In the wake of the Nobel Peace Prize to #Kailash Satyarthi, I thought it would be worthwhile to post this article I had writen on Mother Teresa for the Indian Express. The difference between Mother Teresa and Satyarthi, however much good work they have done, is that she Mother Teresa wanted to convert India to Christianity and #KailashSatyarthi to Marxism


arose after the death of Mother Teresa:

1) What did Mother Teresa really stand for?

2) Why do Indians defend her so ardently?

Foremost one should say in defence of Mother Teresa that she certainly did saintly work. After all, there is no denying that it takes a Westerner to pick up dying people in the streets of Calcutta and raise abandoned orphans, a thankless task if there is one. Indians themselves, and particularly the Hindus, even though their religion has taught them compassion for 4,000 years, have become very callous towards their less fortunate brethren. This said, one may wonder: What did Mother Teresa really stand for?

Was caring for the dying and orphaned children her only goal? Well, if you have observed her carefully over the years, you will notice that she did not say much. She did speak against contraception and abortion, in a country of nearly one billion, where an ever growing population is spiking whatever little economic progress is made, where the masses make life more and more miserable, invading the cities, crowding their streets and polluting the environment; where for 40 years the Indian government has directed a courageous and democratic birth control programme (this must be said, for China has achieved demographic control through autocratic means).

What else did Mother Teresa say: she spoke of the dying in the streets of Calcutta, of course, of the poor of India left unattended, of the misery of the cities. Fair enough, but then it should have been pointed out to her, that she projected to the whole world an image of India which is entirely negative: of poverty beyond humanity, of a society which abandons its children, of dying without dignity. OK, there is some truth in it. But then it may be asked again: does Mother Teresa (and Kailask Satyarthi, who at the moment, could say a few good things about his country – for instance that there are tens of millions of children in ndia of all ages, castes, social background, including million of girls, who are loved and cherished and lea a happy childhood) ever attempt to counterbalance this negative image of India, of whom she was the vector, by a more positive one? After all she has lived here so long that she knew the country as well as any Indian, having even adopted Indian Nationality. Surety she could have defended her own country? She could have for example spoken about India’s infinite spirituality, her exquisite culture, the amazing gentleness of its people, the brilliance of its children (isn’t it Mr Satyarthi???)…

Unfortunately, Mother Teresa said nothing. For the truth is that she stood for the most orthodox Christian conservatism (& Satyarthi for a Marxist outlook on India). There is no doubt that ultimately Mother Teresa’s goal was utterly simple: to convert India to Christianity, the only true religion in her eyes.

Did you notice that she has never once said a good word about Hinduism, which after all is the religion of 800 million people of the country she said she loved, and has been their religion for 6000 years. This is because deep inside her, Mother Teresa considered, as all good Christians do, particularly the conservative ones, Hinduism a pagan religion which adores a multitude of heathen gods and should be eliminated (and probably Mr Satyarthi, like a good Marxist, does not think much about Hinduism, his religion, which he probably associates with Brahmanism, caste abuses & bonded labor).sat

The second point then is: why does India’s intelligentsia, most of whom are born Hindus, defend the Mother Teresa (or see the Times of India raving praises of #KailashSatyarthi ‘building bridges between Pakistan & India’)? These are intelligent, educated people, they must surely have some inkling of Mother Teresa’s true purpose, or of Satyarthi hard bound Marxism, as outlines in the New York Times article?). Or do they? Do the Jain brothers or Rajdeep Sardesai, he of the Times Square fame, understand what Mother Teresa or Sayarthi really stands for? That they are basically hostile to their own culture, their religion, their way of life? Does Sardesai know that Hindu society has always been the target of Christians since their coming here, & of Marxists since 1947? Does he understand that he and a thousand of his peers, who belong to the intellectual elite of India and keep praising Mother Teresa, Amartya Sen or Kalash Satyarthi, are doing harm to their country and opening it to its enemies? The Christian & Marxist influences are very strong in India today: it shapes the minds of its young people, in a subtle way, through its schools, which many of the children of the rich attend. It moulds the thinking of the tribes Christianity has converted, particularly in the North-East, where the missionaries have always covertly encouraged separatism and Marxism still rules supreme in India’s journalist schools.

But ultimately it must be concluded that the Indian intelligentsia who defend Mother Teresa? Amartya Sen, or Binayak Sen, and are constantly attacking Hinduism, as Sardesai does, are a product of three centuries of English and Christian colonialism, which successfully created an Indian elite cut off from its roots and hostile to its own culture. Mother Teresa, Amartya and Binayak Sen and Satyarthi are an incarnation of Western post- colonialism and the Nobel Prize he got is their endorsement of their work,

1,535 total views, 1 views today