India is being betrayed by the government, by the courts, and most importantly, by its people. What sets India apart from its neighbors – is freedom enshrined in the Constitution. Freedom of thought. Freedom of speech. And yes – freedom of religion. Because religion is nothing but an extension of thought.
As a citizen, I’m embarrassed that 5 states have banned religious conversion. In my opinion, the people who created these laws as well as those who support them need to leave India. Clearly, these people do not know that what we created in 1947 is something special that needs to be protected. But no, they want to throw away the idea of India – which is a place where people can live their lives free from harassment as long as they don’t hurt anyone else.
Why are you living in a country whose ideals you do not believe in? By staying here under the Indian Constitution enjoying its benefits, you’re a hypocrite. No one can force you to leave, but come on – do the right thing and settle someplace else where the founding principles are more in line with your tastes. Like China, Iran, Afghanistan or whatever. What defines India is the Constitution and freedom, not some random set of boundaries created hundreds of years ago. If you don’t believe in the Constitution’s values, you have no business remaining here.
Incentive to Convert? No Problem!
Many people have a problem with Christian missionaries for example, offering starving people food as an incentive to convert. But so what? I think by offering starving people food, Christian missionaries are doing something awesome. They’re giving a person a way out of their misery. And no one is forcing the recipient to accept. At any point of time, they can refuse and not be any worse off than they were before.
That last sentence is the key to all of this. By merely making the offer, does the Christian (or Mulsim) missionary take something away from the person to whom they make the offer? Tomorrow if I approach a person in need and offer them money if they do something for me, is that wrong? Are they not at liberty to refuse my money and my help?
From a purely logical and practical standpoint, I think missionaries of all kinds are doing everyone a favor. They’re giving people choice and opening up more avenues of action. More choice is never a bad thing. “Forced conversions” in today’s world is a misnomer. You can no more “force” someone to convert, than you can force them to have a certain thought.
Let me put it in another way. If I’m starving and some dude offers me help if I subscribe to their newsletter, sign up on their website, or agree to carry some membership card of their organization, will I be happy or sad? Will I be upset that the option is presented to me? I can always say “no” and return to how I was before. Does merely providing a choice harm me?
And yet, a lot of Hindutva types will spout some bullshit about “cultural imperialism”, pretending that they know what is good for others. Theek hai bhai, no one is forcing you to convert, so what is your problem? If you’re so hung up on Christian missionaries making an offer to others, who is stopping you from making a counter offer? Go ahead and sell your product man!
But don’t sit around bitching that your customers are being stolen away by the competition who offers better benefits than you. If you want your club to retain its membership, then compete or shut the fuck up.
P.S: I’m an atheist, so I have no skin in this game. But it’s the principle that matters.
This is something I always ask people : If it is all right to convert people by promising them heaven, why is it wrong to convert them by promising them money or a job? At least the latter is a tangible, immediate return.
I end up getting responses like there would be some poor guy needing money for his mom’s operation and it is wrong for missionaries to exploit his situation and give him money in exchange for his conversion. Apparently, these folks would rather let the guy’s mom die than let him convert in exchange for money. If his mother is more important to him than his religion, what do these folks gain by forcing him to stay in the religion?
Check the comment thread here (http://qr.ae/M5fXt) for an example.
In reply to Raziman T V
Exactly!
You are spot-on with the club membership analogy. And to top it off, you never really got to choose your first club membership anyways – you were just born into it. So why are these states holding you responsible for the choices you did not make in the first place?
And what will they do about people who will not “formally” convert to Christianity, but just stop going to temples and start attending church instead?
And for the whole erosion of culture argument, I strongly feel that a culture that cannot preserve itself should be allowed to die its natural death. That’s the only way we will have stronger, better culture take root in its place. All these measures only delay the process, they do not stop it.
In reply to Clueless
What we have is a kind of second caste system , where your religion is determined at birth and cannot be changed. I don’t know which is funnier – carrying a random meaningless badge determined at birth, or the government insisting that you can’t change it to another random, meaningless badge!
