Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

RE -T HIN KI NG T OG ET HE R

Inter -F aith Dial ogue on “Con ver sion ”

Organised by
The Office on Inter-Religious Relations and Dialogue,
World Council of Churches, Geneva

Shanti Ashram, Coimbatore : 10-12 October, 2006

*****
A Hi nd u P er spec tiv e b y S udhee ndra Kulk ar ni
(Political activist and aide to former Prime Minister of India, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee)
*****

I am grateful to the World Council of Churches for inviting me, once again, to
participate in this inter-faith dialogue on “Conversion”. I have pleasant memories
of the meeting we had on the same subject at Lariano, near Rome, in May this
year.

The Lariano meeting was marked by a broad diversity of views which were
exchanged in a free and frank manner. Understandably, divergences remained at
the end of the consultation. However, a certain degree of convergence also
emerged and it was articulated in a joint report whose unanimous acceptance
testified to the usefulness of the inter-faith dialogue process on a subject as
contentious as “conversion”.

Since the Coimbatore meeting is in some ways a continuation of the consultation


in Lariano, I would like to suggest that it pursue four inter-related objectives:

1) It should re-affirm and further expand/enrich the points of agreement


reached in Lariano.
2) It should discuss and adopt a plan of action to disseminate the agreed
set of views (on the “code of conduct”) in the larger universe of
religious establishments and civil society organizations around the
world, so as to reduce the contentiousness surrounding the issue of
“conversion”.
3) The points of divergence should continue to be debated more rigorously
in wider circles in an atmosphere of openness and mutual trust.
4) The spirit of inter-faith dialogue should be further strengthened despite
– or rather, because of -- the persistence of differences and
divergences. For we must always remember that dialogue among various

1
faith-communities is needed not to dissolve all differences but to find an
ethic of co-living in peace and harmony in spite of differences.

In this paper, I shall present my views on points 2, 3 and 4 -– in reverse order.

Need f or inter-f aith dialogue on “con ver sion”

To say that the issue of “religious conversion” is a divisive one is to belabour the
obvious. History of many countries, India included, is replete with instances to
show that it has high potential to cause misunderstanding, tension and even
occasional violence.

Why should it be so? After all, purely on a theoretical basis, religious conversion
– understood as an individual’s right to change one’s faith – is a matter of
inalienable human freedom. Therefore, why should there be social tension if any
member or members exercise their basic freedom of faith? Yet, the irrefutable
fact is that “religious conversion” often creates tension and disharmony between
communities. Evidently, there is a wide chasm between freedom, in abstract, of
individuals to choose or change their faith, and the actual socio-historical context
and power-equations within which such change of faith takes place. Many
extraneous factors, which often have little to do with the individual’s free and
well-deliberated choice, come into play in the phenomenon of “religious
conversion”.

Some of these extraneous factors (employment of unethical means such as


inducements of various kinds, often using foreign funds; targeting of vulnerable
sections of society; coercive methods that ride on use of political power; overt or
covert propaganda against certain faiths as being false and inadequate and in
favour of one’s faith as being the “sole savior”, etc.) are not only irreligious and
besmirch the hallowed name of religion, but they also shrink the space of
religious freedom available to individuals and communities.

Def in itional iss ues: There is another source of discord, and it is definitional. As
stated earlier, freedom of faith of every human being is fundamental to his or her
existence. And freedom of faith includes freedom to propagate one’s faith and to
change one’s faith. No power on earth can legitimately snatch away this freedom.

However, whereas every individual has the basic human right to change his/her
faith and “convert” to another faith, does he/she also have a basic human right to
proselytize – to convert others to one’s own faith? To do so may be a religious
duty in some faiths, but it cannot be considered an inalienable human right.

2
Indeed, even as a religious duty, the concept of proselytization poses serious
problems for harmonious inter-faith living. For it presupposes that one’s own
faith is the only God-legitimised path to salvation and that other faiths are either
false or defective.

Mankind is thus faced with a peculiar situation of conflict. On the one hand, the
individual’s right to “convert” to any faith of his/her choice must be respected. On
the other hand, religious conversion becomes – though not always but often – a
source of mistrust, misunderstanding and, occasionally, violence between
communities.

