the Vernacularists in his time that 14 or so dialects collectively called “Hindi” could be enriched by ideas adopted from more developed languages such as English and French. Therefore, he was transmitting the Christian view on nation-building to his fellow countrymen when he said, Nij Bhasha Unnati Ahe, sab unnati ko mul. Bin nij bhsha-gyan ke, mitat na hiy ko sul. Vividh kala shikha amit, gyan anek prakar Sab ddesan se le karhu, bhasha mahi prachar Progress is made in one’s mother tongue, the foundation of all progress. Without the knowledge of the mother tongue, there is no cure for heart’s pain. Many arts and education, infinite knowledge of various kinds, Should be taken from all countries, but propagated in one’s mother tongue. Sadly, until Bharatendu’s time, caste prejudice and cultural arrogance had prevented the Hindu religio-intellectual aristocracy from developing the language of the people that we now call “Hindi.” It was the painstaking toil of the Christian movement that gave us what has become our unofficial “national language.” Protestant Christianity with help from some Roman Catholics and many enlightened Hindus created Hindi because they were committed to moving the “Backwards” forward.  The Older Meaning of “Hindi” During Bharatendu’s time, the term “Hindi” did not refer to the language that you read in the pages ofFORWARD Press. It was a generic name given by Muslims to dozens of languages – just as the Muslim term “Hindu” referred to thousands of gods and goddesses, different and even contradictory beliefs and practices, oppressors and the oppressed beyond the “Sindh” river. Sir George Abraham Grierson, who earned the right to become the Superintendent of the prestigious Linguistic Survey of India in 1898, came to Bengal in 1873. From 1880 he served as the Inspector of Schools in Bihar and then as the Additional Commissioner of Patna. He had a position that allowed him to pursue personal pleasure and power. But the spirit of Christ enabled him to use his spare time not for indulgence but to understand the people he was called to serve (govern). He focused his attention on their dialects in order to retain the richness of their culture into a wholesome language that could become a vehicle for India’s knowledge-based development. Out of Grierson’s voluntary labour came the “Seven Grammars of Bihari Dialects.” John Beames, the author of the Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages was a missionary who became the world’s foremost expert on structural variations among different languages and dialects of India. He reviewed Grierson’s master-piece above in Indian Antiquity of July 1, 1885. In that review he explained what the term “Hindi” meant in those days: “All round the outer edge of Aryan India (Gangetic planes) is a circle of kingdoms or provinces, Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Sindh, Punjab, Nepal, and the ‘Indian’, or as the Muhammmaden called it, the Hindi, spoken in each of these places came by degrees to be called Bengali, Oriya, Marathi and so on. But in the centre there remained a vast area for which no special name was found: it was merely Hindi and its language or languages were all merely Hindi. It has long been known that under the general term [Hindi] were included forms of speech differing very widely from each other, and it only remained for some scholar to enquire into the subject and classify these various forms, referring them to their proper relationships. Grierson has done this for the eastern part of the hitherto undefined area, and he has therefore, a perfect right to give a name [“Bihari’] to the form of speech whose independence he has successfully established.” Hindu sages did not lack ability. They had already done a superb job in refining Sanskrit and its grammar. Their problem was that their religious worldview prevented them from sharing Sanskrit. The secret of their cultural power over fellow Hindus lay in keeping the common people ignorant of the language of the gods. The secrecy or monopoly of “knowledge,” turned Sanskrit, an otherwise scientific language, into a vehicle of religio-magical mumbo-jumbo. Nor did Muslim Maulanas lack talent. Their difficulty was that their theology and religion also prevented them from developing the dialects of the downtrodden. Islam was as interested in converting Hindus as was Christianity, yet Islam did not develop our dialects because its culture values submission more than intellectual freedom to pursue truth. It is estimated that a relatively weaker European country such as Spain publishes more books in a year than the whole of the Arabic world has published in a thousand years. The West’s vibrant literary tradition emerged because the Bible said that the Lord Jesus brought grace and truth (John 1: 17). The first two of the Ten Commandments required Jews and Christians to believe only what is true. That became the seed for a passion for truth which enabled Christianity to cultivate languages, libraries, schools, universities, and research labs as they developed technology and modern science. This intellectual tradition made the West powerful.  Christ’s Spirit Why did the West share its secret of power so liberally and sacrificially? The Bible said that the Lord Jesus sacrificed himself to save this world, enslaved by sin and suffering. That inspired Christian scholars and saints to also dedicate their lives to go to the remotest parts of the world and live with Stone Age tribes to develop their mother-tongues. They gave to the marginalized the opportunity to acquire the secrets of intellectual power generated in more developed parts of the world. The Macaulay Minute, so hated by our bigoted elite, asked the East India Company to prepare a class of Indians, who would learn English, in order to give to India access to European sciences, arts, laws, governance, organization, values, and management. Understanding the nobility of

Christianity lost America because 20th-century evangelicalism branded itself as the party of faith. By default Secularism (science, university, media) became the party of truth. This is one reason why 70% Christian youth give up meaningful involvement with the church when they grow up. Pentecostals, Jehovah Witnesses, and Baptists are the poorest communities in America. According to a study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life,[ii] less than 20% followers of these religious groups make more than $75,000 a year. By comparison, 67% of the Reformed Jews, 65% percent Hindus, and 57% Conservative Jews earn more than $75,000/year. The finding that American evangelicals[iii] are poorer than the Roman Catholics surprised Pew Researchers who had thought that the economic miracle of the “modern” age was Protestantism’s fruit. The study raises questions such as: Has American evangelicalism lost Protestantism’s original DNA? Do American missions still carry the “good news for the poor?” (Luke 4:18) Or, is their success, spectacular in some countries, a tribute to the original and still-lingering image of Protestantism? Why did Christianity lose the power that gave it influence over education and economy, government and law, press and entertainment? How can the Church recover the power to prevail over the forces of evil? In November 2011, I met an American missionary who has served in Guatemala for 36 years. He described a recent (unpublished) doctoral study examining Protestantism in one part of Guatemala. The Hispanic scholar had hoped to substantiate Max Weber’s thesis on the connection between Protestantism and economic development. The data, however, drove him to conclude that the gospel taught by present-day American missions makes no perceptible difference to the economic life of the believing communities. The Pew study found a direct correlation between college education and economic status of religious communities in America: poorer communities had fewer college graduates. This is astounding, for classical Protestantism was synonymous with educated clergy.