Ultimately this changes nothing, What if i converted to christianity, but never went to a church? do i still get the benefits? How do you determine actual religious adherence? Do you go to churches and start questioning people? Investigate with pictures of known hindus in churches?
Also, nothing is stopping you from saying “i convert”, then going to church and doing the bare minimum for the food. You can consider it a job if you want. So if this really converts anyone, they probably weren’t getting what they needed from their original religion.
Bottom line:If whatever hindu faith feels they’re getting poached, the right thing to do is simply fight fire with fire. More beneficial to poor people, and while they might have less funding, any true believers will probably appreciate staying with the faith enough to stick with it. Anyone who leaves, who needs them.
Or at least just make what the missionaries are doing illegal instead. At least that’s not repressing basic freedoms. (By the way; I do feel there’s an underrepresented issue here, vis-a-vis children. Children can be converted even if their parents don’t really believe, which is where Christians can really drum up recruits. Still, that’s a fairly long process and the parent has to not mind it happening, in which case, who cares?)
In reply to tehy
I don’t think we can criminalize what the missionaries are doing. After all, what is it they’re doing? They’re selling a product – in this case membership in exchange for goods. That is their profession, their life. And they’re doing it without harming anyone. How can the government just ban it?
In reply to bhagwad
I don’t think we can criminalize what the poor people are doing. After all, what is it they’re doing? They’re changing a belief – in this case membership for goods. That is their decision, part of their life. And they’re doing it without harming anyone. How can the government just ban it?
My point being, none of this behavior should be banned. At all!!! But, if you feel otherwise, and feel the need so strongly as to ban something… Why not just ban what the missionaries are doing? It accomplishes almost literally the exact same effect, while not suppressing basic human freedoms.
Anyhow it kind of sucks when you attack my more logical solution as if I was really in favor of this behavior, and it wasn’t the first time, just saying. Huge fan of your work though.
In reply to tehy
Doesn’t this suppress the basic human freedoms of the missionaries?!
I never intended to come across as attacking your personally. If it felt that way, I apologize. I’m only interested in the reasoning behind an argument, and have no beef with the person making it…
In reply to bhagwad
Well, the freedom to convert someone to your cause through offers of food (or even in general) is not a deeply held human right exactly, but freedom to choose your religion really is.
Obviously some stupid, shitty thing has to be done to accomplish such an idiotic objective. But you might as well minimize the stupidity and shittiness, right?
Anyhow what i mean is, i offer these points up not like “this us the right and holy thing to do” but more like “well if you’re going to be retarded, at least be a little less retarded”, and you kinda take it like the first one
In reply to tehy
The freedom to convert is merely an extension of freedom of speech. What does a missionary do after all? He or she uses their right to free speech . Even offering food to someone to follow certain ideas is just another form of freedom of expression. The right to give your property to someone else in exchange for something.
I would protect the freedom of expression of missionaries with the utmost vigor. Taking that away would be a travesty of epic proportions, and no one deserves that.
If that leads to the entire country becoming Christian, or Muslim, then so be it. That’s just how we roll as a country.
In reply to bhagwad
Dude, so to repeat
I don’t support banning any of this.
I just think banning the freedom of everyone to change their religion is much worse, more oppressive, stupider, and of course looks worse, than simply banning the missionaries’ actions.
And I don’t necessarily think banning those actions counts as freedom of expression; can you really classify “giving free food, or other items” as a form of expression? I guess it could be, but…come on.
Anyhow, again, this whole thing is despicable and retarded. But what i suggested accomplishes the same thing, and is much less oppressive. Of course it’s still oppressive and wrong, what do you expect.
In reply to tehy
That’s a false dichotomy. We can simply not ban either. Problem solved and everyone is happy!
It’s widely accepted that freedom of expression doesn’t simply mean speech or art. Missionaries giving food to people definitely counts as freedom of expression. And any court in the land will say the same.
Both changing one’s religion and missionaries giving food are examples of freedom of expression. If you ban one, the other gets banned automatically. I don’t even know why this is a debate at all. Everything is already happy without either freedom being taken away. What is this false choice between banning one or banning the other?