In the age in which we live, the only fair, legitimate and civilized way to deal with
this dichotomy is through honest inter-faith dialogue.

Sam vaa d to re so lv e viv aad : There is an ancient saying in Sanskrit: Vaade, vaade
jaayate tatvabodhah. That is, truth gets illumined through debate and discussion.
It is my conviction that our world needs more samvaad (dialogue) – and less
vivaad (dispute). Not only on “conversion” but on all other contentious issues –
between communities, and between countries. In fact, samvaad itself a reliable
way to resolve and reduce vivaad. Therefore, the World Council of Churches
deserves to be congratulated for organizing this samvaad.

In modern times, inter-faith dialogue has become both more necessary and more
possible. In an increasingly shrinking, integral and inter-dependent world of the
21st century, faith communities do not any longer live in isolated socio-cultural-
geographical spaces. With growing mobility within and between nations,
interaction and intermingling between faith-communities has become greater than
ever before. In addition to physical movement of people, they are also exposed,
through mass media and myriad socio-economic ties, to the lives, mores and
beliefs of other countries and communities.

Hence, the 21st century presents both an urgent challenge and an opportunity.
Prejudice, misunderstanding and miscommunication can now cause far greater
harm to peace and well-being in societies than ever before. (The quick worldwide
Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons on Prophet Mohammed and the Pope’s
recent utterances on Islam are a case in point.) Conversely, mutual understanding
and harmony, nurtured primarily through mutual respect, can enable communities
to take even traditionally divisive issues like “conversion” in their stride, thus
reconciling the fundamental religious freedom of individuals with amicable inter-
community relations.

3
The inter-faith consultations in Lariano and Coimbatore are, therefore, extremely
useful as they address a crucial need of our times.

Significance of the Chris tian initia tiv e f or inter-f aith dialogue

The fact that the initiative for the inter-faith dialogue on “conversion”, both at
Lariano and Coimbatore, has been taken by major church organizations is
significant. And also commendable.

To a non-Christian like me, this signals a welcome willingness on the part of


sensitive Christians to recognize that people of other faiths (especially Hindus in
India, but also Buddhists in several Asian countries and those practicing
indigenous faith-traditions in Africa and Latin America) are concerned about the
“conversion” activities of missionary and evangelical organizations, often
generously funded by foreign sources.

Just as dialogues like these help Christians to understand the concerns of non-
Christians, they also enable non-Christians to understand the Christian viewpoint
better. It is especially refreshing and instructive to know that there is a great
plurality of views on “conversion” within various Christian denominations. The
papers presented by Christian representatives in Lariano and Coimbatore are
remarkable both for their introspective quality and for their eagerness to deepen
intra-Christian dialogue on “conversion”. This process of “rethinking” is little
known even among those non-Christians who debate the issue of “conversion”.
Out of ignorance, they believe that all Christians have a monochromatic view of
“conversion”, which they suspect is pursued by all church organisations with
uniform evangelical zeal.

Since Islam is another faith that believes in proselytization, one would like to see
Muslim religious organizations taking similar initiatives for inter-faith consultation
on “conversion”.

Hindu society: the chasm betw een spiri tuality and social
reality

Hinduism does not have a “church” of its own to organise and guide the socio-
religious affairs of the community, nor does it follow any single scriptural source.
Nevertheless, what is common and central the belief system of all branches of
Hinduism is the freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of faith.
The paths of all religions are believed to lead to the same destination, which is
also the origin of all paths. As such, respect for all paths and faiths ( sarva panth

4
samaadar) is at the core of the Hindu belief system. There is no scriptural
injunction against and penalty for professing, propagating and changing one’s
faith. As such, the concept of proselytization is alien to Hinduism.

