It seems to me the root of the problem is the basic idea of differential civil laws based on religious identity.

PGW, the solution I am (idealistically) putting forward would be a uniform civil code. The current system operates on differential codes... But perhaps that's what you meant.

But the best way to make religious conversion a political non-issue would be to take the government out of it entirely.

It's bit more compicated than that because India has to deal with forced coversions from Christian evangelical groups who use money, food, and jobs to coerce the poor to adopt Christianity. I am pretty laissez-faire re choice of religion, but asking the Indian government not to intervene to prevent these conversions would seem negligent on the government's part. India's poor should not be the marketplace for other religions.

Amardeep:

Yes, you are correct.

sa, your definition of "coercion" is debatable, the easiest way for hindu groups to compete is to exhibit the same largesse toward their fellow indians that christian missionaries conventially do, not ban conversion. to me "banning conversion" is like affirmative action, it is a band-aid solution which does not address the structural root causes for why conversions to other religions occur in the first place. in places like northern thailand indigenous groups have converted to christianity in large part to align themselves with a powerful worldwide community which can protect them against the hegemony of the thai buddhist majority. conversion maybe be a rational act, or a act of circumstantial coercion, depending on how you look at it.

though i tend to agree with amardeep's sentiment, i think it is important to note that religious liberty in the united states was shaped by the bias toward

a) natural religion (deism) among some of the founder
b)a powerful radical reformation emphasis on personal and individual confession of belief

both of these strains emphasize the primacy of belief over practice, doxy (hetero or ortho) over praxy. freedom of conscience is easy to grant when that is the centrality of religion, but today in the USA you see the rise of religions where adherence to liturgy and law are becoming more prominent. orthodox judaism was marginalized precisely because reform and conservative make ritual accommodations to a gentile
enviornment. islam and sikhism also demand accommodations because of the centrality of particular outward practices. in other words, religious liberty & neutrality wasn't as hard in the american case because of the nature of american religiosity.

A uniform Civil Code is pretty much orthogonal to the issue of conversion-banning. (But if all you have is a hammer,...)

You could easily have a UCC which bans religious conversion. Or you could have a UCC that requires all religious groups to follow the laws of one religion -- all Parsis must now follow Jewish family law (or, more realistically, all Indians must follow the reformed Hindu code). Then conversion would be completely irrelevant, since you could never escape the dominant religion's law.

forced coversions from Christian evangelical groups who use money, food, and jobs to coerce the poor to adopt Christianity.

That's allurement, not force. Note that the 1968 law in Madhya Pradesh banned conversion based on "force or allurement," and worked fine for 30 years. The thing you are talking about was already illegal there.

The new law introduces a great deal of red tape for anyone who wants to convert for any reason. It is going down the wrong path. All too often it is simply an excuse for goons to attack Christians (often indigenous Indian Christians), as in this recent case (that's an admittedly unconformed report).

I also disagree with your description of Christianity as an "other religion" in India.

Ultimately the people should choose how secular they want their society to be, just like in the United States.

US does not have majority rule for all rights. Its a republic.

A uniform Civil Code is pretty much orthogonal to the issue of conversion-banning. (But if all you have is a hammer,...)

I see your point, and I agree that a populist UCC could be as bad or worse than the current system. What is needed is a system that holds individual rights paramount.

P. Radhakrishnan had a great article tearing apart the logic that supports conversion bans here)(written in response to the introduction of a similar bill in Tamil Nadu in 2002). In it he makes two points relevant to the current discussion. The first is, these laws do not state who defines "force, allurement, or fraud," which means that if the police say the local Pastor in Indore is perpetrating "allurement," they can arrest him on no evidence.

Second, as Radhakrishnan puts it, "even if conversions are taking place, there cannot be one set of rules for Hinduism and another set for other religions." Which seems to be patently the case here.

Gautham,

you believe in majoritarianism in both the USA & india i take it? :=)

Christian Missionaries in India are guilty of using nefarious tactics like bribery and witholding of medical care in order to coerce people into changing their religion.

Can you give me some concrete examples of such events taking place recently? I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true in limited instances, but thus far I haven't heard any specifics -- just this general charge.

I agree that one should be able to convert to whatever one wants, but it should go both ways. many Hindu groups 'reconvert' in tribal areas, particularly in Chattisgarh, and non-Hindu orgs call it "saffronisation". You can't have it like dat, sorry. Also John Dayal, a Christian activist, invoked force/allurement arguments in Gujurat because he was upset the Sangh had successfully reconverted some Christians. And lets not pretend that for the *very* poor, there are not lots of agressive conversion attempts. I work with a group in Tamil Nadu who works with adi dravidas. One activist told me that they'll be whatever you want them to be, until you leave, when they'll go back to whatever they were.

Also, this is not particularly a big deal in the north (though I'm told missions have had succeess among Dalit Sikhs); in the South (and of course, the northeast), its a big deal, and in the South among SC/STs only. In Kerala, the Christian population - despite very many conversions - is actually stagnant or declining, because of the low birth rates in Christian families.

Question, can one raise money in India for a Hindu religious cause and get tax exemption? I have heard several gripe that you cannot.

Hindus also claim they've faced problems. The Amma mission encountered substantial problems in Kerala and the government put many obstacles in her way when she wanted to rebuild tsunami-decimated areas. The communist government in Bengal basially refused permission to a scion of the Ford family, a white Hindu, from building a multi-million dollar Vedic Village in West Bengal. In frustration, he set up in Madhya Pradesh.

I agree that one should be able to convert to whatever one wants, but it should go both ways. many Hindu groups 'reconvert' in tribal areas, particularly in Chattisgarh, and non-Hindu orgs call it "saffronisation".

agreed! i have seen this sort of tendency among some muslims & christians, who object to conversionary attempts. the hindu sentiment is not qualitatively particular here, even within india. i recall in the mid-90s when john paul ii came to india and declared that the church's mission to convert would continue in south asia, but i also knew at the same time that roman catholics in latin america were making the same arguments that hindus did against them against protestant evangelical missions.

there is the ideal, and then there is the messy reality of human lives. we have to muddle forward. but, i think "anti-conversion" laws are clearly in the wrong direction if you want to foster a liberal democratic culture.

Its a typical article looking at Indian laws with American binoculars. He does not explain the context under which those laws were passed. Christian missionaries pay money or use gifts to coerce poor people into their religion. Mainy because the more people they convert they get more funds from rich christians who want everyone to convert to chritianity. The law also says it is a person should convert on personal preference not because money was given. The author conveniently forgets to leave that part out.

Christian missionaries pay money or use gifts to coerce poor people into their religion.

the commenter should look up the definition of coercion and allurement. i once joined an korean american christian group because i was under the impression that that was the best route to sexual intercourse with several asian coeds in whom i took an interest. is that coercion or allurement???

It's bit more compicated than that because India has to deal with forced coversions from Christian evangelical groups who use money, food, and jobs to coerce the poor to adopt Christianity.

Please, pleeeeeeeeezzz! Let's not go here again. And in in case you didn't get the memo, Christianity has been in India for two millenia - it's more Indian than curry!

I agree - government should not have no place in the area of personal belief. If there is an issue with coercion, I think the courts could exercise better discretion than blanket legislation.

The government in India is too intertwined with religion and the result is that every religious group in the country feels persecuted. What India needs to do is outline a clear seperation of state and religion, instead of it's current messy sort of secularism. Stupid bans on conversion are just a symptom of a larger problem.

I do believe in majoritarianism, because I think that's what usually works. Of course the rights of minorities should be preserved, in both India and the U.S

So you believe in partial majoritarianism. Otherwise you cant really preserve anybody's rights except for which the majority agreen upon.

Gautham,

we need a quantitative accounting of how common the pratcices you describe are. obviously they are not defensible, but i am skeptical that this is in any way typical.

I meant *agrees upon*

the commenter should look up the definition of coercion and allurement. i once joined an korean american christian group because i was under the impression that that was the best route to sexual intercourse with several asian coeds in whom i took an interest. is that coercion or allurement???

thats awesome. did it work? ;-)

thats awesome. did it work? ;-)

nope :=(

sorry :(

The majority of Americans support people like Bush and Cheney.

dude, does your rejection of america also mean that your impressions are automatically fact? the majority of americans do not support george bush right now, see here. as a point of fact the majority of americans did not vote for george w. bush, the (slim) majority who voted did! you make some pretty hard-core comments, be hard-core about the facts.

It's very similar to what Tamil political parties do, in terms of buying votes and distributing aid in exchange for support.

if that's what they have to do to live and not be malnourished, in the end of the day i say go for it! the gov. shouldn't be banning conversions, hindus (like yourself) who care that people remain hindu should start a major humanitarian push to attain parity with christians. if people weren't destitute, this wouldn't be an issue.

I believe that this anticonversion legislation does not make any sense. Surely if the missionaries, as obnoxious as I find them, are using real coercion (i.e. threat of physical force) there are existing laws that can be used to protect society. As much as I would prefer that the dominant cultural ethos of India remain Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh (which makes me an "othering" bastard), freedom of religion is a basic choice. As long as the Hindu orthodoxy remains preoccupied with ritual purity and ignores basic social justice issues, people will convert in droves.

I am not sure if there is any basis behind the claim that Hindu groups are not afforded tax exemption in India, but at least here in the US groups like FOIL & ASAATA have been successful in equating any appeal to Hindu identity as "hate".

In the severe poverty stricken districts of India - there is fine line between coercion and allurement. If food, shelter and education is conditional based on your religion and that too in a dire poor tribal district, then my friends technically you can say this is "allurement" but its awfully close to coercion. If you google on india and churches - you can read what the "mission" is. Basically western money is being used to get converts so the mission financiers can expand the # of their co-relisionists. Its no different than Saudi Arabian funding for mosques and madrassas across much of africa and asia except in this case a state is directly involved. People decry giving money to Hindu groups from US/UK but that is piddle when it comes to money spent from US/UK/Australia/Europe on "civilizing" us brown folks.

What explains that fact that most conversions happen in poor/tribal districts of Orissa, Chattisgarh, AP, Bihar and much of India? The middle class kids going to Catholics schools in much of urban India almost never convert!!!

Allurement!! Ha!!

Paging Spoorlam!

The politics of conversion works in strange ways in India. A couple of days ago, a renowned Dalit activist and poet and the evil RSS reconciled:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1945000.cms

NEW DELHI: Ideological chalk and cheese shared dais when firebrand
Dalit poet Namdeo Dhasal and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief K
Sudarshan came together at a book release function in the Capital on
Wednesday.

The internationally renowned poet and Dalit leader is the founder
president of Maharashtra's Dalit Panthers that has traditionally been
at odds with the RSS. The Dalit Panther has for long looked upon the
RSS as representing the Brahmanical order. Ironically, Dhasal
released a RSS book on Dalit pain at the function.

Dhasal, an outspoken literary figure and the first recipient of the
Sahitya Akademi Lifetime Achievement Award, said he was initially
reluctant to share the dais with the RSS chief as "Leftist friends
would pounce upon me with abuses and accusations that I have shifted
camp, but I don't care, because I have only one mission -- to
strengthen national unity and social integrity. This can't be
achieved if we remain divided in thousands of castes and sub- castes
and keep pouring venom against each other. Neither can politics help
eradicate castes, which rather thrive on casteist divisions."

He had high hopes, he said, from the RSS, which should get into
action to remove the concept of untouchability and castiesm from the
country. "Mere speeches and books won't help. The work that RSS
outfits like Samarasta Manch are doing in Maharashtra has to be
further strengthened," he said.

The fact Hinduism lacks formal structure is part of the reason these efforts are behind

many evangelical groups are decentralized and informal. islam also lacks a formal structure per se. it is mitigating, but no excuse.

The fact Hinduism lacks formal structure is part of the reason these efforts are behind, but another example is the Tirupati authority, which in between the large-scale corruption charges, funds a university, several schools, feeds countless poor every day and does an immense amount for the surrounding area. Hindus are doing things; it's just not noticed by the Western media.

good for hindus. they need to do more. i read hinduism today, hindus have not attained parity with christians & muslims. part of this is because they don't have middle class christians in the USA backing them, or gulf oil, but part of it is that hindu identity is shall we say, "segmented" 8=)

my own preference is that india remain hindu, i revile the abrahamic god, but if it feeds people, well, to that i can not say anything. the answer is not legislation, it is genuine consciousness raising and transformation of hinduism into a religion which transcends jati.

Sometimes beliefs change and evolve - that's just something that a few people here are going to have to deal with. This happens both ways - Hindu to Christian and/or Christian to Hindu. Really doesn't matter to me which way it goes as long as your free to make the decision without the threat of coercion.

What does matter is this ridiculous canard that all conversions to Christianity in India are secured through financial or other kinds of allurement. If this is what you think, and if you think that the social work that missionaries do are motivated purely by this, then I have neither the time nor the energy to deal with that kind of ignorance. A good number of my family members are missionaries. For all of their efforts, they've greatly contributed to literacy and health in the areas they have worked in. In return, they've established very modest Churches with a handful of members each - most of whom had a deeply personal experience of physical or emotional healing.

Btw, you want to talk about coercion? What exactly do you think the Shiv Sena or Bajrang Dal are into - I don't think that they're looking to have you over for a potluck when they come knocking on your front door!

my own preference is that india remain hindu,

Dude, lets not get alarmist here :) Both sides have reason to exaggerate the state of affairs. but having worked in India for long periods, the ground picture tells a different story.

RTA - Unfortunately the masses in India do not have the money to "allure" their fellow humns either within their own country or outside. Not as yet anyway. Where as an average joe in the US can contribute $25-$50 to the cause, probably an average Indian (Hindu if you would like) can only contribute more like 1-5 cents. And an avergae Indian is too busy trying to raise their standard of living to worry about going to heaven by helping convert fellow human beings. So unfortunately Indians cannot compete with their richer friends across the planet when it comes to matters of conversion.

Forced conversion didn't work on me, although my Mom is STILL trying. It's the real mission impossible.

newbie,

if there are two options

a) mildly destitute and christian
b) more destitute and hindu

i think an individual should have the choice to select a or b. in an ideal world humanity would come without strings attached, but this is not an ideal world. a full stomach and health come before a religious faith in my materialistic worldview.

I'm with Razib on all counts. UCC, not a ban is the answer. Also, full stomach first!

Brown people don't like White Gods.

