The history and politics of Vande Mataram

The history and politics of Vande Mataram




Anandmath
is replete with glorification of incidents of “cleansing” of Muslims
like the following one: "The rural people ran out to kill the
Muslims...they torched their houses and looted their everything. 



By Shamsul Islam

The
song Vande Mataram is in news once again, though for wrong reasons. The
current controversy started with a meeting organized by the minority
cell of the BJP in the city of Taj Mahal, Agra on February 25. This
meeting, organized in order to mobilize Muslims for the forthcoming
parliamentary elections, ended up with about 50 of Muslim invitees
singing Vande Mataram. Interestingly, singing of Vande Mataram in this
meeting was an exception as the BJP meetings in general do not have
singing of this song on agenda. The controversy started when a local
Muslim cleric (see MG, 1-15 April 2004) came out with a “fatwa”
decreeing that all the Muslim singers of the Vande Mataram by singing
it indulged in polytheism and as a consequence ceased to be Muslims.
The mufti also decreed that their marriages stood annulled and they
should re-solemnise their marriages. 

Vande Mataram Translation by Aurobindo Mother, I bow to thee! Rich with thy hurrying streams, Bright with thy orchard gleams, Cool with thy winds of delight, Dark fields waving, Mother of might, Mother free. Glory of moonlight dreams, Over thy branches and lordly streams, Clad in thy blossoming trees, Mother, giver of ease, Laughing low and sweet! Mother I kiss thy feet, Speaker sweet and low! Mother to thee I bow. Who hath said thou art weak in thy lands, When the swords flash out in twice seventy million hands, And seventy million voices roar, Thy dreadful name from shore to shore? With many strengths who are mighty and stored, To thee I call, Mother and Lord! Though who savest, arise and save! To her I cry who ever her foemen drive, Back from plain and sea, And shook herself free. Thou art wisdom, thou art law, Thou our heart, our soul, our breath, Thou the love divine, thou the awe, In our hearts that conquer death. Thine the strength that nerves the arm, Thine the beauty, thine the charm, Every image made divine, In our temples is but thine. Thou art Durga, Lady and Queen, With her hands that strike and her swords of sheen, Thou art Lakshmi lotus-throned, And the Muse a hundred-toned, Pure and perfect without peer, Mother, lend thine ear. Rich with thy hurrying streams, Bright with thy orchard gleams, Dark of hue, O candid-fair, In thy soul, with jeweled hair, And thy glorious smile divine, Loveliest of all earthly lands, Showering wealth from well-stored hands! Mother, mother mine! Mother sweet, I bow to thee, Mother great and free! 'Vande Mataram' translated by Sri Aurobindo. This note of his about this translation is very significant: "It is difficult to translate the National Anthem of Bengal into verse in another language owing to its unique union of sweetness, simple directness and high poetic force."  [Quoted in Bhabatosh Chatterjee (ed.), Bankim Chandra Chatterjee: Essays in Perspective, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi, 1994, p. 601.]

Interestingly, the Hindutva gang has been raking up this issue
periodically as part of Muslim-bashing since Independence, especially
on the eve of elections. As part of anti-Muslim propaganda they coined
the slogan "Iss desh maen rehna hae to Vande Mataram kehna hoga" (If
you want to live in this country, you will have to sing Vande Mataram).


The fundamental problem with Indian
nationalist symbols like Vande Mataram is that by simply adding
Muslim/minority angle to these, one can thwart any serious scrutiny and
worthwhile debate about the pre-Independence controversies over these
symbols. The Hindutva gang, especially the RSS which played absolutely
no role in the anti-colonial freedom struggle, now wants to cover up
its betrayal by posing as the sole guardian of nationalist symbols like
Vande Mataram.


A thorough scanning (undertaken by this
author) of the pre-Independence literature/documents published by the
RSS shows that there is absolutely no reference there to Vande Mataram,
what to talk of singing it. Startlingly, Vande Mataram as a term does
not appear in the writings of KB Hedgewar and MS Golwalkar either. And
after Independence the same gang wants to use this song to beat Muslims
with.



The protagonists of a democratic-secular India have failed in exposing
the Hindutva stalwarts who have been pitting Vande Matram against the
National Anthem, Jana Gana Mana and denounce Muslim and Sikh
fundamentalists for their non-allegiance to the Tricolour and the
National Anthem, the two symbols of Indian nationalism. The secular
India has miserably failed to corner the Hindutva gang which itself
wants to replace the secular National Anthem by Vande Mataram and the
Tricolour by saffron flag. This is abundantly clear from the practice
of the RSS shakhas, and the RSS vision of replacing the Indian
democratic-secular state with a Hindu rashtra.


A section of the so-called Muslim
leadership, devoid of common sense and ignorant of nationalist
heritage, reacted to the Hindutva game plan along expected lines.
Playing into the hands of Hindutva brigade 'Muslim leaders' like the
Agra Mufti simply provided legitimacy to its strategy of
Muslim-bashing. Unfortunately, even a section of secular Muslims have
shown panic reaction by declaring that Muslims should not object to the
singing of this song. They innocently believe that Muslims by not
singing this song are inviting wrath of Hindutva. They overlook the
fact that even Dalits, Christians, Buddhists and other minorities, who
have not raised objections against Vande Mataram, have not been spared
by the Hindutva gang. 



The need of the hour is that we should not run away from a serious
debate on the issue of the Vande Mataram under one pretext or the
other. In order to know the truth and understand the whole controversy
over Vande Mataram it is important to be familiar with the following
facts which have been gathered from wide pre-Independence sources.



Vande Mataram was dogged by one controversy or another from the day it
was first printed in Banga Darshan (edited by Bankimchandra Chatterjee)
in 1875. It was a strange composition in the sense that it was written
in two languages. The song consisted of 4 stanzas, the first two in
Sanskrit and the rest in Bengali. Poet Navin Chandra Sen, a close
friend, told Bankim after reading the song: "You see, it is all good,
but the whole thing is spoilt by your potpourri of half Bengali and
half Sanskrit. It reminds me of Govind Adhikari's Jatra songs. People
do not like it."1 In fact, this song was not known by many despite the
fact that Jadu Bhatt, a renowned singer of those days and a
contemporary of Bankim, liked the song and set it to an attractive
tune. The situation did not change even in 1882 when Bankim included
this song in his controversial novel Anandmath. Rabindranath Tagore
composed a new tune for this song in 1885 but despite its rendering by
a very popular Bengali poet it did not attract much attention.



Interestingly, Vande Mataram which came to be known as the “national
song” was composed by Bankim as a “Bengal anthem”, nothing more. The
imagery of the countryside and references to Durga were certainly
confined to Bengal. In this song he is seen concerned about Bengal only
aloof from any emotional attachment to India. Even Sri Aurobindo
(Aurobindo Ghose), propounder of Hindu nationalism in India, translated
it as the "National Anthem of Bengal".2 

Bankim, as we will see in the translation done by Aurobindo, referred
to “seven crores” [70 million] of people worshipping motherland. This
was the population of the then Bengal Province (which, besides what is
now Bangladesh, included Bihar and Orissa too). So the crucial fact
should not be missed that Vande Mataram touted as symbolizing “Mother
India” was in fact meant to glorify Bengal only, a rather narrow and
regional perspective.



Many are not aware that this song was scantly known during the lifetime
of Bankim himself. In his lifetime it did not capture popular
imagination though it was sung at all Congress sessions by people who
identified Indian nationalism with Hindu ethos. It remained confined to
a fringe group. 



In 1905 came Curzon's announcement of the partition of Bengal, and
suddenly Vande Mataram turned into a national mantra, renting the skies
with the protest against the partition of Bengal. Reacting quickly, the
British government banned the song or even raising it as a slogan.
People of Barisal in Bengal bore the brunt of police brutality for
singing this song. Peasant leader Abdul Rasul, was presiding over the
Bengal Congress provincial conference session of 1906 when hundreds
were struck down and grievously injured for singing Vande Mataram. This
brutality at Barisal popularized the song overnight. According to
Bengalee of May 23, 1906, "an unprecedented procession of Hindus and
Muslims singing national songs and crying Vande Mataram and
Allah-o-Akbar passed through all the principal streets of the town.
Both Hindus and Mussalmans carried Vande Mataram flags."3 It is
interesting to know that while Vande Mataram was banned in Bengal, the
British government allowed the Bengali Regiment to attack German
trenches during the first world war with Vande Mataram on their lips.



Soon Vande Mataram became the opening note of all the Congress
gatherings. And the two, Congress and Vande Mataram, became
inseparable, until the early 1930s, when a new controversy about the
song broke out within the ranks of the party. Sections of Muslims,
Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, South Indians, secular groups and
even Arya Samajis, objected when the Congress decided to finalize it as
the “national song”. Vande Mataram glorified idol worship, they argued,
as it referred to only Hindu deities (it must be shocking for the
present-day Hindutva brigade that the song does not even once refer to
Ram), and that it expressed only a regional aspiration (it is partly in
Bengali and allegorically talks of “Bengal” as India).



