An interesting blog post in the TOIabout minority rights touched upon the subject of forced conversions to Christianity and Islam and how everyone has the right to practice and convert to any religion they want. So called “forced” conversions are illegal in India, but what exactly are they?
Say a priest offers to give a house, money, food, or treatment to a destitute Hindu in exchange for their conversion to Christianity. If that person then “converts,” is it classified as a forced conversion? I had this argument with one of my friends some time ago and it still surprises me that people think doing this should be illegal. Of course, as an Atheist I couldn’t care less what religion a person follows, but it’s the principle of the matter.
Say a person is in terrible need. I go to them and give them a way out as long as they convert to my religion. Am I to be penalized for given him or her a choice? My offer in no way makes their life worse. They can still do whatever they were going to do had I not approached them in the first place.
Think of it as a car uncontrollably sliding down a road towards a cliff. There’s no way out and you’re going to die. But then a side road open up ahead – leading to some place where you have to pay a price for using the road. Does the appearance of that side road force you to take it? Does it worsen your situation in any way? No. If you take the road, it’s because you chose to take it and you can’t then blame the owner of the road for extracting whatever price they’re going to extract. It wasn’t their fault that you were sliding down the road into the cliff in the first place.
Similarly, a Christian priest isn’t responsible for a person’s destitution. By giving them a way out and converting them to Christianity they’re merely offering a choice – a side path. A person can still choose not to take it. But the mere presence of a choice doesn’t make a person’s life worse. It can either make it better or make no difference. So why penalize the priest for offering the choice which many people are obviously grateful for and happy to pay whatever price is asked?
Again, I don’t care about religion in general but forced conversions seems to be an important reason for Hindus being pissed off at either Christians or Muslims. Unless of course, the person is threatened with torture or violence unless they don’t convert. That is a real forced conversion. Not the mere offering of benefits.
Sadly, the Supreme Court in 1977 ruled that even offering benefits in exchange for conversion was illegal. That is a wrong judgement in my opinion since it ignores the rules of common sense.
I am not very clear about your argument . It appears to me that you would say the religion with the deepest pocket can have the greatest number of followers . There exists a parallel to this in market economics , where you could have one big player indulge in predatory pricing thereby killing the competition . Many countries around the world have laws against such pricing tactics .
I guess most people would not have any problems in “forced” {bribed} conversions if there was a level playing field .
Hope i have not misunderstood your article , anyways we have courts for deciding constitutionality of laws and blogs for fun :)
In reply to Shashank
But a religion isn’t a company – there’s no concept of a “level playing field” since it’s not a matter of any importance to the public who belongs to which religion. In business, it’s for the good of the country for there to be healthy competition. But religion is irrelevant. There is a separation between government and religion which must always remain.
But apart from that you agree with me don’t you, that’ there’s no legal obligation for one person to help a starving stranger for free?
In reply to bhagwad
“But apart from that you agree with me don’t you, that’ there’s no legal obligation for one person to help a starving stranger for free? ”
Would that not amount to murder , i mean if you had food available but did not give it to a starving person… wouldn’t you be responsible were the man to die of hunger ? I am not a legal expert, so it could be that you are right and letting a person die may not be a crime , after all several people drive past road accidents without helping the injured . I do agree that no one is legally obliged to help people in general . In my view there is a definite distinction between moral and legal obligations if that is what you meant .
“it’s not a matter of any importance to the public who belongs to which religion ” ; “religion is irrelevant”
These are opinions . Some people would say the exact oposite…. people do kill for religion .
“But a religion isn’t a company – there’s no concept of a ‘level playing field’ ”
From what i understood of your argument , we were supposed to be treating religion as a commodity thereby turning people into consumers . So religion is as relevant or irrelevant as toothpaste or television . I guess what constitutes a ‘level playing field’ would have to be decided by the players i.e. vhp , missionaries, ulema etc in conjunction with the government .
“separation between government and religion which must always remain”
This is more a consequence of history . In the current formulation of religion as commodity this is not that relevant . I mean there should be as much separation between vhp , missionaries, ulema etc and government as that between reliance ,tatas etc and the government :)
In reply to Shashank
You’re right – there’s no legal obligation to help other people as long as you didn’t cause their situation in the first place…Morally, well that by definition depends on one’s morals. Since the whole conversion is a matter of law however, that’s what I was referring to in my post.
Generally for the government to intervene in a business – such as a monopoly for example, there has to be a compelling public interest – like when AT&T was a monopoly, consumers were hurt and so the government intervened.
But in this case, there are two things. First of all, Christians are a tiny minority. So just like a business, the government shouldn’t care about it no matter what practices they follow as long as they obey the law – in other words, it’s not a monopoly.
Second, it hasn’t been shown that religious conversion harms the public in any way. Take me for example. Why should I care if everyone gets converted to christianity? How does that reduce my choice? How does it violate my rights? As long as I still have my freedoms and my life is not being made worse in any way, the government should not intervene.