On the issue of missionary coercion/allurement: I think there needs to be a distinction here between things that are bad (missionaries withholding aid to poor people unless they convert, the KKK spreading their evil thoughts, etc.) and things the government should ban. It's not the government's role to ban everything that is bad. Just like the KKK has a right to spread their evil thoughts through free speech, the missionaries ought to have the right to give food/clothing/shelter to whomever they choose.

umang - are you a studeent at sipa, columbia u?

newbie,

if there are two options

a) mildly destitute and christian
b) more destitute and hindu

i think an individual should have the choice to select a or b. in an ideal world humanity would come without strings attached, but this is not an ideal world. a full stomach and health come before a religious faith in my materialistic worldview.

exactly. except the destitute guy should choose for himself. Not be chosen for him.

Also: While the missionaries should have the right to spend their money on whomever they please, however they please -- they should not get tax exempt status (in the US or India).

tarang: nope, I'm a government contractor in DC.

If I were to give the option to a single black mom from Harlem:

a. Stay Christian and poor
b. Convert to my faith, get a job, healthcare and daycare.

In the materialistic world she should choose b, and no law should prevent her from doing so.

except the destitute guy should choose for himself. Not be chosen for him.

what is that supposed to mean? you are saying that xtian missionaries are stuffing rice down hungry men's throats and throwing baptismal water on them without their consent?

look, if you want a law that bans conversions because you think people are born what they are, and they should stay what they are, and know their place in the universe, that's fine. say it. don't redefine words like "choice" and "coercion" in such a loose fashion so as it render it meaningless. do children have a "choice" in what religion they follow? are they being "coerced" by their parents? perhaps muslims and christians in india are tired of not being given the "choice" to opt out of the hindu soaked zeitgeist of pop culture. how come bollywood is so hindu normative? why do muslim actors have to play hindu characters? sounds like "coercion" to me because they are forced to play hindu characters else they won't get parts.

trivializing? for sure. but the way you use a word like "coercion" trivializes the unfortunate detestable non-choices that the destitute have to make. the answer is not to force christian missionaries to not offer their goods, it is for hindus to ramp up their goodie giving!

horrible that a man has to choose between a life and christianity? oh yeah, that sucks. but i am not confident that if the christian missionaries weren't there "coercing" them that some individuals would get the medical care needed.

Re # 7 Amardeep

That's allurement, not force.

If you're starving to death and somebody says you can convert, eat, and live, or you can not convert, not eat, and then you and your child will suffer/starve, that amounts to force. It is force every bit as much as threatening bodily injury or death. Only those that have never been hungry fail to see the difference.

If you're starving to death and somebody says you can convert, eat, and live, or you can not convert, not eat, and then you and your child will suffer/starve, that amounts to force. It is force every bit as much as threatening bodily injury or death.

here's a proposal: any ban on conversions stipulates that the gov. has to offer "matching" goods & services.

razib the atheist said

"the commenter should look up the definition of coercion and allurement. i once joined an korean american christian group because i was under the impression that that was the best route to sexual intercourse with several asian coeds in whom i took an interest. is that coercion or allurement??? "

That is just plain awesome.

That is just plain awesome.

many people become born again xtians to get with chicks. jesus washes all sins, oh yeah 8>)

Well yes i vote for stomach too. But its not just stomach they are filling. Along with it comes economic and cultural exploitation. I would rather the govt. fill the stomachs of the people who need it. In recent history of mankind often the missinary preceded the colonizer. Sometime the colonizer brought missionaries with them. Though not directly, there is imperialistic tone to evangilism.

In America and elsewhere, govts. have banned discrimation based on number of factors (gender, religion, race etc.) in employment, housing, education etc. Why can't the Indian govt. say to charities that you are free to preach or distribute largesse but you cannot make the religion of the receipent a factor in distributing the goodies.

I too hope that Indian society becomes more equal in all respects and these laws can be done with as faith is a fundamental personal decision.

Americans like to experiment, to "mix and match," and in religion it's no different than in the department store.

Wow!! I wonder what part America this author (from the WSJ column) lives in! I have seen that attitude more as a rare exception rather than the norm as the author seems to make it out to be.

here's a proposal: any ban on conversions stipulates that the gov. has to offer "matching" goods & services.

The government offers reservations. Christians go into the OBC group once they convert, on the theory that they are no longer oppressed. Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh Dalits retain their status.

22 · razib_the_atheist on September 1, 2006 01:16 PM · Direct link

Gautham,

we need a quantitative accounting of how common the pratcices you describe are. obviously they are not defensible, but i am skeptical that this is in any way typical.

If anyone is interested...read the book by Arun Shourie- "Missionaries in India". There some authentic facts,references to historical incidents and detailed insight of how the "Church System" works in India.

Knowing Arun Shourie, I would not say the book is beyond criticism or some bias, but it does provide stunning dynamics that pervades the politics of evangelization.

My fundamental question is: Why would you want to convert someone, when all you profess is to help the poor, downtrodden, sick and helpless? Would one's commitment in a faith in tested by how many one converts or how many they help, without bringing up the subject of conversion or offering to convert the needy?

perhaps muslims and christians in india are tired of not being given the "choice" to opt out of the hindu soaked zeitgeist of pop culture.

For a guy who makes such comments:

you make some pretty hard-core comments, be hard-core about the facts.

where are your facts dude?

And also, just because Bush's Approval rating is low - does it mean that the people really DO NOT SUPPORT him? Even with such approval ratings he will still beat Kerry twice over (sorry no stats to support)

Why can't the Indian govt. say to charities that you are free to preach or distribute largesse but you cannot make the religion of the receipent a factor in distributing the goodies

hey, great, you can make that law. but now are the charities going to continue giving goodies? some of them will. some of them won't. and that last is the problem. mumbling gibberish is tolerable if that means more food on the plate if you are marginal and on the edge. yes, i know most people don't perceive it as gibberish, but we can get into that once they have a mild paunch.

My fundamental question is: Why would you want to convert someone, when all you profess is to help the poor, downtrodden, sick and helpless? Would one's commitment in a faith in tested by how many one converts or how many they help, without bringing up the subject of conversion or offering to convert the needy?

analyzing religion is moronic. itz all mumbo-jumbo anyway which most religious people can't explain. my concern is that people aren't hungry.

Well yes i vote for stomach too. But its not just stomach they are filling. Along with it comes economic and cultural exploitation. I would rather the govt. fill the stomachs of the people who need it. In recent history of mankind often the missinary preceded the colonizer.

Have you ever dealt with these conversion people? it costs far more (some say twenty times more) to convert a person than to retain a person. (I apologize if that sounds synical but thats how people talk these days) I agree with razib, Hindus not giving sounds like an excuse to me.

where are your facts dude?

i was making up stupid shit based in a few slight perceptions and experiences. just like some other people on this thread.

as an atheist i believe conversion to christian is good. 333 million gods vs. 3 gods? (father, son, holy ghost) which one is closer to atheism, you think? at least it's in the right direction!

Sorry. I forgot any defense of Hinduism is not welcome on these pages. I'm going home. Have a great weekend everyone!

dear gautham, i respect your faith and the passion of your beliefs. scan the above comments. nobody but for you has provided the personal anecdotes such as yours. most other comments are hot air. newspaper articles and regurgitated points of view. your input significantly enriched the conversation.

while almfd's comment #35 was intended to rile you, his perspective reflect a conservative point of view which at least i do not appreciate.

pressures in the duodenum aside, please do not get up and leave. your point of view is needed. I would like to know more about your experiences working with rural charities. conversions aside, hinduism is still the majority practice in india and i can not see the masses get relief without a grass roots movement with religion as motivation.

p.s. it isnt manly to sulk

razib_the_atheist on September 1, 2006 02:45 PM · Direct link

as an atheist i believe conversion to christian is good. 333 million gods vs. 3 gods? (father, son, holy ghost) which one is closer to atheism, you think? at least it's in the right directio

You can be an Atheist and a Hindu at the sametime. That's the beauty of Hindu philosophy. You can either have 333million gods or no god at all - your choice. not only that, 333 million includes Jesus, Mohammed and any other gods from any other faiths you can think of! Hindu philosophy does not object to it!

ain't that beautiful?

Why can't the Indian govt. say to charities that you are free to preach or distribute largesse but you cannot make the religion of the receipent a factor in distributing the goodies.

The Indian gov't could technically say this but it wouldn't be a fair, moral stance. People should be free to spend their money as they please, even if it's on porn, video games, and cigarrettes -- or heaven forbid, on proselytizing.

The idea of complete seperation of religion and state in India is a good long term goal and idealistic proposition but impractical at the present time. When the constitution was written, the commitee(remarkably astute people) knew that a little tweaking of that idea was needed for India.

Afterall government needed to in the past and still needs to be actively involved in religion to prevent caste, religion, language, gender etc based discrimination in Hinduism, Islam and other religions. This is mainly because most ills of the society like untouchability, casteism, dowry, unequal rights for women were considered an essential part of most religions.

So, easy as it might sound, the solution is not that simple. Dont forget that on the flip side, the government actively controls how the money and property owned by Hindu temples is spent and does not do the same for other minority religions. This in my opinion is necessary in India to prevent many possible hegemonistic problems.

As far as laws against forcible conversions are concerned, these laws are more than what some of you have simplistically reduced to Hindutva advocacy. If there is one defining characteristic of the multi dimensional matrix that is Indian politics, it is the humongous appetite of the politicians for more and more power. Conversions hit them where it hurts most - an alternate power player( with the enormous amounts of cash they can raise) that challenges the existing national power structure. Right now in India there is no Church and State. There is only state. This legislation is aimed more at curbing that more than any fears or dislike towards cristianity. So what you have now is some sections of some parties welcoming foreign funds which they aim to exploit for their own purposes while other parties look on them with suspicion because they will not get any share of that money. If for example Japanese started doing the same thing and started converting people to Buddism, trust me that would be banned too.

You can be an Atheist and a Hindu at the sametime. That's the beauty of Hindu philosophy. You can either have 333million gods or no god at all - your choice. not only that, 333 million includes Jesus, Mohammed and any other gods from any other faiths you can think of! Hindu philosophy does not object to it!

yeah, i wuz being flip. my major point is that life (via food & medicine) is a necessary precondition for liberty to espouse whatever gibberish you prefer.

Can someone elucidate at length, or point to an elucidation, of why the Indian government must control & own Hindu temples? I have heard references to the fact that they provide local services, etc. But I want to know more.

Thanks

Razib, you should then support Christianity to Buddhism Conversion, 3 gods to 1 god is better, no?

Razib, you should then support Christianity to Buddhism Conversion, 3 gods to 1 god is better, no?

1 god? more like faux god 8=) but yes, ah hail Lord Buddha!

Um, not reading all the comments now, but I must say, comparing the relatively recent and relatively small (compared to the total set of adherents as a whole) Hindutva works against conversion with centuries of very clear Islamic law against apostacy is the cheapest sort of equation. Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Indian Christianity wouldn't have happened if the "ban" were in such comparably strong terms.

saheli, agreed.

Razib, are you sure you are Atheist. Buddha, Faux, Christianity, not?

OTOH, 450 Legislators to 1 Dictator does not mean more Freedom.

Here is a relevant quote from Gandhi that makes sense in the perspective of the Indian society

Proselytizing under the cloak of humanitarian work is unhealthy, to say the least. It is most resented by people here.
- Gandhi, Mohandas K: In Young India, April 23, 1931

belief on an empty stomach is even unhealthier! literally.

my point is that if missionaries are in a position to coerce people, we should focus on why they are in a position to coerce as the greater even than the conversion itself. and so long as i see no evidence that sans their self-interested 'humanitarianism' others would fill the need with genuine altruistic intent, i see forced gibberish espousal as a lesser evil.

Thanks for almost single handedly carrying on the good fight for atheists, Razib. I bow to your energy. This one is the best

don't redefine words like "choice" and "coercion" in such a loose fashion so as it render it meaningless. do children have a "choice" in what religion they follow? are they being "coerced" by their parents?

Why isn't anyone responding to this? This "forced" conversion is from a religion that we didn't have choice over anyway.

i revile the abrahamic god

Thanks for almost single handedly carrying on the good fight for atheists, Razib. I bow to your energy. This one is the best

people have a right to believe what what they want to believe and define themselves, whether it be christian, hindu, muslim or godless. i don't deny that there are less than "noble" motives in many circumstances, but who are we to judge? yes, it is horrible when believers offer inducements conditional upon profession of faith in a god who in your heart you do not believe in, but are we going to feed a man or woman's child?

hindus have a valid point. i just think that there are bigger issues, and addressing those would naturally solve the problems hindus have and do a lot of good in the process.

India inherently needs laws against conversion. Due to incidents such as The Shah Bano case which reads:

In 1986, the Congress (I) party, which had an absolute majority in Parliament at the time, passed an act that nullified the Supreme Court's judgment in the Shah Bano case. This act upheld the Muslim Personal Law and writ as excerpted below:

"Every application by a divorced woman under section 125… of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pending before a magistrate on the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that code… be disposed of by such magistrate an accordance with the provisions of this Act."

Important facet of life such as marriage is decided by one's religion. In such a situation if conversion was easy, people would convert for all sorts of frivoulous reasons.

Also, people may have noticed that Congress is not really the secular party of India.

RC -- comment 82 is incoherent. Because of the many personal law codes in India, the country should have no laws against conversion. That would allow each Indian to choose what personal law system they would like to use.

Ok, if you dont want to click on the link of the Shah Bano case, heres the summary.
- Mrs. Shah Bano was divorced by her husband without her consent (with the Talaaq rule)
- She sued for alimony and

Shah Bano, because she had no means to support herself and her children, approached the courts for securing maintenance from her husband. When the case reached the Supreme Court of India, seven years had elapsed. The Supreme Court invoked Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which applies to everyone regardless of caste, creed, or religion. It ruled that Shah Bano be given maintenance money, similar to alimony.

Ikram,
Dont you think of a scenario where to avoid alimony a non-Muslim will convert to Islam and then divorce the wife?
Lot of men in the west who kill their wives do so to avoid paying alimony.

allow each Indian to choose what personal law system they would like to use.

Congress is not really the secular party of India.

Can someone elucidate at length, or point to an elucidation, of why the Indian government must control & own Hindu temples?

while almfd's comment #35 was intended to rile you, his perspective reflect a conservative point of view which at least i do not appreciate.

I was not trying to rile anyone in particular. Spoorlam's comedy is always welcome!

I recently (less than a year ago) converted to Hinduism because of this.

