Time for a Hindu introspection

Vajpayee has toned down his stand subsequently and now prefers to call it a quot;dialoguequot;, given the international flak that has come after the attack on Christians. A dialogue is between two groups across the table to resolve contentious issues and is not calculated to reopen basics which have been settled by law and the Constitution.

The Opposition has rejected a national debate on conversions for this very reason. They suspect it is designed to rip open the whole issue to polarise the polity on communal lines. TheConstituent Assembly had discussed the right to propagate religion threadbare and India was the only country at the time to make this a fundamental right.

The debates show that the country8217;s founding fathers had chosen this course despite the partition on religious lines. They had even turned down suggestions that no propaganda calculated to change religion was allowed in educational institutions, hospitals or asylums where persons of a tender age were exposed to influences from those able to exercise authority over them. Their over-riding concern was to maintain the country8217;s multi-religious character.

Conversions are not new to India. They have been taking place for hundreds of years. After all, 15 percent of the country8217;s population made up of minorities are converts. Hindu society accepted it, synthesising various influences in the process. Akbar was tolerant enough to allow his Hindu wife Jodha Bai to practice her own faith. Ambedkar converted thousands of dalits to Buddhism at a meeting. It wasnot even done individually. While change of religion by coercion is punishable under the law, conversions by quot;allurementquot; of either education or social equality or the promise of a better life are legally not the same because the converted is a consenting party.

What has distorted things is the process of power and the competitive politics. The electoral system is based on mobilising the largest group in one8217;s favour and sowing dissent among the others so that you can get elected even with a minority support. This has fragmented politics and deepened divisions on caste, community and religious lines. Only the politically naive would believe that there is not a method behind the campaign against Chris-tians. It is not as if a rash of conversions has taken place in recent months or years and all of a sudden there is a popular reaction to it. The anti-Christian climate, being created for the first time in the country in fifty years, has coincided with the emergence of Sonia Gandhi. Those opposed to her mayhope that opposition to the community would later translate into an opposition to the individual. The idea was also to throw the net wider again to rope in the Hindus who are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Vajpayee ministry. The reaction of the West to the atrocities against the Christians and the threat of the US to enact a law which gives them the right to interfere in the internal affairs of a country where Christians are attacked are bound to create a counter-reaction in the Hindus. So also is the case with the Muslim reaction to the visit of Salman Rushdie.

Also, many Hindus don8217;t feel comfortable with conversions, and they have helped to create a siege mentality in them. Implicit in the concept is the assumption that the converting religion, be it Islam or Christianity, is superior to the one to which the person belongs. For, the basis of Hinduism, quot;an integrated vision and a philosophy of life and cosmos, expressed in organised society to live that philosophy in peace and amityquot;, istolerance towards other faiths. The Vedic culture excludes nothing,not even the non-believers. On the other hand, the basis of the Christianity faith is to quot;spread the good wordquot;. Propagation is inherent in its practice.

The Hindutva family8217;s plan became counterproductive with the gruesome burning of the Staines family, and now the strange rape of a nun in Orissa. Whether these episodes signify the inevitable distortions that are bound to creep in a hate campaign or they are an attempt by the Sangh Parivar8217;s detractors to tarnish it with their own brush is not known. What is however clear is that what is happening today, obviously for political considerations, is dangerous for the country8217;s social fabric.

It would be useful for Hindu society to cogitate why tribals and poorer sections are turning to Christianity if the charge of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is to be believed. Why cannot those convinced of the Hindu way of life run a network of educational institutions and health facilities as do theChristian missionaries? Why cannot a good chunk of the enormous amount of charhava offerings that comes to the temples be used for the purpose? It is here that a serious introspection in the Hindu community is called for and a national debate is needed.