Another objection raised by Muslims and secular Indians said that Vande
Mataram was part of the novel Anandmath, which glorified the
annihilation of Muslims and not the British rule in India. This
objection was very relevant, as even a cursory glance of the novel will
prove. The novel was replete with glorification of incidents of
“cleansing” of Muslims like the following one: "The rural people ran
out to kill the Muslims while coming across them. In the night, some
ones were organized in groups and going to the Muslim locality, they
torched their houses and looted their everything. Many Muslims were
killed; many of them shaved their beards, smeared their bodies with
soil and started singing the name of Hari. When asked, they said, we
were Hindus. The frightened Muslims rushed towards the town in group
after group. The Muslims said, Allah, Allah! Is the Kortn Sareef (sic)
(holy Koran) proved entirely wrong after so many days? We pray namaz
five times but couldn't finish the sandal-pasted Hindus. All the
universe is false."4



Bankim's novel simultaneously glorified the colonial British rule. It
portrayed the British masters as saviours of Hindus. This love for the
British masters and exploiters was clearly visible in the last few
lines of Anandmath. When the Hindu army (Santan rebels) was able to
defeat Muslim rulers and move on to fight the British too, a mystic
leader (Satyananda) appeared and told them: "Your mission has been
successful. You have performed the well-being of the Mother. The
English reign has been established. You give up the war and
enmity-mood. There is no more enemy. The Englishman is our ally King.
Moreover, none possesses such power who can win the war with the
Englishmen ultimately."5 Thus the great leader of Hindu rebellion was
finally able to convince Santans about the historic utility of the
British Raj for the resurrection of the Hindu kingdom and many of them
went to Himalayas renouncing this world. Anandmath, which heralded the
Hindu nationalist movement, is full of such perceptions.



The Congress, which under Jawaharlal Nehru's leadership wanted an
all-inclusive nationalism with special stress on Hindu-Muslim unity,
responded positively to these objections. The Congress Working
Committee (CWC) after long deliberations at Wardha and Bombay appointed
a committee consisting of Jawaharlal Nehru (president of the Congress),
MK Gandhi, Abul Kalam Azad and Subhashchander Bose in its Calcutta
meeting (Oct 26-November 1, 1937). 

This high profile committee on Vande Mataram issued a historic
statement on October 28, 1937 with the aim to resolve the controversy.
The statement made it clear at the outset that the first two stanzas of
the song had no religious allusions and only these were commonly sung
even in Bengal. It went on to observe that "the use of the first two
stanzas of the song [which] spread to other provinces and a certain
national significance began to attach to them. The rest of the song was
very seldom used and is even now known by few persons. These two
stanzas described in tender language the beauty of the motherland and
the abundance of her gifts. There was absolutely nothing in them to
which objection could be taken from the religious or any other point of
view."6

The CWC went on to emphasize that "the other stanzas of the song are
little known and hardly ever sung. They contain certain allusions and a
religious ideology which may not be in keeping with the ideology of
other religious groups in India. The Committee while recognizing the
validity of objections raised by Muslim friends to certain parts of the
song... recommend that “wherever the Bande Matraram is sung at national
gatherings only the first two stanzas should be sung, with perfect
freedom to the organizers to sing any other song of an unobjectionable
character, in addition to, or in the place of, the Bande Matraram
song."7



With this judgment the controversy should have been over. But it
didn't. It seems ironical that the present-day champions of Vande
Mataram did not figure anywhere in the struggle against the British.
They cannot name a single martyr for freedom, and their slogans for
Hindu Rashtra only helped the British masters’ divide-and-rule policy
and supplemented the services of persons like Jinnah. The propping up
of an old controversy thus seems to be only for playing the same old
game of dividing the Indian people. The truth of the matter is that
Vande Mataram is just another move in the dangerous game the
fundamentalists are involved in: confusing and dividing people.

NOTES:

1. Cited in P. Thankappan Nair, Indian National Songs and Symbols, Firma, Calcutta, 1987, p. 32.

2.Cited in Bhabatosh Chatterjee (ed.), Bankimchandra Chatterjee: Essays
in Perspective, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi, 1994, p. 601.

3. Cited in P. Thankappan Nair, p. 38.

4. Arabinda Das, Abbey of Delight (English translation of Bankimchander
Chatterjee's Anandmath in Bengali), Bandna Das, Kolkata, 2000, pp.
161-162.

5. Ibid, pp. 191-194.

6. AICC Papers on microfilms, Accession No. 8612 [Roll No. 51], Nehru
Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi, pp. 0852-0854.

7. Ibid.

Here is the original page

Should conversions be banned?

M Jamil

August 5, 2006

Recently, the state legislature in Madhya Pradesh has approved a law aimed at making religious conversions harder there.

The law says a person wishing to convert and the priest conducting the ceremony will have to inform the authorities in advance. The new law provides for a year in prison and cash fines to the person who converts and the priest who conducts the ceremony without informing the authorities.

This is hardly India's first instance of such a law.

In 2005, the government in Rajasthan introduced a law banning religious conversion. Three years ago, politicians in Gujarat approved a controversial bill ostensibly designed to stop forced religious conversions.

In 2002, the state legislature in Tamil Nadu passed an ordinance banning religious conversions-though the new government led by DMK announced in May that the law would be annulled soon.

Evidently, these laws are the state governments' reaction to the depressed classes pointing to the lack of socio-economic development as their reason for quitting the Hindu fold.

But does India want to be compared to Islamic states that are imprisoned by an impoverished idea that apostasy should lead to death or death threats?

Mass conversions by the Dalits, whether to Islam or Christianity, have always projected a political message. Mostly, it is an effort by the weaker sections to draw the attention of the government to their development needs.

In many cases, there are "re-conversions" after governmental intervention and promises of corrective measures by the district administration.

A section of the media and political establishment would claim that mass conversions or threats of mass conversions create social tension in the affected area and the government is forced to act in the interests of those threatening conversion.

More importantly one must ask: is banning religious conversion constitutional?
From a layperson's perspective, Article 25 (1) of the Constitution states that "subject to public order, morality and health and other provisions of this part (Part III), all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion."

Under the freedom of speech which the Constitution guarantees, any religious community is free to persuade others to join their faith. Thus, conversion by free exercise of the conscience has to been recognised and cannot be banned under the constitution.

Arya Samajists, for example, should be free to carry on "Sudhi" ceremonies, open to Buddhists, Christians, Jains, Muslims, Sikhs, and every other religionist, so long as they follow public order, morality and other conditions that have to be observed in any civilised society.

One may argue that the Constitution explicitly grants one the right to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets, but not the right to convert through force or social and economic "bribes".

It has to be remembered that Article 25 (1) guarantees "freedom of conscience" to every citizen and not merely to the followers of one particular religion.

Thus, there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one's own religion because, if a person undertakes the conversion of a person to his religion as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the tenets of his religion, that would impinge on the freedom of conscience guaranteed to all the citizens.

This specious reasoning which proceeds on the premise that a person's freedom of conscience gives him the right to practice his own religion ignores that the same freedom of conscience gives him the right to choose another religion and to be converted to another religion.

Sometimes when a person learns about the virtues of another religion and the advantages of following it, he may be persuaded to be converted.

In other words, propagation of religion with a view to its being accepted by a person gives an opportunity to the latter to exercise his right to choose his religion. Hence, the prevention of conversion infringes the right to be converted or to choose another religion and thereby infringes his freedom of conscience.

What is meant by the "ban on conversions?'"

The Constitution clearly empowers each individual to preach his own religion and each to choose his own religion. Based on this, if one chooses to change his religion, there can be no law preventing him from doing so. Apart from the legality, it goes against history and human nature to impose a total ban on conversions.

In addition to Christians, Hare Krishna's and Muslims proselytising, Buddhist monks went to Cambodia, China, Japan, Sri Lanka and other places in the Far East spreading Buddhism.

Though on a small scale, the Arya Samajists are converting or reconverting people of others faiths to Hinduism. Often conversion is a result of marrying outside a person's faith. For instance, when a Hindu marries a Jew or a Christian.

Of course, all these conversions are made peacefully, by persuasion.

Instead of a fracas on preventing conversions, there should be a national debate on why people choose to be converted. If it is by force, fraud or undue influence, such conversions can be prevented by legislation.

But one of the strongest motivations for converting to another religion is low socio-economic status. These individuals feel that they can live with more dignity as members of the religion to which they are converting.

Though untouchability was abolished by the Constitution, it still persists throughout India. For example, in many hotels water is served in separate glasses to the Dalits (who make up 250 million of India's population).