I was not trying to rile anyone in particular. Spoorlam's comedy is always welcome!

hindus have a valid point. i just think that there are bigger issues, and addressing those would naturally solve the problems hindus have and do a lot of good in the process

Amen. Instead of trying to block people from converting, whatever the reasons, the root issues of why people are deciding to switch their beliefs should be more worrysome. Medical care, food, shelter, clothing - whatever the 'bribe' may be, it just goes to show that people have more real needs than religion itself and one will do what they can to address basic necessities. If they believe converting helps better their lives, then so be it.

Any religion forced should be unacceptable, whether it is one you belong to and don't believe in anymore or one that is being forced upon you because you're powerless. By crying foul and banning conversions from one religion to another, those in power are being sore losers. You may ban the religious conversion, but that won't address why they don't believe in YOUR God anymore. For those who actually care about their respective religions, the decision of not believing should cause more concern than the act of converting itself. People held hostage to a religion but not believing in it are useful only to the powerbrokers, not the values of that particular religion.

Razib - While I do not have any numbers handy (not exactly my field of expertise :), my understanding is that the control of temples by governments has two angles to it:

1) Pre-Independence, most temples were supported and managed by the royalty of that area. This ranges from large multi million dollar revenue generating temple complexes/masjids which were under the direct supervision and patronage of a rich and powerful royal family to small temples/shrines in villages and towns which were supported/patronized by the ruling landowner/zamindar. Post-Independence these roles were taken over by government entities for hindu institutions - Endowments Departments of the state departments, WAKF boards (autonomous entities) for muslim institutions. I believe the link given above by Jeeves is a demand for autonomy by hindu institutions.

2) The money generated by hindu religious institutions under govt control is used for largely social/secular purposes. This will probably account to some extent about you question as to why hindu charity does not exist.

I must say though that I am not totally against govt interference in the past, because they enforced many caste and gender based anti-discriminatory measures which have helped a lot. Also, this prevented powerful religious forces aligning against secular government forces. Both these reasons are to a large extent probably moot points today anyway.

its ridiculous to expect the Indian govt not to intervene and stop religious conversions - this has been going for a long time in a India and is a shame

the so called reverse conversions that has garnered pace recently in gujarat and other areas is too little too late if you ask me and makes wholt thing appear like a game

the proper course of action is to stop these annoying evangelical christian groups from carrying on their conversions in the first place by EXPOLITING the poor and unedcucated

with that said, the Indian govt wont do anything regarding conversions - especially the present Congress govt - the BJP might have the balls to act on it though...

its ridiculous to expect the Indian govt not to intervene and stop religious conversions - this has been going for a long time in a India and is a shame

Exactly. The BJP policy is sound. Wherever it rules, constrain conversions by dictat; wherever it doesnt, do extensive social work. We are not talking about middle class Mr. Chatterjee deciding that the Dalai Lama makes more sense than Shankara, we are talking very poor people easily manipulated. The Indian state cannot have East Timors developing in pockets of the republic. It already has Maoist ultras, it doesn't need Babtist ultras ... oh wait, it already has Babtist ultras. Also for those arguing in favor of "rice Christians" there is no evidence at all that Dalit Christians have a higher standard of living than Buddhist, Sikh or Hindu Dalits. The only thing that has lifted poverty in India is globalization; all the pennies thrown into the Church pot by every Evangelical white boy hasn't made a meaningful dent in that. And also, America very conveniently ignores it constitutional protections whenever it perceives a crisis, like during WW2, Gauntanemo, so its no one to lecture about "freedom". If all is well, in 20 years India will be a middle income country, and the conversion issue will lose much of its force. Thats the gameplan against converting the "10-40 window."

, it doesn't need Babtist ultras ... oh wait, it already has Babtist ultras.

if you are talking about the nagas, they were never a hindu people, but pagans whose cultural affinities lay with southeast asian than south asia. if the british had not blocked access to their region it might be that more hindus would be found amongst them, but it seems likely if southeast asia is any judge that pagan highland peoples tend to jump at the opportunity to convert to christianity so as not to be absorbed by lowland cultures (e.g., the ahoms, from burma, became hinduized and absorbed into their assamese subjects).

Wherever it rules, constrain conversions by dictat; wherever it doesnt, do extensive social work. We are not talking about middle class Mr. Chatterjee deciding that the Dalai Lama makes more sense than Shankara, we are talking very poor people easily manipulated.

Yes, but these laws will also make it difficult or even illegal for Mr. Chatterjee to convert if he wants to in the affected states. And I've yet to see an explanation of why the BJP makes it illegal for people to convert from Hinduism, but doesn't ban all religious conversions. It's a completely inconsistent law.

More broadly, you can't take away the freedom of expression of millions of people on the gamble that one day India will be a middle class nation. That is like Lenin justifying the "dictatorship of the proleteriat." In fact, the state never withers away, and personal freedoms are always the first to be sacrificed.

Incidentally, I'm sure you'll agree that what's enabled globalization is partly liberalization -- less government interference, less red-tape. Banning conversion reinforces differential personal laws and introduces the worst kind of red tape for no good reason.

More broadly, you can't take away the freedom of expression of millions of people on the gamble that one day India will be a middle class nation.

thank you for the response.

middle income, not middle class. india will not be middle class for a very very long time, if ever.

Dear all, I stepped back and considered the two fundamental questions necessary to framing the discussion. I thought I would share. (see also #89)

What is a conversion? How does conversion change a person?

A conversion happens when a person assumes a different cultural identity that necessarily involves the repudiation of certain ritualistic behavior and faithful acceptance of certain others. Conversion is driven by the innate desire of a person to improve his/her lot. The desire may be driven by one or more of the following four needs - spiritual upliftment, social acceptance, financial reward or corporeal indulgence. Correspondingly, the act of conversion may realize benefits in one of the four categories. Aside of the rituals that the converted person is expected to adopt, the act of conversion can promote other more subtle behavioral changes in direct correspondence with the benefit expectations. The person who expects spiritual benefits will see a change in the personal code of ethics - and thus potentially realize the cleansing that he/she sought in the first place. Those whose expectations are more mundane, will realize short term benefits but their allegiance to the new faith will be defined primarily by the rituals they are expected to observe.

And I've yet to see an explanation of why the BJP makes it illegal for people to convert from Hinduism, but doesn't ban all religious conversions. It's a completely inconsistent law.

Amardeep - Could you please explain to me how arrived at this conclusion? All I have read so far seems to point that all religious conversions come under the purview of this law.

Like I described in my previous posts, the issue is more complicated than how you describe it. Dont reduce it to a mere radical hindutvavadis vs secularists. Dont forget that the first state where this happened was TamilNadu - hardly a bastion of Hindutva and when it was being governed by AIADMK.

Some interesting points are - The law seems to require a 30 day notice and so it cant be called a ban on conversions. Surely you are not saying a 30 day notice is an undue burden on a faith based religious conversion?(Correct me if I misunderstood the law)
Also, its a question of states rights. So, as it undoubtedly will go all the way to the Supreme Court, the real question is - Do a couple of governmental forms mean obstruction of the fundamental right of Freedom of Religion.

You need to see this in the Indian context of
1) Most fundamental rights in India are subject to some kind of governmental oversight(Ex: Fundamental right to organize processions)
2) The concept of seperation of church does not translate neatly over from USA to India, like I described in my previous posts. If some governmental oversight could prevent large scale communal tensions and rioting, is it not worth it?

Since I am not an expert on Indian Law I suppose we will all have to wait and see how it plays out.

Amardeep,

Sorry, but the rest of my comment got cut off for some reason. Beige seige addressed some of the issues regarding the laws, which are not a full ban on conversions. they usually require notice and an affadavit. what they usually do ban is "mass conversions." i would also ban foreign missionaries from proselytizing in India, and require a strict accounting of monies coming from overseas missions as well. Mr. Chatterjee should have no difficulties filling out a few forms. Keep in mind that most of the conversions take place among tribals, who are outside the jati system, and ironically, the BJP is in power in most states with a high tribal population. The RSS has as its goal to turn them into proud Hindus, like the Manipur Vaishnavas, which makes some nervous because theyv'e had some success; wheras the Christian missions who have had the most success tend to be pentacostals. Also, the first anti-proselytization law was put into place by Congress.

There are tradeoffs between maintaining the integrity of a republic and guaranteeing freedoms, the subcontinent split once on religious grounds; it should not be allowed to happen again.

Once the country is wealthier, the impetus to conversion will dry up, and there will be a broader trend to secularization, notice how proselytization is dead in the cities.

the subcontinent split once on religious grounds; it should not be allowed to happen again.

the rate of conversion to christianity is too small from what i can tell for any new schismatic tendencies to emerge. christians are only 2-3% of the population. even among communities like the gonds the majority remain hindus or non-christian. the pagan groups amenable to widescale christianity are trivial marginals like the peoples of arunachal pradesh. the nagas, mizos and khasi are mostly gone already. the tribal peoples are too deep within the geographic expanse of india to conceive of independence. the dalits are dispersed across the whole nation.

yes, christianity can foster social anomie by creationg fissures where there were once none. but i believe my point holds in that discouraging mass conversion simply allows hinduism to remain as it is instead of reacting and evolving. some in the RSS and arya samaj are proactive, but without competition these will not be normative.

I have to agree with Razib here. Competition is essential and will only help in moving ahead the reform that has taken place in India rearding religious practices and in removing archaic elements of hinduism. Let the missionaries go to India and let them preach to their hearts content and let anyone interested listen to them.

Free markets are great for the customer even when the exchanged goods and services are religious philisophies :) After all this is exactly what has happened over millenia in India anyway.
But again, if we are to have real free markets, we need some anti-trust measures, controls, regulations, protections etc. Free markets dont function in anarchy or in a vaccum. These laws we are discussing so far seem far from protectionism or un natural tariffs. They sound pretty weak compared the real international power house conglomerates that are Cristianity and Islam. If they indeed want to level the playing field, they should ban capital raised overseas. Now that would be fair :)

they should ban capital raised overseas. Now that would be fair :)

deal :)

Beige Siege, read the BBC article I linked to regarding Chattisgarh:

Chhattisgarh's Christian population has remained less than 2% since the early 1960s. The bill has been amended to say that "returning to one's forefather's religion or his original religion will not be treated as conversion".

I was wrong in that the actual approval is indeed for any kind of conversion, not just Hindu conversions, as I previously stated. But note that re-conversion isn't considered conversion under the law: you can see what they're after -- it's designed to protect the numerical strength of "paternal" religion, and has nothing to do with protecting exploited tribals (or the restrictions would have to apply to reconversions to).

Some interesting points are - The law seems to require a 30 day notice and so it cant be called a ban on conversions. Surely you are not saying a 30 day notice is an undue burden on a faith based religious conversion?

No, it's not a ban, either in Chattisgarh or MP. But a ban is clearly what the Hindu right wants (read Risible's comment #93: obviously to achieve his aims, if restricting conversions don't work, the ban is the next step).

The concept of seperation of church does not translate neatly over from USA to India, like I described in my previous posts. If some governmental oversight could prevent large scale communal tensions and rioting, is it not worth it?

I'm well aware of this, and I've posted on the subject before. But in my view these laws are designed to further polarize and indeed inflame communal tensions rather than suppress them. (I think the censorship laws work the same way, and argued as much in my article in Himal last month) It's Christian groups that end up getting attacked by goons who claim they were trying to convert people. Restricting conversions in this way won't stop proselytization. All it will do is make it go underground -- India will become more like Malaysia, as people have to go through these hoops (and probably pay some bribes) or face jail time.

I think Risible's comments are revealing in this light. For much of this thread people were defending these restrictions because they worried that tribals and villagers are being exploited by missionaries. But that's a straw man -- the people behind these laws couldn't care less about the rights of tribals, whose poverty and backwardness is seen as an embarrassment (remember: the goal is a "middle income society," as Risible puts it).

the people behind these laws couldn't care less about the rights of tribals, whose poverty and backwardness is seen as an embarrassment (remember: the goal is a "middle income society," as Risible puts it).

Of course its an embarassment. Unlike marxists, I take no pride in poverty :-) If India can attain the economic profile of turkey or mexico, that would massively reduce destitution. And I will not needlessly flame evangelical christians and the alleged "purity" of their motivations, like the 10-40 window and the global Second Coming, imbricated so thoroughly into American politics that Foreign Affairs did a whole issue on it this month.

Let the debate continue, hopefully sense will prevail in India.

I was wrong in that the actual approval is indeed for any kind of conversion, not just Hindu conversions, as I previously stated. But note that re-conversion isn't considered conversion under the law: you can see what they're after -- it's designed to protect the numerical strength of "paternal" religion, and has nothing to do with protecting exploited tribals (or the restrictions would have to apply to reconversions to).

I agree that re conversions not being subject to same conditions questions the motives of the law. Was there a reason given for this?

No, it's not a ban, either in Chattisgarh or MP. But a ban is clearly what the Hindu right wants (read Risible's comment #93: obviously to achieve his aims, if restricting conversions don't work, the ban is

Sorry if am being dense here but how do risible's comments provide a window into the hindu right's minds? I am afraid I have to disagree with your #103. I dont see how you can attribute such grand nefarious designs to the hindu nut jobs and ignore that TN/AIADMK was the first place this ban happened. Not to mention that this would be very popular among Indian muslims as well. Can you imagine what would happen if mass proselytyzing and conversions happened in muslim majority areas? I think it would be an oversimplification to not consider the various other political, social and economic factors in play here. I think we both diverge on the point of how we percieve these hindu right wing groups. Though I am no fan of theirs , I dont think of them as Satan's representatives on earth either.

While I doubt BJP was thinking along the same lines ;) I dont think this law is as big a problem as you think it is. In India's case Govt has in the past and should continue to interfere with religion occasionally to fend off communal tensions and to reform existing institutions for the better; atleast until it is not required anymore.

I loved this discussion so far, but its Friday nite and I need to join my friends in the other room and get my drink on. Right now Guinness needs my attention(had only 2 so far) more than the fate of the 1st amendment in India ;) Tata.....

Brilliant Innit?

Unlike other liberal, western democracies, it appears clear that India hasn't fully committed itself to secularism. Many kinks remain to be worked out, such as the UCC. Also, the popularity of leaders who openly advocate a Hindu rashtra cannot be ignored.