[iv] USA’s DNA, for example, was written by network of 140 university graduates who founded the Massachusetts colony. One hundred of these had studied in Cambridge (significantly 35 came from Emmanuel, the most Puritan college in Cambridge) and 30 in Oxford. Within six years of arriving, they established the college that became Harvard University, committed to Veritas– “Truth”. Twentieth century American missions have ignored higher education to the point that many Guatemalan Protestant pastors do not have even High School diplomas! In Argentina, Protestants (including Charismatic, Pentecostal, and evangelicals) have over 50 mission agencies and 500 missionaries but not one university.[v]  Why is the sun setting on the West? This essay summarizes one factor: the brand Christianity.[vi] In November 2011, I visited two classes at a Christian university in North America. I asked both: “How many of you would still believe Christianity if you found out tomorrow that Christianity was not true. That is: God never became a man; Jesus did not die for our sin; or, that he did not rise from the dead?” Twelve hands went up in each class of about 25 and 45 students. These sincere and devout students had grown up in Christian homes, gone to church all their lives and studied in Christian schools. Some had been in that Christian university for three years! They respected their elders who taught them that Christianity was all about faith with little concern for truth. Christianity lost America because 20th-century evangelicalism branded itself as the party of faith. Secularism (science, university, media) became the party of truth. This is one reason why 70% Christian youth give up meaningful involvement with the church when they grow up. In the second class, only one in four students perceived Christianity as disconnected with truth. This was because my host professor had taught them to believe because Christianity is true. Some professors and pastors do teach that, yet the “truth-less” brand is common perception because it is reinforced by most pastors, Bible teachers, and some Christian professors. I asked both classes if they thought secular universities knew truth. Overwhelmingly the answer was positive. When I asked them to name one secular professor who claims to know the truth, both classes named Stephen Hawking. (No student, however, had read Hawking’s latest book which demolishes the God of Western logic but not the God who has revealed Himself.) Secularism acquired the “Truth” brand by default because evangelicalism began defining Church’s mission as cultivating Faith, not promoting knowledge of Truth(compare 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25; Titus 1:1, etc.). I asked these questions because two years earlier I had met students from that university on a mission trip in New Delhi. Their dedication was inspiring. Their love for Jesus was contagious. But they were “storying” not witnessing. That is, unintentionally they were rebranding missionaries as tellers of alien stories, not witnesses to Truth. Jesus can claim trans-cultural authority, demand allegiance of all cultures and call them to repent only if all nations have actually been given to him as his inheritance (Psalm 2:8; Matthew 28:18). If he really is the “ruler of the kings of the earth” (Revelation 1:5): the “ruler of God’s creation.”(Rev. 3:14). Jesus cannot be the Lord and have no say over social and political, work and business dimensions of life. The fact that some American missions to Muslims and upper-caste Hindus are backing away from Christ’s lordship over their cultures seems to be a result of their increasing uncertainty about Truth. To discuss the “image” problem does not mean glossing over the deeper problem of substance. Economic weakness is often a caused by intellectual and social poverty. In the long run, the image is created by theology – by the substance of faith. This essay can look only at the core theological issue: how American evangelicalism views the Bible. The branding or perception of Christianity as a religion of faith, disconnected with truth, is tragic given that the Judeo-Christian tradition is the only reason why any medieval, modern, or postmodern person talks about “Truth” that can be stated in rational words and propositions (creeds or equations). The secular academy and science acquired the truth-brand only because Secularism is a Protestant heresy. The university exists because the Church was committed to knowing and believing truth. Secularism didn’t create the university. It obtained that Christian

Definitions: (i) Macaulay = Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800 – 1859) who drafted India Penal Code, overturning the Hindu Law codified in Manusmriti (The Law of Manu). (ii) Manuwadi = An upper caste Hindu who prefers some form of casteism or Hindu racism The Manuwadis have very good reasons for hating Lord Macaulay. It is a fact that the India Penal Code (IPC) that Macaulay drafted in 1837 is not Indian. It may have rescued the downtrodden from Manu’s oppressive law, and together with his Minute on Education (1835) it may have set India on a course that could make us the greatest nation on earth. Yet, the truth is that the IPC is alien to Hindu culture. That is why it is not working very well. It could just be a matter of time before we mess up Macaulay’s Penal Code so badly that it becomes a worthless burden. Will scraping the IPC be good for India or tragic? That is a question that must be pondered as we celebrate (or loath) this month both the formal passage of the India Penal Code on October 6, 1860 andMacaulay’s birthday (October 25, 1800). Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, the first Law Member of the Governor-General’s Council of India (1834-38), admitted that he had crafted the IPC both to protect ordinary Indians from the Law of Manu that had ruined India, and from the arrogance of British rulers who considered themselves the new Brahmins, authorized to exploit. On submitting the draft IPC, Macaulay’s cover letter clearly stated his biblical worldview that overruled both Brahmanism and British racism, “I fully believe that a mild penal code is better than a severe penal code, the worst of all systems was surely that of having a mild code for the Brahmins, who sprang from the head of the Creator, while there was a severe code for the Sudras, who sprang from his feet. India has suffered enough already from the distinction of castes, and from the deeply rooted prejudices which that distinction has engendered. God forbid that we should inflict on her the curse of a new caste, that we should send her a new breed of [English] Brahmins, authorized to treat all the native population as Pariahs!” You only fix what is broken. You change what you consider wrong or unsuitable. Just as Macaulay’s Penal Code sought to change India, his Minute on Education accepted Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s 1832 assertion that the five Englishmen, called the Orientalists, who were insisting on using the East India Company’s educational money to promote Sanskrit, Arabic, and Persian were pursuing a course “best calculated to keep this country in darkness.” In his Minute, Macaulay spoke as a surgeon speaks the unpleasant truth when he tells his patient: “You have cancer.” Macaulay explained that the Orientalists who promoted Sanskrit had assured him that Hindus and Muslims had great works of literary imagination. However, every single Orientalist, without exception, had also conceded that when it comes to scientific and historical facts or practical usefulness, all the wisdom available in Sanskrit or Arabic literature was less than what was available in a single shelf in any good library in Europe. Manuwadis hate Macaulay because his Minute honestly stated India’s need of true and useful knowledge: “I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit [sic] or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed both here and at home with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the Oriental learning at the valuation of the Orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is, indeed, fully admitted by those members of the Committee who support the Oriental plan of education.” Neither Macaulay’s haters nor most of his defenders actually understand his Minute on Education. He was asked to give his magisterial opinion to the Governor General because the ten member committee on education was unanimous on one point and evenly divided on another. All ten were Protestant Christians: Therefore, along with Lord Macaulay they all agreed with the Protestant reformers and with the Father of Modern India, William Carey (1761–1834) on one point: every child should be able to study Truth in his/her own mother-tongue. The problem was that for centuries neither Pundits nor Maulvis had shown any sustained interest in developing Indian vernaculars. The Mogul rulers had used Persian to govern India. The British were unanimous that India could not develop without developing the dialects spoken by common people. The disagreement was on which classical language would most effectively enrich the vernaculars. The Orientalists argued that Sanskrit, Arabic, and Persian were best suited to enrich the vernaculars. These classical languages had already influenced vernacular vocabulary and enough Brahmin and Muslim scholars were available to teach them. The Anglicists disagreed. They followed Charles Grant’s view that English would better enrich the Indian mind and the vernaculars. Together with Lord Macaulay’s father, Grant was an associate of William Wilberforce and a member of the Clapham Sect. The two-decade long parliamentary battles (1792-1813) by Grant and Wilberforce had forced the East India Company to invest in educating India. In Indian terms, Wilberforce and Grant, were Lord Macaulay’s “uncles.” Charles Grant, Jr. Who grew up with Lord Macaulay in that same closely-knit community was both the head of the East India Company and a fellow Member of Parliament when Macaulay gave his 1833 speech in Parliament. That speech won him the position of the Law Member of India’s Supreme Council and set India on the track for freedom. Macaulay was neither opposing Sanskrit, nor trying to make English the language of India or of general education. He was advocating that the Company’s educational grant should be used to equip some Indians to access information and

WARNING: This article is not fit for family consumption. It is intended for mature readers. It was about 10 pm in Hawaii on Thursday 18 August, when Kamala informed me, “Anna Hazare just left Tihar Jail in Delhi. His procession is on its way to pray at the Gandhi Samadhi.” This was the third unsolicited briefing from Kamala that day regarding Anna Hazare’s fast against corruption. She knew every detail about how he was forcing the government of India to accept his version of the Lokpal (anti-corruption Ombudsman) Bill, his arrest and release, his refusal to come out of the Jail except on his own terms, and now his march to pray at Gandhi’s grave before sitting at a fast, Gandhi-style. “Has our government become just as bad as the British Raj that we need another Gandhi?” I teased Kamala. “You seem to be glued to the TV, as though this was a Cricket match.” “I’m not!” she protested a bit embarrassed. “I’m telling you because my sister just called me.” “Why is she glued?” “She’s so mad at corruption that she wants to shoot every corrupt man, if she could.” “But why? She’s always come across to me as a quiet, simple woman; why would she want to become a terrorist?” “I can’t tell you,” said Kamala, “she made me promise her.”  That really aroused my curiosity: but to get Kamala to break her promise to her sister, I had to become seriously interested. “Usha is enthused about Anna, because corruption has ruined her life.” “How?” “She toiled for more than four years to complete her Ph.D. thesis on ‘Folk Literature and its Psychological Appeal.” After a whole day’s job as a junior lecturer, she cooked, put her family to bed, then read and wrote until she fell asleep. He husband hates the fact that for four years she has been more devoted to her Ph. D, than to him. He tolerated these years when his wife was in the home, but not really with him, in the hope that a doctorate will help her become a professor. But, now her own guide, to whom she was deeply devoted, has turned out to be a slimy snake.” “What did he do?” “That’s what I am not supposed to tell you.” “Please do tell me, because I really want to understand why so many people are so excited about Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev.” “Usha read every book and journal her professor suggested. She visited pilgrim centers described in our folk literature. She wrote her thesis exactly as he advised. But he returned it with only negative comments. When she confronted him he said that it may take her four more years to get it right, unless he re-writes it for her. He said he didn’t have the time to help her during the day, but he could re-write if she came to his home after dinner. She went. He took her to his study next door. Inside was a little shrine with lamps and incense burning before a Shivalingam[i]. Hooded Kobras and Parvati were worshipping the lingam. The professor bowed before the lingam with deep piety . . . Usha followed his example . . . before they sat down facing each other.” “The professor kept gazing at the lingam, so Usha also took a good look. Behind the lingam was a large photograph.” “Do you recognize that temple?” “Yes, that is Mylapore temple in Chennai.” “This lingam is special because I brought it from there. Do you know that temple’s story?” “Yes, Shiva and Parvati were sitting there.  