Nice thoughts. Religious conversion should not be banned in any part of the world.
I want to mention a few things:
When father Dr.Graham Staines & his children were murdered, Sohaib Iliyasi commented on `India’s most wanted` that “if they(VHP) are worried about poverty being reason for conversions, they must find a solution to that first”.
The link you have given, has another indianexpress.com link, that reports that when 4 dalits converted to islam, the converts were promised justice for them to reconvert. The Sangh will not be proactive in fighting the evils of Hinduism, unless it is threatened by losing numbers.
The scroll.in article however wrongly states that religious conversions are banned in 5 states. FORA states that converts must notify their conversion; and conversion by force,fraud and allurement are banned. (Though i think the allurement clause must go.) Even registered marriages require you to notify; and marriage by force and fraud are banned, but that does not mean that registered marriages are banned.
Conversion by allurement must stay. At least we should be happy that our fellow citizens are getting what should be their basic right. The more the number of alluring parties, the better it is for the downtrodden.
Even India’s foreign policy should be against banning religious conversions. Business interests from countries that ban religious conversion must not get any kind of permission in India, and individuals from such countries seeking work visa in India must not get it. Discourage imports from those countries or MNCs rooted in those countries. However religious minorities (and only minorities) from there could be allowed in as refugees.
On an afterthought, i am just curious. It is understandable when a dalit converts to buddhism or christianity or atheism. But converting from one racism(i.e. brahminism) to another racism(i.e. islam) is confusing. I am not implying that they should be stopped from following religion of their choice. If they want to be muslim, then let them be. But I am just plain curious.
In reply to Abhishek Oza
Good point about registration. I guess that must be done in any case no? Since a person’s religion is used for government purposes. I think the problem is when it’s not a question of registration, but permission.
Also, not only is “allurement” banned, the definition of “force” is so stupid as to be unrecognizable. The Orissa High Court in Yulitha Hyde v. State of Orissa said that “force” includes the threat of divine displeasure!
How messed up is that?
In reply to bhagwad
Yesterday, I hastily wrote down my comment and missed a few points.
1. This is related to the comparison I made between notifying conversion & registered marriage registration. In year 2004 or 2005, there was a debate on NDTV where Madhu Poornima Kishwar raised a very important point. When couples notify the family court for registered marriages, their names are put up on the notice board just inside the periphery of the court. There, the SIMI, VHP, RSS,and other such extremist group’s people read it and identify the name & address of the cross-community marriages. After that they just gather in gangs & reach to those couples at their respective places & force them to abdicate their 1 month notice of their marriage registration. The case of the MP’s 4 men’s dalit-to-muslim conversion & reconversion looks similar. The 4 men had to notify the court and the Sangh people got a whiff from there, only to reach them & reconvert them. I am not sure, but may be the motive behind making people notify conversion could be to encourage similar reconversion.
2. An year after post-Godhra-riots, there was a 30 min docu on NDTV about situations of dalits in rural Gujarat. In a section, 4 dalit guys (who looked between 14 – 20 year olds) were interviewed. Those guys said about RSS/VHP people: “Jab Hamari zaroorat un ko hoti hai to vah hamein kehte hain, aap bhi hamri tarah Hindu ho, aur ham mein aur aap mein koi fark nahi. Lekin kaam nikal jaane ke baad phir kachre ki tarah pesh aate hain.” [TRANSLATION: “When they need us, they say you are Hindu too & not different from us. But after that they treat us like garbage.”] Reading between the discussion in that interview, it occurred to me as if the RSS/VHP controllers in Gujarat were predominantly upper caste & dalits were used as nontechnical members and as foot soldiers for dark activities. Do you remember, father Staines’ murderers were Dalits too? And they were labelled as non-technical members of VHP too. This treatment of dalits as disposables, is the mindset responsible for dalit atrocities.
In the light of 2 points above, I think in my last post i made a mistake of expecting that anything can make RSS to fight evils of Hinduism, where as, they are the perpetrators of the evils & it’s a struggle for them even to avoid doing evil.