Although the Constitution provides certain safeguards to protect persons who suffer from low socio-economic status, the past 56 years since the Constitution came into being has proved that they are not adequate.

Measures have to be taken immediately to improve their economic and social status to such an extent that they do not convert in order to enjoy a better life as members of a new religious group, but because they genuinely feel convinced of the tenets of that religion.

Hopefully, we will see a day when every person voluntarily chooses which religion he wishes to practice and the expression "conversion" loses its meaning.

India, which is known for its tolerance, has lived with Christianity for almost two thousand years, Zoroastrianism for 1,400 years and Islam for over a millennium.

Let us all remember the words of Mahatma Gandhi: "I do not expect India of my dreams to develop one religion, i.e., to be wholly Hindu or wholly Christian or wholly Mussalman, but I want it to be wholly tolerant, with its religions working side by side with one another."

Maqbool Jamil is based in United States and can be reached at drj8666@hotmail.com.

Click here for Source

A MEDIA FAQ on `House Churches' and `Conversions'

By Dr. John Dayal

Answers to some frequently asked media questions on House Churches and the definition of Conversions in context of the laws on Religious Freedom in Rajasthan, Gujarat, MP, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Arunachal [and Tamil Nadu]


HOUSE CHURCHES

The Constitution of India gives every citizen the right and freedom of Faith, including its practice, profession and propagation. This is clear in Article 25 which states that `subject to public order, health and morality', we have the right to freedom of conscience.

The only bar is, as for most other freedoms, that it should not create a public law and order situation, or be obnoxious in some other way. This rider is the one so often misused by governments and police who can claim that certain acts of one community can threaten the peace [for instance cow sacrifice at Eid, which is objected to by Hindutva groups]

The law as it exists in India recognizes places of religious worship as physical entities in public domain. The one mention that comes is with reference to the official and legal rulings which, in the aftermath of the violence during Partition of India in 1947, said places of worship which existed at the dawn of freedom could not have their identity or function changed. This was to prevent mosques being converted to temples or demolished or sold.. This was re-stated in Uttar Pradesh in the case of attempts to sell churches -- not all church property which could include schools or grounds, but church buildings which had functioned as churches

House churches, Small Christian Communities, Basic Christian Communities whether Catholic, Evangelical or Pentecost, and religious activity in a person's private home, which includes all property, is a private event protected by laws against trespass, criminal intimidation, breaking and forcible entry and similar criminal activity

The police have to take action as they would in case of attempted murder, assault, burglary or dacoity -- if assailants are armed, and there are more than five of them in number

They - the local police and magistracy -- have no excuse in not acting.

CONVERSIONS

The second question is of Conversions from one religion to another [giving up one's religion for joining irreligious or atheistic groups such as the Marxists, or lapsed believers do not find any mention in legal literature]

The Supreme Court judgment in the matter of earlier, and contradictory, High court judgments on the Orissa and MP Freedom of Religion Acts was clear that induced and forcible conversions at the hand hands of a religious functionary or priest were illegal, but it was NOT illegal - and therefore legitimate -- for a person to change his religion.

Therefore it is quite clear by analogy and deduction that the act of conversion theologically is different from the legal definition.

A person may have Christ experience through many ways or paths, and may consider him [or her] a follower or believer of Christ. He may have found Christ by personally reading the Bible which he bought by himself, saw in a library or his hotel room, or was given one by a friend, evangelist or priest. He may even have had the Bible read to him by his children, in case he himself was illiterate. He may have found Christ through the evangelical actions of others, either done actively as by missionaries, or passively as by watching Christian neighbours or friends. The person may surrender to Christ on his own; and to himself, he will deem to have become a Christian even if he has not undergone any rituals. Some even consider this the Amazing Grace and Work of the Holy Spirit.

For social purposes, however, and requirements of Civic life, which may include the need for passports or other diplomatic or government documents, however, marriage, or even burial of the dead, he may want to `belong to' or `to be admitted to' the larger Christian community, denomination, group or whatever else it is called. This process may involve ceremonies or rites of passage, which is also called baptism. This may vary with denominations. This is like membership of a club or organisation with its own entry and exit laws.

In fact in the knananite church, a part of the Kerala Catholic group, it admits only persons belonging to select families. No marriage outside the ethnic and linguistic sub-community is allowed or accepted, and of course no one can convert to this sect.

Pentecost and Evangelical groups and some mainline churches want full immersion of the adult.

The Catholic Church, especially in the Latin rite, accepts and encourages child or infant baptism -- I was baptized as a six day old, my daughter was a month old on her baptism -- with ceremonies of confirmation [or First Holy Communion] at an age when the child is able to understand what is happening

The Indian law, penal code or however, has no business entering this domain.

The Sikh faith has tasting of the amrit, or holy water consisting of water, sugar mixed together with a ceremonial sword in a groupware -- the Muslim faith has sunnat, circumcision as well as hearing and pronouncing the kalma -- god is but one god is one and Mohammed is his prophet

No one can convert to Zoroastrian. It can be by birth only. That is why they are a dying community. There are no half Parsees, so to say.

You can become a Jew by converting to Judaism but it is a long and tedious [process sand is discouraged if both or one parent is not a Jew.

Buddhism has a few simple rites.

I do not know the Jain rites.

By the way, the special position for Anglo Indians is not on religious grounds, but on genes and language. Their mother tongue has to be English and their descent from the father's side has to be European.

An Anglo-Indian woman's children by a non Anglo Indian man are not Anglo Indians

And, other than the civil powers of Christian priest in terms of Marriages [but not divorces], births and deaths [burial records]; there is no official administrative law or bureaucratic machinery to certify or license or otherwise formally recognize Christian clergy. Ordination and Consecration are strictly denominational activity. The State also does not recognize gradations in clergy and hierarchy. The titles of Father, Pastor, Bishop or Cardinal, are therefore not of legal consequence but are accepted because they are accepted by the concerned community or group. No denomination has monopoly on the titles and even Catholic priests can, and often do, call themselves Pastors. By the same argument, Episcopal and even Evangelical clergy no call themselves Bishops and Archbishops. They can.