This is the reason why India, more perhaps than any other country in the world,
became the welcome abode for a plurality of faiths, both indigenous and those
that came from different parts of the world. This is also the reason why India, in
spite of having an overwhelming Hindu majority, did not declare itself a Hindu
theocratic state in 1947, when Pakistan carved itself out as a separate “Muslim
nation” on the specious “Two-Nation Theory”. Instead, India adopted a secular
constitution, in conformity with the secular ethos of Hinduism. It may come as a
surprise to many that even the Congres s Work ing Com mittee, the apex
decision-making body of the party that presently heads India’s coalition
government, adopted a resolution on January 16, 1999, in which it affirmed that
"H induis m is the most effecti ve guarantor of secularis m" .

In saying this, I have no intention whatsoever to suggest that Hinduism is without


defects and failings. There is, unfortunately, a wide and all-too-visible gulf
between Hinduism’s spiritual vision of equality of all human beings and the reality
of Hindu social life. Due to internal ossification and degeneration on the one hand,
and external aggression and subjugation on the other, Hinduism became stratified
and lost much of its spiritual nourishment. Castes and sub-castes, which once
served the needs of a well-organised society, got placed in a rigid hierarchy, with
the upper castes (especially Brahmins) taking advantage of their social position to
oppress and exploit others. The ev il of untouchability, whic h is a
complete negatio n of human dignity and justice, en tered Hindu social
life an d becam e its curse.

However, it is necessary to know that there is no scriptural legitimacy


whatsoever either for untouchability or for notions of birth-defined “high” and
“low” castes. Two examples suffice to illustrate this. The authors of the two
great Hin du epics – Ramayana and Mahabharata – both belo nged to
commu nities that in later tim es were considered “low” in social
standing. Valmiki, who wrote the Ramayana, was a tribal an d Vyas,
who wrote the Mahabharata, belo nged to the commu nity of fisherme n.
In other words, a man’s greatness is to be judged by his/her karma (deeds) and
not by their janma (birth). It is because of their karma that both Valmiki and Vyas
came to be regarded as Rishis (great sages) in the Hindu tradition.

It is also necessary to know that numerous reform movements have arisen within
the Hindu fold, both in modern and medieval times, to fight various social evils.

5
Indeed, the arrival of Islam and Christianity catalysed and hastened the process of
social reform in Hindu society.

W hy the Hindu disquiet o ver “con ver sion”

As I had argued in my paper for the Lariano meeting, the spread of Islam and
Christianity in India followed a contradictory process. Being two great religions of
the world, and God’s two great gifts to mankind, they enriched and further
expanded India’s spiritual and cultural heritage. Thei r innate me ssage of
equalit y and human dignity, and the saintly nature of ma ny of the ir
preachers, constitute d one set of reason s that prompted many Hindus
to embrace Islam and Christianity.

At the same time, it is undeniable that the growth of both Islam and Christianity in
India happened in the context of invasion, conquest and colonial subjugation. As
shown by many scholars – most notably by Arun Shourie in his book Missionaries
in India: Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas and by Shashi S. Sharma in his book
Imagined Manuvad --, maligning of Hinduism was an essential part of the
“conversion” drive by Christian missionaries during the British period. This had
deeply hurt even the most broad-minded Hindu thinkers and leaders of India’s
national liberation movement, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Swami
Vivekananda, whose respect for all the faiths in the world is well known. In my
paper for the Lariano meeting, I have quoted extensively from Mahatma Gandhi’s
strongly critical views on Christian proselytization.

Swami Vivekananda, the great patriot-monk, described Jesus Christ, Mohammed


and other prophets of humanity as “Rishis”. Quoting from the Hindu scriptures, he
said, "These great child re n of Light, who ma nifest the Light
thems elves, who are Light the mselves, they, being wo rshipped,
become, as it were, one with us and we become on e with them." In a
lecture he delivered on ‘Christ the Messenger’ at Los Angeles in 1900, he said,
“Our salutations go to all the past Prophets whose teachings and lives
we have inher ited, whatever might have been their race, cl ime, or
creed! Our salutations go to all those Godlike me n and women who a re
wor king to help humanity, whatever be their birth, colour, or race!
Our salutations to those who are coming in the future -- liv ing Gods
-- to wor k un selfishly f or our desce ndant s.”

Yet, the same Swami Vivekananda, addressing a Christian meeting at Detroit,


gave vent to his intense displeasure over the vilification of Hinduism by Christian
missionaries in their zealous effort to convert Hindus in India.

