India has no reason to be grateful to Mother Teresa

[Ray]

Niharjhatn,


I am not justifying conversion or canvassing for the Christian faith. I am neither a priest nor a monk (the only monk I know, or rather knew, was said to be Old)!

I am merely enunciating what is the mission of a missionary and as a corollary to that, while there can be no two opinions that Mother Teresa did some wonderful work as a human being, she cannot be faulted if she displayed missionary zeal by converting those she looked after because that is what a missionary is supposed to do. It is called 'harvesting the soul'!

The Great Commission, in Christian tradition, is the instruction of the resurrected Jesus Christ to his disciples, that they spread his teachings to all the nations of the world. It has become a tenet in Christian theology emphasizing missionary work, evangelism, and baptism.

The most famous version of the Great Commission is in Matthew 28:16–20, where on a mountain in Galilee Jesus calls on his followers to baptise all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The commission from Jesus has been interpreted by evangelical Christians as meaning that his followers have the duty to go, teach, and baptise.

In modern days, the meaning of the Great Commission has been debated for its interpretation.

I would rather laud Mother Teresa for her work and maybe not for the motive that spurred her on since that would not be very secular in intent.

 

[KS]

once she tried to comfort a screaming sufferer: "you are suffering, that means jesus is kissing you!" the man got furious and screamed back: "then tell your jesus to stop kissing."

roflmao...

BTW this is how even Indian history is depicted in NCERT books. All glossy and feel-good like sweeping the worst crimes of rulers under the rugs.

Get over it - if you want to learn anything see both the sides and then decide which side you want to be.

 

[ashdoc]

french journalist francois gautier has said in his book '' a new history of india '' that one of MT's well known admirers ( i forgot his name ) admitted that as he grew closer to MT over the years , she began to ask him repeatedly to convert to christainity , and for her christainity was the only true faith . she was a fundamentalist who wanted to convert the whole of india to christainity .

and the image she created of not only calcutta but the whole of india , was of unending poverty , hopelessness beyond belief , of a country where people are only dying and suffering .

 

[Ray]

and the image she created of not only calcutta but the whole of india , was of unending poverty , hopelessness beyond belief , of a country where people are only dying and suffering .

That is the unfortunate part. The western world loves to dramatise their concern by highlighting gross negativity to showcase their charity, at times, with ulterior motives.

And we fall prey to such negativity and think it is fashionable to identify with the westerners' viewpoint.

Same was the brouhaha over Dominique Lapierre's City of Joy!

Here is something you young people may not know. There was a book written by Katherine Mayo titled Mother India.

Teaching Journal: Katherine Mayo's Mother India (1927)
Mohandas Gandhi had a harsh rejoinder to Katherine Mayo's notorious Mother India, a book that had a huge impact on American and British views of India in the late 1920s:

Gandhi: This book is cleverly and powerfully written. The carefully chosen quotations give it the false appearance of a truthful book. But the impression it leaves on my mind, is that it is the report of a drain inspector sent out with the one purpose of opening and examining the drains of the country to be reported upon, or to give a graphic description of the stench exuded by the opened drains. If Miss. Mayo had confessed that she had come to India merely to open out and examine the drains of India, there would perhaps be little to complain about her compilation. But she declared her abominable and patently wrong conclusion with a certain amount of triumph: 'the drains are India'

http://www.lehigh.edu/~amsp/2006/02/teaching-journal-katherine-mayos.html

 

[Rage]

This is interesting, I actually helped a sibling do a project on playing the devil's advocate for Mother Teresa.

Certainly, she had flaws. But, which human is not without them? No human, that has ever been put on a pedestal, has been without them: these include the saints, the prophets and priest of any religion, the martyrs; and even the demi-gods. Heck, even mythology shows that the gods were fallible. So, the starting premise: that only an infallible person must be put on a pedestal and revered, or honored, is inadmissible.

Among her flaws, would perhaps be the acceptance, of what critics allege, is dirty money. That is until now still an allegation. Not a proven fact. But, in the case that she did, it could be explained by the Catholic tradition, and indeed her own, that dirty money would rather be used to help the poor than spent on private consumption. Right or not right, that can be argued from different standpoints.