A peacock came by and Parvati was distracted. Shiva got angry and cursed her: she became a peacock. Shiva was pleased only when Parvati began worshipping the Shivalingam morning and evening. Then he turned her back into a woman.” “’Correct,’ said the professor. You’re researching folk literature; you know the legend; but have you learnt the lesson? I do not need to re-write your thesis. All I have to do is to re-write my notes on your thesis. Then you can get a Ph. D. within months.” “So, what do I have to do, sir?” “Learn from Parvati. Serve my lingam.” “But sir, your wife is next door!” “I’m a Brahmachari (celebate). Like Mahatma Gandhi I’ve renounced my marriage in search of self-realization. I’ve not touched my wife for ten years. She knows that this room is my shrine where I awaken my Kundalini[ii]. Those serpents represent Kundalini Shakti. My Parvatis come here to assist me in my quest. I help their pursuits.” “But Sir, this is hardly Gandhian or holy.” “You’d know how Gandhian this is if you take the trouble to Google Gandhi and Tantra[iii]. Gandhiji learnt Tantric tradition from Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and Aurobindo. That tradition had gone underground due to foreign invasions, but it was kept alive by the very literature that you’ve been studying. I’m just making sure that you’ve actually learnt what you read.” “But my husband will kill me. He is already frustrated that I am here and not with him.” “Both of you have to learn from our Advaitic culture. You have to transcend this nonsense of husband-wife dualism. Parvati is worshipping Shiva’s lingam, but is she is his wife? He is a Brahmachari. She is his consort; his sexual-spiritual partner. This is what Gandhi was teaching all his assistants, including J P Narayan, whose wives slept with him. Sex has to be divinized. You are Brahma – not female or male. By awakening your Kundalini – your serpent power – and experiencing your true Self, you realize that you are one – complete. Both male and female are within you.” “But sir, I came here to re-write my thesis . . .” “But I called you here to make sure that you’ve really understood our religious literature, our gods, as well as our great men like Mahatma Gandhi. What’s a Ph.D. worth in folk literature, if you can’t be a Parvati? You know what I’m talking about. I’ll give you a few minutes to think and decide whether or not you want me to re-write my notes on your thesis.” “The professor went into the

Why did Britain burn from 6-10August 2011? What made rioters take innocent lives, loot shops, and set them on fire? How could Anders Behring Breivik murder 91 fellow Norwegians in cold blood on 22July? Why did Greeks go to the streets in May-June, protesting against $153 billion being offered to bail out their economy? At the start of this decade, who would have predicted that in less than two years: It may be too late to save the euro . . . the critical question is: Can America be saved from the evil that has gripped so much of its family, education, religion, economy, politics, law, media, and entertainment? Most importantly, what must India learn from the Western folly? We would all love to see the Arab world liberated and transformed, but I never expected the “Arab Spring” to bring forth the kind of blossoms that secular pundits expected from it. The secular intellectuals are clever. They have succeeded in turning Wall Street into a casino that makes many of them super-wealthy while bankrupting their nation. If individual wealth is the litmus test of success then Arab despots may have done better than Wall Street moguls. In fact, the secular worldview is simply too naïve to understand the West or teach the Arab world how to build a civilization that is free and just with equal opportunity for all. Sadly, secular intellectuals think that material factors and accidents of history such as “Guns, Germs, and Steel” (Jared Diamond) or Biology, Sociology, and Geography (Ian Morris) can account for freedom. They think that nation-building is about economic “killer apps” (Niall Ferguson) rather than ideas, morals, and culture. Rather than being helpful, such amoral economic experts, produced by Ivy League universities, are driving Western nations into bankruptcy. While I remain sceptical about the Arab Spring, I am more confident about the Western Autumn ushering in a terrible winter. My short-term pessimism is produced by the underlying causes of the two phenomena. The Arab Spring  It was a terrible tragedy that triggered the protests that were naively dubbed the “Arab Spring.” On 16 December, 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi, a street vendor in Tunisia was selling produce when Ms. Faida Hamdi, a city official, came along with her entourage looking for a bribe. He had not earned enough to repay the $200 that he had borrowed to buy his goods, but she (reportedly) slapped him in the face, spat at him, confiscated his electronic weighing scales, and tossed aside his produce cart. Bouazizi went to the governor’s office to complain. When the governor refused to see him, Bouazizi set himself aflame. In short order, his self-immolation initiated the deadly demonstrations and riots throughout Tunisia and ultimately forced Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to relinquish the presidency on 14 January, 2011. He had misruled his nation for twenty-three years. The firestorm spread to Egypt, forcing Hosni Mubarak to quit after 30 years of oppressive rule. Despots in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria, however, relied on the Islamic tradition of the rule-by-the-sword to fight back the wild fires of freedom. They exposed the naivety of the Liberal expectation that Twitter can triumph over tanks. (See FPress xxx) The protests deposed two despots, but weeding is not gardening. Bouazizi had burned himself protesting against a civilization that denies human dignity and ridicules the idea of servant-leadership. Guns and germs did not produce these noble ideas of human rights and leadership. They came from the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. Renaissance writers Salutati, Lorenzo Valla and Pico Della Mirandella were the first to understand that Christ’s incarnation implied man’s uniqur dignity. If God had incarnated as a human being, then that proved that man was different from the other animals. He possessed a unique value and dignity that had to be respected by the state. Later reformers grasped that if  if the Deity sacrificed himself on the cross to save sinful humanity, then leadership had to mean servant-hood. The Messiashship of Jesus made it obvious that the human rulers needed to be shepherds, not wolves that oppress God’s own children. Islam abhors even the idea of Incarnation and the possibility that a prophet would die on a cross. Secular intellectuals ridicule these very historical/theological truths that produced the kind of civilization that Muslim nations are now seeking. If Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are to liberate Muslim nations from traditional tyranny, then they will have to be used to challenge not just despots but the very worldview that has dehumanized and oppressed Muslims. Western Autumn  It was Blackberry, Twitter and Facebook that brought out Social Media rioters, costing British economy around $400 million. Under British law, the taxpayers will have to pay the actual insurance cost for the buildings and looted goods. These looters weren’t interested in the bookshops that made Britain great. Nor were they starving, looking for groceries or medicine. The gangs were looking for electronic gadgets, trendy clothing, and designer shoes.  