He was encouraged to break the law in India by an extremist religious group that knew contacting that group of voluntarily remote people in person was illegal, dangerous and could have resulted in death for them based upon transmission of infections by the missionary.
The missionary had already received a warning from the group to keep his distance but he returned again and apparently was killed.
The father of the missionary blames the extremist religious group for his son’s death.
The authorities in India are unwilling to even retrieve the missionary’s body. Such are the consequences of believing that one’s right to spread or impose one’s particular brand of religious belief upon people who have a chosen a remote way of life over being part of a modern society.
I think a moral argument could be made that some individuals in the remote group, especially children, may not rally have made an informed decision but aside from that I see that this missionary deliberately broke the law, endangered lives, and was well aware of the danger to his own life in breaking the law.
Possibly his father is correct and he was manipulated by the extremist Christian group., which is sad.
= new reply since forum marked as read