So why exactly do people seem so quick to conclude that the Indian state must stay out of the conversion issue? Why is there a heavier burden on India to be infinitely more secular than its fellow South Asian nations? Christians don't dare openly preach to Muslims in Pakistan though poor Muslims under feudal vaderas in Sindh are EVERY bit in need of a full stomach as dalits in India - they'd welcome every morsel they can get from Christian missionaries! So why don't more Christians preach there? Because they'd be killed that's why. So much for spreading the Word; evangelicals are simply focusing on the easiest target on the planet. And Hindus are supposed to grin and bear it while their numbers decline in the one nation that can protect them.

I wish India would do as South Asians do - declare itself a majoritarian state whose primary purpose is to safeguard the interests of its dominant religious community.

Why is there a heavier burden on India to be infinitely more secular than its fellow South Asian nations?

they are semi-savage nations. india is not. ostensibly.

Also, the popularity of leaders who openly advocate a Hindu rashtra cannot be ignored

they should not be ignored - India is what it is because of those people - more power to them

they should not be ignored - India is what it is because of those people - more power to them

the largest concentration of abjectly poor individuals in the world? 8=) sorry, that was just too easy....

Beige Siege:

Yes, Jayalithaa's AIADMK government in Tamil Nadu was the first state to enact a ban on forced conversions, and this was widely seen as a political move designed to appeal to the BJP at the center. In fact, after this, almost every BJP official in the country came out in praise of Jayalalithaa, and if I remember correctly, she was invited to Narendra Modi's inauguration following his re-election. In another move designed to please the BJP and those toting the hardline Hindutva stand, she also banned animal sacrifice throughout the state.

While I wasn't in TN for the animal sacrifice ban, I was in Madurai when she enacted the ban on forced conversions.

Madurai is comprised of three main communities: Thevars (Maravars), Nadars, and Dalits. There is a fierce rivalry between the Thevars and Nadars (both low caste Hindus), and there is constant conflict between the Dalits and each/both of the other communities.

There is an existing impression that when Dalits convert to either Islam or Christianity, they all of a sudden become economically and educationally empowered. I've never seen any hard data to support or dispute this, but that doesn't really matter in this case, since the impression does widely exist.

When Jayalalithaa announced the conversion ban, the Thevars and Nadars took to the streets in celebration, holding rallies, etc. because this meant that it would not be as easy for Dalits to convert and rise above the Thevars economically.

So by announcing this ban on forced conversions, Jayalalithaa became closer to the BJP and strengthened her hold among caste Hindus - particularly important in places like Madurai, where her rival DMK party is dominant. The close ties between the AIADMK and BJP continued until 2004, when the alliance failed to win a single seat in the parliamentary elections. Jayalalithaa got scared and quickly backed down from her Hindutva-friendly stance, staying the ban on conversions, and (I think) lifting the ban altogether on animal slaughter. She also dumped the BJP from her alliance in this year's state elections, but that didn't help her much.

So while you are correct in saying that TN is by no means a majority Hindutva-friendly state, Jayalalithaa's passage of these two bills was politically motivated to appeal to the BJP, and was therefore tied very closely to the general Hindutva agenda.

I tend to agree with the opinion that reducing this to a hindutva vs secularist debate is naive and
an oversimplification. Religious conversion by evangelical christian groups have caused serious law and
order problems in parts of India. There is a long running insurgency in Nagaland and parts of neighbouring states by evangelical fundamentalist christian groups, who want to carve out a christian state from parts of India and Burma. 40 years ago, this sort of problem did not exist (these are recent converts). Many of these groups are funded by evangelical organizations and churches in the USA.

As far as freedom of religion is concerned, both Christian and Islamic religious organizations are the real offenders. As Saheli pointed out, comparing the hindutva types to them is sort of comparing apples to oranges. Besides, I dont think any hindu organization will have a problem with people becoming Buddhists or Jains or something similar. A lot of the reaction is to the poor taste and intolerance displayed by proselytizing organizations, at least among ordinary hindus. It is disturbing to hear the Pope declare proselytizing to be a goal of the church in India. I am sure there are many Indian christians who are also uncomfortable with this. Even Mother Teresa has been accused of coercing conversions from destitute and dying people. Personally, I find this somewhat dirty.

Having said this, there is another dimension to this issue, brought about due to a lack of an uniform civil code-There have been some well known instances of individuals converting from one religion to another to divorce, or marry multiple times to avoid facing any legal action on their existing spouse's part. I think this can be solved only through a uniform civil code.

Finally, having said all this, it is likely that anticonversion laws may be a very flawed attempt to deal with this issue, given the arbitrariness of the definitions and the consequent arbitrary power such laws would confer on governments. A surface reading of this seems to indicate that these laws are ripe for abuse. I think it would be a lot more profitable and a lot less arbitrary if charities are scrutinized more strictly, especially those receiving any funds from outside the country or from
religious organizations and foreign missionary activity monitored more carefully.

40 years ago, this sort of problem did not exist (these are recent converts). Many of these groups are funded by evangelical organizations and churches in the USA.

you are correct that the uniform christianity of the nagas is a recent phenomenon of the past few generations, but please note that the missions date back to the 19th century, so this isn't a recent/short term process. naga fundamentalism is abhorrent, but using them as exemplars of what might occur in other parts of india seems implausible seeing as the nagas were not indianized to any extent prior to their absorption into british india.

also, just a reality check, look at the literacy rates for indian states. 88% of the mizos are literate. pretty good, in large part to bible reading. i fail to accept that christian missions have a trivial material/social effect, or that it is wholly negative.

I've read through most of the comments, and one element that seems to be missing from the discussion so far is the political strategy of conversion and the power relations concerned.

In late 2002, approximately 300 Dalits in the village of Koothirambakkam in Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu, threatened to convert to Islam if the district administration continued not to acknowledge their complaints that the caste Hindus in the village were abusing them.

All 58 families in the Dalit colony at Koothirambakkam, 10 km from here, have unanimously decided to embrace Islam in front of the Kanchi Sankara Mutt here on December 6, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's death anniversary.

A large number of Dalits from the village, led by Madurai and Elumalai, today submitted a petition to the Collector and another petition to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, about their decision...

Mr. Madurai told The Hindu that the Dalits in the village were being prevented from fetching water from the common tank, their rights to common property and right to worship in common temples curtailed, and a fine of Rs. 2,000 was being imposed on Dalits for talking to the Adidravidar community people.

The district administration's attitude was lethargic and it did not carry out several development works such as a drainage system and a fair price shop. [Link]

Less than one week later:

All 58 families in the Dalit colony at Koothirambakkam near here, who had unanimously decided on November 29 to embrace Islam in front of the Kanchi Sankara Mutt here on December 6, have now decided to postpone their conversion plan following assurance from the Collector, K. Rajaraman, that all their problems would be solved immediately. [Link]

Some on this thread have argued that missionaries are tempting and forcing the uneducated masses to join Christianity, and that the benevolent government justly acted in protecting these masses. Well, this is one case where the "uneducated masses" organized themselves and petitioned the government, saying, "If you don't give us what we want, we're going to convert to Islam."

The anti-conversion ban was nothing more than a way to suppress such protests (which occur frequently in the state) through a bill which presented itself as having the best intentions in mind.

Maybe instead of worrying about banning conversions, we should examine what systems exist in Indian society which compel people to use conversion as a political act, and also why it is effective as a political act - that is, why should government bodies like the Kancheepuram district collector's office give two hoots if 300 Dalits in some podunk village convert to Islam? Apparently it's mud in their face if they can't keep their Dalits just happy enough so they don't convert to another religion? Those power dynamics are totally fucked up, and washing them all under the rug by quashing such potential rebellion through a ban on conversion is even more fucked up.

That said, I can't stand the recent influx of evangelical Christianity to India - they bait the Hindu warriors and communal tensions flare up where they simply didn't exist before. There was major drama in early 2005 when Benny Hinn came to Bangalore to sell Jesus and trounce Hinduism, and the VHP started throwing stones at Indian Christians who were there to attend.

BUT

The caste system and continuing caste oppression make it SO easy for the evangelists to come in and tell people that they're being religiously oppressed - why? Because they are! Instead of banning conversions, state governments should start enforcing laws which grant equal rights to all citizens - enforcing the law is not allurement!

No time now, but I take issue with Vivek's portrayal of the ground situation in TN. But few points before the holiday:

That said, I can't stand the recent influx of evangelical Christianity to India - communal tensions flare up where they simply didn't exist before.

Exactly.

There is an existing impression that when Dalits convert to either Islam or Christianity, they all of a sudden become economically and educationally empowered. I've never seen any hard data to support or dispute this, but that doesn't really matter in this case, since the impression does widely exist.

I doubt this is true anymore with Christianity, perhaps with Islam. Dalit Christians themselves are battling such false impressions:

The marginalisation of Dalit Christians in our Christian minority institutions (in admissions and appointment) all along the several decades has very severely affected their social and economic mobility and progress. The degree of marginalisation is alarming and appalling since Dalits are a majority in the Catholic Church, but they are only about 6% as students and employees in most institutions. Their exclusion or marginalisation in employments has caused enormous economic loss to the community over decades. If this continues how can poverty be alleviated in the community? The marginalisation in appointments is very severe in our Girls Schools and Women Colleges and needs specific attentions. Link

Since things have not worked out particularly well within the Catholic Church, Dalit Christians now seek reservations in the SC/ST category. I do not support this at all, but upon reconversion to Hinduism (or Buddhism) and a suitable waiting period then perhaps the state should consider it.

Also, people are forgetting the way Indians associate Christianity with colonialism, and the abject poverty that ensued during that period. Apparently the solution for the poverty created during western domination is western religion :-) What did Jomo Kenyatta say? ...

What I'm saying is that the state and religious ideologues, either working in tandem or against each other, use members of marginalized groups as pawns in their numbers game. This is true of ideologues of all religions.

But when members of the marginalized groups in question try to effect some social change by appropriating religion for themselves, they are crushed.

risible (#114):

Since things have not worked out particularly well within the Catholic Church, Dalit Christians now seek reservations in the SC/ST category. I do not support this at all, but upon reconversion to Hinduism (or Buddhism) and a suitable waiting period then perhaps the state should consider it.

I don't really understand how this is a solution that will benefit those Dalit Christians who continue to be marginalized and live in poverty. I hope you get this when you get back.

Micheal #106 put the truth bluntly. I agree with that comment.
Evangalical activities would lead to many East Timors.

Evangalical activities would lead to many East Timors

analogies have power if there are correspondences. east timor was brutally invaded by an alien power in 1975 by the indonesians. there are many christian minorities in indonesia, and not all are east timors. religious difference is not a sufficient condition even if it is an aggravating condition. i agree with the tenor of vivek's comment. some commenters are breaking it down into a coupled dyad

a) social anomie and civil war
b) giving the right of individuals to convert to christianity

if a ensues upon b, the argument is persuasive. but there are many c options which have to do with changing and altering the root structures which arise which result in b. sri lanka's protestant elite was reconverted to therevada buddhism in the 20th century.

Amardeep, You don't know the facts. Most Hindu leaders who support conversion-ban do so not because they do not believe in freedom of faith but as a part of strategy to force the government to free temples from government control. All religions in India, excepting Hindus, control (financially and administratively) their religious organizations. The competition amongst relgions in India is thus not on a level-playing field: http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=4776 . Hard to believe that this should be so in a secular country, but it is true.

-Martin

on cursory inspection i think it would do more long term good to get the gov. out of the temple business. a lot of short term headaches though.

The amount of money controlled by the government for the temples dwarfs the amount held by Christian missionaries from abroad.

can you give me a sense of scale? 1 order of magnitude? 2?

Why aren't there more conversions to Islam in India these days? Islam seems far more attractive than Christianity if one is trying to escape caste or Hinduism's confusing array of gods et al. Could it be because Muslims are no longer aggressively attempting to convert people in India today? In other words, it's hardly Christianity's inherent draw that attracts converts (I personally find that a laughable proposition), but rather its formidable infrastructure of conversion - a pipeline of money, literature and missionaries, all ready and eager to harvest souls.

Given that this is the case, while it's easy to say that Hindus should step up to the plate and take steps to stem conversions, they can never come close to matching US$$ and years of proselytization training. So the Indian state has every right to step in and use its heft to make things difficult for conversions. It was never a fully secular state to begin with! And no matter what it does, it's never enough. Someone on this thread made a comment about the Hindu normativeness of Bollywood!! This an industry in which Muslims represent front and center more than any in India.

I wish India would do as South Asians do - declare itself a majoritarian state whose primary purpose is to safeguard the interests of its dominant religious community.

They have our saffron balls in a vice and are painting them green. Or with white crosses. We're being raped! Help us! Or we'll be destroyed! The persecution and oppression!

Don't expect lefto-fascists who discuss sexuality and cross-breeding to understand this. Enough is enough.

Minorities have been tickling our balls for long enough. And these balls are not for tickling. Time to get tough and show our tolerance, by enforcing a majoritarian religious state.

Death to Wendy Doniger! No more East Timors! Dont fuck with us!

Hail Majoritarianism Mogambo!

Someone on this thread made a comment about the Hindu normativeness of Bollywood!! This an industry in which Muslims represent front and center more than any in India.

The f*@king bastards!

Hail More Hindus front and center in Bollywood Mogambo!

Given that this is the case, while it's easy to say that Hindus should step up to the plate and take steps to stem conversions, they can never come close to matching US$$ and years of proselytization training.

First, people should be free to practice whatever religion they choose. If Hinduism, as an institution (a contradiction in terms, I think) wants to "stem conversions," it should focus it's efforts on building it's own institutions, not knocking other religions.

So the Indian state has every right to step in and use its heft to make things difficult for conversions. It was never a fully secular state to begin with!

True, it was never a fully secular state, just as the U.S. is not a fully secular state. However, for the state to step in to stem conversions would be, in effect, a declaration that Hinduism is the official state of India. A) I don't think such a move is realistic given the political atmosphere in India. B)I think taking such action would be a giant leap back. I can't think of a single state that embraces one religion, in a practical sense (as opposed to a symbolic sense, like the Church of England) has any hope of become a developed democracy.

I wish India would do as South Asians do - declare itself a majoritarian state whose primary purpose is to safeguard the interests of its dominant religious community.

How dare you! Aren't you aware of Hinduism's far reach in the world? Everyone knows, loves and respects us to a logical maximum already! We need no more! A majoritarian state would tip the love Hinduism gets to downright rage, and more importantly, require people to type the word majoritarian on blogs repeatedly. Both of these are non-negotiable.

The BJP nuts start talking about crazy things like "safety" and "religious majority" and putting those two in the same sentence. It's hogwash. To really learn we must look to our peaceful neighbors in the north, the pure ones. Our dirty haggard selves aren't worth the dirt we repeatedly spit on.

