Author: Balbir K. Punj
Publication: The Asian Age
Date: December 10, 2002
Dear Madam,
You happen to preside over the destiny
of the oldest political party by a quirk of fate and an unfortunate assassination
in your family.
Considering the fact that you were
born in a distant country and spent your formative years in a culture alien
to India, it is imperative that these factors will naturally affect the
thinking and politics of the party you head. It's more so in view of the
fact that most Congressmen and women (in true traditions of the Congress
since the days of your mother-in-law) are subservient to the leader and
there is little scope for any discussion on an issue about which your mind
is known.
Madam, recently, one of your party
activists came out with propositions on issues concerning Hindus, conversions
and Harijans, which are light years away from the ones Congress had professed
since the days of Gandhiji. Of course, we all know that your party has
said good-bye to Gandhian lifestyle decades back; but it still has the
facade of being committed to Gandhian philosophy. At least the public position
is that you have not disowned Gandhi so far. But then how to reconcile
this position with the public utterances of one of your party colleagues?
Here are some of the pearls of wisdom
that viewers had from former state minister of Congress, Mrs Jayanti Natarajan:
"who says Vedas are the source book of Hindus, the Vedas are not"; "Scheduled
Castes are not Hindus"; "the Dalits are not Hindus"; "if Hinduism is not
a proselytising religion then how did South East Asia become Hindu - how
do you explain Shaivite kingdoms in southern India"; "Sage Agastya proselytised
southern India into Hinduism"; "the right to propagate religion under Article
25 of the Constitution includes the right to convert"; "the Supreme Court
1977 decision on conversion ban will hopefully be heard by another bench
in future and altered". Your worthy party colleague was participating in
a recent Big Fight show of Star TV which also featured Mr B.P. Singhal
of BJP and Father Dominic Emmanuel, spokesman, Delhi Archdiocese as co-participants.
Madam, as I said earlier, each of
these propositions is contrary to the Gandhian view of India and Hinduism.
But maybe under your leadership the Congress has quietly abandoned Mahatma
Gandhi and is now following the new creed promoted by Sonia Gandhi. I hope
not. If that is the case, will you kindly distance your party publicly
from Mrs Natarajan's position?
What Mrs Jayanti Natarajan stated
was deeply agonising and provocative to the 860 million strong Hindu community
which is the core of India. However, the emasculation of Hindus was complete
under Congress rule, when it had survived the colonial period. Imagine
the "physical" reaction had she said that Shias are not Muslims, since
they are oppressed as minority in Pakistan and even as majority in Iraq
and Bahrain. Imagine the protest if she had said for instance Born Again
Christians are not Christians or Eastern Orthodoxy is not Christian. But
her ill-informed debate on Hinduism, speaks of devilish ingenuity to Balkanise
this core of India. If it is the Congress view, Madam, it has surely departed
from the premises of Gandhian theory on Hinduism.
She says that Scheduled Castes are
not Hindus. Great discovery indeed! But does that stand the constitutional
position? I quote here from Tahir Mahmoud's Are All Tribals Hindus (Hindustan
Times, January 28, 1999): The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950
said in so many words that a non-Hindu could never be a Scheduled Caste
(even if belonging to a particular caste included in the official list
of Scheduled Castes). By an amendment introduced in 1956, it was provided
that only a Hindu or Sikh could be a Scheduled Caste. The Scheduled Caste
law is, thus, clearly religion-based and its religious basis has generated
abundant caste laws. The Supreme Court has held that a Scheduled Caste
Hindu on ceasing to be a Hindu also ceases to be a Scheduled Caste and,
should he ever reconvert to Hinduism, he will also regain forthwith the
Scheduled Caste status."
Jayanti Natarajan doesn't count
Scheduled Castes and Dalits amongst Hindus. The reason being that they
are not admitted into temples at many places. Is it not a paradox that
she simultaneously attacks Hinduism as a caste-ridden religion in a pejorative
sense? Why should Hindus suffer being maligned as caste-ridden if she has
already discounted "Scheduled Castes" and "Dalits" as non- Hindus? You
can't have the cake and eat it too.
But in her most stunning feat Mrs
Natarajan holds the right to propagate one's religion under Article 25
includes the right to convert. She outdoes even Father Dominic Emmanuel
in her zeal to advocate conversions. While Father Dominic appeared apologetic
on the issue of conversions, she appeared proactive. She is also of the
view that conversion ban existing in certain states like Arunachal Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa (two of them imposed by the Congress itself)
should be rethought and rescinded by future governments. Similarly, the
Supreme Court's 1977 verdict on banning fraudulent conversion, she hopes,
will be revised by a separate bench. I know Congress is not averse to upturning
Supreme Court verdicts through changes in the Constitution with retrospective
effect. Hence, I wish to know what message the party wants to send to the
citizens of India. Does the Congress share the dangerous proposition put
forward by Jayanti Natarajan? Does it want to reject the findings of Justice
Niyogi Committee, Justice Rege Committee, Justice Venugopal Commission
etc., and overrule the Supreme Court? The country awaits an answer.