I also endorse your view about the stupidity of the definition of “force”, and thanks for sharing the example of that court case of Orissa HC.
In reply to Abhishek Oza
It’s amply clear that none of these guys are actually interested in helping people – all they care about is their damn club membership numbers!
In reply to Abhishek Oza
Isn’t it stupid that I should notify of my conversion? If religion and state were truly separate, then government should not have to know which religion I belong to.
Btw, atheism is NOT a religion. It is the absence of ANY religion.
In reply to Clueless
Yeah, it IS stupid. Unfortunately in India, there isn’t even the pretense of a separation between church and state :(
Ok, let’s take that premise at face value, that offering something only presents more choice. Would you be ok with solicitation or prostitution? I am with you about conversion being a choice, so why not present that choice where it first belongs. Why should a child be automatically a certain religion? The first lack of choice is really there, is it not? Let children decide at 18 what they want to be.
Your argument is simplistic. Think through the strong reservations against conversion by some, and you will understand the deep fears underlying it. The right of the individual may not be affected by the offer of a “bribe”, but the group is. Here is the thought experiment (not far off, when you see what is happening in Manipur). If there are a significant number of people who convert to a group, and if that group becomes the majority, chances are that the freedoms we take for granted, will not be guaranteed. Fantasy, you say? It did, in 1947.
I am an atheist, and I do have skin in the game, because in a country that could be demographically altered, I might no longer be allowed to be.
In reply to Vijay
Of course I’m ok with prostitution. It should be legalized. And I agree – children should decide their religion at 18. Though of course, that choice is anyway open to them. No one is stopping them from changing their religion no?
The demographics of India have nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution is blind to how many Muslims or HIndus there are in the state. So it doesn’t matter to me what the demographics are. I enjoy my freedoms through the Constitution and not through the blessings of the majority.
Vatican Paedophilia Scandal: Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski Stored Over 100,000 Child Porn Videos
The Kenyan pastors being exposed online
If Hindus are worrie d that Christian missionaries are “offering”the lower castes money and benefits if they convert surely the solution is simple. Make Hinduism so attractive that they don’t want to convert out.
In reply to B
Unfortunately that will require them to actually work to improve their service. It’s like BSNL having to improve to retain their customers when private players offer better deals. Instead, just ban moving from service to another, and problem solved! No longer do you need to even have the pretense of better service when you have a captive customer base!
Firstly there is no historical evidence of a jesus. Stories were created to strengthen the hold of certain groups over the plebeians.
Hypnotism lessons are compulsory studies for missionaries.
Mission run schools denigrate Hindu religion in subtle ways. The mention sati but don’t talk about inquisition.
Frauds like de nobili adopted Brahmin customs and modified them introducing fake christian
Ideologies.
Showing mary in a saree, doing aarthi, putting garlands, are all fooling illiterate people.
In reply to Brian
There is no historical evidence for ANY magic figure in religion. Rama did not exist. Neither did Krishna, Arjun or whatever. There is no Allah, there is no Jehovah and no Jesus. I’m not sure how your comment relates to my post however.
Yours thoughts are from an atheists view. Fine.
Unwritten but oral traditions about Hindu gods from 10 k years are good enough for me.
Then why does a rationalist like Sanal get hounded by Bombay priests for exposing fake holy water in Bombay and in velankini?
Feeding the poor with altruistic motives is good. I do the same. I never expect gratitude nor ask them to subscribe to my Hindu beliefs.
But not feeding them until they convert seems blackmail.
In reply to Brian
It’s not blackmail because no one is obliged to help another person. By not feeding a person, they are not making their life worse. If I’m starving, I would rather have the choice to get food – merely having the choice doesn’t hurt me.
People help others for different reasons. You expect nothing. Someone else expects something – that’s their choice, it’s not illegal. Tomorrow if I tell you that if you join my club, I will give you food, is it blackmail? Ultimately religious conversion is about marketing. If you offer better benefits with your product, you’ll get customers no?