September 01, 2006
ConversionsNews
Two Fox News Reporters were recently forced to convert to Islam as part of negotiating their release from Palestinian captors (the other part of the package was a monetary ransom paid in American dollars, said to be in the six figures). In the video they made of the event, the captors made the bizarre claim that the conversions weren’t under duress. Yeah, right. (Interesting Slate.com essay on this here)
That surreal spectacle led to an interesting column in the Wall Street Journal by David Aikman, where he mentions India in conjunction:
Under the sheltering wing of the First Amendment and a core civic belief that religious faith is a private matter and a private choice, religious Americans have overwhelmingly made the selection of their private faith as normal as choosing a breakfast cereal. Sometimes the selection seems to be as inconsequential as well… .
In the Hindu and Islamic worlds, the conscious choice by someone of a new religious conviction is very serious business. There are family pressures to overcome, community prejudices and, often enough, threats of violence if a conversion is actually made. Even in India, where there is a strong legal tradition since British times of religious freedom, advocates of Hindutva (“Hinduness”) do everything possible to prevent people defecting from Hinduism to join other faiths. In much of the Islamic world it is technically a capital offense under Sharia, or Muslim religious law, to change one’s faith. But even if it weren’t, the prevailing response to a suggestion to alter one’s religion would be: “Why would I want to?” (link)
In India, several states having been passing laws to restrict conversions to Christianity (Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh). And in Malaysia, the case of Lina Joy, an ethnic Malay who has not been allowed to “legally” convert and marry a Christian man, is proof yet again of the madness of governmental intervention in matters of personal belief.
Malaysia may be a lost cause with regards to secularism (see my earlier post here, and an informative recent IHT article here), but India isn’t. These laws banning (or at least, severely restricting) conversion from Hinduism are structurally no different from the laws in Muslim countries banning conversion from Islam. Such laws should be struck down to avoid replicating the absurdity of the Lina Joy case in Malaysia.
It seems to me the root of the problem is the basic idea of differential civil laws based on religious identity. The same laws regarding marriage, inheritance, divorce, custody-rights, alimony/maintenance, head-of-household status, etc., should govern everyone. In India at least there is the “Special Marriage Act,” which would presumably allow someone in Lina Joy’s position to marry whomever she chooses, whether or not the state recognizes her conversion (such a law doesn’t exist in Malaysia, as I understand it). But the best way to make religious conversion a political non-issue would be to take the government out of it entirely. The U.S. first amendment is looking pretty good right now.
amardeep on September 1, 2006 11:01 AM in News · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
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.
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.
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.
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? :=)
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???
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*
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
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.
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.
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?
For a guy who makes such comments:
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!
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
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?
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
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
Why isn't anyone responding to this? This "forced" conversion is from a religion that we didn't have choice over anyway.
I recently (less than a year ago) converted to Hinduism because of this.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:
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
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.
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!
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).
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.
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:
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).
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).
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 agree that re conversions not being subject to same conditions questions the motives of the law. Was there a reason given for this?
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.