Losing my religion: If minority communities have the right to convert others then so does the majority
December 25, 2014, 12:00 AM IST TOI Edit Page
Baijayant 'Jay' PandaHe is a BJD Lok Sabha MP.
During the framing of India’s Constitution, the matter of whether it should guarantee the right to not just freely profess and practise one’s religion but also to propagate it was much debated. Ultimately, Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees all three, but subject to “public order, morality and health”.
The Hindu right has often accused Christian and Muslim proselytisers of using inducement or coercion to get Hindus to convert. Missionaries from those religions – as well as secular, liberal activists – have invariably opposed such accusations, and have stood in favour of ensuring constitutional protection for propagating religion. Ironically, neither side has been consistent in the principles of its stand, sometimes arguing in opposite directions depending on who the converters are and who the converted.
Though Hinduism is not considered a proselytising religion, Hindu missionaries are not exactly a new phenomenon. The ancient evangelist Adi Shankaracharya led a movement to revitalise Hinduism in light of the growth of Buddhism. And the first modern-day Hindu missionary effort, seeking to reconvert those whose ancestors had left the fold, was the Arya Samajis’ Shuddhi movement of the early 20th century. It faced fierce resistance, culminating in the assassination of Swami Shraddhanand in 1926.
Born that year was the man who later became known as Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati, another Hindu missionary who was in turn also killed in 2008, triggering the riots in Odisha’s Kandhamal district. But violence has not been the preserve of any one group, as the murder of Australian Christian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons proved, also in Odisha, in 1999.
Recent incidents of conversion have again reignited the issue, with sections of the opposition resolutely stopping Parliament from functioning, particularly the Rajya Sabha where the government is in a minority. In the process, however, both old and new fault lines are on display.
Many in the opposition who have in the past stoutly defended the right of the minorities to proselytise – and rejected allegations of coercion or inducement – are today taking exactly the opposite stand when it concerns proselytising by the majority. And just as blatantly, some who have energetically opposed minority missionaries are adopting both their tactics and their arguments.
Though it is today a BJP government and its supporters who are suggesting a national law to regulate conversions, such suggestions have come in the past too, when Congress was in government. Bills were proposed to be introduced in Parliament in 1954, 1960 and 1979, but fell through for lack of support. And upon mass conversions in Meenakshipuram in 1981, it was a Congress-led union government that advised all states to enact laws regulating conversions.
Such laws have been passed by several states and have even withstood constitutional challenges. The first two were by Odisha as far back as 1967, and then Madhya Pradesh (1968). Both wound their way to the Supreme Court, where a constitution bench upheld them. The Supreme Court’s ruling was based on the public order caveat of the constitutional guarantee, as well as its determination that both the state laws guaranteed religious freedom to all.
The Supreme Court’s ruling also held that while Article 25 of the Constitution grants the freedom of conscience to all, as also the right to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets, it does not confer the right to convert another person to one’s own religion.
Subsequently Chhattisgarh (2000), Gujarat (2003), Himachal Pradesh (2006) and Rajasthan (2008) have passed laws to regulate conversions. Tamil Nadu had passed its anti-forcible conversion law in 2002, but repealed it in 2005. Incidentally, state laws regulating conversions are not just a post- independence feature. In British India, the princely states of Raigarh, Patna and Udaipur had far more rigid laws, which in fact were aimed squarely at preventing conversions to Christianity.
Nevertheless, the UN rapporteur for religious freedom, Hiener Bielefeldt, has said that these state laws undermine religious freedom in India. Despite lauding India as the birthplace of many religions and its heritage of pluralism, he asserts that the requirement of converts having to explain their reasons for conversion is humiliating and wrongly attributes the state with somehow having the ability to assess its genuineness.
Though the UN rapporteur concedes that coercion must be prevented, he also states that such concepts as inducement or allurement are not only vague but that “any invitation to another religion has elements of inducement or allurement”. He notes that these are “loosely defined terms” and don’t meet the standards of criminal justice, in which “laws need to be clear”.