6
He said, “You train and educate and clothe and pay men to do what? To
come over to my country to curse and abuse all my fore-fathers, my
rel igion and ever ything…… They walk near a temple and say, ‘you
idolaters, you will go to hell’. But they da re not do that to the
Moham medan s of India, fo r the sword would be out.... And whenever
your minist ers crit icise us, let them reme mber this : If all India stand s
up and takes all the mu d that is at the botto m of the Indian Ocea n and
throws it up against the Wes tern countries, it will no t be doing an
inf inite simal part of that which you are doing to us.” (The Complete
Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. III, pp. 211-212)

Christian vir tue s tha t Hindus admir e

Undoubtedly, not all Christian thinkers, religious personalities and social leaders
had a similarly malicious attitude towards Hinduism. Indeed, over the past two
hundred years, and especially after the end of the British rule, there has been a
heartening rise in mutual understanding and trust between Christians and Hindus
in India. The phenomenon of “acculturation” (where it is genuine and not guided
by the hidden agenda of proselytization) on the part of Christian churches has
contributed to Hindu-Christian amity.

It is equally true that many great Christian virtues such as compassion for fellow
human beings, dedicated service of the needy, community orientation of religious
practice, and emphasis on education have left a deep imprint on the Hindu mind.
Christian churches and community leaders are widely admired for these virtues.

Nevertheless, it is not as if anti-Hindu propaganda has stopped being a part of


those for whom proselytization is high on the agenda of their life and identity as
Christians. The ma nner in wh ic h ma ny Ch ristian groups seek to convert
tr ibals and so- called “lower-caste” people in India, with generous
funding from foreign (mai nly western) sources, is a case in point.
Recently, some Christian evangelist groups were active in the holy town of
Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh, distributing anti-Hindu pamphlets among pilgrims
coming to the shrine of Lord Venkateshwara.

Some Dali t-Chris tian or ganisa tion s’ anti-Hindu pr opa ganda

Here is another example. A US-based group called the ‘Dalit Freedom Network’
has been popularizing and marketing, through its website, a trade-marked ‘Clay
Cup’ sold for one dollar apiece. This is what its website says: “DFN has chosen
the clay cup™ to be the symbol of the oppression of the Dalits. Throughout India,

7
Dalits are forced to drink out of clay cups which then are destroyed… so that no
upper caste customer will ever use it and risk ‘contamination by a Dalit’s
uncleanness.’ It is a fact that Dalits are still served in these cups and not other
cups made of glass or metal so as to avoid polluting others. Dalits being served in
separate cups and with different utensils is still a reality…The Dalit Freedom
Network has chosen the clay cup as a visual representation of the Dalits’
brokenness and oppression. We offer these cups to friends of DFN to act as a
daily personal reminder in your own home or office of the Dalit plight. Clay cups
available through DFN are handmade by the Dalit community outside of
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.”

How true is the above description of the condition of “Dalits” in India, as


presented to a foreign audience by a Dalit-Christian organization? To say that,
in the 21 st century, restauran ts in India still serve tea, co ffee and
water in clay cups to “Dalits” is nothing but malicious fiction.
Practice of untouchability in rural India is overwhelmingly les s than
what it used to be in the past, and almo st no n-existent in urban India
wh ich now accounts for 40% of ou r population. Ne verthele ss, Dalit-
Ch ristian organisations’ propaganda about it is a good way of
collecting mo ney in the United States and other west ern countries.

The DFN’s website further says:

“The Dalits, numbering 250-300 million, are those the Hindu caste system
designates as "low" or "backward" caste. Because of their low social
standing, affluent parts of society deny Dalits basic human rights. As a
result of this discrimination, Dalits suffer socially, economically, and
spiritually. Unable to access education, and because of the social stigma of
"untouchability", society forces Dalits to take low-paying jobs providing an
inadequate income. They cannot afford food, clothing and shelter. They
cannot afford medical care. They cannot afford an education. Society denies
Dalits human rights and shackles Dalits to a social and religious system that
removes personal freedom.