The London riots began because Metropolitan police branch responsible for gun crimes within the black community, shot dead 29-year old Mark Duggan. The police had been investigating him for a while and believed he was planning to take revenge on those who had stabbed to death his best friend, 23-year-old rapper, Kelvin Easton. His killers had used a broken champagne bottle to stab him at the Boheme nightclub in Mile End, East London. The police say that Mark and Kevin were linked to the Star Gang, a part of London’s blooming gang culture that has little respect for the traditional British values of lawful work and family life. The police claim that they shot Mark in self-defence. He may have been a victim of an officer’s mistake who thought that he needed to fire before Mark fired at him. But, it is important to ask ourselves – are Mark Duggan and the rioters victims of poverty or of a postmodern secular culture that has killed the soul of a once great civilization? Mark was an internet-savvy young man who used Facebook under his alias Starrish Mark. His home page had pictures of him

“William Carey was the nastiest Englishman that ever came to India,” said Mr. R.M. Pandit, my fellow-passenger.[i] We were both on our way to England. His mission was to research Carey in connection with the 250th anniversary of his birth on August 17, 2011. Panditji’s confident mannerism encouraged me to ask: “Who was Carey? What did he do to us?”  “In England he was just a chamar—a cobbler. In 1793 he violated British Parliament’s ban on missionary activity in India and slipped in as an undercover Baptist missionary. He started the chain reaction that culminated in our day in a chamar woman becoming the ruler of Uttar Pradesh—the very heartland of Hinduism.”  “Why should that be so worrying?” I wondered out loud. “After all Ms. Mayawati is dependent on Brahmins and they can easily ditch her in the next election.”[ii]  “I’m not concerned about one Mayawati,” clarified Panditji. “My concern is that Carey brought to India cancer cells that continue to multiply. They are infecting Hindu parties such as the BJP.[iii] Why do you think the BJP routinely appoints [untouchable] Shudras[iv] as Chief Ministers in the states it rules? Why can’t it respect Hindu culture and promote professional rulers?”  “I’m sorry Panditji,” I said sheepishly, “but I’ve no idea what you are talking about. If Carey was born 250 years ago, how is he responsible for what the BJP does today? If he was really the worst Englishman, why don’t we hear more about him?”  Panditji seemed eager to educate me, “Other Europeans came to colonize and loot India militarily, politically, and economically but William Carey came to change India. He pioneered the missionary movement with a goal to colonize our minds, to harvest our souls, and destroy our culture. This is the worst kind of colonialism.”[v]  “I’m afraid you have to help me understand how one can colonize someone’s mind,” I requested the scholar.  “Whoever controls your language controls your mind. Whoever writes your history controls your future. Why do you think that a Shudra in Tamil Nadu and a Dalit in Bihar both designate themselves as ‘Dravidians’? Their forefathers saw themselves as an intrinsic part of the Aryan culture. Who changed our language of caste into that of distinct races—Aryans and Dravidians? Some European scholars had taken an interest in Indian languages and literature before Carey. But he turned that academic curiosity into missionary mischief, inspiring thousands of missionary-linguists to build on his foundations.”  “I’ve never heard this interpretation before,” I assured Panditji.  My inquisitiveness encouraged him to continue, “Hindu sages engineered a harmonious society by categorizing us into castes along the lines of a family’s expertise. Caste system allowed parents to teach their children how to excel in their family profession. How can a person who milks cows teach his son to govern a state or navigate the sea? You tell me: do all human beings appear equal to you? Did the white Christians in America treat their black slaves as equal?”  “Definitely not,” I agreed, “but Mahatma Phule[vi] was a contemporary of Abraham Lincoln and he praised devout Christians who put religious values above economic interests and fought against their fellow whites to emancipate black slaves. That is why the blacks in America love the Bible even more than the white people. Didn’t President Obama put his hand on Lincoln’s Bible to take his oath of office?”  “The myth that God made all human beings—male and female—equally in his image does come from the Bible. But educated people believe in evolution. Of course, no one has actually seen a fish evolve into a bird, but evolution confirms what our sages taught: that some people are more evolved than others. How can everyone evolve equal? Evolution presupposes the fact of inequality, but as a chamar, Carey wanted us to believe the Bible’s myth of human equality. He converted ignorant people and required them to break caste by eating together.”  “What strategy did he use to change India?”  “Since he believed the myth that men and women were created equal, Carey’s mission started educating girls as well as boys.” “What’s wrong with that?” “You only change what you don’t like. In order to change India Carey had to misrepresent our culture.” “Like, how?” “He published papers against the nobility of upper-caste women. They committed sati by climbing on to the funeral pyres of their deceased husbands to join them in the after-life. But Carey used his influential paper,Friend of India (which merged into Calcutta’s Statesman), to launch a campaign that got the British to abolish the sacred tradition of sati.” “Really? I always heard that it was Raja Rammohun Roy who stopped widow-burning.” “Roy had become Carey’s disciple in order to learn English. A Sanskrit Scholar, Hariharananda Vidyabagish, took Rammohun Roy to William Carey. The three of them fabricated Maha Nirvana Tantra or the “Book of the Great Liberation.” It pretended to codify ancient Sanskrit law, proving that the Hindu scriptures did not require a widow to commit sati. For decades the British courts yielded to the authority of this book in interpreting the Hindu law. Using that spurious book in law courts made Roy and the Tagore clan wealthy. Roy parted company with Carey when Roy became a Unitarian. But throughout his life he advanced Carey’s agenda to change India. Along with the missionaries, he was the primary reason why Lord Macaulay ruled that the East India Company’s money should be used to teach English not Sanskrit. Carey, Roy, and Macualy wanted to enrich Indian vernaculars by injecting English rather than Sanskrit ideas into our languages. Raja Rammohun Roy followed Carey in condemning the very core of Hinduism—worship of idols and nature. He felt that economic development meant governing nature, not worshipping it. In order to smuggle his peculiar version of Christianity into Bengal, Roy disguised it as “Brahmo Samaj.” His college was a platform for missionaries such as Alexander Duff.”  Trying to make sense of what I was hearing, I asked: “What exactly did Carey do to corrupt India?”  “Why is Hindi our national language: why not Sanskrit, which was a pan-Indian language?”

