POST-INDEPENDENCE PHASE : Recent Debate on Conversion: A futile exercise

Introduction

The Question of Conversion in India

The Indian debate on religious conversion has been an ongoing one for a few centuries now. However, the mutual understanding between the advocates and the adversaries of conversion has not advanced much. This paper suggests that this is due to the fact that Hindus and Christians refer to two different objects when they discuss 'religion'. The traits which the Christians ascribe to religion account for the premium they put on the right to convert, while the traits of the Hindu view of religion explain the opposition to conversion. As the two parties attribute mutually exclusive properties to religion, they encounter difficulties while seeking to make sense of each other's claims about religion and conversion.[1]

Religious conversion has become the subject of passionate debate in contemporary India. From the early 20th century onwards, it has surfaced again and again in the political realm, in the media and in the courts. During the last few decades the dispute has attained a new climax in the plethora of newspapers, journals, and books whose pages have been devoted to the question of conversion. Apparently, a large group of Indians considers this to be an issue of crucial import to the future of their country.[2]

The positions in the dispute are clear. On the one hand, there are those who plead for a ban on conversion, because it disturbs the social peace in plural India.[3] This group consists mainly of Hindus. The aversion towards the proselytising drive of Christianity and Islam is widespread among various Hindu groups – from the radical spokesmen of the Sangh parivar to the moderate Gandhians. On the other hand, there are those who argue that conversion is a fundamental human right, which should be protected in any democracy. Generally, the proponents of the right to conversion are Christians and secularists. In spite of the clarity of these two positions, which have remained unchanged throughout the previous century, the debate has not seen significant progress. The discussions are still governed by feelings of mutual in comprehension, unease, and resentment. The participants in the debate seem to agree on one thing only: the gap between the different views on conversion is unbridgeable. [4]

There is much to be said in favour of this conclusion, since all attempts to settle the conflict have failed. The Indian Constitution addressed the issue of conversion more than half a century ago. In Article 25, it is stated that “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion”. Soon, it would turn out that this piece of legislation was not able to resolve the problems around conversion in Indian society. In 1954, the Madhya Pradesh state government launched an inquiry into the proselytising activities of foreign missionaries, which resulted in a report that recommended legal restrictions on conversion. In the next decade, the Orissa government endorsed a Freedom of Religion Act that put such recommendations into practice. Other states would follow. Recently, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Ordinance added more confusion. The ensuing polemics demonstrated that the question of conversion is still as contentious as it was before.[5]

The situation is growing worse today. The encounters between the Hindu traditions and the proselytising religions of Christianity and Islam are more explosive than ever. Little is needed, these days, for hostile feelings to flare up.[6] In recent years, a similar enmity towards the proselytising activities of Christians has surfaced in Sri Lanka. Conversion seems to play a crucial role in these conflicts.[7] Thus, there is an urgent need to understand why so many south Asians are disturbed by the issue of religious conversion. Why has this issue become a bone of contention? As yet, our research does not allow for conclusive answers. However, given the current weight of the issue, we would like to submit some provisional results for consideration.[8]

Different Paths to Realization

“Conversion is one of the most emotional issues in India. In recent years the religious freedom and rights of minorities have been in news. The electoral politics and communal riots in Gujarat have created a fear amongst the minorities. Conversion is not only a religious or political issue but at the same time, it has vital societal and legal implications as well. It is really shocking that such a crucial area has not been investigated objectively and rationally”.[9]

Since the former Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee's call in February 1999,[10] following some serious attacks on Christian missionaries to conduct a national debate on 'conversions' the need for such a debate has become a topic for several debates. The call has since been repeated by many belonging to different religious persuasions. But, there is also an opinion that there is no need for a fresh debate as the subject has undergone considerable legal and constitutional debates, somewhat defining its parameters, whether acceptable to the contenders or not. The matter is not a purely religious one to be decided by religious heads, nor a political one to be handled by the rulers. Besides the act of conversion, the methods adopted and the resources used are called into question. A debate among representatives of concerned religious groups can hardly help in a situation which has assumed social-political significance.[11]

The issues raised in the debates do not refer to any theological matter and the legal position asserted by the contenders is irreconcilable. These include:[12]

1. Conversions exercise of the right to propagate religion and thus a fundamental right.

2. Getting converted is exercise of right to religious and form of worship - also a fundamental right and a recognized human right.