“We believe that the four-fold model of EDUCATION, MEDICAL


SUPPORT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, and HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCACY,
in partnership with Indian organizations that actively share God's love and
start new believers' fellowships, will provide the right combination of
efforts to see the next generation of Dalits freed from their present social,
economic, and spiritual tyranny. For the first time in history, the Dalits now
have a voice which can be heard socially, politically and spiritually in India
and around the world. DFN pledges solidarity with the AICC (All India

8
Christian Council) and with the Dalits, and together they are confident they
can help bring a notable transformation that will last for eternity. (Emphasis
mine.)

The falsehoods, exaggerations and innuendos should be apparent to any well-


informed and unbiased reader. If the term ‘Dalits’ connotes what the Indian
Constitution calls the Scheduled Castes, their number is by no means 250-300
million. And there is no sociological, theological, historical or constitutional basis
to include the Scheduled Tribals and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the
category of ‘Dalits’. Yet, the number of ‘Dalits’ is inflated for purposes that are
clearly self-serving – namely to misrepresent and malign India in general and the
Hindu society in particular in eyes of the rest of the world and, thereby, to cast
the net wider for catching new converts.

Notice how the DFN’s description of the Indian reality equates Hinduis m with
“spi ritual tyranny” . Also, notice how it suggests that “Dalits” can receive
“God’s love” and experience transformation in “eternity” only by ceasing to be
Hindu and by joining “new believers' fellowships” (euphemism for converting to
Christianity).

Democr ac y, I ndian Cons titution and emp ower ment of “Dalits”

DFN’s claim that “for the first time in history, the Dalits now have a voice which
can be heard socially, politically and spiritually in India and around the world”,
because they have begun renouncing Hinduism, is preposterous, to say the least.
Of course, there has been a major push for social, educational and political
empowerment of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBCs (other
backward classes) after India’s independence. But how did it happen? It happened
because of three factors: the progressive and democratic Constitution that we
adopted in 1950; our democratic system which has enabled SCs, STs, and OBCs
to gain growing representation in various power structures; and, last but not the
least, a general progressive awakening in society (among all castes).

The statutory provisions for reservations (affirmative action) for SCs, STs and
(later) OBCs in education and government jobs; the various laws against
untouchability and caste discrimination; and the working of India’s democratic
system of governance; all these have gone a long way in creating a new
awareness among both “low” and “high caste” Hindus. “Dalits” and “low caste”
Hindus have become socially more aware of their rights and politically more
assertive, thanks to the power of the vote that democracy has given them.
Similarly, “high caste” Hindus have come to accept constitutionally mandated

9
affirmative action for socio-political empowerment of “Dalits” and other
traditionally marginalized people in the Hindu community as necessary for social
transformation and for balanced national progress.

There is no doubt that the Hindu society in In dia has a long way to go
to reach the ideals of equal ity and social justice. But isn’t that more
or less true also about non- Hindu societies in most other countries?

I have quoted from the DFN’s website at some length because it is in some ways
representative of how Christian evangelical organizations portray Hinduism both
within India and abroad.

Wr ong and self-ser ving notions a bout caste in Hindu socie ty

Due to ignorance or by design, a notion is assiduous being given currency that


caste is the root cause of social injustice in Hindu society. This notion is
especially popular among proselytizers in both Christianity and Islam. Their
simplistic formula is this: existence of castes is the source of all the inequality
and oppression in Hindu society; but Hinduism cannot exist without castes;
therefore, Hinduism is incurably unjust, iniquitous and oppressive; therefore, for
the sake of liberation of hundreds of millions of people imprisoned within its fold,
Hinduism must vanish from the face of this earth; and it is the religious duty of
the followers of Christianity (and Islam) to rid mankind of this caste-ridden
community of heathens (and infidels).