“Breaking India” by Rajiv Malhotra -A Review A Review of Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines by Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan, (Amaryllis, New Delhi, 2011) The authors of Breaking India display a tremendous capacity for collecting data. Had they also the intellectual integrity to interpret fairly the people they critique, they might have won many hearts and minds. The authors’ goal is noble – to unite India – although they come across as terrorists, indiscriminately shooting every Western scholar, linguist, scientist, politician, philanthropist, and missionary who ever spoke out against the oppression of “lower caste” Indians. “Faultlines” that divide India can be bridged if the case for unity is made honestly, with grace and charity. After 650 pages, I was left with feeling that the authors heaped loads of insult on every intelligent Hindu who feels that caste and untouchability are wrong. The book’s main concern is valid, i.e., many efforts to emancipate the Dalits and empower Dravidians are often corrupted by hatred for Brahmins and Aryans. Politicians and Maoist use hatred as their primary weapon. Some evangelists and activists also leverage that hatred as a strategy, since it does lure “lower castes” away from Hinduism. Some Christians repackage that “spirituality” of hate as “social justice,” “human rights”, or “scholarship” to raise money in the West. The oppressed do hate their oppressors, but that privilege is not available to Christians, since Jesus commanded his disciples to love their enemies. Jesus viewed Rome’s Empire as Satan’s kingdom, yet, he refused to cultivate hatred against the Romans. He precipitated a confrontation between the kingdoms of God and Satan – that is between the kingdoms of love vs. oppression. The hate-driven struggle for “social justice” has indeed resulted in a Rwanda like blood-bath in Orissa. It boosts Church-growth in the short run, but it is neither good for India’s harmony, nor for the cause of Christ.  I am a Christian and an Indian citizen. Malhotra and Neelakandan condemn me by name in three different chapters. Nevertheless I agree with them that some Christian writing about Hindu violence is indeed manipulative “Atrocity Literature.” That does not mean that no Hindu ever persecutes any Christian: twice I was arrested on trumped up charges of converting Hindus. Once the police accused me of threatening to kill a Hindu by holding a revolver to his head unless he became a Christian! Then I was accused of bribing to convert a Brahmin woman who had been used and discarded by a Brahmin gang as a prostitute. Those cases were only the tip of the iceberg; I might still be in prison if Hindu “saints” and politicians had “properly” paid the police, witnesses, lawyers, and judges. Even though sadhus, politicians, police, and criminals sometimes come together to massacre Muslims, hurt Dalits, and persecute Christians . . . Malhotra is right that some Christians have turned “persecution” into a money-making industry. Churches would be less likely to donate were they told the truth that the 2008-09 genocide against Dalit Christians in Kandhamal, Orissa was not religious persecution. It was tragic. Many victims were innocent and needed financial help. Yet it was not “religious persecution” because the violence was caused neither by Christians’ faith nor practice. That was a communal conflict that erupted for two reasons: The conflict began because justly or unjustly, wisely or foolishly, some Dalit Christians were agitating that scholarships and jobs “reserved” for tribals should be shared with their children. Then some Maoists murdered a Hindu religious leader in defense of the agitating Dalit Christians.  To turn to the main point of the book: On the very first page, Malhotra and Neelakandan admit that oppression of Dalits and Dravidians is India’s internal problem. They consider it a dangerous faultline or “centrifugal” force that could be used by the West (Islam or China) to break India. Before India’s independence (1947), the Aryan-Dravidian divide had inspired Tamil leaders like C. N. Annadurai to propose breaking India up into separate nations for Muslims, Aryan-Hindus, and Dravidians. During the Cold War, when our prime minister Pandit Nehru tilted towards the former USSR, the American government supported Annadurai to weaken Nehru. Such “Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines” generate legitimate concerns. However, the question that the authors evade is what created these internal faultlines and how they can be bridged? Breaking India devotes hundreds of pages to suggesting that “academic” categories of Aryans and Dravidians were created by Western linguists, social historians, scientists, and missionaries. These experts, including those who did not believe the Bible to be God’s Word, were guided by the biblical perspective or “Mosaic ethnology.” That assumes that our human race originated from one pair of parents. Initially everyone spoke the same language. Linguistic and racial divisions arose after Noah. The authors are right in saying that from the 17th to the early 20th century it was not secular rationalism but the Bible that inspired and directed Europe’s intellectual vitality, including Indological studies. Hinduism and Islam had been in India for centuries but neither of those faiths stimulated their followers to study India, its languages, history, people, or natural resources as the Bible inspired Europeans. Someone reading Breaking India could get the false impression that India was one harmonious nation before wicked Western scholars divided it by studying vastly different features, languages, dialects, beliefs, and practices of its inhabitants. Quite the opposite is true: a tiny band of British soldiers, led by a commercial clerk, Robert Clive, was able to begin colonizing India because Hindus and Muslims had divided us into thousands of weak and warring kingdoms. Hating for colonial rule is understandable. But intellectual honesty does demand admitting (a) that the idea of India as one nation was invented by the British, and (b) that, for better or for worse, it was the Bible that gave to the world, via Europe, the modern notion of nation-states. This idea did not define Europe prior to the 16th century biblical reformation o society, and since WWII Europe has been trying to dismantle nationalism in favor of the European Union. By contrast, the British united India. They acquiesced to

This is part XXII of Vishal’s monthly series “Why Are We Backward?” for India’s Backward Castes.  In the holy city of Gangapur, two preachers were most renowned:  Gyananand enthralled his audience by explaining that the European numerals (I, II, III, IV, V, etc) could not have produced Western science, technology, banking, or economic development. They were inherently incapable of calculating mathematical units such as percentages or economic units such as compound interest. Dhyananand would then describe the accomplishments of Indian mathematicians such as Brahmagupta (seventh century), Mahavira (ninth century), and Bhaskara (twelfth century). The two never failed to mention that the world of modern finance owes its existence to the unknown sage who may have been a Brahmin and may have meditated on the banks of Mother Ganges, as he came up with the all important mathematical concept of shoonya (zero). Uma Devi was one their favorite devotees. In fact, all the “holy” men were fond of her because whenever an ascetic went to her door, she always sent one of her children with freshly cooked food. She had made it a morning habit to set aside the first portion of the food for sadhus, who had renounced their own wives, children, and parents in order to find enlightenment. Her piety, however, did not prevent god Saturn from devouring her husband along with her youngest son. The truck that hit his scooter simply vanished. The tragedy became even more terrible because the scooter’s insurance had run out. Her husband had chosen not to renew it, since he was thinking of getting a loan for a small car for the family. Uma’s world fell apart: she was too shattered to be comforted even by these saints. “Shall I