John Dayal
New Delhi, July 2006

Why go for Conversion

Why go for Conversion
In 1935 at Nasik district, Maharashtra, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar had declared his firm resolve to change his religion. He had declared that he was born as a Hindu but will not die as Hindu. About a year later, a massive Mahar conference was held on May 30 and 31, 1936, in Mumbai, to access the impact of that declaration on Mahar masses. In his address to the conference, Dr.Ambedkar expressed his views on conversion in an elaborate, well- prepared and written speech in Marathi. Here is an English translation of that speech by Mr.Vasant Moon, OSD to the committee of Govt. of Maharashtra for publication of Writings & speeches of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar
Conversion is not a game of children. It is not a subject of entertainment. It deals with how to make man's life successful. Just as a boatman has to make all necessary preparations before he starts for voyage, so also we have to make preparations. Unless I get an idea as to how many persons are willing to leave the Hindu fold, I cannot start preparations for conversion.
For a common man this subject of conversion is very important but also very difficult to understand.
Class Struggle
There are two aspects of conversion; social as well as religious; material as well as spiritual. Whatever may be the aspect, or line of thinking, it is necessary to understand the beginning, the nature of Untouchability and how it is practiced. Without this understanding, you will not be able to realize the real meaning underlying my declaration of conversion. In order to have a clear understanding of untouchability and its practice in real life, I want you to recall the stories of the atrocities perpetrated against you. But very few of you might have realized as to why all this happens! What is at the root cause of their tyranny? To me it is very necessary, that we understand it.
This is not a feud between rival men. The problem of untouchability is a matter of class struggle. It is the struggle between caste Hindus and the Untouchables. That is not a matter of doing injustice against one man. This is a matter of injustice being done by one class against another. This "class struggle" has a relation with the social status. This struggle indicates, how one class should keep its relation with another class. This struggle starts as soon as you start claiming equal treatment with others...
Conversion not for slaves
The reason for their anger is very simple. Your behaving on par with them insults them. The untouchability is not a short or temporary feature; it is a permanent one .To put it straight, it can be said that the struggle between the Hindus and the Untouchables is a permanent phenomena. It is eternal, because the religion which has placed you at the lowest level of the society is itself eternal, according to the belief of the Hindu caste people. No change, according to time and circumstances is possible. You are at the lowest rung of the ladder today. You shall remain lowest forever. This means the struggle between Hindus and Untouchables shall continue forever. How will you survive through this struggle is the main question. And unless you think over it, there is no way out. Those who desire to live in obedience to the dictates of the Hindus, those who wish to remain their slaves, they do not need to think over this problem. But those who wish to live a life of self-respect, and equality, will have to think over this. How should we survive through this struggle? For me, it is not difficult to answer this question. Those who have assembled here will have to agree that in any struggle one who holds strength becomes the victor. One, who has no strength, need not expect success. This has been proved by experience, and I do not need to cite illustration to prove it.
Three types of Strength
The question that follows, which you must now consider, is whether you have enough strength to survive through this struggle? Three types of strength are known to man: (i) Manpower, (ii) Finance and (iii) Mental Strength. Which of these, you think that you possess? So far as manpower is concerned, it is clear, that you are in a minority. In Mumbai Presidency, the untouchables are only one-eighth of the total population. That too unorganized. The castes within themselves do not allow them to organize. They are not even compact. They are scattered through the villages. Under these circumstances, this small population is of no use as a fighting force to the untouchables at their critical moments. Financial strength is also just the same. It is an undisputed fact that you at least have a little bit of manpower, but finances you have none. You have no trade, no business, no service, no land. The piece of bread thrown out by the higher castes, are your means of livelihood. You have no food, no clothes. What financial strength can you have? You have no capacity to get redress from the law courts. Thousands of untouchables tolerate insult, tyranny and oppression at the hands of Hindus without a sigh of complaint, because they have no capacity to bear the expenses of the courts. As regards mental strength, the condition is still worst. The tolerance of insults and tyranny without grudge and complaint has killed the sense of retort and revolt. Confidence, vigour and ambition have been completely vanished from you. All of you have been become helpless, unenergetic and pale. Everywhere, there is an atmosphere of defeatism and pessimism. Even the slight idea, that you can do something does not enter your mind.
Muslim Example
If, whatever I have described above is correct then you will have to agree with the conclusion that follows. The conclusion is, if you depend only upon your own strength, you will never be able to face the tyranny of the Hindus. I have no doubt that you are oppressed because you have no strength. It is not that you alone are in minority. The Muslims are equally small in number. Like Mahar- Mangs, they too have few houses in the village. But no one dares to trouble the Muslims while you are always a victim of tyranny. Why is this so? Though there may be two houses of Muslims in the village, nobody dares to harm them, while the whole village practices tyranny against you though you have ten houses. Why does this happen? This is a very pertinent question and you will have to find out a suitable answer to this. In my opinion, there is only one answer to this question. The Hindus realize that the strength of the whole of the Muslim population in India stands behind those two houses of Muslims living in a village and, therefore, they do not dare to touch them. Those two houses also enjoy free and fearless life because they are aware that if any Hindu commits aggression against them, the whole Muslim community from Punjab to Madras will rush to their protection at any cost. On the other hand, the Hindus are sure that none will come to your rescue, nobody will help you, no financial help will reach you. Tahsildar and police belong to caste Hindus and in case of disputes between Hindus and Untouchables, they are more faithful to their caste than to their duty. The Hindus practice injustice and tyranny against you only because you are helpless.
Outside Support
From the above discussion, two facts are very clear. Firstly, you can not face tyranny without strength. And secondly, you do not possess enough strength to face the tyranny. With these two conclusions, a third one automatically follows. That is, the strength required to face this tyranny needs to be secured from outside. How are you to gain this strength is really an important question? And you will have to think over this with an unbiased mind.
From this, you will realize one thing, that unless you establish close relations with some other society, unless you join some other religion, you cannot get the strength from outside. It clearly means, you must leave your present religion and assimilate yourselves with some other society. Without that, you cannot gain the strength of that society. So long as you do not have strength, you and your future generations will have to lead your lives in the same pitiable condition.
Spiritual Aspect of Conversion
Uptil now, we have discussed why conversion is necessary for material gains. Now, I propose to put forth my thoughts as to why conversion is as much necessary for spiritual wellbeing. What is Religion? Why is it necessary? ... 'That which govern people is religion'. That is the true definition of Religion. There is no place for an individual in Hindu society. The Hindu religion is constituted on a class-concept. Hindu religion does not teach how an individual should behave with another individual. A religion, which does not recognize the individual, is not personally acceptable to me.
Three factors are required for the uplift of an individual. They are: Sympathy, Equality and Liberty. Can you say by experience that any of these factors exist for you in Hinduism?
No Equality in Hinduism
Such a living example of inequality is not to be found anywhere in the world. Not at anytime in the history of mankind can we find such inequality, which is more intense than untouchability... I think, you have been thrust into this condition because you have continued to be Hindus. Those of you who have become Muslims, are treated by the Hindus neither as Untouchables nor as unequals. The same can be said of those who have become Christians...
That God is all pervading is a principle of science and not of religion, because religion has a direct relation with the behaviour of man. Hindus can be ranked among those cruel people whose utterances and acts are two poles apart. They have this Ram on their tongues and a knife under their armpits. They speak like saints but act like butchers...
Thus we are not low in the eyes of the Hindus alone, but we are the lowest in the whole of India, because of the treatment given to us by the Hindus.
If you have to get rid of this same shameful condition, if you have to cleanse this filth and make use of this precious life; there is only one way and that is to throw off the shackles of Hindu religion and the Hindu society in which you are bound.
The taste of a thing can be changed. But the poison cannot be made amrit. To talk of annihilating castes is like talking of changing the poison into amrit. In short, so long as we remain in a religion, which teaches a man to treat another man like a leper, the sense of discrimination on account of caste, which is deeply rooted in our minds, can not go. For annihilating caste and untouchables, change of religion is the only antidote.
Untouchables are not Hindus
What is there in conversion, which can be called novel? Really speaking what sort of social relations have you with the caste Hindus at present? You are as separate from the Hindus as Muslims and Christians are. So is their relation with you. Your society and that of the Hindus are two distinct groups. By conversion, nobody can say or feel that one society has been split up. You will remain as separate from the Hindus as you are today. Nothing new will happen on account of this conversion. If this is true, then why should people be afraid of conversion? At least, I do not find any reason for such a fear...
Revolution - Not Reform
Changing a religion is like changing a name. Change of religion followed by the change of name will be more beneficial to you. To call oneself a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist or a Sikh is not merely a change of religion but also a change of name.. Since the beginning of this movement of conversion, various people have raised various objections to it. Let us now examine the truth, if any, in such objections...
A congenital idiot alone will say that one has to adhere to one's religion because it is that of our ancestors. No sane man will accept such a proposition. Those who advocate such an argument, seem not to have read the history at all. The ancient Aryan religion was called Vedic religion. It has three distinct characteristic (features). Beef-eating, drinking and merry-making was part of the religion of the day. Thousands of people followed it in India and even now some people dream of going back to it. If the ancient religion alone is to be adhered to why did the people of India leave Hinduism and accept Buddhism? Why did they divorce themselves from the Vedic religion?... Thus this Hindu religion is not the religion of our ancestors, but it was a slavery forced upon them...
To reform the Hindu society is neither our aim nor our field of action. Our aim is to gain freedom. We have nothing to do with anything else.
If we can gain freedom by conversion, why should we shoulder the responsibility of reforming the Hindu religion? And why should we sacrifice our strength and property for that? None should misunderstand the object of our movement as being Hindu social reform. The object of our movement is to achieve social freedom for the untouchables. It is equally true that this freedom cannot be secured without conversion.
Caste can't be destroyed
I do accept that the untouchables need equality as well. And to secure equality is also one of our objectives. But nobody can say that this equality can be achieved only by remaining as Hindu and not otherwise. There are two ways of achieving equality. One, by remaining in the Hindu fold and another by leaving it by conversion. If equality is to be achieved by remaining in the Hindu fold, mere removal of the sense of being a touchable or an untouchable will not serve the purpose. Equality can be achieved only when inter-caste dinners and marriages take place. This means that the Chaturvarnya must be abolished and the Brahminic religion must be uprooted. Is it possible? And if not, will it be wise to expect equality of treatment by remaining in the Hindu religion? And can you be successful in your efforts to bring equality? Of course not. The path of conversion is far simpler than this. The Hindu society does not give equality of treatment, but the same is easily achieved by conversion. If this is true, then why should you not adopt this simple path of conversion?
Conversion is a simplest path
According to me, this conversion of religion will bring happiness to both the Untouchables as well as the Hindus. So long as you remain Hindus, you will have to struggle for social intercourse, for food and water, and for inter-caste marriages. And so long as this quarrel continues, relations between you and the Hindus will be of perpetual enemies. By conversion, the roots of all the quarrels will vanish... thus by conversion, if equality of treatment can be achieved and the affinity between the Hindus and the Untouchables can be brought about then why should the Untouchables not adopt the simple and happy path of securing equality? Looking at this problem through this angle, it will be seen that this path of conversion is the only right path of freedom, which ultimately leads to equality. It is neither cowardice nor escapism.
Sanctified Racism
Although the castes exist in Muslims and the Christians alike, it will be meanness to liken it to that of the Hindus. There is a great distinction between the caste-system of the Hindus and that of the Muslims and Christians. Firstly, it must be noted that though the castes exist amongst the Christians and the Muslims, it is not the chief characteristic of their body social.
There is one more difference between the caste system of the Hindus and that of the Muslims and Christians. The caste system in the Hindus has the foundation of religion. The castes in other religions have no sanction in their religion ...Hindus cannot destroy their castes without destroying their religion. Muslims and Christians need not destroy their religions for eradication of their castes. Rather their religion will support such movements to a great extent.
Conversion alone liberates us
I am simply surprised by the question, which some Hindus ask us as to what can be achieved by conversion alone? Most of the present day Sikhs, Muslims and Christians were formerly Hindus, majority of them being from the Shudras and Untouchables. Do these critics mean to say that those, who left the Hindu fold and embraced Sikhism or Christianity, have made no progress at all? And if this is not true, and if it is admitted that the conversion has brought a distinct improvement in their condition, then to say that the untouchables will not be benefited by conversion, carries no meaning...
After giving deep thought to the problem, everybody will have to admit that conversion is necessary to the Untouchables as self-government is to India. The ultimate object of both is the same. There is not the slightest difference in their ultimate goal. This ultimate aim is to attain freedom. And if the freedom is necessary for the life of mankind, conversion of Untouchables which brings them complete freedom cannot be called worthless by any stretch of imagination...
Economic Progress or Social Changes?
I think it necessary here to discuss the question as to what should be initiated first, whether economic progress or conversion? I do not agree with the view that economic progress should precede...
Untouchability is a permanent handicap on your path of progress. And unless you remove it, your path cannot be safe. Without conversion, this hurdle cannot be removed...
So, if you sincerely desire that your qualifications should be valued, your education should be of some use to you, you must throw away the shackles of untouchability, which means that you must change your religion...
However, for those who need this Mahar Watan, I can assure them that their Mahar Watan will not be jeopardized by their conversion. In this regard, the Act of 1850 can be referred. Under the provisions of this Act, no rights of person or his successors with respect to his property are affected by virtue of his conversion...
Poona Pact
A second doubt is about political rights. Some people express fear as to what will happen to our political safeguards if we convert...
But I feel, it is not proper to depend solely on political rights. These political safeguards are not granted on the condition that they shall be ever lasting. They are bound to cease sometime. According to the communal Award of the British Government, our political safeguards were limited for 20 years. Although no such limitation has been fixed by the Poona Pact, nobody can say that they are everlasting. Those, who depend upon the political safeguards, must think as to what will happen after these safeguards are withdrawn on the day on which our rights cease to exist. We will have to depend on our social strength. I have already told you that this social strength is wanting in us. So also I have proved in the beginning that this strength cannot be achieved without conversion...
Political Rights
Under these circumstances, one must think of what is permanently beneficial.
In my opinion, conversion is the only way to eternal bliss. Nobody should hesitate even if the political rights are required to be sacrificed for this purpose. Conversion brings no harm to the political safeguards. I do not understand why the political safeguards should at all be jeopardized by conversion. Wherever you may go, your political rights and safeguards will accompany you. I have no doubt about it.
If you become Muslims, you will get the political rights as Muslims. If you become Christians, you will get the political rights as Christians, if you become Sikhs, you will have your political rights as Sikhs. In short, our political rights will accompany us.
So nobody should be afraid of it. On the other hand, if we remain Hindus and do not convert, will our rights be safe? You must think carefully on this. Suppose the Hindus pass a law whereby the untouchability is prohibited and its practice is made punishable, then they may ask you, 'We have abolished untouchability by law and you are no longer untouchables...
Looking through this perspective, conversion becomes a path for strengthening the political safeguards rather than becoming a hindrance. If you remain Hindus, you are sure to lose your political safeguards. If you want to save them, leave this religion. The political safeguards will be permanent only by conversion.
The Hindu religion does not appeal to my conscience. It does not appeal to my self-respect. However, your conversion will be for material as well as for spiritual gains. Some persons mock and laugh at the idea of conversion for material gains. I do not feel hesitant in calling such persons as stupid.
Conversion brings Happiness
I tell you all very specifically, religion is for man and not man for religion. To get human treatment, convert yourselves.
CONVERT -For getting organized.
CONVERT -For becoming strong.
CONVERT -For securing equality.
CONVERT -For getting liberty.
CONVERT -For that your domestic life may be happy.
I consider him as leader who without fear or favour tells the people what is good and what is bad for them. It is my duty to tell you, what is good for you, even if you don't like it, I must do my duty. And now I have done it.
It is now for you to decide and discharge your responsibility.
Reference: "Bhim Chakra 1996" published by Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd. Tripura project, Agartala.