Survey Dalit-Christian (or Islamist) literature, and you are bound to encounter
this formula being presented in ten different ways. Here is the latest example. Mr.
Kanshi Ram, a prominent Indian politician and founder of the Bahujan Samaj Party,
passed away in New Delhi yesterday (October 8). Along with Mayavati, who now
heads the BSP, he mobilized and empowered the Scheduled Caste people in Uttar
Pradesh. BSP also became a rallying point for the SCs in some other states in
India. Although both Mr. Kanshi Ram and Mayavati started their political careers
with a vituperative campaign against “higher castes”, in recent years they
consciously changed their tactics to include the very same “higher castes” in
their rainbow social alliance. Moreover, it must be reme mbered that on
both the occasion s that Mayavati beca me the chief minister of Uttar
Pradesh, i t was w ith the support of the BJP, the pa rty that I wo rk for.

In the wake of Mr. Kanshi Ram’s death, a prominent TV channel carried a news
item on “Hindu fascism”. It said,

10
“Dalit intellectuals say Hinduism is a form of spiritual Fascism where those
at the top of the hierarchy are content and unwilling to change. They say,
reformation of Hinduism is essential, but impossible, because if you take
out the Vedas and all other references to caste, then what system are you
left with?”
“Says Dalit Activist Kancha Ilaiah, "To reform, it needs to throw away
existing spiritual texts. Which book do you read as a Hindu book without
reference to caste? On average 1, 50 0 people are converting to
Ch ristianity per day and about 10- 50 people per da y converting
to Islam ." (Emphasis mine.)
What is not mentioned here is that the so-called Dalit intellectuals, including Dr.
Kancha Ilaiah (author of the book ‘Why I Am Not A Hindu’), who call Hinduism
“spiritual fascism” are actually “Dalit-Christian” activists. It is they who have
been propagating that Hindu reformation is impossible because Hinduism cannot
discard castes and there will be nothing left in Hinduism if castes are done away
with.
This is not the place for a detailed sociological and historical explanation of the
origin and evolution of castes in India. Suffice it to make two points here. Firstly,
there is nothing inherently objectionable or illegitimate about castes,
which are nothing but a natural social collective with distinct characteristics.
What is objectiona ble is “casteis m” – that is, the notion of “high” and “low”
associated with castes and sub-castes.
Secondly, castes in India do no t dis solve the mselves once a person
renounce s Hinduism and em braces Christianity, Islam or even
Buddhism. As is well-known, castes and sub- castes are a real ity even
among Indian C hristians, Indian Muslims and A mbedkarites .
Therefore, those who with seeming impunity say that Hinduism is “spiritual
fascism” because its society is based on castes are misrepresenting and vilifying
a community and faith-system. They are doing so in the belief that maligning a
faith helps them to gain more converts from that faith.
Sab Jaati Sama an, Sab Jaa ti Mahaan: Progressive and reform-minded people in
Hindu society are well aware that while castes cannot be wished away, casteism
(false pride in one’s own caste, looking down upon other castes, indefensible
rules governing the lives of people belonging to a certain caste, etc) must be
fought and eradicated. They are working on the belief which rhymes well in Hindi
and has a profound appeal for one and all: Sab Jaati Samaa n, Sab Jaati
Mahaan (All castes are equal; and all castes are great.)
Dr. Ambedkar and the quiet social r evolution in Hindu societ y

11
In the context of the “conversion” debate, what is galling is the tendency of
Christian (and also Muslim) evangelical organizations to present only the Hindu
society as being marred by the blemish of social inequality and social injustice.
No less astounding is the unwillingness of even academics and publicists to
recognize and acknowledge the quiet social revolution taking place in the Hindu
society. Let me illustrate the latter point by turning to the role played by Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar, who, along with Mahatma Gandhi, is the most important
personality in the social history of the 20th century India.

Dr. Ambedkar, one of the main architects of the Indian Constitution, was a “Dalit”.
He did not belong to the Congress party. In fact, he was a trenchant critic of the
Congress party and its leadership, constituted by Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal
Nehru (India’s first Prime Ministers) and other stalwarts of the Freedom
Movement. His criticism of the inequities in Hinduism was also not hidden from
anybody. Yet, after India became independent in 1947, it is the Hindu-majority
India, and the Congress party’s Hindu leadership that conferred upon Dr.
Ambedkar the honour of drafting India’s Constitution. This was done in
recognition of the brilliance of his personality, his profound legal and
constitutional knowledge, and, above all, his intense passion for social reform.
Indeed, it was Mahatma Gandhi who prevailed upon Jawaharlal Nehru to include
Dr. Ambedkar as India’s first Law Minister in his interim government. Dr.
Ambe dkar’s example again shows that in Hindu-majority India,
greatnes s is deter mined by karma and not by jan ma .