commit sati?” she inquired of them in desperation. “It is illegal,” they counseled, “but dharma still accrues to a widow who chooses that sacred path.” “But what will happen to my children?” she cried. “The scriptures say that your karma will benefit seven generations” they consoled her looking at her daughter (9) and son (7). T his terrible story is, of course, made up. It is intended to help us understand the cultural factors that made Indian/Arabic numerals to sustain an repressive economic system in India while becoming a foundational tool for the amazing development of the West as illustrated by the Widow Fund in Scotland . That Fund began modern insurance and risk management that undergirds contemporary economic life, while secularization or perversion of that wonderful concept of welfare scheme is an important source of the political problems of Europe, Japan, and America. The Scottish Widow Fund, originally called, “Fund for a Provision for the Widows and Children of the Ministers of the Church of Scotland,” was the first modern, mathematics-based Insurance Company. It provided an innovative, “scientific” alternative to other ways of caring for widows – asylums, lotteries, ponzi schemes, prostitution, starvation, or sati. The Fund, which grew to over £ 100 billion, has served as a midwife to tens of thousands of economic enterprises. It has also supported educational and philanthropic initiatives such as India’s oldest continuously running liberal arts college, the Scottish Church College in Calcutta (1836), and the Scottish orphanage for girls in Mumbai that became Bombay Scottish School (1847). It began a scientific system of risk management that made it possible for people to borrow large amounts of capital to start new ventures across the continents and now into outer space. The Widow Fund was created by two Calvinist pastors in Scotland, Robert Wallace (1697-1771) and Alexander Webster (1708 – 1784). Both of them were mathematicians and Bible preachers. While we were condemning our upper caste widows in India to life-long solitary confinement, if not to the flames of their husband’s funeral pyres, the pro-life, pro-sex, pro-marriage, pro-widow spirituality of these pastors came together with the best available mathematics to create the world of modern finance. Unlike our saints who had to renounce their own wives and children, these Protestant pastors were both married because the Bible teaches that the physical world – including human body and sex – are created by a good God who declares them “good.” God does not want godly men to separate from the material realm. He wanted Adam and Eve to become one in order to harness and channel their sexual energy to establish a family that will produce and nurture children to fill the earth and govern it by establishing human culture.  This outlook (worldview) enabled Robert Wallace, who became the Moderator of the Church of Scotland – that is, equivalent of a Sankaracharya or Archbishop – to write a pioneering study, “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” Like Wallace, Webster also began his career as a minister (pastor) in the Church of Scotland, in Culross in Fife. There he met and married Mary Erskine of Alva. While our sages thought that to be “holy” meant to renounce (take sanyas from) family commitments, Webster’s biblical spirituality freed him to celebrate his romantic and sensual love for his bride: When I see thee, I love thee, but hearing adore, I wonder, and think you a woman no more; Till, mad with admiring, I cannot contain, And, kissing those lips, find you woman again. His love for his own wife as well as a deep concern for his friends’ widows motivated him to team up with Wallace and use his training as a mathematician to solve widows’ problems. In 1748, he published hisCalculations, which set forth the scientific principles on which their scheme for widows’ pensions was based. The other mathematical prodigy who helped refine their innovation was Colin MacLaurin who had improved upon Newton’s theories when he was only 14-years old! MacLaurin was himself an orphan who grew up with his uncle – also a pastor. [Note – This article’s author is a Fellow of the MacLaurin Institute at the University of Minnesota named after Prof. Colin MacLaurin.] Unfortunately, MacLaurin died while he was still too young to see the Widow Fund flourish. In their day, if a minister died, his widow and orphans received a stipend from the church for six months; after that

According to the US Treasury, during March 2011, the Federal Government spent eight times more than its total income: · Total expense — $1.0528 trillion · Net income (Federal Taxes) — $128.179 billion! Out of this $120 billion went for domestic liabilities (Social Security – $49.8 billion + Medicare – $47.4 billion + Medicaid – $22.575 billion). · By “selling” new “Securities,” the Federal Government borrowed six times its income ($786.5 billion) simply to repay earlier loans (705.3 billion) called Securities. Little wonder, American “Securities” are making the world very insecure. Erskine Bowles, co-chair of President Barack Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, who had served President Clinton as his Chief of Staff, summed up Federal Government’s cash-flow situation before Senate’s Budget Committee: “I’m really concerned . . . I think we face the most predictable economic crisis in history. A lot of us sitting in this room didn’t see this last crisis (2007-08) as it came upon us. But this one is really easy to see. The fiscal path we are on today is simply not sustainable. This debt and these deficits that we are incurring on an annual basis are like a cancer and they are truly going to destroy this country from within unless we have the common sense to do something about it. . . I used to say that I got into this thing for my grandchildren. I have eight grandchildren under five years old. I’ll have one more in a week. And my life is wonderful and it is wild. But this problem is going to happen long before my grandchildren grow up. This problem is going to happen . . . It may be two years, you know, maybe a little less, maybe a little more. But if our bankers over there in Asia begin to believe that we’re not going to be solid on our debt, that we’re not going to be able to meet our obligations, just stop and think for a minute what happens if they just stop buying our debt [Securities]. . . What happens to interest rates? . . . And what happens to the U.S. economy? The markets will absolutely devastate us if we don’t step up to this problem. The problem is real, the solutions are painful . . . “ Bowles was telling America what prophet Elijah told Ahab (Israel’s king): It is certain that off shore winds will no longer rain prosperity upon our land. People are realizing that, like Greece, America can no longer repay its debt without getting into greater debt. So what will the US do? Go to war as did Hitler? If the birthplace of Protestant Reformation – Germany – could be captured by supernatural powers to produce the 20th century anti-Christ, could the same forces or entities turn the most religious nation on earth into the 21st century Kingdom of the Beast? In Avatar, James Cameron explores that plausibility.  