Amongst much writing of Arun Shourie, one factor is undeniable, which is his integrity as a reporter, journalist and writer. During the pre- '77 years his reporting and staunch stand by Indian Express was a lone ray of light and this was borne again and again through times of trouble in India.
One book of his, specifically,
Missionaries in India ; Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas
Paperback. Published 2004 by Rupa & Co..
has an edition clubbed together with Ulysses by Joyce, and the other edition is given as
Missionaries in India
by Arun Shourie
NEO-HINDU VIEW OF CHRISTIANITY
where needless to say the words in capital are not part of the book's publication in any way but in fact are an editorial comment. It casts aspersions on Hindus in general and Shourie in particular. What is more the description and the comment are false.
Arun Shourie has given factual descriptions of missionaries work and attitudes in India, including their discussions with Gandhi who remained firmly against their activities and attempts to convert.
The editorial comment above cuts short the actual title of the book and includes a comment of its own seemingly fitting with the book's title and author, calling it a "neo Hindu" view.
Even apart from the falsehood (that of suggesting Hindu faith is new and Christianity is old), the term is suggestive by clever word play of comparing Hindu with nazi, since the term neo nazi is much used for various groups in US and Germany who in fact ARE the new nazis in the sense that nazis of the original source were not only defeated but are in fact illegal in Germany.
Is it the editorial and therefore official shelfari position that Hindu is comparable to nazi, and are shelfari editors suggesting Gandhi was comparable to Hitler?
Or is it merely callous, ignorant, and arrogant oversight of a grave offense given thoughtlessly?