Hail non-majorita non-maroijaitanr non-majorrortoto non-what michael said!

I can't think of a single state that embraces one religion, in a practical sense (as opposed to a symbolic sense, like the Church of England) has any hope of become a developed democracy.

Israel.

Islam will become dominant in hindustan and lower india by 2,200

I hope so. Islam's more recognizably Indian to me than evangelical Christianity.

any thoughts on this:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1945418.cms

?

Its interesting..what you say. I didnt realize we has such laws in place. For a sometime now I have been wondeirng why our birth certificates ask for our religon. Now someone mentioned that names are a big give away in terms of religon..but then again..my last name only tells you what religon my parents were of originally...! we have a different law for every religon..which the way I see it..is completely against secularism on all counts.

We all know why people convert from one religon to other..because the other faith offers them better status then one..
why should be worried about any faith disappearing..cause in reality it wont na? how many people really practice their religon..
shouldnt there be a category of agonistics...who don't necesarrily belong to a certain faith?

The main thing is modulating the abrahamic meme.

we do not want to become abrahamo-anarachies like our neighbors

razib the atheist calls them semi-savage, but they are not inherently savage, its what they believe that makes them do the things they do.

In Evangelical Christianity, not the indian christianities,, much of what passes for conversation in those groups is hate speech against Hindus. Has anyone watched a tamil Christian channel????

the trick is to keep India Hindu and democratic until there is the possibility of a broad based secularization, as someone above mentions, at which point you can believe whatever you want, shag whoever you want

this is why hindutva has such broad middle class support, its not because people want to put on saffron and go chanting in the forests, they want to preserve the Indian state

because they believe with some justification, that Hindus will not split the country into bits, because frankly, they cant go anywhere else.

I can't think of a single state that embraces one religion, in a practical sense (as opposed to a symbolic sense, like the Church of England) has any hope of become a developed democracy.

Israel.

Touche. But, I don't think India can ever expect the kind of foreign support that Israel gets. Also, according to this article, Judaism is not the official religion of Israel, though religion obviously is very entwined with government. Finally, who knows whether Israel would face the kind of threats it has to deal with if it didn't mix religion and statehood to such a degree? It goes without saying that this hypothetical is way in left field, but it is something to think about.

deleted

deleted

watch "Invasion Thru Conversion" (Video)

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=3c13e5d869a1ccff0620b77daf703c92.703761

Gautam,

Dont waste your time responding to people like Rizab, none of his posts have been on point.

There is a name for people like him. Look it up Rizab.

Cheers,

Roger_the _atheist

"faux god" - are you as an atheist implying that there are real gods? Ha! Exposed.

"88% of the mizos are literate. pretty good, in large part to bible reading." Really? Is that a fact? I guess you made that reason up too? And does reading the bible really make you literate? Pretty strange stuff for an atheist to be saying

And as for joining a Korean church to get a date - how hard up do you have to be? BTW look up the definition of coed - the only place were its used to refer to a girl as you do is in the pages of playboy (did I already say hard up?).

deleted

razib the atheist bashes African Americans as low iq types undeserving of state aid, and yet for the dalits, the crocodile tears flow,,,He also wants an anglo saxon majority in the us but becomes very uncomfortable with the idea of a hindu majority in India or any hindu identity among abcds!!!! he also can't stand any postive news stories about India???? as vivekananda said , once a convert, always an enemy, and that includes their progeny, atheist or otherwise

Martin (#118):

All religions in India, excepting Hindus, control (financially and administratively) their religious organizations.

Can someone give more information about this, please? What's the government body in charge of maintaining these temples? Is it central? State?

razib the atheist bashes African Americans as low iq types undeserving of state aid, and yet for the dalits, the crocodile tears flow,,,He also wants an anglo saxon majority in the us but becomes very uncomfortable with the idea of a hindu majority in India or any hindu identity among abcds!!!! he also can't stand any postive news stories about India???? as vivekananda said , once a convert, always an enemy, and that includes their progeny, atheist or otherwise

LOL!

Razib is also known to beat up little kids and steal money from old ladies.

Vivek,

Martin is right about govt control over temples. The temples are administered through Govt controlled Devaswom boards. I think the control is at the level of state govts. I know that Karunanidhi did a lot of damage to temples in TN by playing politics with them and refusing to support their maintenance. In many respects this policy is in direct contrast to Govt policies regarding other religious organizations. An example of this is the complete independence from any state control of the hereditary Imams of the Jama Masjid in Delhi. Imam Bukhari (both father and son) essentially run a mafia, and a number of corruption cases have been filed against them, to no effect, given their position.

Michael Valentine Smith,
If Islam becomes a dominant religion in India, I am afraid that any other religious minorities will not have a particularly strong legal position. This is at least the case with India's neighbours-Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Furthermore, it is not true that the caste system is confined to hindus in the subcontinent. It is equally prevalent in the Christian and Muslim communities. Pakistan which is an Islamic state has a pretty horrifying degree of caste based discrimination, without the mitigating effect of legal and legislative redress.

Razib,
I am not sure literacy rates in Mizoram have entirely to do with religion as you imply. I don't think the relation between literacy and evangelical christianity is particularly clear. This assumption seems to me to be a particularly colonial one. And Evangelical Christianity is a serious problem, with Nagaland being a good example. This is in contrast to other forms of christianity which have been in India since the time of Christ. This is because evangelical christianity is a maximalist culture-it does not tolerate differences and other cultures. It is an extreme example of the problem of conversion related missionary activity in any of the Abrahamic faiths.

Finally, dalits in India have greater rights by remaining hindu, thanks to reservations and the like. Furthermore, an acquaintance with Indian politics will make it clear that there has been a considerable restructuring in the distribution of power in Indian society. Dalit organizations have also become more assertive and politically powerful. This is all to the good, and will help greatly in reducing the level of discrimination (unless of course these groups become the new upper castes, which is not unlikely). So, I think the "root cause" argument is weaker than it appears, especially given that caste discrimination is not confined to hinduism. I think if any religions dont have it, it is probably Buddhism.

I am not sure literacy rates in Mizoram have entirely to do with religion as you imply. I don't think the relation between literacy and evangelical christianity is particularly clear. This assumption seems to me to be a particularly colonial one. And Evangelical Christianity is a serious problem, with Nagaland being a good example. This is in contrast to other forms of christianity which have been in India since the time of Christ.

it is not a necessary condition, but it maybe a sufficient condition. the reason that particular forms of protestanism and literacy are connected is two fold: many indigenous peoples had no literate tradition in their own tongue before christian missionaries introduced scripture in their language. second, scripture reading is an ostensibly essential part of protestant religious practice, so literacy is necessary. the standard model for europe after 1500 suggests that literacy penetrated to the greatest extant early in exactly those areas where protestantism was dominant because of the renewed importance on personal interpretation and understanding of scritpure because of sola scriptura, by scripture alone (in contrast, catholic areas lagged because bible reading was discouraged and reliance on priestly guidance was the norm). additionally, translation of the bible into native languages to some extent standardized and fixed the "classic" form that language, e.g., the king james bible english (which was a bit archaic even in its own time), or the "high german" of martin luther's translation. in the particular cases like mizoram outside aid and monies probably played a role.

there are interesting sociological and historical questions and dynamics here. i've actually looked at the process of conversion to various forms of sacred gibberish recitation (aka, religion) and the 'science' of missiology. i am pretty convinced that most human minds are conducive to gibberish repetition, and it is probably natural for people to kill each other because they chant the wrong gibberish, or someone worships a different rock or tree. catchall references to 'colonialism' are really simplistic and an excuse not to really examine the question of why groups like the nagas, mizos and khasis embraced christianity as opposed to buddhism or hinduism. my study of the process of christianization of 'pagan' groups in south and southeast asia leads me to one conclusion which some will not like here: these minorities are trying to avoid being colonized and assimilated by the majority by appealing to a outside 'power' or cultural complex which cedes to them their right to self-determination. contra the assertions some of the primitives on this thread if was the non-existent god i'd prefer that the christians of the northeast had become hindus because there are enough christians in the world and i don't care the mizos, nagas or khasis are absorbed into bengali or assamese identities (as the chakma are being, and the ahom were). but i am not the non-existent god, and there are realities that need to be faced with an understanding of the priorities and practicalities on hand.

In terms of literacy rates, it may be because Christians and Muslims are allowed to recieve federal funding whilst being privately managed, whereas hindu religious schools must be fully privately funded or hindus must attend secular public schools. (public elementry schools in India tend to be really bad).

Imagine if the American government funded only Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish private schools but refused to fund Christian schools. Imagene also if they decided to start controlling chruch money and land, but temple, mosque and synagogue were allowed to manage. There would be a bloodbath.

In case you think I am exxagerating...

Read this article, even fully privately funded hindu schools are critisized by Indian-American journalists. Here's a quote from the article originaly published in the Boston Globe...

"My family sent me here because they couldn't afford me," said Dyneswar Juang, a 7th-grader. "Here I get everything for free, and I have a future."

But sentence after that follows

But human rights organizations in the eastern state of Orissa, which has the lowest per capita income in India, say the students are unwitting players in a political experiment driven by ancient Indian hatreds and partly funded by donors from the United States.

How is this any different from what missionary schools are doing ?

Yet he organization (Campaign to Stop Funding Hate) on whose website the article is posted on has been promoted on SM multiple times.

I think that Sepia Mutineers generally mean well but are sometimes too willing to latch on to dominant ideas, without a critical analysis of the issue at hand.

----

P.S. I don't like Hinduism, I think its a silly hypocritical superstitious religion, but I also like to point out other hypocracy when I see it.

razib is also known to beat up little kids and steal money from old ladies.

Perhaps all the debauching has made you loopy brained??? Go check gnxp.com and Razib's writings on African Americans; he says they are not as smart as white ameericans.. His site even argued New Orleans should not be rebuilt baecause people were criminal and dumb. There he is against state aid. Here is says if missions go govt. should provide aid to tribal people???? Thats called hypocrisy.

Consensus in India through reservations biases in favor of Hindu dalits, so its true your better off being hindu and northeast population is so trivial that it doesnt really matter. in north india, the missions have made nil ground. its onl parts of the south I worry about...kanyakumari district in TN for example.

Vivek (#140) and Anamak (#143),

In addition to the column cited in my earlier post, check this out: http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/11/stories/2006021101080200.htm as starters. The temples are controlled by state boards and run by ministry.

It is surprising that David Aikman in his column in WSJ displays such ignorance of the legal situation in India. He should know about the government control of Hindu institutions since he is an expert on religious affairs.

So, I think the "root cause" argument is weaker than it appears, especially given that caste discrimination is not confined to hinduism. I think if any religions dont have it, it is probably Buddhism.

The Buddhists of Sri Lanka observe the caste system (about the same as the Sikhs in India, i.e., as reproacable). I'm not sure about Thai buddhists. Seems to me this is a problem localized to south asia and tends to eventually disappear in the diaspora. Hindus in Bali don't follow caste rules. I have an Indian Guyanese friend who said that there is some level of conscioussness about caste in Guyana, (his family served as priests in Guyana and were Brahmins in India) but that caste is not a "problem" in Guyana.

About the hindu temple funds - the politicians get to have their grubby little hands on the money and therefore this rule is still firmly in place. It is barely more deplorable whether the CM of a state controlling the hindu temple funds is xtian or hindu since they're equally dirty as politicians, although it does seem outrageous that money offered by hindus for religious purposes should be govenned by a secular institution. Apart from lining the politicians' pockets, such temple money is sometimes used for government work such as providing electricity, maintenance (not of temple grounds but generally for the state).

catchall references to 'colonialism' are really simplistic and an excuse not to really examine the question of why groups like the nagas, mizos and khasis embraced christianity as opposed to buddhism or hinduism.

$$$$$. Plus xtians have an army of paid missionaries. Hindus have a ragtag bunch of volunteers. check out the joshua project to get an idea of the level of organization and zeal of the xtians for just one example. The global power and reach and wealth of xtianity is mindboggling. If left alone, groups such as nagas, mizos and khasis would have remained pagans, just as hindus are pagans. Unless of course the islamics got to them instead. But it's simplistic to think that there are "deep" reasons for their conversions just because deep reasons often exist for social/cultural structures.

the answer is not to force christian missionaries to not offer their goods, it is for hindus to ramp up their goodie giving!

Charity is not a pillar of hinduism. The low and the poor are reaping their karma.

$$$$$. Plus xtians have an army of paid missionaries. Hindus have a ragtag bunch of volunteers. check out the joshua project to get an idea of the level of organization and zeal of the xtians for just one example.

yes, i am aware of that. i actually like the joshua project because they do a lot of ethnology and i like their data collection :) the $$$$$ is the point. it is better to have money if you are poor than not. i can see arguments from social anomie, but the ideal solution is simply for hindus to start giving more. note that it is not the rich christian denominations like the episcopalians who give money to joshua tree, it is the poor cracker sects which are doing all the scary evangelism. hindus can't attain parity, but i think they could do better.

Charity is not a pillar of hinduism. The low and the poor are reaping their karma.

ah, well, that is a religion which needs to be superseded then, no?

but the ideal solution is simply for hindus to start giving more

Ideal for whom exactly? Hindus can always give IN ADDITION to what help they can get from the state of India. India seems to be chugging along pretty nicely with its semi-secular policies anyway and there appears to be NO good political reason for the state to give up interfering in conversions. Only bad things can come from stupidly allowing an increase in the numbers of Indians who believe that Ram and Krishna are fronts for Satan, etc. Let's face it. No one would be complaining if Hindus were converting to Jainism or Buddhism or Sikhism- those religions don't preach hatred against the majority religion of the country.

Ideal for whom exactly?

the individuals who are converting.

India seems to be chugging along pretty nicely with its semi-secular policies anyway and there appears to be NO good political reason for the state to give up interfering in conversions.

you make serious consequentialist arguments, but life is more than about consequences. do you hold truths self evident, that the god one bows to (or doesn't), that the demons one reviles, is a matter of personal choice? until the last few centuries this wasn't self evident. i am simply trying to impose modern standards are on india a broad principled sense, but if is pre-modern, so be it. on the other hand, i think the ethnological literature makes it clear that the potential converts to christianity are often behaving as rational actors. and some hindus are behaving as rational actors in attempting to ban conversion. but, i hold that a happy medium might be attained if hinduism is more open to conversion and outreach (and so mitigate the inroads of evangelicals) as it preserves the principle of free choice in religion.