3. Conversion is intrusion into one's freedom of religion.

4. Conversions done by force and inducements and therefore a crime and violation of individual freedom and freedom to follow one's religion.

5. Foreign funds pumped in for religious conversions are in some places diverged to aid anti-national activities and should, therefore, be stopped.

6. Conversions provoke social conflicts and violence and disturb peace.

7. Conversions are generally effected on masses to upset social composition of a locality and create pockets of minority communities.

8. Mass conversions do not reflect any change in the convictions of the converted, but a response to material inducements.

9. Non-proselytizing Hindu religion is also absorbing many tribal communities in its fold which amongst to conversion.

10. Conversion controversy and the conflict are likely to spread to other countries disturbing inter-religious harmony.

The right to propagate religion, guaranteed as a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution doesn't mean the right to convert another person to one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's religion by propagation of its tenets.[13] The distinction between prorogation and conversion was clearly brought out by the Supreme Court in the oftrepeated case of Rev. Stanlisaus versus Madhya Pradesh in 1977. The Supreme Court then upheld the validity of the laws passed by the Madhya Pradesh and Orissa legislation banning religious conversions by force, fraud or inducements.[14]

diverse Standpoints

It is said that the pressures of the Christians lobby, the political necessity to follow a policy of appeasement of minority communities, a prestigious stand of secularism in the sense of equal respect for all religions - all combined to accord a status of constitutional right to propagation of religion. The same pressures served to defeat a bill in the Parliament introduced in 1955 to ban conversions by force, fraud or material inducements.[15] This legal position is in consonance with the political policy of toleration and encouragement of all religions, which is also considered suitable for a plural society. Mass conversions - whether to Islam at Meenakshipuram in Tamil Nadu or to Christianity in the tribal belts of Orissa or in the North-east ate superficially religious acts but suspected to carry social-political consequences.[16] The Hindu defense by way of re-conversion or shuddi is weak and the Hindu organization expect and insists on political and governmental action to contain the forces of conversion, for religion wise, the Hindus lack organizational unity and resources, the Hindus lack organizational unity and resources.

Hindu organizations seem to be worried only about the pull factors of conversion and want to fight them with law and authority. They tend to ignore the push factors, which are equally significant. To fight these, they should introspect and acknowledge the shortcomings in their own social system and come forward to remove them. To fight the push factors such as caste disabilities and inequalities, which persist despite legal ban, what are required are social action and not a debate.[17]

Reflection

I think that we can't take away the right to change religions. Religious conversions are a personal matter and the state has no right of telling us what religion to follow or to stick to the religion in which we were born. Alleged forcible conversions need not make us ponder on the validity of conversions; rather they should make us ponder about forcible methods. Conversions are right but forcible ones are wrong. For that matter anything forcible is wrong. And I think that we have ample laws for preventing the use of force to accomplish ones means. Therefore forcible conversions are basically a failure on the part of the state to apprehend people who force others to change their religion. On these lines, even protesting against forcible conversions using force is wrong. But that does not make us think about banning protests. Conversions are a fundamental right much as protests are. A person should be able to change or even discard all religions should he choose to do so, on his own free will. India is a secular state. However, India is not non religious. Secularism is not rejection of religion. It’s the tolerance of any religious mosaic. Can any one deny that India with over 85% population of Hindus cannot express itself as a predominantly Hindu state? The minorities in India are the safest than any other similar minority groups in any other part of the world. Hindu tolerance in India is not a weakness. It’s a virtue born out of generations of multi-racial interaction at various times in our history.

The issue now, according to me, is not whether conversions should be permitted or not. The issue is what are the definitions and limits of propagating any religion. No religion or group should be permitted to treat religious propaganda as any commercial advertisement. Whether a majority or a minority religious community should not be allowed unrestricted means and methods of propaganda to "impress" the gullible, meek and weak in our society? Presently, conversions are not a result of a a genuine realisation of one's preference. Instead, they are mere acts of commitment for a parallel social and monetary security or benefits, being extended by the religious leaders. Propaganda and blitzkrieg and at times even high melodrama is unleashed to "impress" the poor, weak and gullible.

What is happening in the Indian debate on conversion?

The two parties do not seem able to make sense of each other’s claims about religion and conversion. The Christians consider it self-evident that conversion lies at the heart of what religion is all about, while the Hindus cannot see how this could possibly be the case. In the words of a participant in an internet discussion on the topic: “Indeed this whole notion of conversion seems all wrong to me. What are they converting? Why can’t anyone who wants to practise Christian religion do so without converting? I may be asking stupid questions here, but at this moment, the whole premise of conversion strikes me as odd.” In this article, we take the first steps towards an explanation of the difficulties the two parties have in making sense of each other’s claims. Our tentative hypothesis is that Hindus and Christians are not talking about the same object when they discuss ‘religion’ and its relation to conversion. Religion according to the Hindus is something completely different from what the Christians refer to as religion. [18]

On the one hand, we will look at how Christians have attributed certain traits to religion throughout the history of their encounter with the Hindu traditions. These traits explain why, according to the Christian view, belonging to a religion entails the duty and the right to convert others to that religion. On the other hand, we show that Hindus have attributed a different set of properties to religion in their encounter with the Christians. From this perspective, the incomprehension they express towards the professed link between religion and conversion becomes understandable.[19] Finally, we come to the suggestion that Hindus and Christians do not have the same object in mind when talking about religion. If this turns out to be true, the current debate on conversion is predestined to remain the dead end it is today.

However, the concern of every Indian is to protect the national integrity through tolerance of the rights of both the majority and the minority groups. Our nation is not going to be safe with only the protection of the minorities.[20] Even the majority community, Hindus, in India now need the protection of the state from subtle aggression on the majority religion. Kashmiri Pandits are a classic example. Did one religious group, minority religions included protest aggression and protect them, from the cross border outrage?[21]

The government in India should reflect the growing concern of the Hindus to protect the national integrity from defining limits of religious propaganda through exhibitionism and materialism rather than a genuine insight into the soul of any religion. The growth of BJP is a poor choice of the Hindus in the absence of any modern but a progressive Hindu party.[22]

It’s high time the Hindus are recognised as the majority religion in India. The Arab Pride in their respective countries, the respected role of the Church of England, the back to basic values fervour of President Carter to President Clinton in USA points to a need to seek a pride of place for India in the comity of nations in being proud of our ancient Hindu culture, our right to retain the same and above all to recognise Hinduism as the dominant religion in the sub continent.[23]

This note should not be interpreted as a communal one upmanship only because of the numerical strength. This should be interpreted as a caution to all religious groups not to wake up a sleeping giant- the 85% majority community. And no BJP, Congress or VHP can control the hurt sentiments of any community, majority or minority if played around with. Let’s live and let live for India's sake.[24]

Conclusion

Misunderstanding Religion and Conversion

To conclude this paper, we will formulate a hypothesis to account for the lack of mutual understanding in the Indian debate on conversion. In the foregoing, it has become clear that the Christians and the Hindus attribute mutually exclusive properties to religion. The former claim that some religions are false, that different religions are rivals and that one religion leads to heaven and all others to hell. The latter say that no religion is false, that religions cannot be rivals, and that all religions lead to the same goal. These are contradictory predicates that cannot be ascribed to one and the same object. Therefore; we are compelled to conclude that the Hindus and the Christians are talking about two different things when they discuss ‘religion’.[25] The implications for the dispute on conversion need further investigation. However, one implication is clear. If it turns out to be true that the advocates and the opponents have different objects in mind when discussing ‘religion’ (and its relation to conversion), they should continue to have great difficulties in making sense of each other’s statements and arguments.

This raises several problems. How come the two parties involved in the debate have not seen that the term ‘religion’ as they use it does not refer to the same object? This cannot be answered hastily. The conversion debate has gone on for a few centuries and the participants have been as gifted as they come. Thus, the lack of understanding they show towards each other becomes all the more difficult to explain. Likewise, why have they continued to engage in this debate with such vigour, in spite of the mutual incomprehension?