Another criticism has been that she relished "in the sufferings of others". This is mostly a semantic one, drawn from the fact that she used the words, in various places, that "sufferings bring people closer to Christ". This ad verbatim has been grossly misunderstood, because it does not mean that people are supposed to go on suffering indefinitely, without end. It means that as long as sufferings last, one has the chance to grow, because adversity tests human compassion, mettle and resilience. And when you get to the point, that you can disabuse yourself of thinking you are suffering alone, and can help others even in your own adversity, you have reached a stage where you can manifest a different kind of love- one that is incontingent, unconditional upon your own interests or condition and truly unselfish. That is most consistent with the Christian concept of God- a God that embodies love rather than power, and manifests itself by coming down from its own pedestal and engaging in a violent (upon the self) act of self-dissolution and self-subsumption to express love for mankind Why do we say that the greatest love for a nation is self-sacrifice.

The argument, that she refused painkillers to dying patients and sufferers is all bullocks. I went once, with a college group, to the Missionaries of Charity in Byculla, West- Mumbai. I personally saw a consignment of ibuprofen, which is an O-T-C analgesic; and used to treat arthritis and rheumatism being delivered to the facility. The place is a home for the aged & needy men/women.

I'll end by sayng that, she is not perfect. No human can be. We are always, and every where commiting errors of ommision or commision. Is she saint material? Probably is, given the lifetime of service and contribution to a nation's disposed and disenchanted, that juxtaposed, eclipses any errors or failings. Is a saint supposed to be perfect? Not, if s/he is a human. Is she god? free from criticism or reproof? None of us are. But the least, we critics can do, is put her faults beside her feats. And then judge, for ourselves, which ones outdo the other.

I think you'll find that the scale is pretty well tipped to one side.

 

[p2prada]

Dawkins and Sam harris are atheists And they might be successful but are they known for compassion
to the destitute and suffering

Mother teresa has never ever been criticised for her missionary activities

Her work in genuinely and truly helping the poor is far bigger than any other " Church " related activity

Such power can NEVER come from Missionary Zeal alone

It is her faith, her belief that she was serving God that made her carry on like this

Such Noble saints are seldom born in this wretched world

Atheists can ONLY talk, write and criticise

How many atheists have done even a fraction of the work that she has done

Energon has already said this and I will too, your comments on atheists are baseless. If I assume correctly you don't know a thing about atheists or the concept of atheism.

As for people who have done good things for humanity, heard of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Bill Gates, is more agnostic than atheist, suffice to say he is on record saying he does not believe in the Christian doctrine of a God. He is more of a "I don't know" guy. Warren Buffet is on record saying he is an atheist. Both together have pumped a huge amount of money for poverty alleviation and curing diseases.

If you did not know, more than 40% of Sweden's population is atheist and is increasing really fast.

Rational and atheist together are misnomers. You can be atheist and irrational or theist and rational. All scientists are rational. Anybody saying otherwise does not understand the concept of a scientist. However, if they believe in a religion it is their personal choice. But it would be entirely stupid to say all religious people are irrational.

I can just say Hitler is a devout catholic and end it saying "is there an atheist person like him, a person who would commit mass murder and simply say he is doing the Lord's work?" But that wouldn't do justice to other people who are devout catholic and don't share his tendency for mass murder. So, saying there is no atheist who would commit to the destitute like Mother Teresa did as a final ending statement that says it all for atheists and this shows a severe lack of knowledge about atheism and why it came into being. MT was christian, she did what her position in Christianity asked her of and was quite committed to the end.

Like I said, this thread has nothing to do with atheism and theism. If you think MT did the right thing then say that, if not then say that too. Heck say both if you want to. But don't mix it up with the article writer's atheist background. It has nothing to do with anything.

 

[agentperry]

mother teresa helped those who cant help themselve. she was angel no doubt. disowning such a great figure is lack of human IQ- writer is a primate with handsfree option.

 

[S.A.T.A]

I am upset seeing your reply...

indugence or not.....effort to be free from sin or not.........sales woman or not............at the end...those amount (little or much)....help the poor

Unlike those who prefer to donate to GOD (jewellery or throne or something else).............here the attitude is also the same....making God happy....be free from sins............And even after few hundred years sit on that like a Yakha.......

