Conversions risky for present Christians

Prafull Goradia

The 1931 Karachi session of the Congress had guaranteed the right to freely profess and practise one's religion but not to propagate it. KM Munshi and Purushottam Das Tandon had especially argued against the consent to propagate. They said that this would open the floodgate of conversion. Much later in 1948, on the eve of finalising the draft Constitution, even Jawaharlal Nehru was unable to appreciate propagation. However, the word was smuggled in on the insistence of Christian and Muslim representatives. Since then, there have been incidents that have contributed to communal tension in the country.

The Jayalalitha ordinance dated October 5, 2002, prohibiting religious conversions made forcibly, fraudulently or by means of allurement, is only a follow up on similar laws passed years ago by Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. They were challenged in the Supreme Court by one Father Stanislaus but without success. Subsequently, Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura voted similar legislations.

In the controversy between those in favour and those against this ordinance, no one has stopped to note that there are three separate interests involved in a conversion. There is first the clergy or ulema who wish to increase their flock or expand their empire. The second interest is that of the persons undergoing conversion in order to obtain spiritual or material satisfaction. And, thirdly are the present Christians who have nothing to gain but have a great deal at risk in terms of their future peace and safety. Yet no one consults them nor have they woken up to question the proselytisers as to why their safety should be jeopardised.

His Holiness the Pope on his last visit to India had declared that there was to be a harvest of faith in Asia. That the 21st century was that of Asia to join the fraternity of Jesus Christ in large numbers. His followers in the field have been systematically doing what the Pontiff of The Vatican has been saying. Every village in the country has been surveyed more thoroughly than any census can do. A specimen of the form used is available under the Joshua Project 2000 which, inter alia, collects every conceivable detail about the village.

The proselytisers advise their New Delhi converts to practise deceit. This is causing a steep rise in the number of Crypto-Christians. The World Christian Encyclopedia edited by David B Barrett and published by Oxford University Press, Nairobi, 1982, has defined Crypto-Christians on page 371. This briefly is one who is entered as a Christian in the record of the Church, but he declares himself as a Hindu for census enumeration.

This ardent exercise of converting Hindus to Christianity is a social aggression. The proselytisers do not convert Muslims whose ulema would consider it as an act of apostasy, the punishment for which could extend to death by fatwa. Moreover, the Hindus have no tradition of converting people to their faith. The only facility for an earlier Hindu to return to his fold is shuddhi introduced by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in the 19th century and followed up by the Arya Samaj. Sooner or later, there is likely to build up a widespread resistance to this aggression. As and when that happens, the sufferer would be the present Christians who are doing their work, earning their livelihood and living to be happy. They have no aggressive designs and yet, due to the ambitions of the clergy, they could one day be the targets of retaliation.

The VHP was a comparatively limited movement until the Babri Masjid Action Committee was formed in 1986 to keep a Muslim hold over the Ram Janmabhoomi. It was a Muslim provocation that awakened a Hindu movement. During the current year, but for the carnage at Godhra, Gujarat should have enjoyed peace and tranquillity. Yet driven by ambition, the Christian proselytisers could be blind to the factor of retaliation. But surely the non-clerical leadership of the community should question the wisdom and the right of their priests.

It is only to be expected that there could be a Hindu reaction to the activities of conversion. The confrontation between the majority and 4 or 5 per cent minority would not be an equal one! Why should there be a Christian provocation? Even if lay Christians do not protest against proselytising, it is the duty or rather the dharma of the Church leaders to be more alert. They ought to have the welfare of their flocks uppermost in their mind and should therefore, restrain themselves from trying to change the demography of India.