Similarly, if you can show me how your life is personally made worse by mass conversions, you may have a case.
Personally I don’t really care if someone is offered benefits to convert to a particular religion. Honestly I want to start a religion myself and offer myself loads of benefits like 10 minute breaks every hour at work because somehow attaching the tag of religion to something automatically makes it unassailable.
But when I think of the fact that religion is supposed to be a path to God, offering material benefits to get people to convert somehow dilutes the message the religion is supposed to convey. I would call what the missionaries are doing a selfless service only if they did it regardless of the conversion factor. And it is not like they are getting great believers in the bargain!
And as far as making it illegal, there are lots of clubs that offer attractive perks to recruit new members. They are not illegal. And after all, religion is like an exclusive membership club. So what is the difference?
In reply to Clueless
Good point! A religion is just like a club…As for the priests, their selfishness (or non selfishness) is between them and whatever god they believe in. At any rate, it’s not the government’s business!
“Similarly, if you can show me how your life is personally made worse by mass conversions, you may have a case.” — This is exactly why hindus hate conversions, because time and again we have seen that be it islam or christianity – it has always existed on tribal mentality – which is forming larger gourps and imposing their will on non-muslims or non-christians. If you have read quran or bible, this is precisely what it preaches – that ppl from other religions NEED to be converted for their own safety. So, once the demographies change, their is a real threat to a hindu’s life – as we have time and again seen in the case of our own history, or the history of America’s and australia’s natives or even the persians, bangla and pakistani hindus.
Also, I dont agree with you drawing parallels between a car doing down the slope and a hindu’s life going miserable just because he was a hindu in the first place – that smacks of hatred towards hinduism – and am sorry to say that you are no more an aethist (as for me aethism includes not just non-belief in GOD, but non-belief in any concept thats religious and you are not doing that)
In reply to Vijay
Whoa Vijay! I didn’t say that a person’s life is going down hill because they’re a hindu! There are plenty of hindu’s who are quite happy and don’t need any “saving.” But some people may have drinking problems, poverty, disability whatever – it could be anyone, not just hindu!
I’m curious as to why you feel that as demographies change, it’s a threat to a hindu’s way of life. Could you give me an example? All countries have had violent pasts – the modern day is different. We have law and order and a Constitution after all.
What is happening with a forced conversion?
– A destitute hopeless person’s poverty is exploited by a foreign-funded missionary, who regards the former as an inferior being. In proving that inferiority, there are attacks on the rights of others to practice their religions – this is against secularism.
– A person made destitute by a natural disaster is also at such risk of being exploited. One bishop described the Bihar floods as a divine event that “sent the heathen flocking” to the church.
– A person’s religious affiliation is “bought.” Sanjeev Sabhlok raised a good point earlier. Would we be concerned if votes were bought in a similar way? What implications does that have for democracy? Especially one in which political parties play religious politics, appealing to religious vote banks. Hence, conversion becomes a political event.
– When one person converts, their family suffers, as it is tantamount to the convert rejecting the ways of his/her family. As such it is an act of violence, if they are forcibly converted in a “convert or die” ultimatum.
Read Naipal’s Among the Believers and Beyond Belief to see the extent of the self-deception – invented relatives, denied family histories, the rejection of affinity to one’s own country replaced by a glorification of some foreign land. Quite a number of British Muslim converts from Pakistan hate Britain even though they are citizens. The Taliban extremists blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas, too, to cover up their pre-Islamic history.
-According to Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation, “Conversion nowadays has become a matter of business, like any other. India is in no need of conversion of this kind. To those who would convert India, might it not be said, “Physician, heal yourself.” (Young India: 23 April 1931)
– Usually conversion is a precursor to some other form of invasion. Her Majesty’s armed forces consisted of the Admiralty, the Air Force, the Army and the Church.
– Those opposed to forcible conversion, such as Swami Lakshmanananda of Orissa, have been assassinated by those fundamentalists who are for it.
If this was a harmless thing, no one would oppose it. The fact is, forced conversions are harmful. To reject the harm caused by forcible conversions and saying it is ok, is to look at life with blinkers on.
In reply to Sam
But Sam, I don’t see why the missionary (or anyone) is supposed to provide food, clothing or education for free! These benefits are not being forced on the destitute person. If a shopkeeper sells food to a starving person in exchange for payment, would you call that exploitation? And how are the rights to practice any religion of choice being violated?
Indeed, conversion is a business. No one pretends otherwise. It’s been like that for hundreds of years after all. Also, I hope you’re not suggesting that India is in danger of being invaded! By whom?
You just justified politicians buying votes. Logic fail.
In reply to Sam
The big difference is that there’s a huge benefit to the country if votes are cast based on people choosing the best candidate instead of voting based on money paid.
But there’s no demonstrable benefit to the country if everyone believes in a religion if they get paid for it!