The intention was not to cast the works of Mother Teresa in a poor light,but an attempt to look at the larger picture.Mother Teresa was merely a cog in the wheel,one of the two wheels to which western imperialism and colonialism had hitched its bandwagon in their relentless pursuit of colonial empire.The western church was the hand maiden to the Christian Wests imperial ambitions and it was the Christian values imparted to the soldiers of the empire that acted as the moral cloak for their naked imperial ambitions.When the empire destroyed indigenous societies,razed down the last vestige of proud civilizations,reducing entire communities and societies to state of destitution,a hapless leper,the church and its earthly angels descended unto these societies with their soothing balm of salvation and redemption.

The church and the christian states of the west were a tag team if you will,one providing the other meaning and purpose.Surely Mother Teresa was not a imperialist coming up with schemes for potential evangelical missions to societies ravaged by colonialism,but its hard to believe that during the course of her pious religious life this thought did not enter her mind.

Is it a merit to serve the society in whose destitution who may have had atleast a ideological role.

 

[S.A.T.A]

Mother Teresa had many followers and benefactors all over the world including India. I doubt all of them were writing checks out of the guilt of having colonized India or other under developed nations. Nor was she running some sort of a Ponzi scheme by exploiting the "moral pangs" of Chiristian souls in the West. If anything she put her money where her mouth was.

It is common practice to criticize religious charities because they exploit the destitution in places like India. However one can't forget that the Indian peoples themselves have a long history of perpetuating poverty and a torrid quality of life. Likewise, Calcutta has attracted a lot of charitable missions simply because it is a hovel that is overwhelmingly inhabited by horribly destitute people who have no hope otherwise.

Certainly not all people dropping penny's into the donation box where making recompense for having colonized India,but iam sure every Portuguese,French,Spanish,Italian,dutch or Belgian ,besides the odd British,had some notion of his country's colonial heritage and the socio-economic havoc it wreaked on the colonies.if we are to believe that the squalor and destitution that much of India used to reek with,which it still does despite our best efforts,has nothing to with the western colonialism,this is nothing but a grand apology for colonialism,who can argue against that.

 

[Energon]

Certainly not all people dropping penny's into the donation box where making recompense for having colonized India,but iam sure every Portuguese,French,Spanish,Italian,dutch or Belgian ,besides the odd British,had some notion of his country's colonial heritage and the socio-economic havoc it wreaked on the colonies.if we are to believe that the squalor and destitution that much of India used to reek with,which it still does despite our best efforts,has nothing to with the western colonialism,this is nothing but a grand apology for colonialism,who can argue against that.

Colonialism is but one contributing factor to the horrendous poverty that plagues India, most others are purely internal. If find it hard to agree to the notion that the Indian establishment and its people have put in "the best efforts" to eradicate poverty. The attempts are half hearted and patchy at best. Any one who has traveled around the world can easily observe that the present day Indian sensitivities are still disturbingly immune to the ills of crushing poverty.

The systemic and calcified social stratification that is aimed at keeping the poor in their place is a cultural habit that precedes colonialism as is the desensitized perception toward destitution by the upper strata of society. The colonists merely exploited the preexisting conditions to attain their objectives. A similar example that comes to mind is slavery. One cannot possibly condone slavery, but what is often forgotten is that the slave trade was initiated by Africans themselves who merely turned it into a grand enterprise by engaging Western and Arab slave traders.

Point is, the scene has always been ripe for missionaries of all kinds to swoop in and engage in their "soul saving" duties because the indigenous people of India have allowed this to happen, and it is hard to fault individuals like Mother Teresa who has done her part with earnest passion and actually helped people along the way.

 

[S.A.T.A]

The point we must be concerned about in the context of the topic is that the colonialism played more than significant role in the economic destitution of the societies where the missionaries,most of them nurtured by these very colonialist societies,were got busy with Gods work.The pertinent question that we must ask while make haste to worship false gods,is whether the missionaries like the ones Mother Teresa represented read the gospels to the wrong people.A whole lot of destitute lepers and homeless would not have been so, if the missionaries had strenuously made efforts to bring misguided souls in England,Spain,France and else where,to the right path.

May they could have done that and if there were still any destitutes left,they could saved and cared for them with a very clear heart.Alas gods angels took their oblation at the altar hypocrisy.Who saves the hypocrites.

 

[Ray]

From the little that I have observed of the various post, I feel that none are criticising Mother Teresa for her work,

The bones of contention are:

1. Proselytising in the name of charity.

2. Showcasing Calcutta in particular and India in general in poor light.

3. Funded by organisations and countries for ulterior motives.

It is not only that India is at the wrong end of the stick.

