The sharp rise in atrocities against the Christian community in recent times particularly after the installation of the BJP Government at the Centre has generated, for the first time since Independence, a sense of fear in the Christian community. This was highlighted in a Memorandum submitted by the leaders of the Christian Church led by Archbishop of Delhi Alan de Lastic who is also the President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India, to the President, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister, following the gang rape of Catholic nuns in a village in Jhabua district of Madhya Pradesh. The Memorandum ascribed the persistent pattern of attacks on Christian life, property and sacred places, in various parts of the country, particularly in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, to the implementation of a nationwide plan by Hindu fanatic and fundamentalist groups. The Memorandum brought out more than 30 odd instances which had occurred during the preceding three months in Gujarat alone and included, apart from the Jhabua incident, the looting of a Convent in Baghpat, the desecration of a holy statue at the Jesus and Mary College in Delhi, the attack on a Convent in West Bengal, the burning of the Bible in Rajkot, the exhumation of a coffin in Gujarat, the demolition of a shrine in Manmad and the murder of several priests and nuns in Bihar. Despite formal assurance by the Home Minister to the Catholic delegation there is so far no report of those responsible for the atrocities having been prosecuted. The culprits are still at large, perhaps with the collusion of the local police and bureaucracy.
What is, however, horrifying is the stand adopted by the fanatic fringe particularly by the VHP and the Bajrang Dal, both members of the Sangh Parivar, which virtually justifies the attacks on the Christian community and the missionaries. The General Secretary of the BJP and the former BJP MP Shri B.L. Sharma 'Prem' has stated in a formal statement that "the assault on the mission in Jhabha village in MP and the violence and loot in Baghpat, UP, was the direct result of the conversion of the Hindus to Christianity by the Christian priests". He criticised the State Government of Madhya Pradesh for being 'unnecessarily energetic' in dealing with the Jhabua incident and giving it undue importance! He accused the State Government of behaving as if India was still under colonial rule. He added that the Congress had closed its eyes to the black deeds of the missionaries, to their efforts to convert Hindus but we in the VHP will not shut our eyes to the activities of these traitors. He complimented the wrong doers as patriots and nationalists. Similar statements have been President, and Acharya Giriraj Kishore, the General Secretary. It goes without saying that such a stand has caused shock and disgust not only in political circles but also in the intelligentsia. So much so that the BJP was forced to distance itself from the VHP.
The crux of the problem lies in the VHP's objection to the evangelical activities of the Church, because it regards Christianity as a 'foreign' religion like Islam. It also regards the welfare activities undertaken by the Christian Church in India in the field of education and health as primarily geared to its evangelical mission. It is obsessed with its assessment that the Christians and the Muslims are growing at a faster rate not only by over-breeding but also by conversion of Hindus and has developed a multi-pronged strategy to contain and reverse the flow towards 'foreign' relations. The irony lies in that it promotes propagation of Hinduism in its myriad forms in foreign countries, particularly in the USA and the UK, and has launched its own massive programme of what it calls 'Ghar Wapsi' (Home-coming) for 're-conversion' of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism within the country. It is, however, acting recklessly because its efforts are not crowned with expected success and it is conscious of the failure of its mission. The VHP is also unhappy that the Indian state, under even the BJP-led Government, is not extending assistance and co-operate to its programme for defending and protecting the Hindu interests. The earlier installation of the BJP Government in several States had indeed raised its hopes and expectations and, therefore, it had geared up its activities in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh but the rising profile has only served to highlight its plan and horrify the people.
The stand taken by the VHP raises a number of constitutional, legal and moral issues. At one level the votaries of Hinduism claim that Hinduism, not being a dogmatic religion, represent, the universal 'Sanatana Dharma' which is hierarchically superior, and assigns a secondary position, to foreign religions like Islam and Christianity, not to speak of indigenous religion like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism as 'Panths' of the Dharma. It has a place for all religions and the capacity to accommodate them all. This was very graphically stated by Dr. M.M. Joshi, once the BJP President and now Minister for Human Resource Development, that the Christians should call themselves Masihi Hindu! Of course, the Sikhs, the Buddhists and the Jains being followers of indigenous religions are Hindus by birth and by definition. It is interesting to recall that even the Constitutional Order on Reservation for SC/ST defines the Hindu in negative terms. So does the Census. This means a statistical and, therefore, a political advantage for the Hindus. Because all those who do not identify themselves as the followers of any other organised religion, including the atheists can be and are classified as and aggregated under the term 'Hindu'. But the more important is the philosophical question 'if Hinduism or Hindu Dharma is all-inclusive as persistently propagated, why should the VHP undertake 'reconversion' of the followers of other religions to Hinduism? If they are already Hindus, the programme of reconversion becomes totally illogical and meaningless! The VHP and its sympathisers continually harp on the theme that the overwhelming majority of the followers of 'foreign religions' in India are Hindus by blood, meaning thereby tnat they have descended from those Hindus who. At some point in time, embraced Islam or Christianity, as they claim, to escape oppression. Whatever might be the reason-the inequities of the Hindu society or the quest for equality and protection or coercion by the rulers, race and religion are not coterminous. The racial origin of a religious group or sub-group is totally irrelevant, as far as its present religious status is concerned Hinduism should not be reduced by the VHP to an ethnic religion!