Why should we pray and act for the suffering church?

Why should we pray and act for the suffering church? - ChristianAnswers.Net

Living in fear

PURNIMA S. TRIPATHI


in Bhopal

Attacks on the Christian community have registered a sharp increase in BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh in recent times.

A.M. FARUQUI





BAJRANG DAL DISTRICT convener Devendra Rawat arguing with Madhya Pradesh State Minorities Commission member Indira Iyengar (left) at a press conference she held in Bhopal.

FEAR has gripped the Christian community in Madhya Pradesh as right-wing Hindu organisations have stepped up their attacks in the name of preventing religious conversion. Christians, who comprise 0.3 per cent of the State's population, are afraid to organise prayer meetings even at their homes or hold religious functions in the open as these could attract the ire of Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh affiliates.

This was the experience of a group of Christians in Bhopal in April. Bajrang Dal activists stormed into the house of Rev. San Francis where a prayer meeting was on and beat up those present for "perpetuating conversion to Christianity". Eighteen of them were dragged to the police station. Although it became clear that no conversion had taken place, the authorities did not take immediate action against the assailants.

More recently, on June 5, when Indira Iyengar, who represents the Christian community on the State Minority Commission, addressed a press conference in Bhopal to highlight the plight of two tribal women from Khargone who were allegedly raped by some right-wing activists on May 28 for converting to Christianity three years ago, she was heckled. Bajrang Dal activists, led by district convener Devendra Rawat, warned her of dire consequences if she did not stop "maligning the RSS and other Hindu organisations".

If such blatant attacks, that too in full media glare, are possible in the State capital, the situation in the interior areas can only be imagined.

"The situation is bad in Jabalpur, Indore, Dhar, Jhabua and Ratlam. Attacks on Christians have gone up sharply in the past three years," says the Archbishop of Bhopal, Dr. Pascal Topno. Indira Iyengar says in Jabalpur more than 20 cases have been slapped on the Christians in the past two months for alleged conversion. "I have been writing to the government, highlighting the plight of the Christians, but nothing happens," she says. She said the press conference was organised to draw public attention to the plight of the two abused tribal women as no FIR had been registered.

What, however, is disconcerting, is that the Bharatiya Janata Party government does not appear to be taking the complaints seriously. How else can one explain the attitude of the Chief Minister or even senior government officials who dismiss the allegations?

"Things are being blown out of proportion by Indira Iyengar because she wants to project herself as the messiah of Indian Christians in order to be nominated to the National Commission for Minorities [NCM]," says Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan, echoing what Devendra Rawat told this correspondent.

Even if the incident involving Indira Iyengar is set aside, how can the Jhabua riots of January 2004 be ignored? Not a single right-wing activist has been booked until now for rioting against Christians. Instead, 16 Christians were arrested. They were released only recently after the High Court declared them "not guilty". Not a single person has been booked for the assault on Fr. Stan Fareira, principal of Don Bosco School in Jhabua. Fr. Fareira's life has been saved but he is in no condition to continue as the principal of the school. The NCM had, in a letter dated March 12, 2004, to the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh, demanded "immediate action" against those responsible for the riots and against the officials concerned for dereliction of duty, an independent inquiry into the riots, and full security to members of the Christian community, missionaries and institutions including churches. The government is yet to act on it. "We had instituted an inquiry into the riots and its report has come only now. We are still studying the report. The report holds conversions responsible for those incidents," said the Chief Minister. The government's plan of action on the basis of this report is predictable.

The State government, he said, was greatly concerned about conversions, which he claimed were going on. "Even though we have a law in place to prevent this, conversions are happening in large numbers. We are determined to stop this and since the present law has not proved to be effective, we are considering either making suitable changes in the law or introducing a fresh law," he told Frontline. However, the Chief Minister's claims that his government is committed to providing freedom of religion to all, ensuring that no physical harm comes to anyone and preventing individuals from taking the law into his own hands, sound hollow.

"The Chief Minister may be a man of noble intentions, but his officials certainly lack in sympathy for Christians," said Archbishop Topno. According to him, Christians in far-flung areas feel insecure. "I keep getting reports from here and there. The number of complaints has certainly gone up," he says. According to him, if it is true that somebody resorts to forceful conversion, through either threats or allurements, there are provisions in the law to prevent this. But instead of "letting the law take its course, individuals are taking the law into their own hands and this is what we are protesting against," he says.