Bishop Desmond Tutu, a great leader of South Africa and a Christian himself had said

When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. ,

Imagine a Bishop saying that!!

So, it does not mean that all are blind.

That is what life is all about!

What one has to understand, each is doing what is ordained and it all turn out to be contradictory!!

 

[Ray]

Please do not get me wrong for I am not proselytising.

There is poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy rampant in the country for ages.

The clever have exploited it to increase their ranks.

Have you wondered why others could not or did not want to do so?

Words alone cannot eradicate poverty, hunger, illiteracy and disease.

Those who can do so for those who are not empowered wins!

Develop that zeal and money power and whoever feels that things are going wrong, can win and stop the rot.

If they are to sit back and expect others to do so and instead grouse and trot out the scriptures, they will lose.

Religion alone does not feed empty stomach, treat disease or bring education.

Think that over!

There is an interesting word called "Rice Christians". Google and see what it means!

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Bishop Desmond Tutu, a great leader of South Africa and a Christian himself

...had nicer dresses than Mother Teresa.

 

[p2prada]

I don't have detailed information on the charity that all religious institutions have done for the people at large. I am not talking about institutions that were established during the British times, I am talking about more recent times because the British mainly built their big institutions for themselves rather than for the benefit of India.

Anyway, what I have noticed is that Christian benefits are primarily meant for Christians whereas Hindu institutions like the Tirupathi temple or ISKCON provide large scale benefits to members of any religion, like free food to any number of people everyday along with free schools and hospitals. Certain institutions like Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust have actually provided world class healthcare free of cost to anybody regardless of religion in India. World class isn't just a term for them and the hospitals aren't little clinics. They are full fledged hospitals capable of handling most ailments and provide treatment that is only exceeded by a few private hospitals and that is only because of the quality of nursing and not doctors.

So, Ray sir while you say "Religion alone does not feed empty stomach, treat disease or bring education." then why bring religion into the picture at all. How about just helping people out for the sake of helping them out like how these other charitable institutions of a different religion does. I am sure, just like these specific Hindu organizations, there are certain Christian organizations that are not bereft of funding. How about Christian organizations coming out with plans for benefit of society without bringing out words like proselytising and "saving" just for the heck of satisfying Vatican's "Service level agreement."


Given time these Hindu organizations will obviously become both richer and larger for Christian organizations to compete(even with support from Vatican). Won't it be reasonable to catch up with the policy of benefits to all instead of benefits to only a few while we are at it?

As for this comment : "The clever have exploited it to increase their ranks."
I would definitely agree with this comment but as you already know this comment does not bode entirely well for the Christian community. It is very obvious that Christian benefits are very temporary like money for conversion, small donations when your family is in need, in the end all meant to keep them chained to the yoke. Isn't there a saying, "Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." Christian organizations are more inclined to only give the fish to the man and keep the man chained for a lifetime instead. All this when Hindu organizations even train Doctors for free.

So, I hope this post answers your question : "Have you wondered why others could not or did not want to do so?"

It is not that other religions are not doing the same. It is just that, in specific to Hinduism, they don't preach religion while they are helping people. So, there is no concept of proselytising and the benefits are greater. There is no scope for a Rice Hindu in such a situation.

 

[Energon]

I don't have detailed information on the charity that all religious institutions have done for the people at large. I am not talking about institutions that were established during the British times, I am talking about more recent times because the British mainly built their big institutions for themselves rather than for the benefit of India.

Anyway, what I have noticed is that Christian benefits are primarily meant for Christians whereas Hindu institutions like the Tirupathi temple or ISKCON provide large scale benefits to members of any religion, like free food to any number of people everyday along with free schools and hospitals. Certain institutions like Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust have actually provided world class healthcare free of cost to anybody regardless of religion in India. World class isn't just a term for them and the hospitals aren't little clinics. They are full fledged hospitals capable of handling most ailments and provide treatment that is only exceeded by a few private hospitals and that is only because of the quality of nursing and not doctors.

So, Ray sir while you say "Religion alone does not feed empty stomach, treat disease or bring education." then why bring religion into the picture at all. How about just helping people out for the sake of helping them out like how these other charitable institutions of a different religion does. I am sure, just like these specific Hindu organizations, there are certain Christian organizations that are not bereft of funding. How about Christian organizations coming out with plans for benefit of society without bringing out words like proselytising and "saving" just for the heck of satisfying Vatican's "Service level agreement."