(this obviously applies to muslims, unfortunately muslims are particular primitive and savage when it comes to reacting to conversionary attempts)

No one would be complaining if Hindus were converting to Jainism or Buddhism or Sikhism- those religions don't preach hatred against the majority religion of the country.

Exactly. This is why Hindus are foolish not to support Ambedkarite Buddhists. Most of them retain a significant portion of their Hindu customs, but have still psychologically freed themselves from the bond of being untouchables. Most Dalit intellectuals in India are Buddhist, they practice meditation, and not one of them has the evangelical hate meme, and are committed to the idea of India as a state.

At the level of the intelligentsia, Christianity has no support (it seems to have support in China). If there was ever christian creep, Hindus would have to do no work. there is a battery of western scholarship shreding it to pieces. we'd just have to read

At the political level, we will have to continue to support state intervention in religious conversion until such time as the playing field is levelled. And work towards limiting the missionary presence in India.

At the personal level, give to charities that work with tribals. One ISKCON cahrity worth shouting out is foodrelief.org. In Orissa, there are still starvation deaths, and foodrelief works directly with tribal children. Its an ISKCON organization which some may find funky, but its better to have Krshna worshippers than Evangelical hate machines. Also, in Bangladesh, ISKCON is one of the few Hindu organizations even allowed to exist.

Also Aikman - the guy who wrote the article and scurrilously compared Hinduism to sharia law is a christian partisan. some accuse him of turning Time Asia into an evangelical mouthpiece. he is very excited about conversions in china and is disappointed about India. just another member of the western arsenal of soldiers doing christs bidding. do some googling!!!!

aikman is biased.

i am simply trying to impose modern standards are on india a broad principled sense, but if is pre-modern, so be it.

This is a complicated statement to respond to but let me keep things simple by saying that India isn't modern (legally speaking) in innumberable ways. I'm frankly proud that India has tried to take pointers from classical western liberalism but ultimately hewed to the demands of its non-modern, multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-linguistic civilization. Here are various non-modern legal practices I can think of off the top of my head:

- the absence of a UCC
- even aside from the absence of a UCC, Indian laws frequently make exceptions for various religious and ethnic groups, governed by no discernible legal principle other than allowing groups to continue their traditional practices: for instance, certain adivasi groups in central India (in addition to Muslims) are allowed to be polygamous, animal sacrifice is forbidden in most Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu but allowed in certain temples that practice traditional Dravidian practices, etc.
- depending on whether one is in a village or not, the lowest level of "courts" aren't really courts, but village administered councils (panchayat raj), that administer their differing versions of binding justice, quite contrary to the fundamental liberal principle of equality under the eyes of the law. In actuality, the practice can be infinitely more diverse than just panchayat raj. I don't know the bazillion folk communities that make up, for instance, the state of Rajasthan; most of them simply fall under the legal radar and there exists little legislation that applies to their lives. Panchayats try to deal with them but the IAS also takes a major role in resolving their disputes, i.e. the IAS officer posted to that area must often decide whether the state - incarnated in his/her person - will be cognizant of this or that traditional practice or law. Thus these individual officers have an unparalleled degree of discretion that simply does not exist in modern liberal states
- not all of India's constituent units have the same legal relationship with New Delhi (Article 370 w/r/t Kashmir is the most famous of these, but there are several other smaller examples that relate to northeastern, and other, states)
- there's also plenty of legal precedence for intervening in conversions - from Nehru's time, the state has drawn distinctions in the sorts of proselytization activities that one could indulge in. For example, there's no prohibition on Ahmed approaching me on a street in Bombay and speaking to me about Islam. However, the Indian state has ALWAYS stepped in on behalf of "vulnerable communities," usually tribals or populations not part of any mainstream ethnic group (as for example, it did over 50 years ago in Arunachal Pradesh). The Indian state also draws a distinction between "foreigners" and "natives," i.e. there are fewer restrictions on proselytizations by Indian missionaries than by foreign missionaries.

Here is another argument for interfering with conversions - India's behaving as any modern nation state would by taking steps to preserve itself. Arunachal Pradesh was kept off limits to Christian missionaries for years. Unsurprisingly, it's the only state in the northeast that doesn't have a raging insurgency.

Panchayats try to deal with them but the IAS also takes a major role in resolving their disputes, i.e. the IAS officer posted to that area must often decide whether the state - incarnated in his/her person - will be cognizant of this or that traditional practice or law. Thus these individual officers have an unparalleled degree of discretion that simply does not exist in modern liberal states

Michael,
Are you from India, or have you lived in India?? (Not a lot of "Smith"s in India, y'know !!!) If not I am really impressed about the fact that you know about the IAS officer's role in India.

- there's also plenty of legal precedence for intervening in conversions.

100% true. Congress governments passed the first anti-conversion laws, The Gandhian anti-converson spirit has long since waned. Frankly, there are very few in the party with any national consciousness at all; with their current leadership, they will do the bidding of the Evangelical missionaries, I am afraid. That leaves the BJP, which is unpalatable to many, and even more unpalatable, the Sangh. But in the most vulnerable corners of the country, there is only Hindutva standing in the way of the bigoted Evangelicals, so many support them. I posted foodrelief.org because people who fashion themselves liberal Hindus try to keep away from the sangh, and that charity is not millitant at all.

http://www.newindpress.com/Column.asp?ID=IE620060810110955

Gandhiji's ideas were still influencing the Congress when the Madhya Pradesh government constituted the Neogi Committee to study missionary activities in tribal areas. This was in 1954. S.K George, ‘a devout Christian and a nationalist belonging to the oldest church in India - the Syrian Christian Church' was a member of the Committee. The Committee exposed the massive, fraudulent conversions of tribal people and recommended that a law be enacted to ban such fraudulent practices. The MP government, led by the Congress Party, enacted the Neogi-recommended law banning conversions in the year 1968. The Orissa government, again a Congress-led government, did so even earlier in 1967. And Arunachal Pradesh under the central rule of the government headed by another Gandhi, unrelated to the Mahatma, Indira Gandhi, also passed a similar law.

Charity is not a pillar of hinduism. The low and the poor are reaping their karma.

ah, well, that is a religion which needs to be superseded then, no?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the first poster was meaning to be sarcastic by pointing out the kind of "reasoning" used by some hateful evangelists. Apparently, Razib didn't get it or was being equally so himelf. Or was the atheist trying to judge one religion over another?

Or was the atheist trying to judge one religion over another?

jakob, read closer. i assume that most people will believe in a religion, so yes, i judge between religions. e.g., i prefer that a society be hindu rather than be muslim, since as an atheist a hindu society does not mandate the death penalty for atheists. judging between religions is like any other cultural practice. just because i believe it is all make believe doesn't mean that i don't think make believe doesn't have real consequences for everyone. i prefer humans believe in made up gods of peace as opposed to gods of war if they have to believe in this stuff (and i assume there are strong psychological reasons most people do believe).

From my earlier comment it may appear that I am against conversions made via spiritual route. Thats NOT my stand at all. I fully agree with a person's choice to convert to whatever religion he/she wishes to, out of genuine interest.

What I was trying to point out with SHAH BANO case is that in the absence of Uniform Civil Code, conversions can create a huge legal mess. In India had there been a real secular, or a real left of center party, they would have never passed a law overturning supreme court ruling (Shah Bano), which is so anti-women.

RC, conversion was not an issue in the Shahbano case. What you're saying simply doesn't make sense.

I agree with you that the Congress decision in that case was wrong. But restricting conversions is also wrong.

Amardeep,
Ofcourse conversion was not an issue in Shah Bano case. What was at issue was the lack of UCC.
Conversion so far has never been taken up by the supreme court of India. (As far as I know) Even if it did, it wouldnt matter, because both major political parties would just ignore Supreme court ruling anyways.

Why Shah Bano is related is because its a UCC case. UCC and Conversions are linked.

Just imagine if in the US, there were no common civil code, there could never have been any high profile polygamist prosecutions .

You should show me how and why UCC and Conversions are totally seperate issues.

Even Indian Supreme court has ruled against prosyletism

NEW DEHLI, August 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The high court of India ruled on Friday that police do not have to have a court order to arrest Christian ministers accused of encouraging religious conversions.

The Times of India reports that the court ruled that police do not need a prior sanction from a court or any other authority before issuing a FIR (First Information Report) and arresting clergy members or anyone accused of attempting to gain converts to their faith.

So even Indian Supreme court is with me on this one.

Amardeep,
Ofcourse conversion was not an issue in Shah Bano case. What was at issue was the lack of UCC.
Conversion so far has never been taken up by the supreme court of India. (As far as I know) Even if it did, it wouldnt matter, because both major political parties would just ignore Supreme court ruling anyways.

Why Shah Bano is related is because its a UCC case. UCC and Conversions are linked.

Just imagine if in the US, there were no common civil code, there could never have been any high profile polygamist prosecutions .

You should show me how and why UCC and Conversions are totally seperate issues.

Even Indian Supreme court has ruled against prosyletism

NEW DEHLI, August 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The high court of India ruled on Friday that police do not have to have a court order to arrest Christian ministers accused of encouraging religious conversions.

The Times of India reports that the court ruled that police do not need a prior sanction from a court or any other authority before issuing a FIR (First Information Report) and arresting clergy members or anyone accused of attempting to gain converts to their faith.

So even Indian Supreme court is with me on this one.

Again I am not very clear in my comment. When I said the Supreme court has not taken up Conversion, I mean that Supreme court hasnt ruled on the validity/constituitionality of conversion. Supreme court has clearly ruled on related issues.

But restricting conversions is also wrong.

?? Sez who? It isn't wrong in the social and legal context of India. Where there have been conversions to evangelical Christianity that have been wholescale and overnight (not the sort that happened over centuries in an organic manner as in Kerala), there have been massive social problems (see: Northeast).

Nehru, who cannot be accused of being either pro-Hindu or pre-modern in any manner, has written eloquently about his decision to keep missionaries from Arunachal Pradesh. See Essential Writings of Jawaharlal Nehru. For a different perspective far more to the left of Nehru, see Savaging the Civilized - Verrier Elwin, His Tribals and India by Ramachandra Guha (another man who cannot be accused of being non-secular in ANY way).

I've seen no defense of conversion on these pages in any manner that speaks to India other than useless, abstract appeals to modern principles. India isn't a modern secular state!

http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1156268828

Th Hindu fightback against Christianity, Inc. has to take place on multiple levels. Arvind Sharma, a Professor at McGill University is attempting to revisit the UN charters on human rights which he claims are biased towards abrahamic faiths. He has apparently put forth a new human rights declaration with scholars from other faiths. caveat: Sandhya Jain is a Hindutvavad, but Sharma, though a practicing Hindu, is most certainly not.

The world needs a genuine Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Religious scholars at McGill University have made a credible effort to prepare a wholistic document titled, Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the World's Religions, which is now set to be discussed at the forthcoming global congress on World's Religions after September 11 at Montreal (September 11-15, 2006).

Some clauses are exemplary, such as "Everyone has the right to freedom from violence, in any of its forms, individual or collective; whether based on race, religion, gender, caste or class, or arising from any other cause" (Article 2). Interestingly, Article 9 (1) equates proselytisation against the will of a person with arbitrary detention. There is also the right "not to have one's religion denigrated in the media or the academia" (Article 12, 4), along with the corresponding duty of adherents of every religion to ensure that no religion is so denigrated (Article 12, 5).

Article 18 (1) explicitly bars compulsion in religion, giving everyone the right to retain his religion or change it (2). The right to retain one's religion has thus for the first time been brought into the international arena on an equal footing with the freedom to change one's faith. Finally, the document enshrines the right to protect one's cultural heritage and accords world heritage status to everyone's cultural heritage (Article 27, 3).

If adopted by the United Nations, this document could mitigate the burgeoning civilisational strife and blunt conversion as a foreign policy tool of many Western nations. It could facilitate respect for the natural geographical borders of myriad faiths, and check the expansionist drives of crusading monotheisms.

RC-

I'm 100% Indian and Hindu :D michael valentine smith is just a net ID I thought of when I read the conversion post (man from mars who discovers religion and all that. seemed kind of fitting. except I'm a chick...but never mind that)

Also, the Indian Supreme Court did rule at least once on the conversion issue, in 1977, when it considered the constitutionality of conversion bans in MP and Orissa. I think. It decided in that case that there was no fundamental right to conversion under the indian constitution. I'm too lazy to google to confirm details.

http://www.christianaggression.org/features_sikhism.php

Here's a somewhat humorous account of how christianity Inc. is working to disrupt social harmony among Sikhs in Punjab. Keep in mind that Punjab has a lower rate of absolute poverty than Mexico (according to the recently released world bank report), so its not a matter of filling bellys.

As far as religion is considered, I am no fan of the present Hinduism. It appears as ritualistic collection of superstitions and most people that I have came accross dont know or understand why they do certain rituals they do.

I am a huge fan of Christian organization. I think Hindus and all other non Christians can learn a lot from Christianity. Having said that, I totally understand why in Indian political scene there might be resistance against coerced conversions. The political effects of conversions are not lost on me.

I am curious as to why the UN Declaration of Human Rights is perceived as a "Christian" document. And what foreign policies of nations include "conversion"?

Topically relevant:

God's Country?

Summary: Religion has always been a major force in U.S. politics, but the recent surge in the number and the power of evangelicals is recasting the country's political scene -- with dramatic implications for foreign policy.

From the FA article:

"Evangelicals have not, however, simply followed the human rights and humanitarian agendas crafted by liberal and secular leaders. They have made religious freedom -- including the freedom to proselytize and to convert -- a central focus of their efforts. Thanks largely to evangelical support (although some Catholics and Jews also played a role), Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, establishing an Office of International Religious Freedom in a somewhat skeptical State Department."

Hinduism cannot expect to compete with such a fierce combination of money and institutional power. The anti-conversion bills are nothing but feeble attempts to create at least some ramshackle line of defense against the missionary invasion. The whole notion of requiring religions to compete in a free market of ideas in India is ludicrous - the market is not free, the playing field is not level and there're no regulatory mechanisms to enforce fiar competition. The link in comment 169 was a shocking eye-opener : it's disgusting hate speech that illustrates the need for - at the very least - "truth in advertising" laws in the religious market place.