So, would a national law help? Could it be precise and clear, thus giving force to the Constitution’s provisions, both its rights and protections? Might it help overcome the current contradictions? After all, since all sides have indulged in propagating their religions – and faced accusations of coercing, inducing and alluring – it is theoretically possible to agree on a minimum definition of acceptable norms that are compatible with the Constitution.
But in practice, it is highly unlikely that there can be any such consensus across the political spectrum on a new law regulating conversions, clear or otherwise. If the issue lingers on, sooner or later the nation’s highest court will have to step in again.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/losing-my-religion-if-minority-communities-have-the-right-to-convert-others-then-so-does-the-majority/Published on: Dec 20 2014 6:17PM
RSS chief Bhagwat bats for anti-conversion Bill
This January 12, 2014, photo shows RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat performing a traditional RSS salute at a camp in Haridwar. PTI
Expressing his support for the anti-conversion Bill proposed by the Centre, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat today asked Opposition parties to facilitate bringing law in Parliament, if they did not like conversion.
He also said if someone does not like to be converted to Hinduism, then Hindus likewise should not be converted.
“We are trying to create a strong Hindu society. Those who have strayed, they have not gone on their own. They have been allured and have been forcibly taken away. When the thief is being caught and my property has been recovered, when I am taking back my own property, what is new in it?” Bhagwat wondered at a Hindu sammelan here.
“If you don’t like it, then bring law against it. You don’t want to bring it. If you don’t want to change into a Hindu, then you should not convert Hindus, too. We are firm in our position,” he said.
“There is no need to fear. We are in our own country. We are not intruders or infiltrators. This is our own country, our Hindu ‘rashtra’ (nation). A Hindu will not leave his land.
“What we have lost in the past, we will try to bring it back.
“No one should be afraid of Hindus rising. Those who are raising voice against the rise of Hindus are selfish and are having vested interests,” he said.
Bhagwat said Hindu society does not believe in suppressing anyone.
“Hindus have been tolerating whether it is crimes by Bangladesh or Pakistan. Our God says that after 100 crimes, don’t tolerate crimes against Hindus,” he said.
Stating that Pakistan too had been part of India before partition, he said that Hindus do not have a very strong presence there which is why Pakistan can’t live in peace.
“Till the Hindus are here in India, the country is there.
“If Hindus are not there, then everybody living here will be in distress,” Bhagwat observed.
He also said Hindus were strong enough to save their property and honour, adding that “for the betterment of the entire world, there is need for a strong Hindu society”.
Viswa Hindu Parishad international president Pravin Togadia, too, supported Bhagwat’s view on bringing a law on anti-conversion.
“My brother Mulayam (Singh Yadav)... if conversion is a crime, if theft is a crime... if there is law against stealing, then why shouldn’t there be a law against conversion... then why are you opposing anti-conversion law in Parliament,” Togadia said.
“Even if you bring anti-conversion Bill, we will support it,” Togadia said at the meeting. — PTI
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/rss-chief-bhagwat-bats-for-anti-conversion-bill/20468.html
Conversion is an Act of Violence
by Swami Dayananda Saraswati
by Swami Dayananda Saraswati
Aggressive religions have no God-given right
to destroy ancient faiths and cultures
Religious conversion is a widely discussed topic in the Indian media these days. I think this issue needs to be thoroughly understood by all the people that count in every religion.
The world's religions can be categorically said to be either aggressive or nonaggressive. Each religion has a certain promise in the form of an ultimate goal. Their faithful people try to live the prescribed life and reach the promised goal. Neither they nor their clergy are out to bring the people of other religions to their flock. Zorastrians follow their religious tradition without attempting to convert anybody to their religion. This is true with the followers of the Jewish tradition, Vedic religion (now known as Hinduism), Shintoism, Taoism and the many other religions of various tribes in the world. I call these religious traditions nonaggressive because they do not believe in aggressive conversion.
Then there are religions like Christianity, whose theologies, containing a number of basic nonverifiable beliefs, advocate conversion. Evangelism and proselytization are sacred commitments of the entire cadre of the highly organized clergy. The clergy-inspired laity are not any less committed to conversion. They are zealous in their mission of preaching and conversion. In their zeal, the end more often than not justifies the means. From the days of the Inquisition, every attempt recorded in history to stop their program of conversion only stoked their flame of zeal.
