HVK Archives: Boundaries of faith
Boundaries of faith - Mid-Day
M. V. Kamath
()
January 28, 1999
Title: Boundaries of faith
Author: M. V. Kamath
Publication: Mid-Day
Date: January 28, 1999
I have a simple request for Church leaders - Catholic and
Protestant and I speak as a friend: Kindly don't try to
internationalise whatever quarrel you have with your non-
Christian fellow citizens. In the end it will prove counter-
productive. You may reap the satisfaction of having embarrassed
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government but it may have
severe consequences. Getting Indian Christians in the US to
agitate before the United Nations was m extremely poor taste.
That is no way of winning sympathy for your cause back home. I
strongly suspect a foreign hand. Kindly keep foreigners out of
your quarrels here.
Truth has many faces. And the full truth about conversion in
Dangs has is yet to be told. I am disturbed by an article in The
Observer (January 20) written by S Gurumurthy. I know Gurumurthy.
He's a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideologue, but he's
quoting from a report submitted by two well-known Gandhians and
Sarvodaya workers Gelubhai Naik and Chunilal Vaidya, both 82
years old - to the Minorities Commission. Naik and Vaidya are
extraordinary people for the simple reason they have been working
in Dangs for the last 50 years. And they are not fascists,
communalists or whatever. They are staunchly against the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Hindu Jagran Manch (HJM). And only
on January 1, Naik was awarded the Gram Sewa Puraskar by the
premier Gandhian institution, the Gujarat Vidya Peeth. That
should establish their credentials.
Now what is it they told the Minorities Commission in their
memorandum? Here I quote Gurumurthy. "This is what they have
testified - that the Dangs issue is not to be perceived as an
attack on Christians; that it is a long simmering reaction to
conversions by Christian missionaries; that missionaries have
used, and even now use, unethical means to convert; that this is
not the beginning, but the culmination; that missionaries have
been inciting converted tribals into vandalism; that missionary
schools have even punished students for wearing Gandhi caps; that
during the last five years, nearly two dozen idols of Shiva and
Hanuman - revered by tribals -have been desecrated or broken and,
in one instance, converts have even urinated on a Hanuman idol;
that tribals' ancient beliefs are openly mocked at; that just two
months ago, at the instance of missionaries, converts twice beat
up the nephew of the Bhil raja who refused to marry a Christian
girl and get evangelised; that converts threw stones at an HJM
rally...
"Naik and Vaidya apparently had perceived the danger of reaction
from unconverted tribals waiting to explode. Unconverted tribals
had reportedly asked Congress governments to take measures
against the missionaries but had failed to get any response.
Their families were being blown to pieces by missionaries who
told converts to break their links with their unconverted
brethren... "
Naik and Vaidya are alive and can be interrogated. Their
memorandum is available for the asking. Why are reports of the
memorandum suppressed by the English language press?
That is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is the
unnatural interest taken by the German, Belgian and US
ambassadors in the matter. They are obviously out to politicise
the issue. They should be warned. Any such activity will be
resented both by the government and the people.
There are no tribals in Belgium or Germany for Hindu missionaries
to seek to convert to Hinduism; were Hindu missionaries to go to
the US and try to convert Red Indians to Hinduism there would be
a hue and cry from Christian missions. The US could not even
adjust itself to the presence of Rajneesh whose city,
Rajneeshpuram, set in the obscure north-west was forcibly
abandoned. Rajneesh himself was arrested, jailed and driven out
after a confession was forced out of him. The Belgian record in
the Congo is even more despicable. As for Germany, does its
ambassador think people in India have forgotten what his
countrymen did to over five million Jews who were sent to gas
chambers? Where were German Christian missions then? And where
were they when Benito Mussolini's thugs were strafing unarmed
Abyssinians? The Pope should have excommunicated all the
scoundrels m one sweep.
For the US ambassador to lecture Indians on how they should treat
missionaries is an impertinence that shouldn't be tolerated.
Christian leaders in India would do well to tell their
benefactors in Europe and the US to mind their own business.
India is not their business. Certainly, for them to be seen as
interfering in India's domestic affairs would lead to a whiplash
that cannot be to the liking of Christian leaders in India.
The point is made, by my friend H Y Sharada Prasad, a former
information advisor to Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, that if we
can rejoice when the Ramakrishna Mission opens branches m the
West there is no reason to object to Christian missionaries
functioning in India. The analogy does not hold good.
Ramakrishna Mission monks are not engaged in converting Red
Indians; there are no poor tribals in the US. It is regrettable
that a former information advisor is so ill-informed.
To say there should be a debate on conversion is not 'childish',
as the Congress wants it to be known. And to argue that the
matter had long been debated in the Constituent Assembly is not
to face reality. The debate in the Assembly took place in the
context of Partition. The situation has changed totally. This
must be recognised.
We must see how the picture would look if the situation was
reversed. Can one fancy a US with India's 5,000-year history
tolerating a rich, developed and powerful Hindu India seeking to
Hinduise American tribals on the grounds that propagation of
religion is a fundamental part of Hindu religion? The Americans
would have thrown out Hindus bag and baggage, as they threw out
Rajneesh.
No religion can demand tolerance of its activities on the grounds
that propagation and conversion are fundamental parts of its
tenet. Strangling innocent pilgrims was a fundamental part of
the thuggee tenet. The British showed them what they thought of
such a tenet. Conversion is a form of assault that should not be
acceptable. Even the Church has proclaimed that salvation is
possible in each religion, so what is the ground for converting
people to Christianity, in particular by means which we are being
told are used even to this day in many areas?
Secularism means respect for all religions. Conversion is its
very negation. It is an insult, besides, to our intelligence.
(M. V. Kamath, veteran journalist, feels that conversion is not
acceptable)
Back
Top
|
