Facts about Samual Reddy - expired Andra CM?

First he tried to initiate a process of Evangelical Conversion through devious means by attempting to convert the whole Thirupathi Venkatachalapathy Hill Temple Complex (together with all the sacred Hills surrounding it) into a Seventh Day Adventist Christian Church Complex. This led to massive public protests all over India and the world. And Y Samuel Rajasekara Reddy was forced to withdraw not so much as to protect Lord Venkateshwara of Thirupathi (Who requires no protection from mean mortals like Y Samuel Rajasekara Reddy and Sonia Gandhi!) as to protect the temporary seals of his Office as Chief Minister.

In these columns on 4 July 2006, I had brought to public view the anti-Hindu and anti-National evangelical maneuveres of this Chief Minister in these telling words:

‘In Andhra Pradesh we have a Congress Government under a Christian Chief Minister who takes instructions from an effete UPA Government in New Delhi which is under the stranglehold of International Roman Catholicism. The Andhra Pradesh Government has been using its official Agencies for purposes of State-sponsored, State-aided and State-abetted Proselytism in Andhra Pradesh in a shamelessly flagrant manner during the last two years. Y. Samual Sekhara Reddy seems to be under the mistaken impression that he behave like Henry VIII (1509-1547) of Tudor England and that he can take Andhra Pradesh back to the 16th century using the International Roman Catholic might of the UPA Government in New Delhi. ……. While religious conversions are innately offensive, the rising political eminence of an Italian-born Roman Catholic has generated a corresponding growth of aggressive Proselytism at famous Hindu-pilgrimage and holy sites. Sonia Gandhi has reinforced the Missionary muscle by sponsoring the rise of Christians in Congress Governments and Party units on an unprecedented scale. Non-Christian Congress Chief Ministers have been made to acquiesce in missionary activities and outrageously ‘Leaky’ welfare schemes have been floated for the benefit of the tax-free NGO Industry, most of which is Christian and anti-Hindu. ……. Y. Samuel Rajasekara Reddy is actively promoting the physical and psychological encroachment upon the sacred spaces of Hinduism in a planned manner through carefully planted Christian Missionary Agencies.’

The legitimate fears expressed by me in July 2006 in these columns about the calculated anti-Hindu machinations and maneuveres of Y Samual Rajasekara Reddy have indeed come true today. The recent announcement of Andhra Chief Minister to the effect that the Andhra Pradesh Government would subsidize the holy pilgrimage to Bethlehem in Israel by Christians has to be viewed as abominable and preposterous. In my view it should be immediately scrapped. The Congress Government, headed by a Christian Chief Minister, has slyly used the Governor’s annual address to the State Legislative Council and Assembly to announce that it will ‘extend the Haj pilgrim scheme to Christian minorities also for their religious visits to Christian holy lands in Israel’. It clearly brings out the disgusting state of appalling ignorance that prevails in the higher echelons of the State Government about the underlying principles of a secular state defined under the Indian Constitution. This is nothing but craven and blatantly discriminatory MINORITY APPEASEMENT POLITICS at its worst and this has been done with focus only on the Parliamentary Elections to take place next year. During the last two years, Samuel Rajasekara Reddy has taken a subterranean disingenuous route to introduce job and education quotas for Muslims in order to avoid legal scrutiny. And now through his Christian subsidy for pilgrimages to Bethlehem and Jerusalem by plundering the public exchequer, he earnestly hopes that he will be able to swing the votes of Christians, who comprise 1.5 per cent of the State’s population, in favour of the Congress. Viewed on a larger national canvas, Samuel Rajasekara Reddy’s deplorable ploy is only a logical extension of the Congress game of subsidy politics introduced by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru after our independence on 15 August 1947. It was Pandit Nehru who was responsible for introducing a communal and anti-secular system of subsidy for Haj pilgrims, running counter to the letter and spirit of the India Constitution in 1959. This system has been expanded year after year to cover nearly 1.5 lakh of Muslims every year. India is the only country in the world which gives the subsidy to the Haj Muslim Pilgrims. No Islamic country in the world gives this benefit to the Muslims.


No doubt that Christians in Andhra Pradesh are delighted by the announcement of Christian Subsidy by the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister and Christian community leaders in New Delhi have lost no time in demanding that the Congress-led UPA Government should embrace Mr Reddy’s policy of Christian subsidy and convert it into a ‘national scheme’. Their point view is that if Muslims are entitled to subsidy for going on Haj, then there is no reason why Christians visiting the Church of Nativity should have to bear the entire expenditure.
It is a known fact that all the Hindu temple funds in all the States of India are being appropriated by the Government and almost wholly diverted for the benefit of minorities like the Muslims and Christians. This inequitable anti-Hindu system has been created through the Hindu Religious Endowments and Charitable Trusts Act. Keeping this in view Dr Subramanian Swamy has sent a letter to Karunanidhi yesterday (21 February 2008) in which he has spoken on behalf of the Hindus of Tamil Nadu and India as follows: ‘I write to enquire why your Government has not enacted an ISLAMIC MOSQUES RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS AND CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACT and a similar Act for CHRISTIAN CHURCHES, on the pattern of the Hindu Religious Endowments and Charitable Trusts Act. As you know, the Supreme Court and various High Courts in their Judgements have opined that there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL BAR to enacting such legislation. Hence, I am putting your Government on notice that I be informed whether your Government proposes to bring such a BILL for passage soon, but if not, why not? I shall be obliged if you can send me a written reply at the earliest, but not later than two weeks from the receipt of this letter.’