Author: Swami Dayanand Saraswati
Publication: Organiser
Date: May 30, 2004
The recent Papal contention that
there is prohibition of religious freedom in India is an allegation to
be taken seriously by the State as well as the Indian people. Addressing
the Bishops of India during their ad limina visit to the Vatican, the Pope
charged that the "free exercise of the natural right to religious freedom"
is prohibited in India. A similar concern was registered in the latest
report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
(USCIRF), which declared India as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC).
Both the Vatican and the US Commission
have cited the introduction of "anti-conversion" Bills in some Indian states
as the basis for their conclusions. To those who care to read these Bills,
however, it is clear that they do show a clear intent to make "the use
of force or allurement or fraudulent means" unlawful in conversion activities
that the State finds it necesary to issue an ordinance specifically prohibiting
these means on their behalf.
Christian missionaries have always
assumed complete freedom to evangelise and convert any non-Christian society.
And, history has shown that they have felt entitled to do so by any means.
They honestly feel that it is not only their right, but their solemn duty
to convert, not just individuals, but entire nations. Their scripture enjoins
them, and the current Pope repeatedly reminds them to "go therefore and
make disciples of all nations (Mt. 28:20)." This perception of religious
freedom needs an objective examination inasmuch as it engenders deep hurt
and attracts bitter opposition from the adherents of other religions.
In my perception there is religious
freedom in any country wherein one is free to live one´s religious
life without being inhibited by State legislation or being subject to organised
persecutions from the people of any religious, political, socio-economic
or ethnic community. One would think that all those who desire freedom
of religion would find this a reasonable and accurate perception. But,
this freedom is not adequate for some; it does not include the freedom
to evangelise and convert.
I want to be clear about what I
mean by 'evangelise and convert'. I do not mean that one should not have
the freedom to "manifest one´s religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance," as stipulated in Article 18 of the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is an inalienable right, a
sacred right, of all human beings that is to be cherished and protected.
However, one who considers oneself subject to a religious mandate to convert
people of other religions to one´s own has a world-view that does
not permit religious freedom. His/her inner religious landscape does not
have any legitimate place for the practice of religions other than his/her
own. Thus, as a person, one does not have the inner space to grant freedom
to people to pursue other religions. It is not possible, either religiously
or psychologically.
When the practice of one´s
religion involves evangelising in order to bring outsiders into one´s
fold of believers, one is bound to become blind to a certain truth. One
cannot, under these circumstances, recognise that one is intruding into
the sanctity of the inner religious space of others. The blindness is evident
when, in the same address, one can make a passionate appeal for evangelisa-tion,
and also, for a democracy to support it that has "respect for religious
freedom, for this is the right which touches on the individual´s
most private and sovereign interior freedom" (address of Pope John Paul
II to the new Ambassador of India, December 13, 2002 cited in address to
Bishops of India, May 2003). While recognising an individual´s religious
freedom as "most private and sovereign", there is, at the same time, an
exhortation to invade this private, sacred space. In other words, to trample
upon the very freedom one allegedly wishes to preserve. The contradiction
reveals obtuseness in the extreme, a double standard, or a form of religious
arrogance that is commonly known as fundamen-talism.
I have no intention of disparaging
any religion here, but rather, to be very clear about certain realities.
Integral to a converting religion is conversion. And, a commitment to conver-sion
involves certain unavoidable assumptions. Even when there is no visible
attempt to evangelise and convert at a given time and place, the lull is
not due to any newly discovered tolerance towards other religions. The
underlying assumptions and commitment do not allow for that. The lull is
only a strategic wait, biding time for the moment when there is the desired
"religious freedom".
Ethnic religions the world over
do not know, nor have they ever evangelised. Why? In the minds of the people
given to these traditions there is total absence of religious intolerance.
The tenets and mores of those traditions have allowed the people who hold
them to naturally grant total freedom to others to practise their religion.
It is never an issue. But, this unquestioned granting of religious freedom
has given the initial thumb-space for the aggressive traditions to evangelise,
convert and erase indigenous religions and their cultures from many countries,
and even some continents. This is a crucial fact that, if overlooked, can,
and has distorted the perception of the situation. It is so important to
understand that today, an objection to conversion from any indigenous religious
leadership is an urgently necessary and long-overdue assertion, not a violation,
of human rights. In all fairness, such an objection could not be further
from being a violation of human rights, much less religious fundamentalism.
I know that a Hindu is free from
any malice towards any form of religious practice. I also know that there
is no religious mandate in the Hindu dharma to bring other religionists
to the Hindu fold. Therefore, a Hindu is fundamentally accommodative in
terms of religious pursuits. And, it is common knowledge that, because
of this, India has been the historical refuge of the religiously persecuted
and disenfranchised. Yet, if a Hindu wants his or her religious privacy
respected and not intruded upon, imme-diately the spectre of "religious
freedom" is raised at all possible levels of legal as well as public forums.
This extends well beyond our domestic borders and has far-reaching conse-quences
for our quality of life. The United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom recommends that its government should utilise various
tools, such as economic sanctions, to exert pressure on Countries of Particular
Concern (CPC), like India, in order to ensure adequate "religious freedom"
for their evangelism and conversion progra-mmes. A deeper analy-sis of
the facts reveals that such measures are clearly unjust.
If Pope John Paul II could heed
his own words in his recent address to the Bishops of India on their ad
limina visit to the Vatican, the interests of peaceful co-existence of
religions and of the people of goodwill everywhere would be well served.
On that occasion, the Pontiff said to the Bishops of India, "To love the
least among us without expecting anything in return is truly to love Christ."
In the current climate, this appears to be a tall order for evangelising
religions. Hindus in India, on the other hand, have been accommodating
religions of all stripes with extraordinary grace for centuries, and if
allowed, will continue to do so for centuries to come. This in no way,
however, should be construed as a licence for abuses such as those prohibited
in the conversion ordinances. Nor could a protest against such abuses be
construed, by decent people anywhere, as a violation of any kind of human
right.
Note: This article, in response
to the criticism by Pope John Paul II that appeared in the press, is given
below:
Pope criticises anti-conversion
laws in India
Pope John Paul II today decried
new anti-conversion laws in some Indian states and urged the church in
India to "courageously" proclaim the gospel.
"This is not an easy task, especially
in areas where people experience animosity, discrim-ination and even violence
because of their religious convictions or tribal affiliations," the Pontiff,
who met a group of Indian Bishops, said.
"These difficulties are exacerbated
by the increased activity of a few Hindu fundamentalist groups which are
creating suspicion of the church and other religions," John Paul said.
"Unfortunately, in some regions,
the state authorities have yielded to the pressures of these extremists
and have passed unjust conversion laws, prohibiting free exercise of the
natural right to religious freedom, or withdrawing state support to those
in the scheduled castes who have chosen to Christianity," the Pontiff said.
