ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Yes, let's debate conversion

Three Christians, two of whom were priests, were stabbed and slashed in the face, after which their bodies were chopped up. The main accused is still at large.

Another Christian missionary, the vice-principal of a school run by Christians in a tribal area, was accused of improper sexual relations with a 14-year-old boy. He was stripped naked and paraded through the streets. Nobody has been punished.

The knee-jerk reaction, on hearing of such incidents, is to throw up one's hands, exclaiming, "What else can you expect when the BJP is in power!" But the first incident took place on September 1, 1994, and the second on September 2, 1997 -- in other words well before Atal Bihari Vajpayee assumed office. And for the record, both took place in that bastion of secularism, Laloo Prasad Yadav's Bihar (where he rules with the tacit support of the Congress and the Third Front).

It isn't my intention to whitewash the triple murder in Orissa where Graham Stewart Stains and his sons were burnt to death. I am simply pointing out that attacks on Christians antedate the BJP coming to power. From a historical perspective, anti-Christian, or more properly anti-missionary, sentiment can be traced back all the way to the Mutiny of 1857. (The rebel sepoys specifically cited suspicions that they were to be converted on the sly as a cause of their revolt.)

I don't think any sane, decent man can possibly defend the murder of Stains. Nor do I even pretend to understand the mentality of fanatics who can deliberately burn a fellow human being alive, no matter what the depth of their disagreement. The very thought is enough to make a normal person throw up in disgust.

But the anti-BJP protesters are making a potentially fatal error by politicising the issue. Murder is a criminal act, the ultimate form of breakdown in law and order. However, in today's charged political climate, it isn't quite that easy to treat it that way, is it?

The Constitution makes upholding the law the responsibility of state governments. That makes the murder of Stains an issue for Orissa, a Congress-ruled state. It also makes the incidents referred to above a hot potato for Bihar. And yes, it makes the Keshubhai Patel ministry responsible for whatever happened in the Dangs district of Gujarat. But if you are going to demand the dismissal of the Gujarat ministry, how can you not demand the sacking of those in Bhubaneswar and Patna?

So what is the potential mistake being made by some Christian groups when they try to paint the BJP as anti-Christian? Simply this, by taking an extreme position, they are deliberately closing all routes to dialogue with a large section of Indian political opinion.

After visiting the Dangs district, the prime minister invited a national debate on conversions. The offer was immediately turned down by some politicians. "Where is the need for such a debate?" they sneered.

Well, ponder over the following statements. "Protestant evangelists are wolves who seek to prey upon the fold." "We must be as fishers of men even as the Protestants are." Had these been made by a Shankaracharya, I am sure every secularist would have been up in arms. They were, in fact, made by John Paul II, in Brazil and Mexico respectively.

If the Pope can make such strong statements about another Christian sect, it is asking too much for Hindus to accept missionary activity with perfect equanimity. I agree that sarvadharma samabhaava -- equal respect for all faiths -- is a central tenet of Hinduism. But do other religions truly share that feeling? It is not a demonstration of respect for Hinduism when you try to persuade a Hindu to change his religion.

(I don't think we need to discuss people who change their religion for 'commercial' reasons. Mahatma Gandhi was the most tolerant of men, but even he sneered at such converts as "rice-Christians".)

India does need to debate conversion. In 1967 and 1968 respectively the then governments of Orissa and Madhya Pradesh legislated to curb missionary activity. The first act was struck down by the Orissa high court in 1972; the other was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh high court in 1974. Unfortunately, neither Parliament nor the Supreme Court has offered a definitive opinion.

Stains' murder was both illegal and un-Hindu. But don't use it as an excuse to prevent any debate. After all, the alternative to talking is to leave the field to the likes of those murderous idiots in Orissa.

T V R Shenoy