Author: Shachi Rairikar
Publication: Organiser
Date: June 4, 2006
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=133&page=9
Introduction: The track record of the Church
all over the world reveals the real designs behind conversion. The African
experience as expressed by African Leader Jomo Kenyatta says it all, "When
the Europeans came, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said that
this is the book of God and asked us to meditate. When we opened our eyes
they had the land and we had the Bible."
Pope's condemnation of India is uninvited
and ridiculous. Isn't it ironic that Pope, the head of the smallest independent
nation in the world, which is neither secular nor democratic and is governed
by a religious head elected by some cardinals, is advising religious freedom
to one of the largest secular democracies?
History is replete with violent bloodshed
caused by the intolerant Church and India, on the other hand, has from times
immemorial been preaching and practicing religious tolerance and peaceful
coexistence. While, the Vatican has time and again shown disrespect to other
religions by asserting that Christianity is the supreme and the only true
path, India, has believed in "Sarva Dharma Sambhava" or equal respect
for all religions. The followers of various religions have lived together
in India in peace and harmony for centuries. In a report UNESCO had pointed
out that out of 128 countries where Jews lived before Israel was created in
1948, only one, India, did not persecute them and allowed them to prosper
and practice Judaism in peace. While the Christians hounded them out of their
countries all over the world, the Hindus provided them shelter.
India is an independent country, with her
own constitution, and legislature and judiciary to implement and protect the
constitution. The people of India have complete faith in her systems and do
not need to know what is "unconstitutional (and) contrary to the highest
ideals of India's founding fathers" from a foreigner. Her founding fathers
had very clear perception in all matters including religious freedom and conversions.
While they all were definitely and strongly in favour of religious freedom
but none approved proselytising.
The father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi,
had time and again very heavily criticised the activities of Christian missionaries
and religious conversions. He had once said, "If I had power and could
legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytising." The first Prime
Minister of India, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru had made it clear that while conversion
by an individual out of deep conviction was unexceptionable, there was no
room for mass conversions of the kind indulged in by missionaries by inducement
and alienation. Even Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the father of Indian Constitution,
according to his own statement had while converting to Buddhism "taken
care" that his "conversion will not harm the tradition of the culture
and history of this land". He regarded Christianity as foreign religion
and converting to Christianity as betraying his motherland.
India has never been averse to individuals
converting to any religion by choice based on one's own judgment and the merits
of comparative religions, but conversions by allurement, temptation, threat,
fraud, force, coercion or any other unethical means are despised. In Mahatma
Gandhi's views, "If a person, through fear, compulsion, starvation or
for material gain or consideration, goes over to another faith, it is misnomer
to call it conversion... Real conversion springs from the heart and at the
prompting of God, not a stranger."
In fact, the anti-conversion law objected
to by the Vatican is not against conversion but against proselytising and
conversion by deceit, bribery or other forms of coercion. It is a means to
protect the fundamental right to religious freedom rather than hinder it.
It seems to be Pope's ignorance about this law that has provoked him to criticise
it. If not, then Pope's worry only confirms the common perception that the
missionaries are indulging in conversion by unethical means.
Right to religious freedom is different from
right to conversion. The Pope seems to be confusing one with the other. Religious
freedom implies that one can talk about one's religion and explain its tenets
but nobody has the right to resort to conversion. In 1977, the Supreme Court
gave the judgment that the right to propagate religion in article 25(1) gives
to each member of every religion the right to spread or disseminate the tenets
of his religion (say by advocacy or preaching), but it would not include the
right to convert another, because each man has the same freedom of "conscience"
guaranteed by that very provision in article 25(1).
The chequered history of Christian missionaries
in India includes not only conversion by unethical means but also fostering
separatist, anti-national movements in the name of the farcical liberation
theology. The foreign Churches have been instrumental in subverting national
loyalties and destroying cultural roots leading to secessionist movements.
They have acted as the tools of Western imperialism in the guise of religious
preaching and social work and have been a grave threat to the country's internal
security. The Naga, Mizo and other tribal insurgencies in the north-east have
received inspiration from the Church.
The M.B. Niyogi Committee, which was formed
during the tenure of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, had, after a detailed study of
the activities of Christian missionaries and their foreign links, recommended
an official ban on religious conversions. The committee also found that "as
conversion muddles the converts' sense of unity and solidarity with his society,
there is danger of his loyalty to his country and the state being undermined".
The track record of the Church all over the
world reveals the real designs behind conversion. The African experience as
expressed by African Leader Jomo Kenyatta says it all, "When the Europeans
came, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said that this is the book
of God and asked us to meditate. When we opened our eyes they had the land
and we had the Bible." Seen in this context, the Pope's alarm over obstructions
in "reaping harvest" can be well understood.
The Pope is highly concerned about the religious
freedom in countries with non-Christian majorities but why is same kind of
concern not voiced about the plight of minorities in Christian majority countries?
What does he have to say about the religious freedom in Russia where a temple
of the Hindu minority was razed? What about the Sikh and Muslim minorities
of France who are not allowed to wear head scarves and turbans as per their
religious traditions? What about the sentiments of the Muslim minority of
Denmark when Prophet's cartoons are published? Is it that just as Christianity
is the only true path to salvation, the Christians are the only privileged
people entitled to enjoy religious freedom?
The Pope has no right to meddle in India's
internal affairs. Moreover, in the gory backdrop of intolerant Christianity
as revealed by Christian history, the view Christianity holds regarding the
followers of other faiths, the activities of the Christian missionaries in
non-Christian majority countries and the attitude of Christian majority countries
towards their religious minorities, the Pope has no moral right to advocate
tolerance to the most tolerant and peace loving nation in the world. Pope's
allegation against India seems to be akin to a chimney calling the kettle
black.
The Pope needs to put his house in order first
before pointing fingers at others. Moreover, India stands in no need of lessons
or certificate on religious tolerance from an intolerant foreign creed. After
all, it is only the tolerance of the Indians that has allowed the successive
Popes to visit India without rendering an apology for the worst and most inhuman
atrocities committed by the Church during the Portuguese Inquisition.