Of course, at the meta level, even accepting the characterization of the playing field as a free-market competition for winning converts itself is ridiculous in the Indian context. Conversion is an Abrahamic monotheist obsession that las led to all sorts of rationalizations for sociio-cultural destructions and genocide in the past. In comparison, the Indic religions have lived in harmony for millennia by following a non-violent model of inter-religious relations. There were no Hindu, Jain or Buddhist crusades in the history of India, for example. Such gradual and non-violent co-existence, free practice and propagation of religions offers an alternate model to a race-to-the-bottom dirty competitive market place.

Conversion is a singular manifestation of the Western monomania of seeking utter domination over centuries. It was crusades and colonization in previous centuries, it's Joshua Project and Billy Graham now. Nothing new here - the same old quest for conquest manifesting itself in a new avatar.

Conversion is a singular manifestation of the Western monomania of seeking utter domination over centuries. It was crusades and colonization in previous centuries, it's Joshua Project and Billy Graham now. Nothing new here - the same old quest for conquest manifesting itself in a new avatar.

breddren, hear me naa. Neva surrenda fi de down pressa, my lord. mercy. affi keep on strugglen staarr. One love.8=)

hairy_d

this may be a philosophical question - how did your conversion transform you Thomas? Did it change your points of view in respect to what is ethical and/or moral? Or is this a shift in cultural perspective in respect to rituals?

Nothing really happened philosophy, ethics, morality, culture. I was already living consistent with Hinduism on all those counts. Since I was never into rituals of any kind, none of that came into the question. And because I was already living in the US, no social angle to it, except with immediate family. Overall, quite easy :-)

The FA article underscored what I see with the U.S. Foreign Policy - greater involvement in social change and to prevent genocides like Darfur or Rwanda. There is also a move towards social service through NGOs rather than governmental organizations. However, evangelicals deciding the US Foreign Policy is overblown - there is no radical shift in policy.

In the past, people like Rammohan Roy and Swami Vivekananda have tried to reform Hinduism when people started converting to Christianity. Swami Dayanand Saraswati is doing his bit for reforming Hinduism. While Indic traditions may not have had crusades, Buddhist missionaries were sent to all corners of the world for proselytism.

John George (#176):

In the past, people like Rammohan Roy and Swami Vivekananda have tried to reform Hinduism when people started converting to Christianity.

Yeah, they promoted versions of Hinduism which responded to Christian critiques of Hinduism. It was also a time entirely different than today: yes, there were missionaries peddling their faith with zeal, but they were greater in number, and those who supported them held political power. This is not the case today, where Indians (mostly Hindus) hold political power.

Hindus are not being oppressed in India. Evangelical missionaries' influence is concentrated in particular regions and is insignificant when you look at the over-all population.

I'm not really sure why those of you who oppose evangelical Christianity are so ready to go on the defensive and claim victim status for Hinduism. There is a reason that so many people are willing to listen to Christian missionaries when they tell them they're being oppressed and that they should convert. Jesus and the Bible are peripheral to this central problem.

Majoritarian politics will only further alienate minorities and make them more antagonistic and zealous and THEN we'll have a real problem on our hands. The vast majority of the Indian population is Hindu, and it shows!

There is a reason that so many people are willing to listen to Christian missionaries when they tell them they're being oppressed and that they should convert. Jesus and the Bible are peripheral to this central problem.

Do you even have any idea how evangelical missionaries operate? The evangelical message is generally not, "you are being oppressed, convert," its more like "your gods have no power, my god does, convert, oh and by the way, the world is coming to an end." :)

The success that Christians have had recently comes among tribals, who have a very tenuous relationship with the caste system to begin with, and tribal identity has become politicized and contested.

Also you keep ignoring the fact that there is manifest discrimination within Christian churches themselves, and that the message of liberating one from oppression would ring very hollow.

from dalitchristians.com:

"Though Christianity also does not recognize caste system, there are upper and lower caste among Christians. In Goa, for example, there are upper caste Catholic Brahmins who do not marry Christians belonging to the lower castes. In many churches, the low caste Christians have to sit apart from the high caste Christians. In Andhra Pradesh, there are Christian Dalit, Christian Malas, Christian Reddys, Christian Kammas, etc. In Tamil Nadu, converts to Christianity form Scheduled Castes - Latin Catholics, Christian Shanars, and Christian Gramani are in the list of Scheduled Castes. Such instances are many and vary from region to region. (Art. 477, Mandal Case Judgment, Vol. 6, No:9, November 30, 1992, Judgment Today).

Looking at "power" solely from the vantagepoint of the nation state is absurd and outmoded. Money is power as well, especially when it has unhindered access across borders. Imagine if India suddenly became very rich, and some Krishna worshippers decided it was time to take the message abroad. They decided their best efforts would be among African Americans because of their long and tortured history of oppression. They start witnessing in the South. To bolster their case that Christianity is an oppressive religion, they quote to the undereducated blacks selective passages in the Bible justifying slavery and demosntrating that Christianity has had it in for you all along. In fact, they justify all of the long history of racism by quoting verses from the bible. They do this not just on the ground, but through television, through professors, through scholarly articles published in university journals. Some convert, and then, over the years, some more. Some unscrupulous organizations give out $20,000 cash gifts to converts as well (nothing in mythically rich India, but a lot here). In a pocket in Southern Louisiana, a black group declares that they are the Republic of Black Krishnaites and that they seek to free themselves from the American hegemon. In solidarity, some marginalized Mexican metsizos join on to the cause. America starts reigning in Krishnaites and the Krishna message. India protests; some powerful Indian Krishnaites have passed a freedom of religion bill monitoring poorer countries like America. America's score goes down on India's freedom of religion index, and Indian bureacrats (several of them fervent Krishnaites) "voice grave concerns," in international bodies. America, being a smart country concerned about the integrity of its borders, tells India to fuck off. :)

And also, while it is true there is still much discrimination among some sections of the so-called lower castes (often perpetrated by other so-called lower castes) you would have to be a fool to think that Evangelicals would stop and go home when every last bit of discrimination has disappeared (and in which country has it completely disappeared?); its the message that they live and die for; and good tacticians that they are, theyd find new ways to demoralize and split their intended targets. Once they even emulated brahmins and took a "top down' approach to conversions. this bottom up approach is relatively new and is partially the result of the failures of the top down approach

Although this article I am giving link to is not about religious conversions - it is about recent issue in India

The interview is with BJP vice-president, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, a muslim (and the quintessentioal muslim that india needs for other muslims and minorities to follow)

I for one cannot wait for the day BJP is back in power again -

i am linking this article to showcase that BJP is the ONLY party in India that has a solid stance on such issues

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/05naqvichat.htm?q=tp&file=.htm

As far as religion is considered, I am no fan of the present Hinduism

then you can always go back to liking past hinduism naa...

risible,

The scenario you described in #178 was just awesome! Happy Onam to you too.

The scenario you described in #178 was just awesome!

It was pretty great and rhetorically very impressive. But Christianity isn't the reason Blacks are oppressed in the US. The caste system is the reason that Dalits are oppressed in India. And if they want a way out, they should have it, and it's not up to you or me to tell them how. If we believe strongly that the evangelist preachers coming from the America for their quota of converts are a bunch of assholes (and I do), and we think that something really needs to be done about it (here's where I think there are plenty of other things to be worried about first) then maybe we should do our bit to make life better for them as Hindus instead of telling them they can't convert (something I think must be done whether or not I think the Bible-thumpers threaten the fabric of the nation).

In a pluralistic society, the burden is on the majority community to ensure that there is communal harmony.

In a pluralistic society, the burden is on the majority community to ensure that there is communal harmony.

Too true, my fellow PTRer. It is so important that people realise the level of discrimination that religious minorities face in India. Just the other night I decided to re-watch a really old Bollywood movie I hadn't seen since I was little, a classic in fact --> 'Kuch Kuch Hota Hai'. I was horrified to see a character called 'Almeida' running a children's camp where he insisted on flying the British flag, kissed huge portraits of the Queen and said 'I love you Mummy' to them and ran around in bright clothes literally looking like a strange and grotesque clown.

My tiny little child's mind must have just remembered the lovely songs and dancing through the fiels and tortured Will They Won't They moments between Kajol and Shah Rukh, but looking at it now that movie is so tainted with those images of Almeida. I know it's only a movie, and there are plenty of movies with Suzy the Slutty Unmarried Christian Secretary and many other Brown Sahib Almeidas, but if such discrimination is part of our popular culture it's no wonder it seeps into our political parties and ultimately our legal and governmental systems.

It freaked me out and made me glad I live in a country where to the dumbass white peoples all Indians are just World-Vision-mud-hut-living-taxi-driving Third Worlders :-) Then I don't feel so bad about being Sandra from Bandra ;-)

Vivek,

Undoubtedly there is discrimination. BUT:

The tribals and other marginalized peoples I've met are generally proud of their often intricate and complex traditions. Pochamma, Sitala, and- as I'm sure you'll be familiar with since your from Tamil Nadu - Mariamman and Muneswarar, can be termed 'subaltern' deities; the temples and rituals conducted in their honor are carried out by subalterns themselves, in a universe where elite Hindus would have no role at all (except that elite Hindus from cities often visit these temples too, and consult their shamans, mystics and healers whenever they have an unsolveable problem :) When elite Hindus try to 'reform' subaltern Hindus, they are often met with revolts. Again, from Tamil Nadu, recall the outrage that ensued when jayalalitha tried to ban animal sacrifice.

What evangelicals do is mess with radically pluralist cultural ecosystems and social contracts long developed; they try to render their gods impotent by demonstrating through sham 'magik' and 'faith healings' that only Jesus can be real.

Hindu Press International reported on this global evangelical gameplan yesterday. Though not a Huntingtonian by temperament, this looks like an all-out war to me.

desitude (#185):

When elite Hindus try to 'reform' subaltern Hindus, they are often met with revolts. Again, from Tamil Nadu, recall the outrage that ensued when jayalalitha tried to ban animal sacrifice.

desitude, while I generally agree with you, I'm not really sure how you're defining the term subaltern.

I agree with risible on the following point in #179:

And also, while it is true there is still much discrimination among some sections of the so-called lower castes (often perpetrated by other so-called lower castes)

(although Dalits aren't lower castes, they're scheduled castes)

In the example I used in #113, the temple in question was a Muthumariamman (who I think would qualify as one of your subaltern deities?) temple at which caste Hindus (in this case Vanniyars) refused to take the idol through through the Dalit colony on the procession for the festival for the deity (in addition to other offenses) (Frontline).

So there are more layers than "elite" and "subaltern," and in this case some Dalits of Koothirambakkam, because of the actions of caste Hindus, find themselves compelled to abandon the goddess whom they worship:

Now these dalits have had enough and say they will convert to Islam.

That includes even Karunanidhi, 35, who has always devoutly adored one Hindu goddess.

"So many of us have suffered from these atrocities - now I'm angry with this goddess for not saving us," he says.

"So I'm leaving this religion for the sake of my people" (BBC).

Sorry, my internet connection is being really crappy just now and I'm not able to get to that worldmap.org link. I'll check it out in the morning and get back...

So there are more layers than "elite" and "subaltern," and in this case some Dalits of Koothirambakkam, because of the actions of caste Hindus, find themselves compelled to abandon the goddess whom they worship:

Sure, and yes, subaltern is a nebulous term, I admit :)

temple at which caste Hindus (in this case Vanniyars) refused to take the idol through through the Dalit colony on the procession for the festival for the deity (in addition to other offenses)

Vivek, Vaniyars have been traditionally considered a "low" caste themselves, though not a "scheduled" caste and since the colonial period they have progressively Sanskritized themselves. They now self-identify as Vaniya Kula Kshatriyas (they made themselves into Kshatriyas). I believe their political leader, Ramadoss, wanted to form a separate Vaniyar province in the Indian union a few years ago! In fact 95% of Dalit violence is 'lower' caste on dalits.

In India, I would argue there is substantial goodwill for Dalits. There is a national consensus for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe reservations, for example, whereas OBC (Other Backward Caste) reservations have been fierecely contested. There are also reserved seats in Parliament for them.

And while I absolutely support the Dalits right to convert here (since it seems to be a personal decision, made out of desparation), there is another side to the 'liberation' story too.

1) The Catholic Church in Tamil Nadu is dominated by Vellalas (an upper caste), whose conversion numbers swelled during the British period.

2) The other very prominent Christian group in Tamil Nadu is the Nadars, whose numbers also swelled during the British period, though Nadars are not an upper caste, they are certainly not Dalit. (and they benefitted greatly SES wise from conversion; though the Hindu Nadars seem to be doing well too).

3) This has lead to very serious discrimination against Dalit Christians in Tamil Nadu. All Christian groups in TN marry among themselves. So in the case of the Dalit Christians, the change of religion did not help their social status very much at all.

4) There is lots of resistance to conversions among Dalits and lower castes too (I am at work so can't provide supporting links, if I remember I'll do so later), but the fact that the majority of Dalits have remained Hindu is prima facie evidence of this. Another fact: Do you know that the predominant communities represented in the Hindu Munani (Tamil Nadu's Hindutva group) are actually Dalits?

5) The Dravidian movement has systematically discriminated against Dalits in TN as well, which seems strange, since they sold themselves as an anti-caste Tamil unity front.

6) Even within Dalits there is severe discrimination - Dalit on Dalit, if you will.

7) Spontaneous conversion of the heart: I accept. Organized multinational efforts to convert everyone, not just Dalits? Problematic for India, to say the least.

They now self-identify as Vaniya Kula Kshatriyas (they made themselves into Kshatriyas). I believe their political leader, Ramadoss, wanted to form a separate Vaniyar province in the Indian union a few years ago! In fact 95% of Dalit violence is 'lower' caste on dalits.

In Neyveli, there'd be the occasional Vanniyar strike. The first time this happened, I thought, school was going to be out for a whole year since "Vanniyar" and "One Year" were pronounced the same way in my surroundings. That was a disappointment :-)

5) The Dravidian movement has systematically discriminated against Dalits in TN as well, which seems strange, since they sold themselves as an anti-caste Tamil unity front.

Hmmm... I didn't know this. Could you elaborate, please? Not looking for examples of individuals the movement discriminating - this always happens. Did the movement/some party officially do this?

Thomas,

Yeah, in allocating MLA tickets for example, in putting down Dalit parties, often violently, in allowing terrible social practices to continue despite longstanding control...

desitude, I agree with all of your points. I had a problem with what I thought was your characterisation of Hinduism into two camps: elite and subaltern. The Vanniyar example was just to illustrate what you said here:

Vaniyars have been traditionally considered a "low" caste themselves, though not a "scheduled" caste and since the colonial period they have progressively Sanskritized themselves.