How the views of present day Congressmen
and women are far removed from those of Gandhiji is obvious from the following
quotation: "I disbelieve in the conversion of one person by another. My
effort should never to be to undermine another's faith. This implies belief
in the truth of all religions and, therefore, respect for them. It implies
true humility." (Young India, April 23, 1931).
Writing in Harijan (June 3, 1937),
Gandhiji said, "I am not interested in weaning you from Christianity and
making you Hindu, and I do not relish your designs upon me, if you had
any, to convert me to Christianity. I would also dispute your claim that
Christianity is the only true religion."
How Gandhiji saw the missionary
activities is best summed up by him in Harijan (November 5, 1935) in these
words: "If I had the power and could legislate, I should stop all proselytising...
In Hindu households the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption
of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language,
food and drink."
All these things don't carry any
meaning for Mrs Jayanti Natarajan. She delves into historical anomalies
to rationalise contemporary wrongdoing. One of the theories is that Hinduism
has been a proselytising religion in the past. How else does one explain,
asks she, the entire South East Asia becoming Hindu in ancient times? South
East Asia has indeed been a historical instance, between the 4th and the
13th centuries. But much of South East Asia actually accepted Buddhism,
and we know Buddhism was indeed a great missionary religion. A former ambassador
of China, as B.P. Singhal noted in that debate, said, India has dominated
China for over 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier
across the border. But she confounds the public by raising an epic age
issue, namely the coming of Sage Agastya. I don't know how to reconcile
her paradoxical stance or many paradoxical stances. In the known stretch
of history southern India was as much Hindu as north or east or west India
is, or perhaps more so given their intellectual and artistic contribution
to Hindu civilisation. What Sage Agastya might have done was popularise
the Vedas. But the Vedas according to her is not the source book of Hindus.
Was Agastya a one-man army that he proselytised southern India to Hinduism?
If some people are so fond of speaking
of our epics, in the Ramayana, Ravana was a great exponent of the Vedas
and the hymn of Shiva attributed to him continues till date. Was Ravana
not Hindu? Was he Hindu merely because Agastya proselytised South India?
Or perhaps Ravana originated in northern India and his father Sage Pulastha
was from the north? So we reach an inference that ties between the north
and the south are as old as this land and no part was treated non-Hindu
even in the epic ages. But Jayanti Natarajan wants probably to overwrite
the epics to rationalise conversions! I wish she reminded the Islamic countries,
and Muslims and Christians in India, that once they were not Muslims, and
hence everyone else has the right to convert them.
Originally, South East Asia was
animist. Hinduism took root most strongly in Cambodia between the 8th and
13th centuries and in Indonesia, about the same time and in Thailand, Burma,
and Laos where Buddhism took hold most strongly. In Indonesia, Hinduism
saw the rise of the great empires of Sri Vijaya, Malayu, Mataram, and Majapahit.
In Cambodia, it was the basis of the ancient Angkor civilisation. The contact
was mercantile, cultural and intellectual and never colonising. South East
Asia was at the pinnacle of glory in the Hindu-Buddhist period, a legacy
they still celebrate through multifarious manifestations in art and culture.
Moreover, "conversion" to Hinduism
doesn't breed exclusivism, intolerance of other religions and disavowal
of the pre-Hindu past. Unfortunately, the same is not true about proselytising
religions. She probably forgets to mention about the Hare Krishna movement
that is converting people in America to "Krishna Consciousness". But they
work amongst the well fed, well bred, and well read people who have the
option of informed choices unlike the adivasis of India. But I marvel at
her temerity to misinterpret the past to rationalise a contemporary problem.
I hope, Madam, you will find time to clarify your party's position in these
crucial matters.
Yes, there are problems within Hinduism,
like casteism. But should that be made the scapegoat for the dismemberment
of Hindu society? The proselytising religions were not conceived with a
view to help the underprivileged of the other societies but to increase
one's fold by exploring and exploiting whatsoever means available. I hope
Madam, you will find time to clarify your party's position on these crucial
matters.
Yours truly, Balbir K. Punj
(Balbir K. Punj is a Rajya Sabha
MP and convenor of the BJP Think Tank and can be contacted at bpunj@email.com)
