Continental conversion

There have even been times (as in the thousand years between Asoka and Harshvardhan) when Hinduism has been snuffed out of large parts of the country. But the Vedic tradition has invariably reasserted itself or held its own. In consequence, Hinduism remains the religion of 85 per cent of Indians, the sanatana dharma having, in very large measure, warded off Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism.

It is out of theself-confident assertion of its ability to survive that the mainstream Hindu tradition treats without panic decisions at the margin of the Hindu fold to convert to other religions and other ways of life. While, therefore, most Hindus have taken in their stride, without much concern, the Pope’s proclamation of continental conversion, there is a fringe element, led by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and backed by the Sangh Parivar, which is attempting to exploit the Pope’s call to pursue their campaign against the right given by the Constitution to propagate one’s faith and the right, also given by the Constitution, to the individual to change his faith.

The VHP argument is that since their faith does not oblige them to convert others to Hinduism, while the Christian faith does cast on all Christians, and certainly the Christian priesthood, the obligation to harvest others, the Christians must be prevented by law from pursuing their religious obligation to propagate their faith.

The secular argument, on thecontrary, is that no belief of any religion may be constrained by the contrary belief of another religion. In short, that if a Christian believes that salvation is possible only through Christ, then the fact that a Hindu does not share that belief should not constrain a Christian from believing in what he believes. The quintessential belief of the Hindu dharma is the doctrine of karma.

Secularism does not demand that the Hindu right to believe in karma be extinguished because of the Christian rejection of reincarnation. To each his own: belief is a matter of personal faith, and if one faith believes in harvesting souls and another faith does not go in for evangelism on any significant scale, secularism enjoins equal respect for both positions.

What faith could the Pope have propagated other than his own faith? And how could that faith be what the VHP wants it to be? For the Pope to assert, as the Bible enjoins him to assert, that the path to God is "strait and narrow" is, in secular eyes, just as worthyof respect as the contrary Hindu view that the ways to God are many.

Indeed, if the Hindu does, in fact, believe that the paths to God are many, then the Christian path must surely be just as valid as any other path even if it does propagate the view that its path alone can lead to God. Those who do not accept this proposition will not be Christians; those who do will. That is all there is to it.

In other words, that version of the Hindu faith which is outraged at the Pope’s assertion of his faith cannot be reconciled with the tradition of tolerance integral to the Hindu way of life. Which is why the Hindu credentials of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad are suspect. The extremism of the VHP smacks more of a semitic tradition of intolerance than the sub-continental tradition of tolerating, celebrating and being influenced by the spiritual insights of others.

Neither secularism nor the tradition of tolerance can, however, countenance conversion by force. The Constitution does not confer on any religion the rightto convert. It does, however, confer on the individual the Constitutional right to be converted. The Niyogi Commission report (a Jurassic Park document dating back nearly half a century to 1956) has revealed some missionary techniques of doubtful moral and legal validity, and a Patna High Court judgment of 1977 has cleared up any ambiguity about the unconstitutionality and illegality of forcible conversions.

If it can be established that a person has been converted to another religion against his or her will, such conversion cannot be sustained in law.The fact, however, is that for all their assiduous exertions neither the VHP nor any of its sister organisations has been able to demonstrate that individuals or communities are changing their religion under compulsion.

Indeed, the biggest mass conversion that has occurred since Independence has been the conversion of Dr. Ambedkar’s followers to Buddhism. Can it be anyone’s case that Mayawati rails against Manuwad under threat or fear? The best witnessagainst forcible conversion is he who has been converted.

It is remarkable that those who have changed their religion have done so with gusto and enthusiasm and no complaint. Indeed, the old expression "naya Mussalman" testifies to the robustness with which the new convert throws himself into practising and extolling his new religion.

The self-confident Hindu knows that neither threat nor blandishment, nor even banishment, has de-Hinduised this land. Through the ages, and whatever the religion of the ruler, India has taught the Indian ruler the lesson that religious intolerance leads to political upheaval and religious tolerance to political consolidation. That is why the wise Muslim ruler through a thousand years of history was the one who placed Islamic conversion on the backburner.

The British burned their fingers through the missionary. Which is why the Bible-carrying missionary was officially placed on the backburner, certainly after 1857. So is Prime Minister Vajpayee well-advised in putting theSangh Parivar-VHP agenda on the backburner to bring and keep himself in office. The minute he surrenders to his saffron inheritance, the bell will begin tolling for him too.

Aiyar is a Congress MP but these views are his own