Joseph D’Souza

Read on Christian Today. For over a decade, I’ve sounded a call as a non-Western church leader: Christian civilization, the bedrock of democracy and human flourishing, needs defending—not just for the West, but for the world. The West’s retreat from its Christian roots, worn down by progressive ideologies and colonial guilt, risks unravelling a legacy built on the belief that every person bears God’s image and is redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice. From Asia, Africa and beyond, I’ve watched this erosion with alarm, wondering if the West still has the voice to reclaim its heritage. Then came the ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizenship), led by Jordan Peterson. This movement of unapologetic thinkers stirred hope. I followed their early talks and, in February 2025, attended their London conference. Peterson’s unpacking of sacrifice as Christianity’s core thread—echoing Christ’s cross—resonated deeply. Sessions on human dignity, family, and practical energy solutions, paired with a rejection of divisive ideologies, felt like a clarion call. Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s incisive voice and the British Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, added welcome breadth. Yet I left unsettled. ARC could easily become a white-majority echo chamber, a peril for a civilization that’s never been bound by race. The early church spread from Jerusalem to Rome and Africa, defying ethnic lines. Today, most Christians live outside the West, wrestling with secularism while building faith-rooted societies. If ARC wants global impact—think Nigeria’s vibrant churches or India’s persecuted believers—it must elevate non-Western leaders and their thought. Otherwise, it risks being dismissed as a ‘Christian right’ relic, irrelevant to the Majority World. The conference nailed essentials: humans aren’t cosmic accidents but bear divine purpose; families anchor society; sacrifice blesses beyond self. Peterson’s riff on Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac hinted [...]

Despite the growing threat Hindu nationalism poses to the Christians already facing persecution in India, Joseph D’Souza urges the Church to resist retaliation and embody the love of Christ. It’s the only way to achieve lasting peace, he says. In early February, Washington, D.C. will host the annual International Religious Freedom Summit. While religious freedom is always an important topic, this year, it feels even more urgent. All over the world — from Nigeria to North Korea, from Afghanistan to Burma — there is persecution and unrest. But it’s happening here in India as well. All you need to do is look at the past 18 months of chaos and upheaval engulfing the Indian state of Manipur. What is happening in India? There are about 600,000 Kuki Christians in Manipur who have been forced to resort to self-defense to protect themselves from attacks against them due to their ethnic and Christian identity. Meanwhile, in attempts to resist those who would impose an extremist Hindu identity, radicalised elements of the Meitei population have taken up arms by seizing weapons from state armories and attacking both the Kuki population and state forces. This cycle of violence stems from the radical ideology of violent extremist Hinduism which has now turned against the Indian state itself, in Manipur. The Meitei, long struggling for their own tribal identity and land, now face an additional challenge as 10% of their population is Christian. This religious and ethnic struggle has attracted attention around India, and the large Naga Christian population in the State of Manipur is watching how the conflict unfolds. It is important to recognise that it is the Hindu culture — not extremist Hinduism — that has held India together [...]

The choice of Rishi Sunak as the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister illustrates that Western democracies are progressing and are effective at providing opportunities for minorities and people who were previously oppressed. The same statement was made by American democracy with the election of President Obama. Sunak, by sheer merit, has risen to the powerful position of prime minister. It’s a sterling example that truly pluralist democracies are the way forward. India and other developing democracies ought to learn from this. Other democracies are still on this journey to empower minorities and see them as equals. It is one of the great ironies that a man of Indian descent is leading the people of the United Kingdom, whom many still characterize as colonial oppressors, and yet in India we cannot seem to give a Dalit an opportunity as prime minister. At the state level, we have had Dalit chief ministers. Indian presidents are elected through a system by which the party in power in New Delhi generally gets the president they want, and we have now had Muslim, Dalit, and Tribal presidents. But it is the government in power and the prime minister which have executive power, and they ultimately rule the nation. So far, we have never had a Dalit or a Tribal prime minister. It is a further irony that in the war of words that erupted in India about Sunak’s rise to the prime minister position, many treated our former “oppressor,” England, as the one now to give lessons on how to treat a minority. In a scathing statement, Indian Congress leader P. Chidambaram tweeted, "First Kamala Harris, now Rishi Sunak. The people of the U.S. and the U.K. have embraced the non-majority citizens of their [...]

When King Charles III was announced as defender of the faith, I watched with relief. I know that may surprise you since I am an Indian bishop, and — like most of us — I have my share of opinions on British colonialism in India. But I also have a 2,000-year-old Christian heritage to look back on in India (going back to the missionary journeys of the Apostle Thomas), and I appreciate the candor of the British king in unashamedly acknowledging Britain’s own Christian history. This wasn’t a foregone conclusion. Reports had alleged that Charles would consider being styled “defender of faith” due to a modern, multi-faith, diverse Great Britain. In a nation with deep Christian roots, that nod to political correctness would have denied the fact that a country can have a majority religion and simultaneously welcome everyone. Real pluralism doesn’t require changing history. By being “defender of the faith,” Charles does not reduce the multi-faith nature of modern Britain. Rather, defending the faith enables and requires the king to defend the religious freedom of other faiths even while honoring his own. For all its colonial vices, it is Protestantism that gave birth to modern democratic states and worked out a universal franchise for people of all faiths. This has been a hugely important concept and practice for human and civil rights against tyranny. These values are especially important for our times when individual rights are being trampled on in many modern states. Charles is acknowledging the contribution of the Protestant faith to Britain and the world, notwithstanding its many historic problems. The problems are typically highlighted above the contributions, and that isn’t right. The wanton looting of nations like India under colonialism while the British church stood by was wrong, [...]

After living in secret since 1989, it was in the safety and freedom of the United States that Salman Rushdie was attacked with a knife by a religious zealot. The brutal stabbing shows that extremists’ plans can succeed despite stringent state-imposed restrictions in otherwise free democracies designed to stop such perpetrators. It also underscores the near-universal pressure in the modern era to curb freedom of speech. Salman Rushdie was the greatest living Indian-born English novelist when the Ayatollah Khomeini offered a $3 million bounty and issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s assassination for his novel, The Satanic Verses. Rushdie went into hiding and, even with high security, almost lost his life as he was stabbed in front of a New York audience gathered to hear him speak. The Rushdie attack illustrates the disregard held by certain societies for the fundamental human right of freedom of speech. It also reveals the cowardice of politicians who want to be politically correct rather than principled on an important human rights issue. The free world has capitulated to religious extremists on issues of religion and faith, and remains silent when books, films, or art is banned under the guise of hurting someone’s religious or cultural sentiments. Islamic nations have been largely silent on the fatwa against Rushdie. Instead, extremists in those nations have threatened anyone who speaks against the attack. The encouraging exception is Muhammed Al Issa, the Secretary General of the Muslim World League based in Mecca, who spoke up quickly and forcefully, condemning the attempt on Salman Rushdie’s life. Al Issa said the violent attack was “a crime that Islam does not accept.” His additional comments to the Arab News on the subject reflect great courage and he deserves the [...]