Surprisingly, the State Minority Commission, which is supposed to safeguard the rights of the minorities, speaks the same language as the Bajrang Dal or the Chief Minister. Instead of expressing concern at the attacks on Christians, Commission Chairman Anwar Mohammad Khan denied that the Christian community had come under any calamitous attack in the State. Also, instead of expressing solidarity with Indira Iyengar, he said he was planning action against her for "trespassing the propriety of her post as Commission member by addressing a press conference without bringing the matter to his notice first".

No wonder then that Hindu fundamentalist organisations feel emboldened to declare that "we will now run the campaign against conversions on our own, and will give and even take any sacrifice required for this". Rawat told Frontline that since the government had proved to be "ineffective" in stopping religious conversions, "the Bajrang Dal has decided to initiate direct action". Direct action, he said, would mean awareness campaigns and also action similar to the one witnessed at the recent Bhopal press conference. "We will not allow so-called intellectuals to continue indulging in unsubstantiated propaganda against Hindu organisations any more. We are committed to stopping religious conversions and the malicious campaign against us," he maintained.

Declarations such as this with a patronising government at the helm, make the Christian community tremble. "We can only protest peacefully and hope that the Chief Minister will ensure that we continue to get the rights enshrined in the Constitution."We only demand that the law should take its own course. Is that asking for too much?" wonders Bishop Topno.

Trial of faith

With malice towards one and all...

Khushwant Singh

June 1, 2006

I am partly the product of a Christian Mission College: I did my intermediate for two years at St. Stephen's College, Delhi. Every morning we had a half-hour class on the Bible. Attendance was optional. I was a regular because I wanted to know what Christianity was all about. Although earlier at Modern School, both the Principal, Kamla Bose, and her niece, Nilima, who was our English teacher, were Christians, I was not aware of it. Like most other Indians, I use to look down on Indian Christians as karantas. I remain grateful to Christian missionaries for what I have learnt about their work. The Bible opened my eyes to the richness of the English language. Though an avowed agnostic, I continue to read a passage or two every day, as I do of scriptures of other languages. They have a rich vocabulary and noble sentiments.

What impressed me most was the Christian contribution to the development of our country. They run the best schools, colleges and hospitals. Whenever any catastrophe like an earthquake or flood occurs, they are the first to arrive on the scene to provide medical assistance, food, shelter and whatever else is needed. If people in distress are impressed by them and some convert to their faith, it should not surprise anyone. It is neither force nor allurement that make them do so; only the setting of a good example of social service.

I spent some days with Mother Teresa in Calcutta. Although the institutions she set up to help the poor and the needy were headed by Christian nuns, almost all the men and women taken care of by them belonged to other faiths. She never asked anyone to convert to Christianity. The only words I heard her utter to people who were dying were in Bengali: "Bhoggoban aachhen."(There is God.)

I concede that conversions cause tensions in families. People either convert to another faith en masse when they think they will get a better deal or they do so when want to marry someone of another faith. Seldom, if ever, do people change their faith to save their lives. A lie perpetuated over the centuries is that Islam was spread by the sword. If that were true, all Indians would have been Muslims as Muslims ruled the country for several centuries. Islam spread in India through the influence of Sufi saints who preached equality and harmony. No Muslim army ever conquered Indonesia. Their forefathers accepted Islam on their own.

Why did Babasaheb Ambedkar ask his Dalit followers to convert to Buddhism? Did anyone force or bribe him to do so? No. He felt that upper-caste Hindus had treated them like dirt for too long and it was time to break. So what is this hoo haa about conversions now? Six states - Arunachal, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan - mostly governed by Hindu fundamentalists, the BJP or its allies, have passed legislation forbidding conversion on pain of imprisonment for two to five years and a fine of Rs 50,000. Attempt to "convert directly or otherwise" has been made a non-bailable offence. They call this draconian law 'Freedom of Religion Bill'. It is exactly the opposite, as it deprives citizens of the right to choose their religion. I hope if and when the matter comes up before the Supreme Court, it will be struck down.

Meanwhile, the Sangh parivar led by the RSS is busy with a re-conversion programme of its own brand. It is called ghar vaapsi (return home) to Hinduism. It is mostly aimed at adivasis. The very nomenclature proves that they were not Hindus but animists with deities and rituals of their own. However, to be fair to the parivar, there are positive aspects of this zeal to bring them back into the Hindu fold. They have opened schools in tribal belts. If they really mean business, apart from persuading them to celebrate Hindu festivals, they might also want to do something to break the stranglehold of caste panchayats which continue to ostracise people who break caste rules. They have no place in a modern society.

Why objections to Pope's remarks are baseless

(IANS)
By Vishal Arora

The remarks of Pope Benedict XVI about India's anti-conversion law that New Delhi has protested neither constitute "interference" in a country's internal affairs nor suggest that Christian missionaries are converting Hindus "forcibly", as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has alleged.

The Pope had told India's new ambassador to the Vatican Amitava Tripathi that "the reprehensible attempt to legislate clearly discriminatory restrictions on the fundamental right of religious freedom must be firmly rejected not only as unconstitutional but also as contrary to the highest ideals of India's founding fathers who believed in a nation of peaceful coexistence and mutual tolerance between different religions and ethnic groups".

Today's international community accepts the principle that the way any state treats its citizens is in the public domain, and external criticism from other governments or foreign religious leaders does not constitute interference in the internal affairs of the country. The UN's International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified, allow international accountability vis-à-vis human rights record of the countries.

As regards the constitutional validity of the legislation regulating conversion, the so-called Freedom of Religion Act is seen as an anti-conversion law by religious minorities, which say the law implicitly seeks to restrict conversion in general in the garb of prohibiting "forcible" or "fraudulent" conversions - a concern that has a legitimate ground.

The Freedom of Religion Acts in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa require that all conversions be reported to the state administration. Section 4 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Rules, 1989, states that "any person intending to convert his religion shall give a declaration before a magistrate... prior to such conversion that he intends to convert his religion on his own will". Similarly, Section 5 makes it mandatory for the priest to intimate the details of the conversion to the government 15 days in advance.

If the priest and the prospective convert fail to inform the government of the conversion - even in case of a voluntary conversion - they can be prosecuted and, if found "guilty", punished like common criminals.

Besides, this provision overlooks the basic fact that conversion is not always tangible, as it has to do with a person's faith, which may change gradually over a period of time for various reasons and one may not be able to tell the exact time and place of his or her conversion. In fact, the provision reduces this mystic phenomenon to a time-and-place-bound ceremony.

This narrow, mistaken definition of conversion with the provision for mandatory reporting of conversions allows the state to interfere in the arena of a citizen's life that is extremely personal to him or her.

Christianity, in particular, faces the brunt of this provision, as the sacrament of baptism is deemed as a "conversion ceremony" and priests performing the ceremony are considered as those converting. Baptism, according to the Bible, is for those who have decided to follow the Christian faith and it is not a means to convert - this is why churches give baptism to all its registered members, whether they were born in a Christian family or have accepted Christianity from other backgrounds.

Further, these laws do not define the terms sufficiently, giving discretionary powers to the governments, which can be misused. For instance, "allurement" is defined as an "offer of any temptation in the form of any gift or gratification, either in cash or in kind or grant of any material benefit, either monetary or otherwise" that can both restrict religious and charitable activities and create ample opportunity for abuse and unjust prosecution. Such vague terms can leave a room for a government to indulge in religious policing like in Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, the Rajasthan bill, which was passed by the state assembly on April 7 and endorsement to which was denied by the governor Thursday, violates the right to equality before law promised in Article 14 of the constitution. For the bill explicitly exempts "reconversion" to Hinduism from the purview of the law by defining conversion as adopting "a religion other than one's forefathers" along the same lines as the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978, according to which conversion means "renouncing an indigenous faith and adopting another faith or religion".

This restriction on citizens' conversion to minority religions with a blanket freedom for the likes of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council) to organise "home-coming" ceremonies also implies that the laws seek to make it difficult for the majority community to practise their liberty to convert to other religions.

The allegation that Christian missionaries go to "gullible" poor, illiterate Dalits and tribals living in remote areas to convert them using fraudulent means sounds like a Churchill statement at the time of the British leaving India - that the country was not capable of ruling itself, as a majority of its people were poor and illiterate.

The BJP owes an explanation as to how Dalits and tribals, if they are so naïve, can be allowed the right to cast votes to choose their representatives but not the freedom to decide what religion they want to follow.

One wonders why it is always the "other" who objects to conversions, and never those who have accepted the religion. We are yet to see a "Forum of Converts against Conversion" kind of group joining the BJP - which may never happen.