As a result, many religions with their unique cultures have disappeared, leaving behind only mammoth relics, like the ones in Greece and Mexico. The loss of such great living cultures of the world is the mark of success for the zealous of the aggressive religions. The truth is that where there should be a sense of guilt and remorse, there is a sense of achievement and pride. Many leaders of nonaggressive traditions think that the charity of the missionaries is designed to neutralize any protest from the native religious community. One cannot totally dismiss their thinking.
Religious conversion by missionary activity remains an act of violence. |
Religious conversion by missionary activity remains an act of violence. It is an act of violence because it hurts deeply, not only the other members of the family of the converted, but the entire community that comes to know of it. One is connected to various persons in one's world. The religious person in every individual is the innermost, inasmuch as he or she is connected to a force beyond the empirical. The religious person is connected only to the force beyond he has now accepted. That is the reason why the hurt caused by religion can turn into violence. That is why a religious belief can motivate a missionary to be a martyr. When the hurt of the religious becomes acute, it explodes into violence. Conversion is violence. It generates violence.
Aggressive religions and nonaggressive religions are not on the same plank. Conversion is, therefore, a rank, one-sided aggression. The genius of the nonaggressive traditions cannot change, and therefore, they cannot be asked to do the same thing as the aggressive religions do.
Humanity cannot afford to lose any more of its existing living religious traditions and cultures. We want to enjoy the religious cultures of both Christianity and Islam as we also want to enjoy the cultures of Jews, Parsis, Taoists, Shintoists, Hindus and others. Humanity will not let a pyramid be razed to the ground by the Egyptian government to create a housing complex. Even though they are in Egypt, the pyramids are too ancient to be the property of that country. They are standing monuments of human genius--they belong to the whole of humanity. So, too, are all the monuments of the past lying all over the world.
Religion and culture are not often separable. This is especially true with the Hindu religious tradition. The greeting word, namaste, is an expression of culture as well as religion. Even though a religious mark on the forehead is purely religious, it is looked upon as a part of Hindu culture. Rangoli [patterns drawn on the ground with rice flour] at the entrance of a Hindu house is not just cultural; it is also religious. Indian music and dance cannot separate themselves from the Hindu religious tradition. There is no classical dance, bharata natyam, without Siva Nataraja being there. The classical, lyrical compositions of Meera, Tyagaraja, Purandara, Dikshitar and many others are intimately connected to the Hindu religious traditions. Therefore, conversion implies destruction of this entire culture. A committed Christian will not wear a tilakam, much less have rangoli in front of the house. If there is no rangoli at the entrance to a Tamil Nadu house, we immediately know that it doesn't belong to a Hindu. A converted Christian woman ceases to wear Indian traditional clothes, like saris, etc. No Christian woman will wear a nose ring. It is amazing how easily cultures disappear by the program of conversion through various means, leaving only dead monuments to be preserved for posterity. The living religious traditions, intimately woven into the fabric of their respective cultures, have to be allowed to live and thrive. Religious conversion should stop--the aggressive religions should realize that they are perpetrating violence when they convert. We want them to live and let others live.
-------
An Open Letter to Pope John Paul II
from Swami Dayananda Saraswati
October 29, 1999
from Swami Dayananda Saraswati
October 29, 1999
Your Holiness,
On behalf of many Hindus whom I know personally, I welcome your visit to Bharat. This is a country with an ancient civilisation and unique religious culture which accommodates many religious traditions that have come to this country throughout the centuries.
Being the head of the Vatican State and also the Catholic Church with a great following all over the world, you enjoy a highly venerable position and can play a significant role in defusing religious conflicts and preserving the world's rich cultures. You have in your Apostolic Letter tertio millennio adveniente, 38 (November 10, 1994) voiced your intention to convoke a Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Asia. After seeing the report of the Pre-Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops Special Assembly for Asia appointed by you, I want to bring to your kind notice the concerns of many Hindus in this country about religious conversion. In the Second Vatican Council, the status accorded to the world religions was that of a means of preparing them for Christ. We all understand that the Catholic religion does not accommodate other religions, except in this context. But I am appealing to you here to accept that every person has the freedom to pursue his or her own religion.