I don't think this makes them elite. Right anyway, long story short: you're right.

Another fact: Do you know that the predominant communities represented in the Hindu Munani (Tamil Nadu's Hindutva group) are actually Dalits?

I've been looking for a while for information on the make-up of the Hindu Munnani - can you give me a reference for this or is it anecdotal?

Spontaneous conversion of the heart: I accept. Organized multinational efforts to convert everyone, not just Dalits?

Hmm, so what's to be done?

Thomas Kurma:

5) The Dravidian movement has systematically discriminated against Dalits in TN as well, which seems strange, since they sold themselves as an anti-caste Tamil unity front.

Hmmm... I didn't know this. Could you elaborate, please? Not looking for examples of individuals the movement discriminating - this always happens. Did the movement/some party officially do this?

The non-Brahmin movement started among the upper castes (Periyar was a Vellalar himself). Periyar split from Congress in 1925 because of his differences with Gandhi over the temple agitation in Vaikom, Kerala, where Dalits were not only prevented from entering the temple, but were prohibited from walking on any of the streets surrounding the temple. Gandhi settled for a compromise which would allow Dalits to use the streets but not enter into the temple itself. Periyar was furious, left Congress, and started the Self-Respect Movement.

Despite all this, his political party, the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK, pre-cursor to the DMK and ADMK/AIADMK), represented only non-Brahmin caste Hindu interests and was comprised of upper caste non-Brahmins. While the spin-off parties became more inclusive of other castes, from what I know Dalits haven't made it to major leadership positions in either the DMK or AIADMK.

Sorry, forgot source: Narendra Subramanian's Ethnicity and Populist Mobilization: Political Parties, Citizens and Democracy in South India.

Somewhere along the line, graduate students should be required to attend a workshop on naming books.

vivek:

But Christianity isn't the reason Blacks are oppressed in the US.

Have you spoken with a Black Krishnaite ultra lately? :) But seriously, Christianity HAS been used to justify slavery, though in patriotic American discourse, this is swept under the rug. We tend to read more about anti-slavery Christians - William Wilberforce, abolitionists, Quakers, etc., and not about, say, Jefferson Davis' views, or the ignominous provenance of the Southern Babtist Convention.

SenaX:

I for one cannot wait for the day BJP is back in power again -

Wishful thinking. They need a leader first. The cadres are demoralized and they are utterly directionless. They'll have to sort that out before they can make a bid to rule the country again. Not winning back Maharsatra was a huge disappointment, for which sharing power in Bihar only partially compensates. Who is going to lead? Vajpayee is too old. Joshi is a history-rewriting buffon and a traditionalist elitist, Jaitley is very intelligent but he's a westernized elitist with his treadmills and lattes - can't relate to the masses. The dreaded moditva, imo, would be a huge mistake for the republic. Also Sonia-Manmohan is very popular with the people right now. But hey, you never know, a winback in Andhra and TN on the theory of another incumbent bounceout (poor farmers are still unfortunately dying), disaffection in parts of North India...and the saffrons could be back in Delhi stirring up a ruckus.

Thomas:

Happy Onam to you too. :)

I picked this up from one of my e-groups:

"Maveli nadu vaneedum kAlam,
MAnushyarellarum onnu poley"

During the years when Maha Bali ruled the land (of Kerala),
ALL human beings were treated as equals.

pagans, repent! repent from your idols and bow down to the one god on high, for there lay your salvation! toss your idols to the flames and hold the one true god to your heart! heathen let not the blackness of hell ride roughshod over your soul, infidel, let be no inequitous in the eyes of the lord god! turn not from the son of man to bow before the face of the demons from the depth, turn from satan's brood and sing in glory of the heavens above and the angels of the lord shall welcome you into their bosom! toss aside your black hearted priests and open your hearts to the light!

Periyar was a Vellalar himself

Sorry!

Was thinking of two things and typed the wrong one. You're right, of course.

As far as

I'm all for the religious free-market, however I do feel that the Indian government, after finding itself at a loss as to what to do regarding mass conversions, did what it felt was best for the preservation of various Indian cultures/religions.

One thing to be noted is that Hinduism is NOT without various sects that are not caste conscious in the sense that no one is banned from participation or entering temples. Think about it; if so many swamis and gurus have been globe-trotting for several decades, accepting non-Indian disciples into the fold, why would they not accept Indian disciples, regardless of caste? The non-Indian people that many of these swamis and gurus preach to are totally outside of the confines of the "varnashram" system of India, hence they could be considered even lower than the "low castes" or the "dalits" or others. Many of the non-Indian pefople that join these various Hindu groups come from backgrounds of daily cow-eating and other habits deemed unfit from many Hindu sect's perspectives. Yet these people are welcolmed. Hence my conclusion is that these same groups would and DO indeed accept the low or no castes of India.

Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a good example of this. That is why it always boggled me why Christianity and Islam were considered solutions to Hindus who were discriminated against regarding caste. Hinduism itself has it's own answers to the problem in the form of sects that DO NOT discriminate. Why not just join one of those sects?

On the other hand, it should be noted that within most sects of Hinduism, reincarnation is an accepted tenent. There is no rush to become "saved" in this lifetime or else face eternal Hell in the next. Perhaps that is why many Hindu groups are not as zealous in preaching/proselytizing as the Christians and Muslims who believe you only get one go at it in this lifetime???

Also, I can speak as far as my own experience goes in a so-called "hindu" religion, that food, shelter and money will not be offered to those who want to join the sect, because then it would not be seen as a sincere motive. Not to say charity work is not done. It is. But there is an understanding that riches are not neccessarily a "blessing" from Ishwar (God), and poverty is not neccessarily a curse. There is a belief that God may take everything away from the spiritual aspirant in order that she may become wholly and solely dependent on Divine Intervention.

I've had a few encounters with foreign missionaries in India that I would like to share here.

1. Up at the Hindi school in Mussorie you will find more than 50% of the students to be foreign Christians. They come to learn Hindi so as to better communicate with their target audience. One girl explained to me that she was placed in a home of a mountain milk family. That family was not rich by any means, but they were not poverty stricken either. They keep animals for milk, deliver and sell that milk, and maintain a simple life that way. They are extremely kind and hospitable people. She said the modus operandi was to live with these families, become a part of them, and then after some time, when they are totally bonded with and attached to you, you spring the "good news" of Jesus upon them. By that time they feel so close to you that they cannot refuse but hear and accept your message.

2. I attended a Christian church in Delhi once with some of these very same Christians that I had met in Mussorie. The guest pastor was a United States military man from the deep south, Georgia, or somewhere like that. Oh my god the way he preached. Fire and brimstone and totally insulting to the "Hindu" deities like Kali Ma and others. He was saying the Hindu deities are nothing but "the Devil" and they must be SMASHED. Um, I have nothing against foreign preachers coming to India and preaching, I'm a pardesi myself, but at least they should have enough intellectual training and depth to be able to carry on a civilized diolouge regarding world religions. It was basically deep south American military culture being taught there rather than any of the philosophical teachings of Jesus Christ. Does India need that? No.

3. Along with these American and European Christian missionaries were a group of very young Indian women living with them. I started talking about some ancient historical folklore and mythology of India and they had no idea what I was talking about and seemed to be intrigued, wanting to hear more. I asked, how is it that you are Indian and don't know this? They said they came from a village that had been Christian for 4 generations. Fair enough. But does being Christian in India mean that you cannot know the basics of the great epics of that land like Mahabharat and Ramayana? Come on!

I have nothing against the philosophical teachings of Jesus and other great spiritual luminaries being taught anywhere. In fact, it should be welcomed everywhere. But the experiences I had above showed me that that was not the case (at least among the lot I met). Let there be open discussions and philosophical debates between the learned intellectuals of all religions. Let the precepts and subtle nuances of the various philosophies be shared and compared/contrasted.

But let's not have an entire culture completely supplant another.

A few more things to add to the above...

Gautham mentioned in one of his posts about missionaries trickily feeding beef to some of the kids in orphanages or whatever. Although I doubt that would be commonplace nowadays, there is enough reporting that it did take place on a more widespread level several decades back and during the time of the British Raj. Question is - Why? Was Jesus a big beef eater? Can one not be vegetarian and a Christian at the same time? There are many Christians who believe that Jesus and his followers were strict vegetarians. So why insist that an Indian give up their vegetarianism in order to become a Christian? My point is - the culture and customs at the time and place of Jesus were not unlike many of the cultures and customs that ancient Indians and modern Indians follow today. There are common themes throughout the East that cross boundaries of religion. But I have witnessed with my own eyes evangelical American Christians giving a modern American slant to the Christianity they are preaching in India. Is this neccessary? Is it desirable? I say no to both.

From my research I say that Jesus had more in common with the ancient meditative sages of Bharat than with modern day preachers.

Another point why many Hindu groups are not found making their way into tribal areas to "preach" their brand of Hinduism is because maybe they respect the right of various tribal people to practice the customs/cultures/religions of their choice. The religious group I belong to is strictly vegetarian. Many tribals still utilize animal sacrifice. We realise it would be very hard for them to give up this practice so we leave them alone. Of course, they can participate in whatever aspect of our religion they deem suitable to them, we welcome that. And we expose them to our chanting by chanting in their areas and they appreciate that. But there is no compulsion for anyone to give up their long cherished habits and customs until and unless they are ready and willing. We are not aiming to change a person's entire belief system and corresponding culture in one lifetime. We realize that self-actualization is a journey of perhaps many lifetimes and so there is no hurry.

Another point - these missions offer food and shelter in the beginning, but how can masses of poor people support themselves and thrive on handouts? They can't. They need skills and regular jobs. Hindu groups are also giving out free kitchri. Although I'm no fan of ISKCON, they have a "food for life" program that feeds literally hundreds of thousands in India daily. Other hindu groups are doing more but they get less publicity in western media, maybe even in Indian media.

Beige Sage,

I am willing to bet that 99% of Hindu organizations are anti-untouchability (I am sure there are some fools left, every culture has fools), the Gaudiya Vaishnavas are of course notable in this regard, and I commend their charitable efforts.

In the cities, some organizations would even take pride in welcoming Dalit members to show how "progressive" they are (yes that is patronizing). There are matha (monastery heads) who have appointed Dalit successors. I even believe the Ramkrishna Mission had one a while back. "Live and let live" is an old Hindu way, yes. But I am afraid it will not work in the new geopolitical environment, where "faith" has a price. Hindus must mobilize, we need a liberation theology type movement to reconnect with the poor, one that just not blasts Abrahamics for this or that, but does some serious introspection and MOVES on it.

How does "untouchability" actually play out in India? I've lived there for over ten years and cannot figure out how such a thing can even exist in a place where you get on a bus, train, tempo, or any other form of public transportation and HAVE to touch just about everyone in order just to ride on it, it's so crowded.

I guess it would apply only in uncrowded places.

Where I live, one of the "lowest" castes are the bhangis, the toilet cleaners. They come into the homes of people who are not willing to clean their own toilets and do the job for them. They also clean the sewers in the streets. Now, these people are pig eaters in a town where the majority of people are strict vegetarian Hindus or pork-shunning Muslims.

As a strict vegetarian myself, I would not want to hang around their houses when they are roasting and eating pigs. Most of the Hindus and Muslims in the town feel the same way. Are they considered "untouchables" just because us non-pork-eaters do not want to break bread with them?

At the same time, they are free to partake of the cuisine of their choice, whereas in Pakistan they would not be able to.

That is why I found it odd that a Pakistani was saying to me, "you live in a place that is so unjust that some people are considered 'untouchable'". I was like, "um, in Pakistan can pork eaters be free to openly roast and eat pigs?" He was like, "hell no!". I'm like, "well, in India they are free enough to do that, but Muslims like yourself will not touch them".

See the irony?

(Not intended to offend any Muslims on this site. I have Muslims in my own family, so please forgive me. I was just making a point.)

Whatever Happened to the Hindu Left?

Here's an interesting article for all, written by the only woman I know who identifies as Hindu AND Christian :-)

I guess it would apply only in uncrowded places.

Yeah in the hinterland mainly. In the cities you can pretty much be whoever you want to be, which is why Ambedkar said "head to the cities."

The area I reside in is pretty orthodox though. Maybe it is there but I'm just not seeing it.

There is a custom where priests who are on their way to mandir to perform puja will not touch ANYBODY, not even anybody's shadow. It's coz they have just thoroughly bathed and cleansed themselves for Vigraha seva and they don't want to chance getting dirty (impure) again otherwise they will have to go back and bathe again.

The area I reside in is pretty orthodox though. Maybe it is there but I'm just not seeing it.

There is a custom where priests who are on their way to mandir to perform puja will not touch ANYBODY, not even anybody's shadow. It's coz they have just thoroughly bathed and cleansed themselves for Vigraha seva and they don't want to chance getting dirty (impure) again otherwise they will have to go back and bathe again.

I think thats fine, that applies to everyone. Its singling a group out for things like that which is contemptible.

I think the important thing for people to know is that Hinduism has it's own cures for these things and one does not have to run to an Abrahamic religion in order to be relieved of discrimination.

Many of the same complaints that Hindus in India have regarding non-Hindu religions' preaching, converting and recruiting methods, have been made in the West regarding Hindu sects' preaching, converting and recruiting methods of previously Abrahamic religion based youth.

In ISKCON (hare krishnas), everyone is out there "preaching", including Indians, quite aggressively. All around the world.

It's a Western idea, that you have to "conquer" or "Save" somone so they believe the same thing as yourself.

which is exactly why that white king ashoka sent out missionaries to the ends of the earth and buddhism became the first transcivilizational religion! it is the demon souls of the white devils.

Then you need to do some research on Gaudiya Math, the tradition from whence ISKCON sprang. Gaudiya Math itself sprang from the Gaudiya Sampradaya.

It has it's claim as a "vedic religion" due to it's referencing of the Veda and Vedic supplementary texts like the upanishads, although there is a heavy tantrik influence there too, and reference to various Tantras.

It is true though that ISKCON did take on a very heavy kind of "cultish" vibe in it's transplation (is that a word) from the East to West.

I would never recommend ISKCON as anything more than a very basic doorway into the greater world of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

The major reason why ISKCON is such a proselytizing religion is because it's founder, Prahbupada, a home-grown Bengali, emphasized assertive outreach over contemplation/meditation. He wanted the knowledge spread as fast as possible, as far as possible, all around the world.