One also fails to understand why the party needs anti-conversion laws when not even a single person has been convicted of forcible or fraudulent conversion by any court in the country in the last more than 37 years.

(Vishal Arora is a writer on religious issues. The views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at vishalarora_in@hotmail.com)

Yet Another Challenge to the Constitution

Yet Another Challenge to the Constitution

Dominic Emmanuel

Will Vasundhara Raje have to wait for a poll debacle to withdraw the recently passed "Freedom of Religion Bill 2006", as Jayalalitha did after the drubbing she and her party received during the 2004 Lok Sabha elections? Well! Since Rajasthan has less than 1 percent Christian population, at whom, according to Home Minister Gulab Singh Kataria, the architect of the Bill, is aimed, "it was needed to check the activities of Christian missionaries in certain parts of the State, especially in Kota", there is little chance that there will be any alteration to it.

Gujarat, also BJP governed, is another State which passed such an unconstitutional law earning Narender Modi among other things, the singular distinction of being 'a modern day Nero', from no less an institution than the Supreme Court. That the Gujarat government has not yet framed rules for the said Bill or that so far no case either in Madhya Pradesh, Orissa or Arunachal Pradesh of 'forceful conversion' or 'conversion by allurement or fraudulent means' has come to light, is not really the concern of BJP governments. It is enough that such Bills and Acts, come handy to terrorize the minorities in general and the Christian missionaries in particular, who are rendering selfless service to the most neglected people in remote areas. It is also a useful tool to justify the actions of the likes of Dara Singh. False allegations in the name of 'conversion' serve many purposes.

In Rajasthan the Freedom of Religion Bill was spoken of ever since the BJP government came to power in 2004 but it caught momentum after the President of a certain Emmanuel Mission International (EMI), Bishop Samuel Thomas was arrested from NOIDA last month along with an arrest warrant issued against his father Archbishop M. A. Thomas, the founder of EMI. Both of them are being held responsible for propagating a book called Haqueekat, which allegedly contains material denigrating the Hindu religion, though neither of them has either written or published the book. Though we have not seen or read the book, we have, including me as the spokesperson of the Delhi Catholic Archdiocese, condemned in public, all such material containing insulting references to other religions or their believers.

There are also hundreds of booklets and pamphlets in circulation all over, particularly in North India, a bundle of which I have personally handed over both to the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the then Home Minister Mr. L. K. Advani making highly derogatory remarks against the Bible and Christianity. But is anyone, especially those working overtime to introduce such Bills, bothered about their plight?

On the one hand, we have the Sensex and the Nifty scaling new heights, in the BJP ruled States, on the other hand, such retrograde laws are being passed, targeting openly one particular Community. The Bill is so ludicrous and contradictory, to say the least, that it allows people to go back to their 'original religion', without attracting any punitive action.

Even if no one wants to listen to the constant shrill of the Christian Community in despair that it is not involved in any 'mass conversion', people are urged to believe at least the official Census of India showing a clear decline of Christian population in the last four decades, down from 2.6% to being just 2.3% at the last count.

But how does one convince a completely biased lot which is not only totally closed to see the 'truth' but which keeps harping on the two constant refrains against minorities, that of 'minority appeasement' (now riding on Advani's Rath) and that of 'mass conversion' (on Rajnath's Rath). That the Hindu voter, however, has become much wiser than those hardliners who get such draconian bills passed, has been proved by the result of the last elections and the poor attendance right now at the two Rath Yatras.

It was in order to boost the attendance around the Raths that the new BJP President Rajnath Singh lashed out at the Christian missionaries in Chattisgarh boasting, "as soon as I became the BJP President, I told all my party chief ministers to enact laws to check conversions and foil the designs of Christian missionaries". He then went on to say that the Jharkhand government was ready with the draft bill and Chattisgarh will soon follow suit. He had no hesitation in spewing venom at the Christian missionaries in the area. Both for Rajnath and Advani, and of course the Sangh Parivar, this is what democracy is all about.

The Catholic Church has clarified its position on conversion time and again as well as in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, stating, "In spreading religious faith. everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonourable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's own right and a violation of the right of others" (cf. Declaration on Religious Freedom: no. 4. Vatican: 1965).

Similarly Pope Benedict XVI in his recent and first encyclical Deus Caritas Est reiterates, "Christian charitable activity must be independent of parties and ideologies. It is not a means of changing the world ideologically. Charity, furthermore, cannot be used as a means of engaging in what is nowadays considered proselytism. Love is free; it is not practiced as a way of achieving other ends" no. 31. b & c).

Such laws go against the very spirit of Article 25 of the Constitution which grants, "freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion" to every Indian citizen and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which India is a signatory, stating, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion: this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice and worship and observance".

Among the many painful experiences for Christians in the context of 'conversion' there are two important ones. One, that those who do not understand the commandment of Jesus to "love one another as I have loved you" (John 15: 12) and "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers (sisters) that you do unto me" (Mt. 25: 40) completely misunderstand their motive for acts of love. Two, that millions who have passed through the Christian educational as well as other institutions and who were never once given so much as a hint to convert to Christianity, never stand up in their defense. The Archbishop Vincent M. Concessao of Delhi, however, holds, "Nobody really believes their lies against Christians and everyone is actually tired of them. Most people know that it is only a political game to be played and contested in the political arena".

Charioting the course of hate

By Kuldip Nayar

AN intelligence report says that L.K. Advani's rath yatra in 1990 caused the largest number of killings after the partition riots in 1947. Yet, he has the audacity to say before embarking on another yatra that the last one was peaceful. BJP chief Rajnath Singh, a new convert to yatras, wants to prove that his brand of Hindutva is more virulent than Advani's.

Such clamorous street rallies have a disturbing effect on the public. They are injurious to the health of a country which claims to be a true democracy. What happened at Aligarh may not be the direct result of rallies. But their preparation has fouled the atmosphere. Extremist Muslims are also joining the fray and making them take on the lax administration.

Whether Advani will damage India's plural society more than Rajnath Singh is difficult to predict at present. Both are determined to widen the chasm found between Hindus and Muslims in the urban India and deepen hatred the RSS parivar has spread in the BJP-ruled states like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan with the set programme of destroying every bit of commonality. The Rajasthan Government has gone a step further and armed itself with an anti-conversion law to forcibly sideline the small minority of Christians from the mainstream.

I am told that at one stage Atal Behari Vajpayee was not happy over reviving yatras, probably realising that they have served their "purpose." Advani even made Vajpayee's skepticism public. But then Vajpayee is atal (firm) only in name. He changes his mind when he finds the RSS and its coterie in the BJP are opposed to his thinking. It is widely known that he wanted to remove Narendra Modi after what he as the chief minister did to Gujarat. Vajpayee dropped the idea when the RSS told him not to disturb Modi.

Instead, Vajpayee attacked the Islamic countries at his next stop in Goa.

That Vajpayee has blessed Advani and Rajnath Singh does not mean that yatras have come to acquire better credentials. It only confirms that Vajpayee is a chip of the old block. He or, for that matter, his party has given yet another proof, if it was needed, that they are bent upon destroying the secular ethos of India. Only in whipping up sentiments against Muslims does the BJP see its future in election. It feels it has a chance in the country if it can divide it on religious lines as the pre-partition Muslim League did.

The country has withstood attacks on its secular ethos in the past. It will do so again. What disappoints me is that at a time when India requires all attention to grapple with the ill-effects of development at the cost of social justice, the BJP is resurrecting the Frankenstein of communalism. It does not mind even if the country goes to pieces in the process. The BJP should realise that it is already losing its base. Advani and Rajnath Singh cannot retrieve a party which wants to take India back to the middle-ages.

When it came to power at the centre, it was not because people returned the party in election but because some regional secular parties jettisoned their ideology to join the BJP government for loaves of office.

The situation has changed now. State leaders like Mulayam Singh in UP and Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh believe that they can capture power at New Delhi by amalgamating with other regional leaders. The BJP is ruled out on yet another count: the crucial Left will back only those regional parties which have no truck with the BJP. The next Parliament may be dominated by regional parties, some of which have seen the BJP in its true colours. As for yatras, the response has been poor because an average Hindu is not taken in by the propaganda that the minorities will swamp him. The BJP has played the mandir card too often, much to the exasperation of people. In the last general election what hit the party was the countryside's abhorrence over changes in the fields of education, culture and information. The worst was the distortion of history. The BJP does not realise how deep the roots of pluralism in the country are. The latest book, Blood Brothers, by M.J. Akbar, an eminent journalist and author, has pointed this out. His is a saga of an Indian Muslim family, a story of three generations. He brings out boldly and objectively the innate strength of the subcontinent's common heritage. It is not one culture, not one language but a myriad of cultures and languages. Their accommodative living has made what India is - open, tolerant and cohesive. Akbar's span is wide. He explores Islam and Hinduism which moulds lives in India and impress their image on the history of times. The book deals with religion as a living element in today's culture, not as a museum piece. Akbar's book tells us how Hindus and Muslims believe in one Creator and that the author's grandfather "had not travelled too far when he was converted" from Hinduism to Islam. Both religions have so much in common. "The supreme God of the Vedas is Brahma. Brahma has no form; Allah also has no form. The Hindu philosophy of mimansa says that idols are only a means to assist the mind towards Brahma. The Hindu seeks release from life in nirvana, I seek assimilation in Allah. Both sufi and sanyasin reach God through meditation. The Hindu's kravana is my sama, we both listen; his manana is my muraqaba, we both obey; his nididhyanasana is my tawajjuh, we both contemplate. The buddhi of the Brahmin is my ilm; we both learn; his jnana is my marafat, we both seek emancipation through knowledge. What you call maya (illusion), I call alam-i-khyal, the world of fancy.