Given time these Hindu organizations will obviously become both richer and larger for Christian organizations to compete(even with support from Vatican). Won't it be reasonable to catch up with the policy of benefits to all instead of benefits to only a few while we are at it?

As for this comment : "The clever have exploited it to increase their ranks."
I would definitely agree with this comment but as you already know this comment does not bode entirely well for the Christian community. It is very obvious that Christian benefits are very temporary like money for conversion, small donations when your family is in need, in the end all meant to keep them chained to the yoke. Isn't there a saying, "Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." Christian organizations are more inclined to only give the fish to the man and keep the man chained for a lifetime instead. All this when Hindu organizations even train Doctors for free.

So, I hope this post answers your question : "Have you wondered why others could not or did not want to do so?"

It is not that other religions are not doing the same. It is just that, in specific to Hinduism, they don't preach religion while they are helping people. So, there is no concept of proselytising and the benefits are greater. There is no scope for a Rice Hindu in such a situation.

This is incorrect. Christian missions the world over open their doors to everyone, not just Christians. Many people who seek help may convert to Christianity in order to get rid of their low caste designation or because the ideology appeals to them or what have you. But Christian charities from virtually all denominations avail their help to all who seek it.

Mind you this also includes education. India is inundated with Catholic and Protestant schools, many of them offering an excellent education, and I don't think any of them limit admission to Christians. If anything non Christian students probably outnumber their Christian counterparts.

In terms of health care, Christian missions are probably the best out there (especially Mormons) considering the sheer amount of funding and technological expertise they receive from developed Western nations.

 

[Ray]

I don't have detailed information on the charity that all religious institutions have done for the people at large. I am not talking about institutions that were established during the British times, I am talking about more recent times because the British mainly built their big institutions for themselves rather than for the benefit of India.

Anyway, what I have noticed is that Christian benefits are primarily meant for Christians whereas Hindu institutions like the Tirupathi temple or ISKCON provide large scale benefits to members of any religion, like free food to any number of people everyday along with free schools and hospitals. Certain institutions like Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust have actually provided world class healthcare free of cost to anybody regardless of religion in India. World class isn't just a term for them and the hospitals aren't little clinics. They are full fledged hospitals capable of handling most ailments and provide treatment that is only exceeded by a few private hospitals and that is only because of the quality of nursing and not doctors.

So, Ray sir while you say "Religion alone does not feed empty stomach, treat disease or bring education." then why bring religion into the picture at all. How about just helping people out for the sake of helping them out like how these other charitable institutions of a different religion does. I am sure, just like these specific Hindu organizations, there are certain Christian organizations that are not bereft of funding. How about Christian organizations coming out with plans for benefit of society without bringing out words like proselytising and "saving" just for the heck of satisfying Vatican's "Service level agreement."


Given time these Hindu organizations will obviously become both richer and larger for Christian organizations to compete(even with support from Vatican). Won't it be reasonable to catch up with the policy of benefits to all instead of benefits to only a few while we are at it?

As for this comment : "The clever have exploited it to increase their ranks."
I would definitely agree with this comment but as you already know this comment does not bode entirely well for the Christian community. It is very obvious that Christian benefits are very temporary like money for conversion, small donations when your family is in need, in the end all meant to keep them chained to the yoke. Isn't there a saying, "Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." Christian organizations are more inclined to only give the fish to the man and keep the man chained for a lifetime instead. All this when Hindu organizations even train Doctors for free.

So, I hope this post answers your question : "Have you wondered why others could not or did not want to do so?"

It is not that other religions are not doing the same. It is just that, in specific to Hinduism, they don't preach religion while they are helping people. So, there is no concept of proselytising and the benefits are greater. There is no scope for a Rice Hindu in such a situation.

As I said earlier, I am not holding a candle for Christianity or Christiandom.

I have also explained why Christianity is evangelist because of Jesus told his disciples to spread his word to the world.

Therefore, what is the connection of Hindu charities being for all and not Christian charities?

If the Christians charities are clever, then what is wrong? No one has stopped others, or have they? The Saudis are pouring huge money into India for their institutions. No one has stopped anyone not to join the race or stand aloof with high morality!

I, for one, am a realist. I find no morality, be it Christian, ISKON or Saudis or Muslims in ensuring conversion. It is a Dog Eat Dog race and unfortunate, I rather feel that one should spread humanism and not dogmatism!

