Since I concentrate on Sri Aurobindo in my blogs and tweets, many accuse me of bias from time to time. Three words have been hurled at me as if I'm the sole culprit. Proselytizing is the most hated word although it is as old as the human civilization. Professing and changing religion is approved by the Indian Constitution and so it's surprising why proselytizing is looked upon as so undesirable or demeaning. Helping someone to think and judge for himself is certainly not an abhorrent act.
The second word is evangelism. If the term denotes religious advertisement, then the question is since when advertising has become a wretched job. The whole world thrives on advertisements and if I contribute my mite, then how does it become so negative an act. Besides, my focus has always been to invoke the rational inquiry and critical scrutiny. Not to accept blindly has been a constant refrain. So, such advertising should be welcome in a modern environment.
The third term is hagiography and those who speak against it perhaps consider themselves as Angels who have just dropped from the heaven. From the love of parents to being a fan of political leaders, hagiography is part and parcel of human life. So, writing about Sri Aurobindo who has left behind encyclopedic writings for the progress of human race can never be characterized same as run-of-the-mill hagiographies. Thus, it's for the discerning readers to apply some separate parameters to differentiate Sri Aurobindo from others. [TNM55]