Akbar underlines the spirit of tolerance that has woven Hindus and Muslims into a mosaic that mirrors different thoughts while keeping it one. Take a small passage from his book: "…Dinner was placed before the guests; biryani for Muslims and dishfuls of savouries for the Hindus purchased from a Hindu sweetmeat shop. It was the best available…" Akbar does not harangue or lecture to make the point about the sense of accommodation. He quietly tells us how solicitous the Muslims were about the Hindus' belief in caste. The former purchases "savouries for the Hindus" from a Hindu sweetmeat shop. An era of sensitivity, the book traces from times immemorial.

Can Advanis and Rajnath Singhs ever imbibe that spirit? If they do not and continue to chip away at the country's institutions like pluralism they would be responsible for the harm to the society. They should understand that there can be no democracy without secularism.

Saffron strike

T.K. RAJALAKSHMI
in Kota and Jaipur

A Christian mission becomes the target of attack following a controversy over a book that allegedly insults Hindu deities.

GOPAL SUNGER

A rally in Jaipur on March 21 protesting against the attacks.

A BOOK by an obscure writer was all it took for a systematic targeting of the Emmanuel Mission International (EMI), a Christian organisation that runs a chain of schools in Rajasthan, in the third week of February. Minority organisations, political parties such as the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Congress, women's groups and the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) came together on a common platform in the third week of March to condemn the attacks and the hounding of minorities in general in the State, timing the protests to coincide with the Assembly session.

These organisations also expressed their apprehensions about the Rajasthan Dharma Swatantrya Bill, 2006; passed by the Assembly on April 7, the new piece of legislation bans religious conversion. Offences under the new law are non-bailable.

There have been attacks on minority communities before, but the attacks on the EMI drew, for the first time, Christian organisations out on the streets in protest. The Rajasthan Christian Fellowship, which represents all denominations of the Christian faith, participated in the rally.

The provocation for the attacks was that the book "insulted" Hindu deities and thereby hurt the majority community's religious sentiments. Bunch of Truths (Haqeeqat in the Hindi translation) is written by C.G. Mathew, a lawyer based in Kerala. It was a rejoinder to RSS ideologue M.S. Golwalkar's Bunch of Thoughts. Mathew got his book translated into several languages. A professional translator based in Madhya Pradesh did the Hindi translation.

The EMI runs 49 schools in the State and has many majority community children among its students. It had nothing to do with either the writing of the book or its translations. However, it found itself a target of hostile attention after one Prahlad Panwar spotted the book at a bookstall during an EMI convention back in October 2005 and bought a copy for Rs.200. He filed a first information report (FIR) at a police station in Kota on February 14 saying the EMI was selling and distributing the book whose contents were objectionable.

Panwar, described by informed sources as an RSS activist, runs the Matantaran Virodhi Manch (translated, it means `anti-conversion front') in Kota, a city where the EMI runs four schools, an orphanage and a hospital. He says he visited the EMI convention to check if there were any conversion activities going on. Kota also happens to be the stronghold of Madan Dilawar, Minister for Social Welfare and Cooperatives, known for his stand against alleged conversions in the district.

After Panwar spotted the book in October, it also came to the notice of top police officers, including the Additional Director-General of Police (Crime). The Superintendent of Police in Kota received a letter from his superiors asking him to make an inquiry. He directed the Station House Officer at Bhimgajmandi, where the EMI is headquartered, to conduct an inquiry. The latter got hold of a copy, "studied" it and concluded that it contained inflammatory material. So on February 14, he filed an FIR.

So the EMI had two FIRs filed against it on the same day at two different police stations in Kota, with identical charges of trying to spread disharmony, which is an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The EMI premises in Kota were raided on the same day. Copies of the book were seized from the organisation's library and arrest warrants were issued against Archbishop M.A. Thomas, founder of the EMI, and his son Samuel Thomas.

Rakesh Pal Singh, Chief Investigating Officer in the case, said receipts showing the purchase of copies of the book were found during the raid. "It was clear that the book was bought, distributed and sold," he said. He also found the contents objectionable.

A police inquiry was now on into the EMI's role in distributing the book, but the attacks, which came soon after the raid, did not wait for its outcome. A group of people, allegedly members of the Bajrang Dal and the Shiv Sena, climbed the gate of the Emmanuel Mission School at Jhotwara and set fire to the cross on it. The buses of the mission's school in Kota were damaged. St. Paul's School in Kota was also attacked by some young men, who the police later said were Shiv Sainiks. On the night of February 26, they broke into the school and vandalised a statue of St. Paul. The police said that they were given a "good beating" before being released on bail, but the attacks continued. In Niwai in Tonk district, the manager of an EMI school and his wife were manhandled. In Taleda in adjoining Bundi district, a mission school was pelted with stones but the police prevented any further flare-ups; police sources in Bundi said the culprits were Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena members. Two men in Kota announced a reward on Archbishop Thomas' head. They were arrested, but the Chief Investigating Officer dismissed the incident as a "non-event", likening it to the declaration by a Muslim cleric in the context of the Danish cartoons controversy.

The book was banned and on February 21 the Ministry of Social Welfare cancelled the registration of five societies run by the EMI. Their bank accounts were frozen, putting the Mission in a financial crisis. Five people, including the Mission's accountant, Samuel Thomas and the translator of Mathew's book, were arrested. Archbishop Thomas, whose whereabouts were not known, was declared an absconder.

There were indirect fallouts of the affair. Food and medical supplies to the orphanage and the hospital were disrupted, affecting 1,200 people, including children. The supplies were restored after political parties put pressure on the government; a CPI(M) team even visited the State from Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

This is not the first time that the EMI has been targeted. The police in Kota have never been able to prove charges of forcible conversions against the EMI or any minority organisation, but there have been allegations nonetheless. The district secretary of the CPI(M), R.K. Swami, and the president of the Kota Press Club, Pradyumna Kumar, said that every time there was an allegation of forcible conversion, the EMI opened up its activities for scrutiny.

There seems to be a pattern in the way in which these allegations are made and pursued. Lower-rung cadre of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad or the Shiv Sena, mostly unemployed men and belonging to the Scheduled Castes and backward castes, make the first noises. Then the Bajrang Dal picks up the issue. Ultimately, the Bharatiya Janata Party stands to gain as society gets polarised on communal lines.

Pradyumna Kumar thought vonversions of the kind alleged were unlikely in a prosperous place like Kota. Even the Sahariyas, the poorest community in the area, were dependent on the government, not on missionaries.

So what is it that the saffron brigade really has against the EMI? A lot of people in Kota think it could be the growing popularity and success of the Mission. Outfits owing allegiance to the Rashtriya Swyamsewak Sangh run some 30 schools in Kota and the success of the Mission's schools may not look like a good thing to them. So EMI-run schools, which are the most popular in Bundi, Kota and Jhalawar, become targets of attack.

Some people feel that the attacks were only a pretext to create a favourable atmosphere for the anti-conversion Bill. Legal experts of the PUCL say that the new piece of legislation will intimidate people who wish to convert as well as those who propagate the faith. Father Raymond Coelho, spokesperson of the Rajasthan Christian Fellowship, said that he had only noticed such attacks on the community in the past 10 years. In his mind, too, the recent attacks have a link with efforts to push the anti-conversion Bill through.

The Bill's Statement of Objects and Reasons says: "It has been observed by the State government that some religious and other institutions, bodies and individuals are found to be involved in unlawful conversion from one religion to another by allurement or by fraudulent means or forcibly.... In order to curb such illegal activities and to maintain harmony amongst persons of various religions, it has been considered expedient to enact a special law for the purpose." Clause (c ) defines conversion as the renouncing of one's "own" religion and adopting another; one's "own" religion is the religion of one's forefathers. Legal experts point to the partisan nature of the definition, which excludes re-conversions, significant in the context of the Ghar-Vaapsi programmes in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.

CLick Here for Source