Two per tinent points about Dr . Ambedk ar’ s “con ver sion” to Buddhi sm: As is
well known, just months before he passed away in December 1956, Dr. Ambedkar
embraced Buddhism along with lakhs of his followers. In the context of the debate
on “conversion”, two things are pertinent about this major milestone in modern
India’s social history.

Firstly, one might expect that Dr. Ambedkar’s decision to leave his Hindu past and
embrace Buddhism, and that too in a public ceremony in Nagpur with lakhs of
followers (who are called neo-Buddhists), would invite severe criticism – even
violent response – from “high caste” Hindus. After all, he was an unforgiving
critic of Hinduism. However, the response of the Hindu society was quite the
contrary. Dr. Ambedkar’s “conversion” was widely seen as an event that merited
introspection and self-correction in the Hindu society.

Incidentally, 2006 marks the 50th anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar’s “conversion” to


Buddhism. The event is being celebrated widely by his followers, especially in the
state of Maharashtra. Anyone whose view is not jaundiced by the propaganda of

12
organizations like DFN can see for themselves that there are as many Hindu s
as neo-Buddhists participat ing in functions extolling Dr. Ambedkar’s
contribution to social reform in mo dern I ndia.
The second pertinent fact is why Dr. Ambedkar chose Buddhism and not any
other faith. According to his celebrated biographer Dhananjay Keer, he believed
that “b y jo ining Isla m or Christianity, the Depressed Clas ses would
‘not only go out of the Hindu rel igion, but also go out of the In dian
culture..... Conversion to Islam or Ch ristianity will denationalise the
Depressed Clas ses’.” (Dr Ambedkar, Life and Mission, 2nd ed., pp 278-9,
Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 1962.)

Accultur ation: Genuine and motiva ted

This gives rise to two important questions: Why was there no friction between
Ambedkarites (who converted to Buddhism) and the larger Hindu society, and why
is there acrimony between Christians and Hindus (or Hindus and Muslims) when
“Dalits” convert to Christianity or Islam? Why did even Dr. Ambedkar feel that
conversion to Christianity or Islam would uproot the Depressed Classes from
India’s cultural soil?

The phenomenon of acculturation encouraged by Indian churches appears to be a


response to the above questions. As I said earlier, if this response is sincere, and
rooted in genuine respect for Hindu customs and cultural traditions, it is indeed
welcome. However, if adoption of external manifestations of Hindu religiosity is
merely a tactic to attract ordinary Hindus to the Christian fold, then it is nothing
but deception. I mention this because I have heard many Hindu friends affirm that
the latter practice is quite prevalent in rural areas where church organizations
enter for the first time.

W hy no con ver sion of Muslim s? Is it because of the thr ea t of


the s wor d?

An equally important question is: Why are there no conversions from “lower
caste” Muslims in India to Christianity? And why do Christian missionaries in India
never indulge in any propaganda to highlight the “flaws” in Islam and in Muslim
society? Is it because -- as pointed out by Swami Vi vekanan da in his
speech men tioned earlie r, and as demo nstrated by the recen t
explosi ve controversy over the Po pe’s remarks about Islam -- “They
dare not do that to the Moha mmeda ns of I ndia, fo r the sword would be
out”?

13
I am sorry if my words sound harsh. It is not my intention to show disrespect to
any faith or to hurt the feelings of the followers of Christianity or Islam. I do not
wish to even remotely suggest that violence is a justified response when
proselytization is carried out by questionable means. I believe that the
violence against Christians so metime s unleashed by Hindu extremist
organizat ion s in In dia is condem nable. Also, no true Hindu can condone the
routine spreading of anti-Muslim and anti-Christian prejudices by certain Hindu
communal organizations.