Also, voting is a government exercise and is therefore subject to government rules. Religion is purely private and has nothing to do with the government.
Exactly, there is no benefit. Actually, there is a cost. The harm described above.
Religion is a part of the state in all islamic countries, including in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which funds many of the conversions to Islam. And that to the more aggressive strains of wahabbism.
Since terrorism is a government concern, the government should get involved.
If people like the Swamiji of Orissa are getting killed by fundamentalists, then it becomes a criminal matter.
Government should outlaw religious criminality which is what forced conversions invariably involve.
Forcible conversions are not to be equated with free speech. The latter is a shield deceptively used by the former.
In reply to Matt
If a real crime is committed, then indeed the government should get involved.
But how exactly is “religious criminality” different from “regular” crimes? Why do we need that distinction? Can you give examples?
Also, you say that free speech is deceptively used. Could you perhaps tell me who is being deceived and what the manner of deception is?
Shouldn’t the govt intervene to prevent crimes, too? Conversion is a sensitive matter. Forced conversions even more so. People have been killed.
Those who justify forcible conversions as a free speech matter (like you) are either intentionally or unintentionally distracting the debate.
Was Hitler entitled to say anti Semitic things? Or was he just exercising freedom of speech? We all know what happened after he said those things. How about today’s holocaust deniers?
Is the freedom to abuse, deceive and confuse = freedom of speech? There are boundaries.
In reply to Matt
Of course the government should interfere in crimes committed. Where have I said otherwise? And how is that relevant to this discussion? When a crime occurs, the government should of course go and punish those responsible.
This not distracting the debate. This IS the debate and in fact is the title of my post in the first place!
Unfortunately yes – Hitler was entitled to say anti semitic things as long as he didn’t encourage violence. Do you know that a group took out an “anti-jew” Nazi parade in the midst of a Jewish colony in the US and the Supreme Court said that as long as they weren’t breaking any laws, they were protected by free speech? Now that is what I’m talking about.
Repulsive as holocaust deniers are, they too have the right to believe whatever fringe issues they wish. Apart from Germany, no where is it illegal to deny the holocaust. Repulsive yes. Illegal no.
And yes. There is freedom to abuse, deceive, and confuse. Look at Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh – they have TV shows all to themselves!
Read about the part that missionary activity played in the destruction of south and north American native American culture. In Australia, aboriginal children were taken away from their parents, the stolen generation. Forced conversion reduces cultural diversity.
In reply to Matt
Were the children taken away by force? Then that is wrong. That is really “forced.” I’m not talking about using physical force to convert people. Only giving them benefits in exchange.
Hare Krishna!!. I got converted from my western background with no benefits offered to me. I was not born with silver spoon , just born into a meeting both ends family. For the past 35 yrs I am in Hare Krishna. I feel happy. No forcing and I also do not force anybody to become a Hare Krishna. We just give food ( free) . You will be surprised to know that the Hare Krishna family is quite significant in Russia , resiliently facing problems. I feel Indians should not be worried about receiving benefits to get converted. The philosophy of Santan Dharma ( as our founder called it) is so rock solid that even in the medieval times it could not be extinguished when it was under severe attack. The internet is the greatest boon to Sanatan Dharma . The cyberspace suits the temperament of Sanatanis. There is great research being done in the west as to how this medium has helped Sanatan Dharma. There are articles in journals about this. Our founder visited Russia under the Iron Curtain. Only one boy was attracted to his teaching. He did not offer any benefits. The seed sowed by that boy is what has grown to large family in Russia. Please do not preach hatred. Let practice be on merit. Hari Bol!!!
Missionary fanatics have proven time and again their propensity to violence. So they must be controlled. Give charity altruistically but don’t exploit, kill or split families. Hate speech laws exist in many democratic countries. The e.g anti Hindu rhetoric is an incitement to violence in india. For the sake of harmony, respect should be promoted.
You are incorrect. Holocaust denial is a crime in many european countries. See Wikipedia.
In reply to Matt
Agreed. When violence is committed, justice must take its course. But the government cannot act preemptively against mostly peaceful people on small chance that one of them might turn out to be a bad apple. By and large, Christian missionaries are very non violent.
As for giving charity altruistically, how can you force someone to give away their resources? Those resources are not public property. Since when does a shopkeeper just give away their food even to starving people?
Now coming to hate speech. Many countries don’t have hate speech laws. The US doesn’t and nothing has happened even though there are plenty of people who make full use of their freedom. In India, the legality is dubious since the Supreme Court has ruled several times that only speech actively inciting violence is illegal. So I expect this to expand in the future.
And you’re right. It seems that in 16 countries, holocaust denial is a crime. But wikipedia also says that it’s dubiously unconstitutional as was found in Spain. So I expect these laws to also change in the future as they become better and better. Let us aim to keep the better country’s laws as role models – not the imperfect ones no?