In the recent past, you mentioned that reason should be respected. On the basis of reason, no non-verifiable belief is going to fare any better than any other non-verifiable belief. Therefore, according to reason, there is no basis for conversion in matters of faith.
Apart from reason, there is another important issue which I request you to consider. Among the world's religious traditions, there are those that convert and those that do not. The non-converting religious traditions, like the Hindu, Jewish and Zoroastrian, give others the freedom to practise their religion whether they agree with the others' tenets or not. They do not wish to convert. I would characterise them as non-aggressive. Religions that are committed by their theologies to convert, on the other hand, are necessarily aggressive, since conversion implies a conscious intrusion into the religious life of a person, in fact, into the religious person.
This is a very deep intrusion, as the religious person is the deepest, the most basic in any individual. When that person is disturbed, a hurt is sustained which is very deep. The religious person is violated. The depth of this hurt is attested by the fact that when a religious sentiment is violated, it can produce a martyr. People connected to a converted person are deeply hurt. Even the converted person will suffer some hurt underneath.
He must necessarily wonder if he has done the right thing and, further, he has to face an inner alienation from his community, a community to which he has belonged for generations, and thus an alienation from his ancestors. I don't think that can ever be fully healed. Religious conversion destroys centuries-old communities and incites communal violence. It is violence and it breeds violence. Thus, for any humane person, every religious sentiment has to be respected, whether it is a Muslim sentiment or a Christian sentiment or a Hindu sentiment.
Further, in many religious traditions, including the Hindu tradition, religion is woven into the fabric of culture. So, destruction of a religion amounts to the destruction of a religious culture. Today, for instance, there is no living Greek culture; there are only empty monuments. The Mayan, Roman and many other rich cultures are all lost forever and humanity is impoverished for it. Let us at least allow humanity to enjoy the riches of its remaining mosaic of cultures. Each one has some beauty, something to contribute to the enrichment of humanity.
It is wrong to strike someone who is unarmed.... Conversion is not merely violence against people; it is violence against people who are committed to non-violence. |
In any tradition, it is wrong to strike someone who is unarmed. In the Hindu tradition, this is considered a heinous act, for which the punishment is severe. A Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew, are all unarmed, in that they do not convert. You cannot ask them to change the genius of their traditions and begin to convert in order to combat conversion. Because it is the tradition of these religions and cultures not to convert, attempts to convert them is one-sided aggression. It is striking the unarmed. I respect the freedom of a Christian or a Muslim to practise his or her faith. I do not accept many of their beliefs, but I want them to have the freedom to follow their religion.
You cannot ask me to respond to conversion by converting others to my religion because it is not part of my tradition. We don't believe in conversion, even though certain Hindu organisations have taken back some converted people. Thus, conversion is not merely violence against people; it is violence against people who are committed to non-violence.
I am hurt by religious conversion and many others like me are hurt. Millions are hurt. There are many issues to be discussed regarding conversion, but I want to draw your attention to only the central issue here which is this one-sided violence. Religious conversion is violence and it breeds violence. In converting, you are also converting the non-violent to violence.
Any protest against religious conversion is always branded as persecution, because it is maintained that people are not allowed to practise their religion, that their religious freedom is curbed. The truth is entirely different. The other person also has the freedom to practise his or her religion without interference. That is his/her birthright. Religious freedom does not extend to having a planned programme of conversion. Such a programme is to be construed as aggression against the religious freedom of others.
During the years of your papal office, you have brought about certain changes in the attitude and outlook of the church. On behalf of the non-aggressive religions of the world, the Hindu, the Parsi, the Jewish and other native religions in different countries, I request you to put a freeze on conversion and create a condition in which all religious cultures can live and let live.
------
Swami Dayananda is a sannyasi of the Adi Shankara and Veda Vyasa tradition, founder of Arsha Vidya Centers in India and the US. He has taught throughout the world for several decades. (Arshavidya.org)
http://www.swamij.com/conversion-violence.htm