In so far as your 'Isn't there a saying, "Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." Christian organizations are more inclined to only give the fish to the man and keep the man chained for a lifetime instead. All this when Hindu organizations even train Doctors for free., if Christian organisations are more inclined to only give the fish to the man , then they cannot keep the man chained for a lifetime instead. After all, once the fish is eaten, the incentive for the man to be in chains is over!

If Hindu organisations give everything free, I am sure their charities will have a greater effect and people will not convert!

Just for the sake of discussion, if Hindu organisation are doing a better job in bringing succour to the poor and needy, then there should be no hullabaloo over conversion by allurement! Where is the allurement If Christian organisations are more inclined to only give the fish to the man because once the fish is eaten, one would return to his original fold, since Hindu organisations are giving everything free and for a lifetime!

Why blame Christian organisations for preaching just because Hindu organisations don't. Is there some embargo on Hindu organisations not to do so?

You speak of ISKON. They are pushy and are keen to convert and are doing it in a similar fashion as the Christian missionaries. And anyway, I wonder if they are 100% Hindus since foreigners seem to be in overwhelming numbers. I have visited their gurukul in Mathura and have been badgered by them in Khan Market Delhi whenever I went their to buy my groceries!

What is the medium of instructions of the schools run by Tirupati and ISKON? ISKON is Sanskrit heavy. Will it help the average poor to get a decent job?

 

[niharjhatn]

Mind you this also includes education. India is inundated with Catholic and Protestant schools, many of them offering an excellent education, and I don't think any of them limit admission to Christians. If anything non Christian students probably outnumber their Christian counterparts.

Whilst this is true, especially the part regarding non-christians outnumbering the christians, in such schools they still make students sing the school prayer with distinct christian theology. One of my cousin even told me that speaking hindi was virtually banned on campus!

It is a far cry from offering a completely string free education... especially when some poorer parents have to give up an arm and a lmb to pay for fees, uniform, etc.

 

[Ray]

Whilst this is true, especially the part regarding non-christians outnumbering the christians, in such schools they still make students sing the school prayer with distinct christian theology. One of my cousin even told me that speaking hindi was virtually banned on campus!

That is not for any religious reasons, it is so that students converse in English and it becomes easier for them.

Students naturally talk in their vernacular at home and so the mother tongue is also in vogue.

I come from a Christian, but not a missionary school. At our Founder's Day, the Bishop of Kolkata used the words purohit for a Padre and prarthana for prayers.While hymns and prayers were there as a part of the proceedings, they were very 'neutral'!

India is changing!

I have also studied in Hindu schools and the school prayers had Hinduism and Hindu themes and we celebrated Saraswati Puja also. And the school had students from all religions with a British Lady Principal!

In all schools that I attended, my parents had to give an arm and a limb to pay for our education.

Though I will admit that I did not do so for my children since they studied in KVs.

And I daresay KVs are very secular!

One can always nitpick.

We even let loose our anger on God and think he is not fair when things don't work out!

 

[p2prada]

This is incorrect. Christian missions the world over open their doors to everyone, not just Christians. Many people who seek help may convert to Christianity in order to get rid of their low caste designation or because the ideology appeals to them or what have you. But Christian charities from virtually all denominations avail their help to all who seek it.

There are a few more reasons like my Grandma's servants converted to Christianity for Rs 5000 a piece. My friend is from a poor social background, once his father died, the Christian missions helped the family out and they were asked to convert. BTW, I am not theist.

Mind you this also includes education. India is inundated with Catholic and Protestant schools, many of them offering an excellent education, and I don't think any of them limit admission to Christians. If anything non Christian students probably outnumber their Christian counterparts.

Built during British times for British kids. Now they all follow either the ICSE, CBSE or state boards. That's why I kept them out of discussion. These schools are more business oriented than guided by religious principles. Being in the centre of cities, they attract quality educationists. Let's just say the non Christian students pay the highest in fees in the country to get into such schools.

In terms of health care, Christian missions are probably the best out there (especially Mormons) considering the sheer amount of funding and technological expertise they receive from developed Western nations.

Then I don't know why we don't have similar ones here. There are Christian hospitals in the country which provide free treatment to some Christians and not all Christians, let alone people of other faith. I have yet to see a completely free Christian or Muslim hospital.