Nevertheless, in the context of the debate on “conversion” no honest and truth-


seeking participant can avoid the obvious question: Why do Christian evangelical
groups target only Hindus, Buddhists and followers of traditional faiths in Africa
and Latin America for proselytization – and never Muslims?

Christian eq uiv alent of the ‘Whit e Man’s Burden’: As a Hindu, I ask myself
another question: as the recent controversy over the Pope’s remarks on Islam has
once again shown, church organizations are far more sensitive to Muslim criticism
of the Christian conduct in the past and now. But they have rarely publicly
acknowledged any wrong-doing vis-à-vis the Hindu community. On the contrary,
in the Chr istia n equi vale nt of the White Man’s Bu rde n, they continue
to believe that they have a di vine mission to “l iberate” “low-caste
Hindu s” – indee d, all Hindus -- by br inging the m within the Ch ristian
fold. ‘Making Asia Ch ristian’ is a much- discu ssed goal in evangelist
literature. The most cha ritable wa y of describing this notio n is that it
is rel igious cond esce nsion.

Islamic double-standar d on r eligious fr eedom

Similarly, no honest and truth-seeking participant in the debate on “conversion”


can avoid this question: Why does Islam have double-standards of religious
freedom? A convert to Islam is prized. However, a Muslim is bar red, on the
pa in of scr ipturally invoked death penal ty, from embracing any other
fa ith.

This also leads to related questions: Not only is a Muslim denied the freedom of
religion to accept any other faith if his/her conscience prompts them to do so, but
non-Muslims in Muslim countries are also denied the freedom of religion if it
entails free propagation of their faith and “invitation” (dawah) for Muslims to the
fold of a non-Muslim faith. Why? Musli ms insis t on this freedo m for
thems elves where they are a minority in non- Muslim societies. But
Muslim- majorit y countries will ra rely gran t the sa me freedo m to

14
minorities belonging to other faiths. Wh y? Muslims demand – and rightly so
– adherence to secular, non-discriminatory principles in India and in all other
countries where they are a majority. But secularism is rejected as un-Islamic in
most Muslim majority countries. Why?

Plan of action: univ er sal code of conduct on “con ver sion”


needed

This brings me to the last section of this paper. We must accept that the do’s and
don’ts of religious freedom – including in the area of “conversion” – should have
universal application. There cannot be scriptural or theological arguments to deny
others the freedoms which are demanded for oneself. This is especially so in
today’s rapidly shrinking, globalizing world.

And if there are scriptural tenets (or interpretations of tenets) that are
incompatible with universally applicable norms of religious freedom, then it is the
responsibility of the followers of the respective faiths to
reform/reinterpret/jettison such tenets. After all, Hinduism had to abandon and
renounce those social practices that were offensive to the modern notions of
human dignity and justice.

In this context, I would like to draw the attention of the participants in the
Coimbatore meet to three of the recommendations contained in the report
prepared by the Lariano group.

1. Freedom of rel igion enjoi ns upon all of us the equally non-


negotiable responsibility to respect faiths other than our own,
and never to denigrate, vil ify or misrepres ent them for the
pu rpose of af firming superiorit y of our fa ith.

2. We acknowledge that errors have been pe rpetrated and injustice


committe d by the adherent s of ever y faith. Therefore, it is
incumbe nt on eve ry community to conduct honest self- critical
examination of its historical conduct as well as its
doctrinal/theological precepts. Such self-cr iticism and
repentance should lead to neces sary reforms inter alia on the
issue of conversion.

3. A particula r reform that we would comm end to pract itioners and


establish ment s of all faiths is to ensure that conversion by
“unethical” mea ns are discouraged and rejected by one and all.

15
There should be tran sparency in the practice of inv iting others
to one’s fa ith.

Together with other participants in the inter-faith dialogue in Coimbatore, I am


hopeful that we’ll be able to further enlarge the area of consensus on the issue of
“conversion”. Having done that, we should also identify ways of disseminating our
consensual views among religious organisations and civil society groups. This in
my view would constitute the success of the Coimbatore meeting.

(Coimbat ore – Oct ober 9, 200 6)

16

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi