Paper For The Coimbatore Meet On Conversion 10-12 Oct 2006

RE -T HIN KI NG T OG ET HE R Inter -F aith Dial ogue on “Con ver sion ” Organised by

The Office on Inter-Religious Relations and Dialogue, World Council of Churches, Geneva Shanti Ashram, Coimbatore : 10-12 October, 2006 *****

A Hi nd u P er spec tiv e b y S udhee ndra Kulk ar ni (Political activist and aide to former Prime Minister of India, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee)

***** I am grateful to the World Council of Churches for inviting me, once again, to participate in this inter-faith dialogue on “Conversion”. I have pleasant memories of the meeting we had on the same subject at Lariano, near Rome, in May this year. The Lariano meeting was marked by a broad diversity of views which were exchanged in a free and frank manner. Understandably, divergences remained at the end of the consultation. However, a certain degree of convergence also emerged and it was articulated in a joint report whose unanimous acceptance testified to the usefulness of the inter-faith dialogue process on a subject as contentious as “conversion”. Since the Coimbatore meeting is in some ways a continuation of the consultation in Lariano, I would like to suggest that it pursue four inter-related objectives: 1) It should re-affirm and further expand/enrich the points of agreement reached in Lariano. 2) It should discuss and adopt a plan of action to disseminate the agreed set of views (on the “code of conduct”) in the larger universe of religious establishments and civil society organizations around the world, so as to reduce the contentiousness surrounding the issue of “conversion”. 3) The points of divergence should continue to be debated more rigorously in wider circles in an atmosphere of openness and mutual trust. 4) The spirit of inter-faith dialogue should be further strengthened despite – or rather, because of -- the persistence of differences and divergences. For we must always remember that dialogue among various 1

faith-communities is needed not to dissolve all differences but to find an ethic of co-living in peace and harmony in spite of differences. In this paper, I shall present my views on points 2, 3 and 4 -– in reverse order. Need f or inter-f aith dialogue on “con

ver sion”

To say that the issue of “religious conversion” is a divisive one is to belabour the obvious. History of many countries, India included, is replete with instances to show that it has high potential to cause misunderstanding, tension and even occasional violence. Why should it be so? After all, purely on a theoretical basis, religious conversion – understood as an individual’s right to change one’s faith – is a matter of inalienable human freedom. Therefore, why should there be social tension if any member or members exercise their basic freedom of faith? Yet, the irrefutable fact is that “religious conversion” often creates tension and disharmony between communities. Evidently, there is a wide chasm between freedom, in abstract, of individuals to choose or change their faith, and the actual socio-historical context and power-equations within which such change of faith takes place. Many extraneous factors, which often have little to do with the individual’s free and well-deliberated choice, come into play in the phenomenon of “religious conversion”. Some of these extraneous factors (employment of unethical means such as inducements of various kinds, often using foreign funds; targeting of vulnerable sections of society; coercive methods that ride on use of political power; overt or covert propaganda against certain faiths as being false and inadequate and in favour of one’s faith as being the “sole savior”, etc.) are not only irreligious and besmirch the hallowed name of religion, but they also shrink the space of religious freedom available to individuals and communities. Def in itional iss ues: There is another source of discord, and it is definitional. As stated earlier, freedom of faith of every human being is fundamental to his or her existence. And freedom of faith includes freedom to propagate one’s faith and to change one’s faith. No power on earth can legitimately snatch away this freedom. However, whereas every individual has the basic human right to change his/her faith and “convert” to another faith, does he/she also have a basic human right to proselytize – to convert others to one’s own faith? To do so may be a religious duty in some faiths, but it cannot be considered an inalienable human right.

2

Indeed, even as a religious duty, the concept of proselytization poses serious problems for harmonious inter-faith living. For it presupposes that one’s own faith is the only God-legitimised path to salvation and that other faiths are either false or defective. Mankind is thus faced with a peculiar situation of conflict. On the one hand, the individual’s right to “convert” to any faith of his/her choice must be respected. On the other hand, religious conversion becomes – though not always but often – a source of mistrust, misunderstanding and, occasionally, violence between communities. In the age in which we live, the only fair, legitimate and civilized way to deal with this dichotomy is through honest inter-faith dialogue. Sam vaa d to re so lv e viv aad : There is an ancient saying in Sanskrit: Vaade, vaade jaayate tatvabodhah. That is, truth gets illumined through debate and discussion. It is my conviction that our world needs more samvaad (dialogue) – and less vivaad (dispute). Not only on “conversion” but on all other contentious issues – between communities, and between countries. In fact, samvaad itself a reliable way to resolve and reduce vivaad. Therefore, the World Council of Churches deserves to be congratulated for organizing this samvaad. In modern times, inter-faith dialogue has become both more necessary and more possible. In an increasingly shrinking, integral and inter-dependent world of the 21st century, faith communities do not any longer live in isolated socio-culturalgeographical spaces. With growing mobility within and between nations, interaction and intermingling between faith-communities has become greater than ever before. In addition to physical movement of people, they are also exposed, through mass media and myriad socio-economic ties, to the lives, mores and beliefs of other countries and communities. Hence, the 21st century presents both an urgent challenge and an opportunity. Prejudice, misunderstanding and miscommunication can now cause far greater harm to peace and well-being in societies than ever before. (The quick worldwide Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons on Prophet Mohammed and the Pope’s recent utterances on Islam are a case in point.) Conversely, mutual understanding and harmony, nurtured primarily through mutual respect, can enable communities to take even traditionally divisive issues like “conversion” in their stride, thus reconciling the fundamental religious freedom of individuals with amicable intercommunity relations.

3

The inter-faith consultations in Lariano and Coimbatore are, therefore, extremely useful as they address a crucial need of our times. Significance of

the Chris tian initia tiv e f or inter-f aith dialogue

The fact that the initiative for the inter-faith dialogue on “conversion”, both at Lariano and Coimbatore, has been taken by major church organizations is significant. And also commendable. To a non-Christian like me, this signals a welcome willingness on the part of sensitive Christians to recognize that people of other faiths (especially Hindus in India, but also Buddhists in several Asian countries and those practicing indigenous faith-traditions in Africa and Latin America) are concerned about the “conversion” activities of missionary and evangelical organizations, often generously funded by foreign sources. Just as dialogues like these help Christians to understand the concerns of nonChristians, they also enable non-Christians to understand the Christian viewpoint better. It is especially refreshing and instructive to know that there is a great plurality of views on “conversion” within various Christian denominations. The papers presented by Christian representatives in Lariano and Coimbatore are remarkable both for their introspective quality and for their eagerness to deepen intra-Christian dialogue on “conversion”. This process of “rethinking” is little known even among those non-Christians who debate the issue of “conversion”. Out of ignorance, they believe that all Christians have a monochromatic view of “conversion”, which they suspect is pursued by all church organisations with uniform evangelical zeal. Since Islam is another faith that believes in proselytization, one would like to see Muslim religious organizations taking similar initiatives for inter-faith consultation on “conversion”. Hindu society: reality

the

chasm

betw een

spiri tuality

and

social

Hinduism does not have a “church” of its own to organise and guide the socioreligious affairs of the community, nor does it follow any single scriptural source. Nevertheless, what is common and central the belief system of all branches of Hinduism is the freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of faith. The paths of all religions are believed to lead to the same destination, which is also the origin of all paths. As such, respect for all paths and faiths ( sarva panth

4

samaadar) is at the core of the Hindu belief system. There is no scriptural injunction against and penalty for professing, propagating and changing one’s faith. As such, the concept of proselytization is alien to Hinduism. This is the reason why India, more perhaps than any other country in the world, became the welcome abode for a plurality of faiths, both indigenous and those that came from different parts of the world. This is also the reason why India, in spite of having an overwhelming Hindu majority, did not declare itself a Hindu theocratic state in 1947, when Pakistan carved itself out as a separate “Muslim nation” on the specious “Two-Nation Theory”. Instead, India adopted a secular constitution, in conformity with the secular ethos of Hinduism. It may come as a surprise to many that even the Congres s Work ing Com mittee, the apex decision-making body of the party that presently heads India’s coalition government, adopted a resolution on January 16, 1999, in which it affirmed that "H induis m is the most effecti ve guarantor of secularis m" . In saying this, I have no intention whatsoever to suggest that Hinduism is without defects and failings. There is, unfortunately, a wide and all-too-visible gulf between Hinduism’s spiritual vision of equality of all human beings and the reality of Hindu social life. Due to internal ossification and degeneration on the one hand, and external aggression and subjugation on the other, Hinduism became stratified and lost much of its spiritual nourishment. Castes and sub-castes, which once served the needs of a well-organised society, got placed in a rigid hierarchy, with the upper castes (especially Brahmins) taking advantage of their social position to oppress and exploit others. The ev il of untouchability, whic h is a complete negatio n of human dignity and justice, en tered Hindu social life an d becam e its curse. However, it is necessary to know that there is no scriptural legitimacy whatsoever either for untouchability or for notions of birth-defined “high” and “low” castes. Two examples suffice to illustrate this. The authors of the two great Hin du epics – Ramayana and Mahabharata – both belo nged to commu nities that in later tim es were considered “low” in social standing. Valmiki, who wrote the Ramayana, was a tribal an d Vyas, who wrote the Mahabharata, belo nged to the commu nity of fisherme n. In other words, a man’s greatness is to be judged by his/her karma (deeds) and not by their janma (birth). It is because of their karma that both Valmiki and Vyas came to be regarded as Rishis (great sages) in the Hindu tradition. It is also necessary to know that numerous reform movements have arisen within the Hindu fold, both in modern and medieval times, to fight various social evils.

5

Indeed, the arrival of Islam and Christianity catalysed and hastened the process of social reform in Hindu society. W hy the Hindu disquiet

o ver “con ver sion”

As I had argued in my paper for the Lariano meeting, the spread of Islam and Christianity in India followed a contradictory process. Being two great religions of the world, and God’s two great gifts to mankind, they enriched and further expanded India’s spiritual and cultural heritage. Thei r innate me ssage of equalit y and human dignity, and the saintly nature of ma ny of the ir preachers, constitute d one set of reason s that prompted many Hindus to embrace Islam and Christianity. At the same time, it is undeniable that the growth of both Islam and Christianity in India happened in the context of invasion, conquest and colonial subjugation. As shown by many scholars – most notably by Arun Shourie in his book Missionaries in India: Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas and by Shashi S. Sharma in his book Imagined Manuvad --, maligning of Hinduism was an essential part of the “conversion” drive by Christian missionaries during the British period. This had deeply hurt even the most broad-minded Hindu thinkers and leaders of India’s national liberation movement, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda, whose respect for all the faiths in the world is well known. In my paper for the Lariano meeting, I have quoted extensively from Mahatma Gandhi’s strongly critical views on Christian proselytization. Swami Vivekananda, the great patriot-monk, described Jesus Christ, Mohammed and other prophets of humanity as “Rishis”. Quoting from the Hindu scriptures, he said, "These great child re n of Light, who ma nifest the Light thems elves, who are Light the mselves, they, being wo rshipped, become, as it were, one with us and we become on e with them." In a lecture he delivered on ‘Christ the Messenger’ at Los Angeles in 1900, he said, “Our salutations go to all the past Prophets whose teachings and lives we have inher ited, whatever might have been their race, cl ime, or creed! Our salutations go to all those Godlike me n and women who a re wor king to help humanity, whatever be their birth, colour, or race! Our salutations to those who are coming in the future -- liv ing Gods -- to wor k un selfishly f or our desce ndant s.” Yet, the same Swami Vivekananda, addressing a Christian meeting at Detroit, gave vent to his intense displeasure over the vilification of Hinduism by Christian missionaries in their zealous effort to convert Hindus in India.

6

He said, “You train and educate and clothe and pay men to do what? To come over to my country to curse and abuse all my fore-fathers, my rel igion and ever ything…… They walk near a temple and say, ‘you idolaters, you will go to hell’. But they da re not do that to the Moham medan s of India, fo r the sword would be out.... And whenever your minist ers crit icise us, let them reme mber this : If all India stand s up and takes all the mu d that is at the botto m of the Indian Ocea n and throws it up against the Wes tern countries, it will no t be doing an inf inite simal part of that which you are doing to us.” (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. III, pp. 211-212) Christian

vir tue s tha t Hindus admir

e

Undoubtedly, not all Christian thinkers, religious personalities and social leaders had a similarly malicious attitude towards Hinduism. Indeed, over the past two hundred years, and especially after the end of the British rule, there has been a heartening rise in mutual understanding and trust between Christians and Hindus in India. The phenomenon of “acculturation” (where it is genuine and not guided by the hidden agenda of proselytization) on the part of Christian churches has contributed to Hindu-Christian amity. It is equally true that many great Christian virtues such as compassion for fellow human beings, dedicated service of the needy, community orientation of religious practice, and emphasis on education have left a deep imprint on the Hindu mind. Christian churches and community leaders are widely admired for these virtues. Nevertheless, it is not as if anti-Hindu propaganda has stopped being a part of those for whom proselytization is high on the agenda of their life and identity as Christians. The ma nner in wh ic h ma ny Ch ristian groups seek to convert tr ibals and so- called “lower-caste” people in India, with generous funding from foreign (mai nly western) sources, is a case in point. Recently, some Christian evangelist groups were active in the holy town of Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh, distributing anti-Hindu pamphlets among pilgrims coming to the shrine of Lord Venkateshwara. Some Dali t-Chris tian or ganisa tion s’ anti-Hindu pr

opa ganda

Here is another example. A US-based group called the ‘Dalit Freedom Network’ has been popularizing and marketing, through its website, a trade-marked ‘Clay Cup’ sold for one dollar apiece. This is what its website says: “DFN has chosen the clay cup™ to be the symbol of the oppression of the Dalits. Throughout India,

7

Dalits are forced to drink out of clay cups which then are destroyed… so that no upper caste customer will ever use it and risk ‘contamination by a Dalit’s uncleanness.’ It is a fact that Dalits are still served in these cups and not other cups made of glass or metal so as to avoid polluting others. Dalits being served in separate cups and with different utensils is still a reality…The Dalit Freedom Network has chosen the clay cup as a visual representation of the Dalits’ brokenness and oppression. We offer these cups to friends of DFN to act as a daily personal reminder in your own home or office of the Dalit plight. Clay cups available through DFN are handmade by the Dalit community outside of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.” How true is the above description of the condition of “Dalits” in India, as presented to a foreign audience by a Dalit-Christian organization? To say that, in the 21 st century, restauran ts in India still serve tea, co ffee and water in clay cups to “Dalits” is nothing but malicious fiction. Practice of untouchability in rural India is overwhelmingly les s than what it used to be in the past, and almo st no n-existent in urban India wh ich now accounts for 40% of ou r population. Ne verthele ss, DalitCh ristian organisations’ propaganda about it is a good way of collecting mo ney in the United States and other west ern countries. The DFN’s website further says: “The Dalits, numbering 250-300 million, are those the Hindu caste system designates as "low" or "backward" caste. Because of their low social standing, affluent parts of society deny Dalits basic human rights. As a result of this discrimination, Dalits suffer socially, economically, and spiritually. Unable to access education, and because of the social stigma of "untouchability", society forces Dalits to take low-paying jobs providing an inadequate income. They cannot afford food, clothing and shelter. They cannot afford medical care. They cannot afford an education. Society denies Dalits human rights and shackles Dalits to a social and religious system that removes personal freedom. “We believe that the four-fold model of EDUCATION, MEDICAL SUPPORT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, and HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCACY, in partnership with Indian organizations that actively share God's love and start new believers' fellowships, will provide the right combination of efforts to see the next generation of Dalits freed from their present social, economic, and spiritual tyranny. For the first time in history, the Dalits now have a voice which can be heard socially, politically and spiritually in India and around the world. DFN pledges solidarity with the AICC (All India 8

Christian Council) and with the Dalits, and together they are confident they can help bring a notable transformation that will last for eternity. (Emphasis mine.) The falsehoods, exaggerations and innuendos should be apparent to any wellinformed and unbiased reader. If the term ‘Dalits’ connotes what the Indian Constitution calls the Scheduled Castes, their number is by no means 250-300 million. And there is no sociological, theological, historical or constitutional basis to include the Scheduled Tribals and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the category of ‘Dalits’. Yet, the number of ‘Dalits’ is inflated for purposes that are clearly self-serving – namely to misrepresent and malign India in general and the Hindu society in particular in eyes of the rest of the world and, thereby, to cast the net wider for catching new converts. Notice how the DFN’s description of the Indian reality equates Hinduis m with “spi ritual tyranny” . Also, notice how it suggests that “Dalits” can receive “God’s love” and experience transformation in “eternity” only by ceasing to be Hindu and by joining “new believers' fellowships” (euphemism for converting to Christianity). Democr ac y, I ndian Cons titution

and emp ower ment of “Dalits”

DFN’s claim that “for the first time in history, the Dalits now have a voice which can be heard socially, politically and spiritually in India and around the world”, because they have begun renouncing Hinduism, is preposterous, to say the least. Of course, there has been a major push for social, educational and political empowerment of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBCs (other backward classes) after India’s independence. But how did it happen? It happened because of three factors: the progressive and democratic Constitution that we adopted in 1950; our democratic system which has enabled SCs, STs, and OBCs to gain growing representation in various power structures; and, last but not the least, a general progressive awakening in society (among all castes). The statutory provisions for reservations (affirmative action) for SCs, STs and (later) OBCs in education and government jobs; the various laws against untouchability and caste discrimination; and the working of India’s democratic system of governance; all these have gone a long way in creating a new awareness among both “low” and “high caste” Hindus. “Dalits” and “low caste” Hindus have become socially more aware of their rights and politically more assertive, thanks to the power of the vote that democracy has given them. Similarly, “high caste” Hindus have come to accept constitutionally mandated

9

affirmative action for socio-political empowerment of “Dalits” and other traditionally marginalized people in the Hindu community as necessary for social transformation and for balanced national progress. There is no doubt that the Hindu society in In dia has a long way to go to reach the ideals of equal ity and social justice. But isn’t that more or less true also about non- Hindu societies in most other countries? I have quoted from the DFN’s website at some length because it is in some ways representative of how Christian evangelical organizations portray Hinduism both within India and abroad. Wr ong and self-ser

ving notions a bout caste in Hindu socie

ty

Due to ignorance or by design, a notion is assiduous being given currency that caste is the root cause of social injustice in Hindu society. This notion is especially popular among proselytizers in both Christianity and Islam. Their simplistic formula is this: existence of castes is the source of all the inequality and oppression in Hindu society; but Hinduism cannot exist without castes; therefore, Hinduism is incurably unjust, iniquitous and oppressive; therefore, for the sake of liberation of hundreds of millions of people imprisoned within its fold, Hinduism must vanish from the face of this earth; and it is the religious duty of the followers of Christianity (and Islam) to rid mankind of this caste-ridden community of heathens (and infidels). Survey Dalit-Christian (or Islamist) literature, and you are bound to encounter this formula being presented in ten different ways. Here is the latest example. Mr. Kanshi Ram, a prominent Indian politician and founder of the Bahujan Samaj Party, passed away in New Delhi yesterday (October 8). Along with Mayavati, who now heads the BSP, he mobilized and empowered the Scheduled Caste people in Uttar Pradesh. BSP also became a rallying point for the SCs in some other states in India. Although both Mr. Kanshi Ram and Mayavati started their political careers with a vituperative campaign against “higher castes”, in recent years they consciously changed their tactics to include the very same “higher castes” in their rainbow social alliance. Moreover, it must be reme mbered that on both the occasion s that Mayavati beca me the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, i t was w ith the support of the BJP, the pa rty that I wo rk for. In the wake of Mr. Kanshi Ram’s death, a prominent TV channel carried a news item on “Hindu fascism”. It said,

10

“Dalit intellectuals say Hinduism is a form of spiritual Fascism where those at the top of the hierarchy are content and unwilling to change. They say, reformation of Hinduism is essential, but impossible, because if you take out the Vedas and all other references to caste, then what system are you left with?” “Says Dalit Activist Kancha Ilaiah, "To reform, it needs to throw away existing spiritual texts. Which book do you read as a Hindu book without reference to caste? On average 1, 50 0 people are converting to Ch ristianity per day and about 10- 50 people per da y converting to Islam ." (Emphasis mine.) What is not mentioned here is that the so-called Dalit intellectuals, including Dr. Kancha Ilaiah (author of the book ‘Why I Am Not A Hindu’), who call Hinduism “spiritual fascism” are actually “Dalit-Christian” activists. It is they who have been propagating that Hindu reformation is impossible because Hinduism cannot discard castes and there will be nothing left in Hinduism if castes are done away with. This is not the place for a detailed sociological and historical explanation of the origin and evolution of castes in India. Suffice it to make two points here. Firstly, there is nothing inherently objectionable or illegitimate about castes, which are nothing but a natural social collective with distinct characteristics. What is objectiona ble is “casteis m” – that is, the notion of “high” and “low” associated with castes and sub-castes. Secondly, castes in India do no t dis solve the mselves once a person renounce s Hinduism and em braces Christianity, Islam or even Buddhism. As is well-known, castes and sub- castes are a real ity even among Indian C hristians, Indian Muslims and A mbedkarites . Therefore, those who with seeming impunity fascism” because its society is based on castes a community and faith-system. They are doing faith helps them to gain more converts from that

say that Hinduism is “spiritual are misrepresenting and vilifying so in the belief that maligning a faith.

Sab Jaati Sama an, Sab Jaa ti Mahaan: Progressive and reform-minded people in Hindu society are well aware that while castes cannot be wished away, casteism (false pride in one’s own caste, looking down upon other castes, indefensible rules governing the lives of people belonging to a certain caste, etc) must be fought and eradicated. They are working on the belief which rhymes well in Hindi and has a profound appeal for one and all: Sab Jaati Samaa n, Sab Jaati Mahaan (All castes are equal; and all castes are great.) Dr. Ambedkar

and the quiet social 11

r evolution in Hindu societ

y

In the context of the “conversion” debate, what is galling is the tendency of Christian (and also Muslim) evangelical organizations to present only the Hindu society as being marred by the blemish of social inequality and social injustice. No less astounding is the unwillingness of even academics and publicists to recognize and acknowledge the quiet social revolution taking place in the Hindu society. Let me illustrate the latter point by turning to the role played by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, who, along with Mahatma Gandhi, is the most important personality in the social history of the 20th century India. Dr. Ambedkar, one of the main architects of the Indian Constitution, was a “Dalit”. He did not belong to the Congress party. In fact, he was a trenchant critic of the Congress party and its leadership, constituted by Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru (India’s first Prime Ministers) and other stalwarts of the Freedom Movement. His criticism of the inequities in Hinduism was also not hidden from anybody. Yet, after India became independent in 1947, it is the Hindu-majority India, and the Congress party’s Hindu leadership that conferred upon Dr. Ambedkar the honour of drafting India’s Constitution. This was done in recognition of the brilliance of his personality, his profound legal and constitutional knowledge, and, above all, his intense passion for social reform. Indeed, it was Mahatma Gandhi who prevailed upon Jawaharlal Nehru to include Dr. Ambedkar as India’s first Law Minister in his interim government. Dr. Ambe dkar’s example again shows that in Hindu-majority India, greatnes s is deter mined by karma and not by jan ma . Two per tinent points about Dr . Ambedk ar’ s “con ver sion” to Buddhi sm: As is well known, just months before he passed away in December 1956, Dr. Ambedkar embraced Buddhism along with lakhs of his followers. In the context of the debate on “conversion”, two things are pertinent about this major milestone in modern India’s social history. Firstly, one might expect that Dr. Ambedkar’s decision to leave his Hindu past and embrace Buddhism, and that too in a public ceremony in Nagpur with lakhs of followers (who are called neo-Buddhists), would invite severe criticism – even violent response – from “high caste” Hindus. After all, he was an unforgiving critic of Hinduism. However, the response of the Hindu society was quite the contrary. Dr. Ambedkar’s “conversion” was widely seen as an event that merited introspection and self-correction in the Hindu society. Incidentally, 2006 marks the 50th anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar’s “conversion” to Buddhism. The event is being celebrated widely by his followers, especially in the state of Maharashtra. Anyone whose view is not jaundiced by the propaganda of 12

organizations like DFN can see for themselves that there are as many Hindu s as neo-Buddhists participat ing in functions extolling Dr. Ambedkar’s contribution to social reform in mo dern I ndia. The second pertinent fact is why Dr. Ambedkar chose Buddhism and not any other faith. According to his celebrated biographer Dhananjay Keer, he believed that “b y jo ining Isla m or Christianity, the Depressed Clas ses would ‘not only go out of the Hindu rel igion, but also go out of the In dian culture..... Conversion to Islam or Ch ristianity will denationalise the Depressed Clas ses’.” (Dr Ambedkar, Life and Mission, 2nd ed., pp 278-9, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 1962.) Accultur ation: Genuine and motiva

ted

This gives rise to two important questions: Why was there no friction between Ambedkarites (who converted to Buddhism) and the larger Hindu society, and why is there acrimony between Christians and Hindus (or Hindus and Muslims) when “Dalits” convert to Christianity or Islam? Why did even Dr. Ambedkar feel that conversion to Christianity or Islam would uproot the Depressed Classes from India’s cultural soil? The phenomenon of acculturation encouraged by Indian churches appears to be a response to the above questions. As I said earlier, if this response is sincere, and rooted in genuine respect for Hindu customs and cultural traditions, it is indeed welcome. However, if adoption of external manifestations of Hindu religiosity is merely a tactic to attract ordinary Hindus to the Christian fold, then it is nothing but deception. I mention this because I have heard many Hindu friends affirm that the latter practice is quite prevalent in rural areas where church organizations enter for the first time. W hy no con ver sion of Muslim s? Is it because the s wor d?

of the thr ea t of

An equally important question is: Why are there no conversions from “lower caste” Muslims in India to Christianity? And why do Christian missionaries in India never indulge in any propaganda to highlight the “flaws” in Islam and in Muslim society? Is it because -- as pointed out by Swami Vi vekanan da in his speech men tioned earlie r, and as demo nstrated by the recen t explosi ve controversy over the Po pe’s remarks about Islam -- “They dare not do that to the Moha mmeda ns of I ndia, fo r the sword would be out”?

13

I am sorry if my words sound harsh. It is not my intention to show disrespect to any faith or to hurt the feelings of the followers of Christianity or Islam. I do not wish to even remotely suggest that violence is a justified response when proselytization is carried out by questionable means. I believe that the violence against Christians so metime s unleashed by Hindu extremist organizat ion s in In dia is condem nable. Also, no true Hindu can condone the routine spreading of anti-Muslim and anti-Christian prejudices by certain Hindu communal organizations. Nevertheless, in the context of the debate on “conversion” no honest and truthseeking participant can avoid the obvious question: Why do Christian evangelical groups target only Hindus, Buddhists and followers of traditional faiths in Africa and Latin America for proselytization – and never Muslims? Christian eq uiv alent of the ‘Whit e Man’s Burden’: As a Hindu, I ask myself another question: as the recent controversy over the Pope’s remarks on Islam has once again shown, church organizations are far more sensitive to Muslim criticism of the Christian conduct in the past and now. But they have rarely publicly acknowledged any wrong-doing vis-à-vis the Hindu community. On the contrary, in the Chr istia n equi vale nt of the White Man’s Bu rde n, they continue to believe that they have a di vine mission to “l iberate” “low-caste Hindu s” – indee d, all Hindus -- by br inging the m within the Ch ristian fold. ‘Making Asia Ch ristian’ is a much- discu ssed goal in evangelist literature. The most cha ritable wa y of describing this notio n is that it is rel igious cond esce nsion. Islamic double-standar

d on r eligious fr eedom

Similarly, no honest and truth-seeking participant in the debate on “conversion” can avoid this question: Why does Islam have double-standards of religious freedom? A convert to Islam is prized. However, a Muslim is bar red, on the pa in of scr ipturally invoked death penal ty, from embracing any other fa ith. This also leads to related questions: Not only is a Muslim denied the freedom of religion to accept any other faith if his/her conscience prompts them to do so, but non-Muslims in Muslim countries are also denied the freedom of religion if it entails free propagation of their faith and “invitation” (dawah) for Muslims to the fold of a non-Muslim faith. Why? Musli ms insis t on this freedo m for thems elves where they are a minority in non- Muslim societies. But Muslim- majorit y countries will ra rely gran t the sa me freedo m to

14

minorities belonging to other faiths. Wh y? Muslims demand – and rightly so – adherence to secular, non-discriminatory principles in India and in all other countries where they are a majority. But secularism is rejected as un-Islamic in most Muslim majority countries. Why? Plan of needed

action:

univ er sal

code

of conduct

on

“con ver sion”

This brings me to the last section of this paper. We must accept that the do’s and don’ts of religious freedom – including in the area of “conversion” – should have universal application. There cannot be scriptural or theological arguments to deny others the freedoms which are demanded for oneself. This is especially so in today’s rapidly shrinking, globalizing world. And if there are scriptural tenets (or interpretations of tenets) that are incompatible with universally applicable norms of religious freedom, then it is the responsibility of the followers of the respective faiths to reform/reinterpret/jettison such tenets. After all, Hinduism had to abandon and renounce those social practices that were offensive to the modern notions of human dignity and justice. In this context, I would like to draw the attention of the participants in the Coimbatore meet to three of the recommendations contained in the report prepared by the Lariano group. 1. Freedom of rel igion enjoi ns upon all of us the equally nonnegotiable responsibility to respect faiths other than our own, and never to denigrate, vil ify or misrepres ent them for the pu rpose of af firming superiorit y of our fa ith. 2. We acknowledge that errors have been pe rpetrated and injustice committe d by the adherent s of ever y faith. Therefore, it is incumbe nt on eve ry community to conduct honest self- critical examination of its historical conduct as well as its doctrinal/theological precepts. Such self-cr iticism and repentance should lead to neces sary reforms inter alia on the issue of conversion. 3. A particula r reform that we would comm end to pract itioners and establish ment s of all faiths is to ensure that conversion by “unethical” mea ns are discouraged and rejected by one and all.

15

There should be tran sparency to one’s fa ith.

in the practice

of inv iting others

Together with other participants in the inter-faith dialogue in Coimbatore, I am hopeful that we’ll be able to further enlarge the area of consensus on the issue of “conversion”. Having done that, we should also identify ways of disseminating our consensual views among religious organisations and civil society groups. This in my view would constitute the success of the Coimbatore meeting. (Coimbat ore – Oct ober 9, 200 6)

16