Christian Missionaries in Nepal Earthquake

It seems whatever worst you think about Christian Missionaries, it would be true. Learning about a social media backlash against missionaries in Nepal, I just googled about it and found such reports (link below).

Missionaries are trying to raise funds abroad. Their report tells about destroyed Churches (though they don’t have such pictures to prove much of it); so as to generate sympathy in Christians in foreign nations in order to seek donations. In this report for example, they mention:

“Gospel for Asia (GFA) President says Jesus is mentioned as people begin asking questions about why they are helping. As Christians offer help and compassion it will open doors for the Gospel.”

“Between 30 and 40 of GFA’s missionaries serving in Uttar Pradesh are headed toward the quake-ravaged area to help.” 

“In the meantime, prayerfully consider donating generously to the work of GFA. Your support will help them provide much-needed physical aid and provide a platform to tell victims about Jesus, the only One who can give them eternal comfort.” 

https://www.mnnonline.org/news/nepal-death-toll-climbs-christians-reaching-out/

So as per them, Nepal’s tragedy is “a platform to tell victims about Jesus, the only One who can give them eternal comfort.”!!!
What more needs to be told about these soul-vultures – a term I heard for the first time; during this tragedy? Missionaries deserve it.

When they say 30 to 40 missionaries from UP are heading towards Nepal – obviously 40 is too small number to do much of physical help to victims; but 40 seems to be a good number to do much preaching and conversion job. May be 1 in every Muhallah per day.

Btw, earthquake tragedy in Nepal has an unexpected result: RSS has reinforced its image as a volunteer based social organization. And Christian Missionaries have established themselves as ugly soul-harvesters. Just visit these news items to realize yourself:

http://www.andhrawishesh.com/378-telugu-headlines-top-stories/49641-helping-hand-of-rss-versus-inhumane-business-of-soul-harvesters.html

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/rss-sends-its-man-to-supervise-rescue-ops/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/RSS-to-join-rescue-relief-operations-in-Nepal/articleshow/47062965.cms

We pray that people affected by earthquake in Nepal and India get peace and survivors bounce back with greater strength.

- Rahul

http://blogs.rediff.com/rahulwrites/2015/04/30/christian-missionaries-in-nepal-earthquake/

How Many Children Hindus Should Have?

Every now and then media catches some Hindu leader suggesting Hindus to have more kids so as not to get outnumbered by other religions and then hell breaks loose. (E.g. News1; News2) Getting carried away by the mainstream media (mainly TV news), people like us also criticize such persons on social media expressing disgust and the underlying basic principle is - "it is our personal choice to have as many kids as we want and any other person or organization does not have any right to suggest me or persuade me about it". Isn't it so?

First, if you follow news, such suggestions are made by leaders from all religions. A few days after last time media had made Sakshi Maharaj famous, Pope himself had made a very similar statement. But media does not criticize other religions for the same charge because Indian media's main audience are Hindus and Hindus would naturally find criticism of their own religion more "appealing" than of others - which helps channels’ TRP. If I write a facebook post criticizing Hindus, I will get 30 'likes' but if I write one criticizing other religions, I would perhaps get only 3 - because my friends are majorly Hindus. Secondly, data tells that Muslims population is indeed growing faster than Hindus' and hence if some Hindu leaders are educated enough to make sense out of the data and the trend analysis, we should not get angry with them for it.

Lastly, do we really get so upset with anyone suggesting us about how many kids to have? Are not our Govts doing the same for decades - by asking us to breed only "2"? Slogans like "Ham do hamare do" were thrust into our ears for years; and our own (tax-payers') money was spent to teach us the benefits of "small family" - If your father has 100 acres of land and you are 2 kids, you get 50 acres each; but if you are 10 kids, you get only 10 acres each - hence by appealing to our "greed", Govt was able to convince Hindus and other liberal religions to have small families. On the other hand, govt is officially busy increasing the population of minority religions like Parsis by officially using tax payers' money; and inflating the budget of so called "Minority Affair Ministries" while there have been no "Majority Affairs Ministry".

When govt said, "have 2 kids or less", we found it "fine"; but when a Hindu leader says, "have more than 2 kids", why do we find it revolting while logically both are suggesting us to have a "right number of kids" according to their own "perspectives"? If you think rationally and logically, both statements - "have 2 kids or less" and "have 4 kids" are of same "kind" and "characteristic"! But thanks to the media which cares only about TRP and has thrown its brain down the drain; our "perception" is molded so that we find Govt's slogan fine while religious leaders' statement as bad.

PS: Views expressed are personal.

#AAP-Ki-Crisis: Management and Leadership Disasters in Expulsion of Yadav, Bhushan, Kumar & Jha

May I assume that you have read or heard news about or viewed live coverage of the ongoing crisis in Aap (Aam Aadmi Party; a newly launched political party in India which grabbed power in the state of Delhi recently.)? If you have not, here are some refreshing links: OneIndia; Rediff; MControl.