Bibliography

Carey, William. An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians, to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, Leicester.1792.

Dow, Alexander. ‘A Dissertation Concerning the Customs, Manners, Language, Religion and Philosophy of the Hindoos’ in P J Marshall (ed) (1970), The British Discovery of Hinduism in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: University Press, 1968.

Jordens, J F T. ‘Gandhi and Religious Pluralism’ in Harold G Coward (ed) (1987), Modern Indian Responses to Religious Pluralism, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1987.

Kim, Sebastian. In Search of Identity: Debates on Religious Conversions in India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Kooiman, Dick. Conversion and social equality in India: the London Missionary society in South Travancore in the 19^th century. New Delhi: Manohar Publication, 1989.

Sarkar, Sumit. ‘Hindutva and the Question of Conversions’ in K N Panikkar (ed), The Concerned Indian’s Guide to Communalism, Viking, 1999.

Articles

Christianity Today (1999): ‘Protecting the Right to Convert’ in Christianity Today, 43(3), p. 28

Gelders, Raf and Willem Derde (2003): ‘Mantras of Anti-Brahmanism: Colonial Experience of Indian Intellectuals’ in Economic and Political Weekly, 38(43), pp 46-59

Menon, Nivedita (2004): ‘All Ye Faithless: Why Is Religious Conversion any Different From Other Conversions?’ in The Telegraph, May 6.

Ziegenbalg, Bartholomeus (1719): Thirty Four Conferences between the Danish Missionaries and the Malabarian Bramans …in the East Indies, Concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion, Trans by Philipps, London.

---

[1] Christianity Today (1999): ‘Protecting the Right to Convert’ in Christianity Today, 43(3), p 28.

[2] Ibid., p.30

[3] Jordens, J F T (1987): ‘Gandhi and Religious Pluralism’ in Harold G Coward (ed) (1987), Modern Indian Responses to Religious Pluralism, State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 3-18.

[4] Grafe, Hugald (1972): ‘Hindu Apologetics at the Beginning of the Protestant Mission Era in India’ in the Indian Church History Review, 6(1), 43-69.

[5] Kim, Sebastian (2003): In Search of Identity: Debates on Religious Conversions in India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. pp.34-40

[6] Ibid.,

[7] Menon, Nivedita (2004): ‘All Ye Faithless: Why Is Religious Conversion any Different From Other Conversions?’ The Telegraph, May 6.

[8] Ibid.,

[9] Ibid.,

[10] The Hindu, February 2, 1999.

[11] Sarkar, Sumit (1999): ‘Hindutva and the Question of Conversions’ in K N Panikkar (ed), The Concerned Indian’s Guide to Communalism, Viking, New Delhi, pp 73-106.

[12] Gelders, Raf and Willem Derde (2003): ‘Mantras of Anti-Brahmanism: Colonial Experience of Indian Intellectuals’ in Economic and Political Weekly, 38(43), pp 46-57.

[13] Ibid.,

[14] Ibid., pp. 68

[15] Ibid.,

[16] Ziegenbalg, Bartholomeus (1719): Thirty Four Conferences between the Danish Missionaries and the Malabarian Bramans …in the East Indies, Concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion, Trans by Philipps, London. pp. 45

[17] Carey, William (1792): An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians, to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, Leicester. pp. 102-112.

[18] Dick, Kooiman. Conversion and social equality in India: the London Missionary society in South Travancore in the 19^th century. New Delhi: Manohar Publication, 1989.

[19] Ibid.,

[20] Ibid.,

[21] Dick, Kooiman. Conversion and social equality in India: the London Missionary society in South Travancore in the 19^th century. New Delhi: Manohar Publication, 1989.

[22] Ibid.,

[23] Dow, Alexander (1768): ‘A Dissertation Concerning the Customs, Manners, Language, Religion and Philosophy of the Hindoos’ in P J Marshall (ed) (1970), The British

Discovery of Hinduism in the Eighteenth Century, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp 107-39.

[24] Ibid., pp.145

[25] Jordens, J F T (1987): ‘Gandhi and Religious Pluralism’ in Harold G Coward (ed) (1987), Modern Indian Responses to Religious Pluralism, State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 3-18.