Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: Organiser
Date: September 25, 2006
Gujarat has made a major stride in the proper
definition of the nation's Indic traditions by delineating the Jaina and Bauddha
streams as part of the larger Hindu community for purposes of evaluating religious
conversions. The Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill 2006 is significant
precisely for the logical coherence it bestows upon faith communities, placing
Jainas and Bauddhas in the Hindu mainstream, Shias and Sunnis in the Islamic
brotherhood, and Protestants and Catholics with the Christian community.
This is unexceptionable because it takes into
consideration the logical fact that inter-marriages frequently take place
amongst these groups, which at least for Muslims and Christians sometimes
involve a formal conversion to the opposite sect. The involvement of the government
or local administration in such a personal matter, where no inter-communal
harmony is at stake, could amount to needless bureaucratese or even harassment.
Formal conversions are mostly not required
amongst the Jaina, Bauddha and Hindu laity as multiple religious affiliation
is the Indic norm. It would mainly apply in the event of formal initiation
into monkhood, ie., a Hindu becoming a Jaina muni or bhikshu would need formal
initiation into that tradition, and so on. Since all these dharmic traditions
have grown on the soil of India and intermingle in their history, philosophy,
and theology, perpetuating the colonial view that they are separate (even
opposing) traditions is not only arid, but dangerously divisive. Within the
Jaina tradition, many of the most eminent acharyas have come from the Brahmin
community, and state intervention for every initiation would be regarded as
unduly intrusive, and in any case, cannot be regarded as a conversion similar
to the acceptance of a monotheistic faith.
The state government has therefore rightly
defined the faith-lines as the Hindu, Christian and Islamic streams. So if
a Hindu is to be converted to Christianity, the district magistrate must ensure
that there is no foul play. This is all the more imperative as Pope Benedict
XVI's recent and controversial speech at the University of Regensburg shows
he has no respect for image-worshipping communities (labeled as idolators),
and regards them as fit targets for evangelism.
The bill has understandably enraged the evangelical
industry which has been targeting Gujarat in the big way for the past two
decades. The great Narendra Modi-baiter, Father Cedric Prakash, called it
"extremely draconian and unconstitutional." The opposition Congress
party claimed that the bill could be legally challenged as Bauddha dharma
was given the status of a separate religion by the National Commission for
Minorities Act, 1992 and Jainas by a division bench of the Supreme Court in
2004. This argument overlooks the fact that the matter is still with the court,
and that the then Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti had called for reducing, rather
than increasing, the number of minorities in the country.
But the (unrecognized) industry for the fragmentation
of India , which has 'chapters' in all communities, has galvanized its members
to protest the designation of Jaina and Bauddha communities as Hindu denominations.
Mr. Hamid Ansari, Chairman, National Commission for Minorities, has supported
the separatist trend, saying "legislators cannot, and should not, decide
the religious identity of a community this way. This decision has to be taken
by the community itself in a democratic manner." Udit Raj, Chairman of
the All-India Confederation of SCs/STs Organisations, which has close links
with evangelical groups in India and America , lambasted the move on behalf
of the "Buddhist community (sic)."
Mr. Chakresh Jain, President, Delhi Jain Samaj,
alleged that Jainas would hold nation-wide protests, saying: "The move
is absolutely against the wishes of the Jain community. We are not Hindus
at all." This is clearly a politically motivated statement, and is known
to have the backing of powerful financial interests that see economic gain
from minority status, eg., in running educational institutions without quota
and other restrictions. These business groups have also sought to recruit
respected saints for the "minority tag."
It needs to be emphasized, however, that there
can be no honest account of the history of Jaina dharma without reflecting
its common origins in Hindu dharma, its religious and cultural symbols, categories
of thought and social organization, political history etc. In other words,
it is not possible to discuss the Jainas without reference to the Hindus.
The minority tag is the greed of a few business families seeking undue advantage
for themselves; the experience of the community is that in states where Jainas
received minority status, the lower rungs of society were weaned away by missionaries
(eg Madhya Pradesh), and the community received no advantage.
While chief minister Narendra Modi felt discretion
the better part of valour while leaving Sikh dharma out of the purview of
Hindu dharma, separatism bodes ill for that community as well. Sikh leaders
keen on preserving their 'separate' status would do well to undertake a district-wise
survey of Punjab and enumerate the number of churches (especially since Capt.
Amarinder Singh became the chief minister) vis-à-vis the stated Christian
population per district. It will give them an idea of what lies ahead for
them if they persist with the 'we-are-not-Hindus' refrain. Safety lies in
non-fragmentation. It may be pertinent to note that even the Union Home Ministry
has conceded that the conversions of Indic communities by missionaries of
all denominations is a major cause of social unrest and communal disharmony
in the country. In an agenda paper prepared for the National Integration Council
on 31 August 2005, the Ministry highlighted the activities of Christian evangelists
in Kota , Rajasthan and attempts to convert Hindus by Muslims in Dakshin Kannada,
Karnataka, as instances of such discord.
