Conversions: Learning from the Mahatma

The visitor’s logic sounded convincing to Millie. Gandhi’s reverence for Jesus was transparent. Christ’s ‘‘Sermon on the Mount’’ was a source of guidance and inspiration to him. A beautiful picture of Jesus adorned the wall over his desk. Yet, when Millie asked him why he did not embrace Christianity, Gandhi’s reply was revealing. He said that although he had studied Christian scriptures and was tremendously attracted, he concluded that ‘‘to be a good Hindu also meant that I would be a good Christian. There was no need for me to join your creed to be a believer in the beauty of the teachings of Jesus or try to follow His example’’.

I mentioned this episode from Gandhiji’s life in my presentation at an inter-religious meeting on conversions held last week at Lariano (near Rome) in Italy. Significantly, it was organised by the Pope’s Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Vatican City, and the Office on Inter-Religious Relations and Dialogue, World Council of Churches, Geneva. It was a commendable first-of-its-kind initiative by the two most important Christian establishments in the world to listen to the concerns and viewpoints of non-Christians in a candid consultative setting.

‘‘Since we are blamed to be a part of the problem, we would like to be a part of the solution too,’’ is how one of the organisers explained the purpose of the meeting. Christianity and Islam being the two main proselytising religions in the world, the meeting witnessed representatives of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and the traditional faiths in Africa voicing their concerns in an outspoken manner, but not without an element of self-criticism about the shortcomings in their own faiths. There was a mix of candour and self-criticism in the presentations of our Christian and Muslim friends, too.

I referred to Gandhiji extensively for two reasons. Firstly, to emphasise his teaching, which he lived out in his life, that the true calling of religion is progressive transformation of one’s self and society. Hence, if there is a right meaning of ‘‘conversion’’, it is that each one of us should ‘‘convert’’ to the uniting and ennobling spiritual truth which is present in each of our faiths. In other words, each of us should become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Christian, and so on, while respecting and learning from all other faiths. Reverend Andrew Wingate from England, one of the participants in the dialogue, has captured this concept beautifully in the title of his book Celebrating Difference, Staying Faithful.

The second reason for recalling Gandhiji was to express the Hindu unease at the sustained, often aggressive, campaign of proselytisation by certain Christian groups in India. This campaign began in colonial times. In his seminal book Missionaries in India—Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas, Arun Shourie has shown how conversion of the ‘‘heathens’’ to Christianity, and thus ‘‘saving their souls’’, was an important objective of the British rule in India. This drive for conversions has continued in our times, albeit with many significant differences. It vilifies and distorts Hinduism (Sample: ‘‘Dalits can experience liberation only if they renounce Hinduism’’, ‘‘Adivasis are not Hindus, they are Animists’’). It employs questionable means, including the use of foreign funds for evangelisation and proselytisation. It is hence the chief source of Hindu suspicion about missionaries.

Unfortunately, the Hindu reaction against Christian proselytisation has sometimes become extremist and violent, which cannot be condoned. However, no good can come out by pretending, as many ‘‘secularists’’ do, that Christian proselytisation is not a problem in India, and that it is only propaganda by the Sangh Parivar. Even Mahatma Gandhi, who cannot be accused of having any ill-will towards Christianity, was constrained to say the following:

• ‘‘It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world’s progress toward peace. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man?’’ (Harijan: January 30, 1937)

• ‘‘I hold that proselytisation under the cloak of humanitarian work is unhealthy to say the least. It is most resented by people here. Religion after all is a deeply personal thing. It touches the heart…Why should I change my religion because the doctor who professes Christianity as his religion has cured me of some disease, or why should the doctor expect me to change whilst I am under his influence?’’ (Young India: April 23, 1931)

• ‘‘My fear is that though Christian friends nowadays do not say or admit it that Hindu religion is untrue, they must harbour in their breast that Hinduism is an error and that Christianity, as they believe it, is the only true religion. So far as one can understand the present (Christian) effort, it is to uproot Hinduism from her very foundation and replace it by another faith.’’ (Harijan: March 13, 1937)

• ‘‘If I had the power and could legislate, I should stop all proselytising.’’ (Harijan: November 5, 1935)

I stated at the Lariano meeting that Islam and Christianity are as much a part of India’s social fabric as the different Indic faiths. At the same time, their introduction to India presents two contradictory features. As far as Christianity is concerned, where it has reached the Indian mind and heart with its piety and nobility, and with its limitless love of humanity, it has made India’s spiritual soil more fecund and its social fabric more suffused with the ideal of service of God and man. The humanitarian work of many church-based organisations in the fields of education and healthcare has been a model for other communities to follow. The devotion and spirit of selfless service that many Christian missionaries bring to bear upon their work is truly commendable. Notwithstanding all this, the missionary drive to convert Hindus, especially Dalits, Adivasis and vulnerable sections of Hindu society, to Christianity remains a sticking point in Hindu-Christian relations.

Therefore, the recommendation for a ‘‘code of conduct’’, especially rejection of conversions through ‘‘unethical means’’, which is contained in the report that emerged out of the Lariano inter-faith dialogue is highly significant. This initiative deserves to be carried forward by similar inter-faith consultations in India, leading to concrete action towards eliminating the misgivings and tensions over religious conversions.write to

sudheen.kulkarni@expressindia.com