Historically the process of propagation of Islam or Christianity has given rise to communities, which neither adopted the new religion fully in their daily life nor gave up some of their earlier customs. The VHP's modus operandi is to concentrate on such isolated communities in Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh for securing their 'Home-coming'. This, as pointed out above, is nothing but organised conversion to Hinduism.
Indeed, in a non-theocratic State like ours, the religion of a citizen is the religion he professes and declares irrespective of the rites and rituals and the mode of worship that he follows. The State cannot go into how well he practises his religion; it has no alternative but to accept his declaration of faith. Indeed, if a citizen goes to the extent of declaring himself a Muslim on a Monday, a Christian on a Tuesday, a Hindu on a Wednesday, a Buddhist on a Thursday, the State cannot question his declaration. In any case, for a secular welfare state which is not identified with any religion and whose raison d'être is to provide a life of dignity for its people and to meet their basic needs as human beings and to treat them equally as citizens, the variation in religious demography is simply immaterial.
Granted there is no fundamental right to convert anyone to one's faith but there is a fundamental right to propagate and there is freedom of conversion and the right to change one's religion, freely and voluntarily.
The State only comes in the picture if any religious organisation or institution or individual uses questionable means like coercion, undue influence or fraud for securing change of religion. But there are penal laws to deal with such situations, and they would suffice to deal with such an organisation or institution if such a charge is brought against it by any aggrieved individual. Why make it a collective issue or a question of prestige? Why take law in one's own hands? Why seek state intervention and support to keep one's stock on line?
Change of religion is a matter of conscience. Faith cannot be instilled or generated by force or brought about by inducement or deceit. But the VHP wants 'conversion' to be prohibited or regulated by the State despite the Constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution which grants the right to profess, practise and propagate the religion of one's choice, subject to public order, morality and health. A blanket ban or State regular which would make it procedurally impossible for any one to act under the dictate of his conscience will not only be anti-Constitutional but militate against Freedom and Human Rights and the internationally accepted norms of civilised society.
Let us examine why the Sangh Parivar is so concerned about 'reconversion' to Hinduism. Reconversion is not motivated by religious or spiritual considerations but by the political ideology which looks upon India as essentially a Hindu country. The Sangh Parivar suffers from an irrational fear of Hindus being outnumbered by the non-Hindus, and thus losing political dominance in 'their country'. The Sangh Parivar has tried to build Hindus solidarity, or even bring about a renaissance in the Hindu society, not through a positive programme of informed reform but through a negative programme of inciting revenge and hatred. They harp on the them that in the past under the Muslim and the Christian 'rule', many Hindus had been forced to adopt foreign religions. The Muslims today constitute 12% of the population and the Christians account for 2.5%. The decennial Census does establish a slightly higher rate of growth of the Muslim and the Christian population. The fact also remains that the State of Jammu & Kashmir has a Muslim majority and several small States have Christian majority. All these disturb the Sangh Parivar's concept of India and seen as impediments to the transformation of India into the Hindu Rashtra and the Indian society into a Hindu society and the reduction of the composite Indian culture into Hindu culture.
Muslims have long borne the brunt of the Hindu aggressiveness as they were projected as the historic adversary with extra-territorial links, the enemy within and a Pakistani fifth column. The smaller minorities were tactically handled with kin gloves. The Parsis who form a micro-community were projected as the ideal minority. The Sikhs, the Buddhists and the Jains were defined as Hindus and sought to be absorbed within the Hindu fold. Now the Christians have been brought into the arena despite all that they have done for the good of the people of India in various fields. The obvious strategy is that once the Muslims and the Christians are tamed or made to surrender to the forces of Hindutva, the other minorities will toe the line India shall become a Hindu Rashtra and can be remodelled in line with the vision of the Sangh parivar. This is why, on the one hand, the Sangh parivar indulges in a hit and smear campaign against the Muslims and the Christians, describes them as anti-national, seeks restrictions on their legitimate religious activities such as propagation and expulsion of all foreign missionaries, cut off of all foreign contributions and 'ban' on conversions to non-indigenous religions. The Bajrang, the VHP's militant wing, its storm troopers, has been let loose.
The social environment has been vitiated, through propaganda, incitement and violence. It is amazing that while the Home Minister expressed his unhappiness to the Archbishop of Delhi on the statement of the VHP leader 'Prem' he only conveyed his unhappiness to the VHO Working President Mr. Ashok Singhal (who denied it later). He did not utter one word in public to denounce the violence or the vilification or the false appeal to the patriotism or nationalism of the Hindu youth. Such an attitude bodes ill for the future of the nation; it also bodes ill for the Hindu society.
New Delhi,
1st November, 1998