Let us analyze this event purely from management and leadership perspectives:

(1) First thing which struck me was that the meeting was happening at a private 'Resort' where entry was restricted to a few while 'aam aadmi' did not know what was happening inside. Bhushan's demand to video-tape the proceedings was met with great scorn and heart-burns. Then some of Yadav's supporters were denied entry. When Kejriwal had said that he would take oath as Delhi CM in a stadium, it meant something. A stadium symbolized "openness" and "equality" while a "closed door resort" symbolized "non-transparency" and "inequality".

(2) A leader is built by taking leadership during crisis. This is why Rahul Gandhi never got respect as he went absconding during every crisis. Kejriwal was the same leader who used to challenge his opponents into "open debate" in front of live cameras. He was always ready to clarify his positions. Portions of Kejriwal's speech or conversations which we have listened to recently sound like a fuming Sonia Gandhi. Kejriwal's group have hardly displayed any inspiring leadership during this crisis.

(3) A good leader has to remain 'accessible'. This is why managers who advertise "open door policy" appear so happy about it. During yesterday's meeting, we never saw Kejriwal or his select group outside the venue interacting with the party's "volunteers". We never saw Kejriwal even talking to the media, clearing his position on the scandals or about yesterday's ruckus. When leaders are inaccessible, they run the risk of adversaries taking their pole positions. We saw this happening yesterday when anti-Kejriwal Yogendra Yadav sat on Dharna in front of the "volunteers" - dharna being the most branded IP of Kejriwal. Party members may fall in love with other leaders for doing what they were earlier used to seeing Kejriwal doing.

(4) When AAP had established an 'internal Lokpal', it had sent a strong message to all. That the party was ready to walk the talk; the party stood for all the values it wanted other parties and govts to possess. But when Kejiwal's team asked their internal Lokpal Admiral Ramdas not to come to the meeting, it was as if they wanted "righteousness" and "truth" to turn a "blind eye". This decision made Kejiwal and his party appear like "hypocrites".

(5) People expect "continuity" as much from a leader as they expect "vision". This crisis and the manner in which it was handled gave a clear message how much the party had changed after gaining absolute power in a state (of Delhi). That was people's worst fear - that this party and its leaders were appearing honest until they were out of power and would also change after gaining power. The party has been successful in letting its members' worst fears come true. It has been a PR disaster. It has been a crisis mismanaged. It has been an anti-climax.

- Rahul

Kejriwal's True Face Unmasked: AAP-Ka-Drama

News channels had two main items this evening. As Vajpayee ji got Bharat Ratna today, TV channels were running his wonderful speeches for us to enjoy. And as Kejriwal ji got another Sting Ratna today, TV channels were playing the bitter abuses he was caught throwing at others. Perhaps this is why the "Two Indias theory" got so famous! 

I wonder how AAP supporters must be feeling these days - after "unmasking" of their cult leader. All through the campaign whenever someone told them that they were "blind supporters" of AAP, they pretended of not having understood what it meant. But now it must be too painful to get enlightened...

Picture courtesy: Arvind Kejriwal Jokes - Page on Facebook

After unmasking of Kejriwal - after his attempt to poach Cong MLAs to return to power; his comment on why Muslims will vote for him as compulsion; his abuses to Yadav/Bhushan/Kumar; his attempts to run down everyone who goes against his opinion; his threat to form a new party with 67 MLAs - I have only one request. Those who supported this masked man and abused those who did not support him, should correct themselves in future. Just because some people were wise enough and experienced enough to sense suspicion in Kejriwal and hence did not support him, it did not mean they were "corrupt" and "unpatriotic" - which AAP supporters were famous of accusing them with. 

Also, you can now stop abusing those AAP leaders who quit the party accusing Kejriwal. 

I also pity Delhiites for electing this 'colored wolf'. Hope they are learning their lessons.

AAP Is Like Pakistan

AAP is like Pakistan - its mercenaries are doing to it what it trained them to do with its enemies. 

I think AAP supporters were mainly of these kinds: 

(1) Some idealists who were bored with Cong rule and did not want to support Modi either; i.e. were attracted to AAP because it had completely non-political faces, 

(2) Originally Cong supporters, who when realized that their ship had sunk, chose to board the ship which belonged to the enemy of their enemy (since AAP claimed to be conspicuously anti-BJP from the beginning) 

(3) Slum-wallahs, auto-rick wallahs, illegal housing wallahs - and the likes, 

(4) Middle class who were purely in for the freebies, namely free power, free water, free wi-fi, 

(5) Muslim voters since Shri Bukhari ji asked them to support AAP. 

(6) A few weirdos and psychos who decided they wanted to dress up like that because they actually 'liked' the way their messiah dressed! 

(7) Well educated youth who never took any interest in politics in their entire lives (hence did not understand colored wolves from the sheep), but found short-cut to their salvation by supporting Kejri ji who came at the right moment in history (i.e. just when the youth had got their names in the voter lists). 

It helped that all these kinds of people were subjected to a systematic brainwashing propaganda which is typical of the 'cults' and typically the victims never realize it until it is too late. 

Now the obvious question - after this much mud-sledging and dog-fighting will a typical AAP supporter get disillusioned? Well, our another God SRK said, "never underestimate the cower of the pommon man!"