Author: P V Indiresan
Publication: The New Indian Express
Date: November 1, 2002
Should journalism be passionate,
or should it be objective? In recent weeks, there has been a well-orchestrated
campaign against the Tamil Nadu Government's move to curb religious conversions.
Several contributors have argued with great passion that it is improper
and illegal to create impediments against religious conversion.Their arguments
are exhilarating; unfortunately, they are equally risky.
Progressive intellectuals are rightly
disgusted with the way self-appointed champions of Hinduism (who, incidentally,
are all of high-caste) are behaving. They have concluded that these upper-caste
Hindus are too powerful to be checked. Hence, they consider that it would
be a good idea for the less fortunate adherents of Hinduism to change religion.
That sounds obviously logical but has a not so obvious pitfall.
If this logic were correct, anyone
whose religious leaders ill-treat them should be induced to change their
religion. We know that there are powerful Mullahs all over the world who
treat women badly. Then, should Muslim women convert from Islam? It is
being reported that not only catholic priests, even those as strict as
Jehova's Witnesses, sexually abuse children. Should Christian children
therefore give up Christianity?
Admittedly, many Hindu activists
are bad. Admittedly, their emergence is a flaw of Hindu religion. Yet,
that is not sufficient argument to change religion. Jesus Christ has advised
that we should not visit the sins of the fathers on the children. In reverse,
it is not advisable to visit the sins of religious leaders on the religion
itself. Religious leaders come and go, but religion marches on whether
its leaders are good or whether they are bad.
Jesus also said, "Do unto others
as you would have others do unto you". Christian evangelists want to convert
Hindus. How would they like it if Hindus start converting Christians? No
doubt, that risk is low at present because Hinduism is in bad shape. At
the moment, world over, Hindus are poor but Christians are nearly fifty
times richer. That does offer a golden opportunity to strike at Hinduism.
Even then, making unbridled religious conversion a right is not wise. History
is like a cricket ball; it is unpredictable. At some future date, Christianity
may be in difficulties and Hinduism may be riding the crest at the same
time. In that event, will it be a good idea for Hindus to assert that it
is their unbridled right to re-convert Christians, and face no legal impediments
to do so? At such a time, would not the laws that the TN government is
introducing protect Christianity when it needs such protection most?
Much has been made of freedom of
conscience. Nobody can question the freedom of any individual to follow
whatever creed he or she likes. The issue changes drastically when we get
mass conversions. A hundred people cannot have an identical pang of conscience
at one and the same time. That is like one Adivasi cutting a tree in the
forest for personal use, or many of them doing so to get money from contractors.
Cutting a tree for personal use is fine; doing so to get rewards from contractors
is not. Even Jawaharlal Nehru was forced to tick off Cardinal Gracias when
he complained about objections to mass conversions.
It is highly probable that the Tamil
Nadu ordinance is flawed in critical ways. Those flaws should be rectified.
In order to identify those flaws, the ordnance should be scrutinised carefully.
That is a job for legal experts, but not the experts who believe in adversarial
justice, but by those who believe in the common good. Certainly, what Hindu
zealots are doing is wrong. They should be corrected, and if that is not
possible, they ought to be punished. However, promoting the idea of unfettered
conversion as an antidote is like cutting off the nose to spite the face.
The spread of hatred has become
a sad feature of religious movements these days. Conversion will not be
a bad idea if it comes out of love. It is a bad idea if it is born of hatred,
and contempt too.
