A few days back, I was forwarded an email chain by a senior journalist. Despite my initial hesitation, as I read through it, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of unease. Rather than reading like a genuine theological or historical discussion, the correspondence struck me as an effort to cast the Christian faith in a deeply negative light. In fact, my reaction was echoed by one of the recipients in the thread, who expressed her frustration by noting the author had a "horribly poor understanding of Christianity," adding that she was asking the email sender not to send her any more "flashes of wisdom."
The chain is primarily driven by messages from one Tilak Shrestha, which are then amplified by Devinder Singh Gulati. As I read Gulati’s addition, I found myself questioning the intent behind the forward. After sharing Shrestha’s points, Gulati asks, "Sanjeev what is the required action for Hindus regarding Abrahamic religions please tell us." This framing made me wonder if the goal was constructive dialogue, or if it was meant to provoke a specific, targeted reaction.
One of the first things that gave me pause was how the email characterized Christian beliefs. Tilak Shrestha writes: "Central doctrine 1 – 'All Christians go to Heaven, no matter how Evil. All others go to Hell, no matter how Virtuous.' We all must piss on this nonsense and flush it off." Reading this, I doubted the accuracy of this portrayal. From my understanding, traditional Christian teaching emphasizes repentance, grace, and moral transformation, not a blanket exemption from ethical behavior. Presenting the faith this way seemed designed to provoke a negative reaction rather than reflect what Christians actually believe.
The email also ventures into historical territory with claims that made me quite skeptical. Shrestha asserts: "Jesus: His biological father’s name is ‘Panthera’, a Roman soldier... He ran away to India when he was teenager... His burial place \ temple still exists in Shrinagar, Kashmir." I was surprised to see these presented as facts, as they are fringe theories. The "Panthera" claim dates back to ancient polemics, and the idea of "Jesus in India" is not supported by mainstream historical or biblical scholarship. Including them in this manner felt like an attempt to undermine the faith's historical roots rather than engage in honest inquiry.
Perhaps what raised the most doubts for me was the inclusion of a text labeled as the "Jesuit Oath." The email quotes it as saying: "I will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants’ heads against the walls..." I was taken aback by this, as historians and scholars widely recognize this specific "Extreme Oath" as a 19th-century fabrication, not an authentic document. Sharing it as genuine seemed to cross a line from criticism into spreading misinformation.
Reading this email reminded me of that fateful day in October 1984, when Indira Gandhi was assassinated, triggering tragic anti-Sikh riots, one of the worst in India. I had reached the office early to finalise the pages of Link Newsweekly for print. In the afternoon, as I ventured out, I saw a militant rally marching across the street, shouting the slogan, "Hindu-Muslim bhai bhai, ye Sikh kaum kaha se aayi?" (Hindus and Muslims are brothers, where did this Sikh community come from?).
Identity politics has strange bedfellows. In February 2002, during my ninth year with the Times of India, Ahmedabad, I saw firsthand how conditional that "brotherhood" truly was. During the riots that claimed around 1,000 lives—mostly Muslims—and displaced thousands across Gujarat, the rhetoric of unity was entirely discarded by those instigating the violence. Seeing this email chain, I couldn't help but recognize the same underlying tactic: invoking the name of one religion to cast aspersions on another, sowing confusion, and deepening divides under the guise of defending a community.
Reflecting on this email chain forwarded to me, I am left with a lingering doubt about its true intentions. It relies on mischaracterizations, fringe historical theories, and widely disputed texts. Instead of fostering understanding, it seems designed to paint a specific community in a poor light. As the frustrated recipient in the thread noted, it reflects a "horribly poor understanding of Christianity," and I can't help but wonder what the actual purpose of circulating such content might be, other than to fuel division.
Comments