There is, however, another option: on Mount Carmel, Elijah urged Israel to repent and return to her Foundation – the Truth. The world did not trust America because of Capitalism but because of American Character born of her commitment: “In God we Trust.” Now the world is insecure because secular America has changed its motto to, “In Greed We Trust.” Bowles is not alone in predicting that it will stop raining. The famine will follow. In March, before the Treasury Report, the TIME magazine and CNN’s Fareed Zakaria expressed similar fears. The drought and the famine will hurt, but they could lead to a new quest for truth, repentance, and a new birth. Can America rediscover the historical truth about its own greatness? What created America’s character, freedoms, inventiveness, trustworthiness, economic and institutional success? What made it a light to the nations? These are questions explored in “The Book That Made Your World: How The Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization.” (Thomas Nelson). My book is already selling on Kindle and will be launched formally in Atlanta on April 21 (see below). For the tough times that do lie ahead, the good news is that like Elijah on Mount Carmel, this book graciously confronts “apostate” America with irrefutable Truth. As Dr. MacDonald says below, a small rudder could have saved the Titanic: This book could help change America’s direction and alter its destiny. Here is what people, who care deeply for America, are saying about this book: Dallas Willard Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles The condition of a society, good or bad, is the outflow of communal character—of what the usual citizen is prepared to do as if it were obviously right, and is prepared to sacrifice for if necessary. That communal character, in turn, arises out of a system of ideas and beliefs about what is real and what is good. The system of ideas and beliefs that gave rise to and sustained the “Western” world has its unique source in the Bible and in traditions arising out of it. Devotion to truth, to the common good and to the good of every individual, and—within that framework—freedom to live as one chooses, has never in world history had another foundation than the Bible. Look and see. The failure of contemporary education and intelligence is nowhere more manifest than in the appalling ignorance of “leaders” about the true foundation of our ideals and practices of public order and private well-being. With solid, detailed information, clarity of presentation, and logical force, Vishal Mangalwadi enables anyone willing to see how our “Western” world depends entirely upon what the Bible, and it alone, teaches about reality and how to live. We must be aware of that dependence, and of the manifold follies of well-meaning people who, for around two centuries now, have tried to set the Christian outcome upon a secular or non-Christian basis. At this point our institutions are lost. It is time for the prophet. Here we have one. Chuck Colson Founder of Prison Fellowship and the Colson Center for Christian Worldview “I have been a

In a bold statement to a world in turmoil, the American space agency, NASA, has named one its spaceships to Mars, Zahran. The 23-year old beautiful Sally Zahran was beaten to death by the security forces of Egypt’s ousted dictator, Hosni Mubarak. Zahran, a university graduate in English and translator, was one of hundreds of Egyptians who paid the ultimate price for throwing off 30-years of oppression. Now the beneficiaries of her martyrdom face the even greater challenge to establish a just and free government that is responsive to the needs of the Egyptian people. About 6,700 – 11,000 Muslims have died at the hands of fellow Muslims between December 18, 2010 and March 11, 2011 in an effort to modernize the cradle of human civilization – Middle East and North Africa. They deserve our support and prayers that their sacrifice will help deliver their nations from a medieval mindset that for centuries kept much of the world, including my native India, in slavery.  It was 26-year old street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, in a small town in Tunisia, who lit up the spark that began this movement for freedom. When he was only 3-years old, Bouazizi’s father died of a heart attack. His mother married his uncle who became sick, unable to support the family of six children. Bouazizi had to start working when he was ten and by the time he was 18, he had to give up his own ambition for an education to support his mother, uncle, and sisters – one of whom he sent to a university. In a country with over 30% unemployment, Bouazizi had few options. Every application he submitted for a job was rejected. He borrowed money to buy and sell produce on the streets. His hard work made it possible for him to dream of buying a pickup truck – provided he could save something from the policemen who regularly extracted bribes from people like him. They were paid to protect him and his property; some of them even worshipped in the same mosque that he did.  What he could not accept was the humiliation that was (allegedly) meted out to him by a 45-year old female official on December 17, 2011. The previous night he borrowed $200 to buy the produce before dawn. By 8 am he was selling on the streets. She came along with her entourage at around 10:30 am, demanding a bribe. He had not had the time to earn enough to repay even the interest on his loan, but she wanted her cut first. It is said that she slapped him in the face, spat at him, confiscated his electronic weighing scales, and tossed aside his produce cart.  The self-respecting young man found it hard to accept this public humiliation by a female robber! Bouazizi marched to the governor’s office to complain. He may have been too naïve to realize that Ms. Hamdi was simply a part of a giant machine the governor and his superiors used to siphon off the wealth of working people. When the governor refused to see him, Bouazizi doused himself with some flammable liquid and within an hour of his humiliation, he was aflame in front of a local government building. His self-immolation sparked the deadly demonstrations and riots throughout Tunisia which forced then-President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to step down on January 14, 2011, after ruling his country for 23 years to its ruin. Unemployment and under-employment give young people time to explore social medias such as Facebook and Twitter. This unregulated media, rather than the established press, university, mosques, or political forums turned the spectacular success of Tunisian protest into a wildfire. It was social network that brought young people like Sally Zahran to Tahriri (liberty) Square in Cairo, Egypt.  Abdel-Moneim Jaafar, a 49-year-old restaurant owner, demonstrated that they were not out to shout shallow slogans. He followed Bouazizi’s example, by setting himself alight in front of the Egyptian Parliament. Such desperate acts forced the resignation of Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak on February 11, 2011. During 30 years of his rule his family is estimated to have amassed $80 billion at his people’s expense! This liberation from corrupt dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt fueled freedom’s fires in Yemen, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya. It is in Libya that Islam is finally meeting modernity’s challenge.   At the moment of writing it appears that it will be Islam, not modernity that will win the war. Gaddafi’s regime has been associated with silencing legitimate questions, oppressing rival tribes, sponsoring terrorism during 1970s and 1980s, assassinating expatriate opposition leaders, and crass nepotism. Through control over the nation’s oil, his family has amassed a fortune of at least $70 billion. A part of this money is used to buy the loyalty of his tribe as well as foreign mercenaries who have kept Gaddafi’s gang in power for 41 years. His militia is well funded to fight for years and crush its opponents. In spite of his outrageous rogue status, the West has decided not to defend the people of Libya without support from neighboring Muslim nations. It is already apparent that the corrupt and oppressive heads of other oil rich Muslim nations would prefer to follow the Middle-Eastern way represented by Gaddafi’s brutal tactics rather than the aberration that happened in Tunisia and Egypt, where corrupt leaders resigned. Since Twitter cannot fight tanks bought by Allah-given oil, the real question is: Can the brave and intelligent people of Libya or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Syria find inner intellectual and spiritual resources to free themselves from their traditional slavery? Gaddafi sees himself not as a dictator, but as the Father of one of the wealthiest nations in the whole of Africa. So, why would he send tanks to butcher his own “children?” On February 22, 2011, the ‘Father of Libya’ explained on national television that he sees the protestors as nothing more than “rats and cockroaches.” That shocked the world: had he, however, described human beings as