Author: T. R. Gopalan, Madurai
Publication: BJP Today
Date: September 1-15, 2001
Rama Gopalan wants conversion to
be banned but Puthiya Tamilagam Leader Dr. Krishnaswamy states that as
per the constitution every Indian had the right to practice the religion
of his choice and hence no ban was needed.
Dr. Krishnaswamy's quoting the constitution
is imperfect. Art 25(1) says, "the citizens have the right to freely profess
propagate and the practice subject to public order, morality and health
and other provisions therein".
Dr. Krishnaswamy says that TNadu
is a state of communal harmony. If so why there were series of bomb blasts
in Coimbatore, Udumalpet, Mettupalayam etc.
It is not without significance that
Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan, Pakistan and B. Desh have banned proselytation.
Mahatma Gandhi said conversion means
disruption of the family, coming in the change of dress, manners, language,
food and drink. Therefore "if only I had the power to legislate, I should
certainly stop all proselytising." (Harijan - 11.5.1935.)
Fr. Paul S.J. (June 22 of The New
Indian Exp.) states that discrimination shown to dalits by caste Hindus
results into conversion. But I may say that discrimination exists even
amongst Muslims. There are Shia, Sufi, Sunni Muslims - All at logger heads
to one another. Why then no conversion from their side to Christianity?
The heads of Christians would roll if any such a conversion takes place.
Gandhiji said "liquidation of untouchability
amongst Hindus cannot be attained by the conversion of untouchables to
any other religion. For it is the so-called caste Hindu who has to rid
himself of the sin of untouchability. He can wash away the sin only by
doing justice however to the outcaste." (Harijan 20-4-1940).
I may affirm that quarrel with my
wife does not give a license to my neighbour to poke his long nose and
fish in troubled waters of my family.
Art 25 does not grant unbridged
full freedom to practice of the religion of his choice.
In fact A. N. Ray, Chief Justice
of supreme court observed, "we have no doubt that it is in this sense that
the word 'propagate' has been used in Article 25(1), for what the Article
grants is not the right to convert another to one's own religion, but to
transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has
to be remembered that Article 25(1) guarantees "freedom of conscience"
to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion,
and that in turn postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert
another person to one's own religion because if a person purposely undertakes
the conversion of another person to his religion as distinguished from
his effort to transmit or spread the 'freedom of conscience' guaranteed
to all the citizen of the country alike." Since conversion has the potentiality
of proliferating into the change in the demographic character of the very
country, it has to be banned forthwith.
