Author: Kanchan Gupta
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: August 31, 2008
Astonishing ignorance laces the arguments,
proffered by bleeding heart lib-left intellectuals and politicians who insist
that secularism means denial of Hindu rights, in defence of religious conversions
through deceit, allurement and coercion. "The Constitution guarantees
Christian missionaries the right to convert people to Christianity,"
we are told. "In a secular country, the Constitution reigns supreme,"
we are reminded. "Violation of rights enshrined in the Constitution will
destroy democracy," we are warned. But what does the Constitution say?
Ask them this simple question, and the Constitution-thumping saviours of secularism,
pluralism and republicanism will be stumped.
This is what Article 25(1) of the Constitution
says: "Subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions
of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and
the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion." Read it
out to those who pretend great outrage every time there's a hint of protest
against conversions, and they will pounce upon you: "See, the Constitution
gives Christian missionaries the right to propagate their religion."
But the right to 'propagate' does not mean the right to 'convert'. And it
is this inability to distinguish between the two that highlights the appalling
ignorance of those who see nothing wrong with offensive evangelism.
That the constitutional right to 'propagate'
does not mean the right to 'convert' was clarified by the Supreme Court while
upholding the validity of anti-conversion laws -- the Freedom of Religion
Act 1967 and the Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam 1968 -- in Orissa and Madhya
Pradesh. Chief Justice AN Ray, in his ruling, left little scope for confusion
between propagation and conversion -- the two, he said, were different: "What
Article 25(1) grants is not the right to convert another person to one's own
religion by exposition of its tenets." The court also ruled that States,
bearing in mind their responsibility to maintain public order, have the right
to adopt laws "prohibiting conversion from one religion to another in
a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the community".
Now let's look at what has been happening
in Orissa where violence has erupted in impoverished, tribal-majority Kandhamal
district. Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati, a Hindu monk and anti-conversion activist
of the VHP who had spent more than three decades working for the welfare of
indigent and illiterate Hindus, setting up schools and shelters for them,
was shot dead last Saturday night at his ashram. Four of his associates were
also killed in the murderous attack.
Strangely, the administration suggested that
the killings were the handiwork of Maoists, who promptly denied any role.
Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati, who was attacked on several occasions in the
past by hoodlums on the payroll of missionaries, had recently received death
threats and his associates had sought police protection for him. Two constables
were detailed to provide him with 'security cover' -- on the night he was
killed, they were nowhere on the scene.
Over the past week, VHP activists have run
amok, attacking evangelical missions and their staff. The resultant death
of eight persons and the destruction of property, often no more than huts,
belonging to Christians is no doubt reprehensible; violence cannot, indeed,
must not, be the response to the most provocative of black deeds. Yet, the
blowback to Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati's murder cannot be seen in isolation.
It has to be seen in the context of evangelists 'harvesting souls' by inducing
the poor and the illiterate to embrace Christianity. Rice bowl conversions
have little to do with faith in the good lord.
A couple of years ago, Christian organisations,
including the Catholic church, raised a huge hue and cry over violence against
evangelists in BJP-ruled Rajasthan. The Minorities Commission got into the
act, thundering articles appeared in the 'secular' media and television channels
ran a 24x7 campaign lambasting 'Hindu nationalists' for persecuting 'innocent
Christians'. As always, truth was the first casualty.
The furore was centred over a Hindi book,
Haqeeqat, which was being freely distributed in Rajasthan's tribal-dominated
areas by 'Archbishop' MA Thomas and his son, 'Reverend' Samuel Thomas, of
the Emmanuel Mission International. Written by a Kerala-based evangelist,
MG Mathew, the book had been translated into Hindi by another evangelist,
Daniel Nathaniel, also associated with the Emmanuel Mission International.
Here are some examples -- the more lurid and
explicit bits do not merit reproduction -- of what the book had to say about
Hindus and Hinduism:
"Hindu gods and goddesses are fictitious
and were invented to persecute Dalits".
"With the progression of time, people
all over the world were freed of their ignorance and they began to dis- own
wicked and cruel gods and goddesses. But in India, because people are (enveloped)
in the darkness of ignor-ance, imaginary gods and goddesses are still worshipped."
"Sita was abandoned in the forest as
per Ram's wishes... Ram later asked Lakshman to kill Sita. In the end, Ram,
frustrated with life, drowned himself in Saryu. Such are the teachings of
half-naked rishis."
"Krishna had a despicable sex life."
The Government of Rajasthan, following street
protests against the book, scrutinised its contents and decided to ban it
to prevent the eruption of violence. Simultaneously, cases were registered
against the father-son duo of 'Archbishop' Thomas and 'Reverend' Thomas. The
senior Thomas went into hiding, his son was arrested. The Emmanuel Mission
International's premises were raided and copies of the book seized. Immediately
thereafter, the campaign of calumny began. There's nothing new about such
traducement; along with allurement, inducement, fraud and coercion, it has
been one of the mainstays of evangelism.
Religious conversions can have sinister social
implications and destabilising political consequences. It's not for nothing
that Mrs Indira Gandhi, incandescent with rage after the mass conversion of
Hindus to Islam at Meenakshipuram in February 1981, favoured the idea of States
adopting anti-conversion laws and had the Home Ministry prepare a draft Act
for circulation among State Governments. Why the draft never became law is
another story best kept for another day.