Aggressive conversions are somewhat alien to traditional Indian concept of belief. Competitive conversions are the defining characteristic of Abrahamic religions and modern secularism. Western and Middle Eastern history is a long litany of bloody wars between different creeds of religion and different creeds of secular political movements.
Christianity has fought Islam and vice-versa. Both have subsects that have fought each other. Northern Ireland and current Middle East is a testament to that. Secular nationalism has fought two world wars. Communism and capitalism, secular liberalism and secular ultra nationalism have all been fighting proxy wars for decades. This pathology was introduced by Congress party into India.
The pathology also informs western norms on freedom of religion and thought. It is based on the premise of ‘false god’ theory. That the ‘god’ or system of the other is false and the other needs to be saved from his/her error. It is the foundation of western liberalism as much as Abrahamic religions.
Indian belief systems, on the other hand, are passive systems. They express themselves, but do not compete in a market to save souls or lifestyles. They can be critical of each other and may even show their distinctiveness by commenting on the difference with the other. But they do not have a theory of ‘false god’ to condemn the other as a ‘false way’.
Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhi have all coexisted without going to war against each other to destroy the ‘God’ or gods of the other. They are benign belief systems. People convert to them by genuine freedom of personal choice rather than by financial, physical or psychological coercion.
Nothing puts this in context than the langar at Sri Harmandir Sahib and the aid work of Christian missionary institutions. Thousands of non Sikhs eat langar at Sri Harmandir Sahib every day. They are never handed a leaflet about Sikhi. No one attempts to ‘convert’ them or save their souls by the inducement of free meal. On the other hand, a Christian missionary charity will inevitably slip in a book or leaflet on ‘the only way’ (Jesus) once a person has taken their charity a couple of times.
There are many individual Muslims and Christians who will serve and help humanity without seeking to convert. But the principle of ‘Nishkam’ is not part of either Islamic or Christian missionary institutions.
If there isn’t a material gain in the mind of the institutional donor then there is an intention of saving the ‘soul’ of the recipient. This different approach to belief lies at the heart of tensions between Hindu organisations such as RSS on one hand and Christian and Islamic institutions on the other. A ‘stronger’ law prohibiting conversions or increasing bureaucratic hurdles in the process of conversions will not address the concern among Hindus.
The success of Christian missionaries is not their better organisation or better literature. It is in fact based on the monopoly they and Islamic preachers enjoy against the passivity of indigenous Indian belief systems. No indigenous Indian belief system has the conceptual framework of competitive proselytising. It simply is not an Indian thing to do.
Of course India needs a law and policy on conversions. But it has to be based on Indian value systems rather than bureaucratic institutionalisation of fear of conversions. It has to target the very nature of belief rather than the freedom of choice to convert.
A law and policy in India needs to insist that all belief systems in India have to abide by the principles of passivity and coexistence rather than competitive marketing. Some fundamental ideas of Abrahamic belief systems in India need to change and make them acceptable within Indian civilisation. The institutions of beliefs need to show that they are not engaged in financial inducement, offensive language about other beliefs or marketing techniques.
This is neither exceptionalism nor against human rights norms. Indians who live in the west are expected to live by the norms of western world. There is no reason the same principle cannot apply to people and systems that wish to co-exist in India.
After all Judaism and pre colonial Christians coexisted in India by understanding the culture of civility to others for hundreds of years. Surely like Sri Harmandir Sahib, Christian Charities can also provide without an insidious eye on ‘conversion’ or saving souls.
A law and policy restraining competitive proselytising will not be against international norms. UN conventions on freedom of religion state the right of an individual to freedom of religion and right to decide his or her own religion. It does not grant a right to be offensive directly or indirectly by condemning others as ‘false’.
In fact Article 18.2 of International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states, ‘No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.’ It is a matter of interpretation what coercion means. In the Indian context, even financial and charitable inducements can constitute ‘coercion’.
Further, the ICCPR in Article 18.3 also states, ‘Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.’ In the Indian context, it is the fundamental right and freedom of others not to be exposed to competitive proselytising. If the French can do it in their Laicite law, so can India.
Jasdev Rai
A medical doctor with a MA in politics and some time to spare. Has long interest in governance, human and political rights issues. Written and published academic papers on ethics, gender foeticide, anti terrorism, freedom of conscience, conflict resolution and Sikh philosophy. Developed and written a critique on Universalism for UNESCO in the ethics agenda for UNESCO. Has a long record of activism at the United Nations and has been to several Human Rights Council sessions.
Year: 2016
BREXIT’S UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, MUTINY IN THE COMMONWEALTH
There is a bit of the lost Empire in the Brexit campaign. It smells of gung-ho nostalgia of the days when Britain called the shots around the globe and enjoyed power to order the world. Times have changed. The world has become wiser to Britain’s machinations. The very countries outside Europe that Britain once ruled, are now far too powerful and rich to bother about Britain. If Britain still has respect it is because it has coopted power from two big blocks, Europe and North America and a permanent seat at the UN.
Without these props, its first challenge will be from the commonwealth, the club of ex colonial members who the Brexit group are much fond of quoting as Britain’s great hope of surviving without Europe. Europe has given a big supporting clout to Britain after it lost the Empire. Many European countries share a guilt ridden colonial history with Britain. As a collective they assert similar power as once they did on their own within their respective Empires.
Each one has still its own sphere of influence and trading blocks that Europe collectively pools. Brexit will have an effect on that. Britain’s circle will be the commonwealth without the collateral support of Europe. None of the Commonwealth countries sing a glowing tribute to Britain colonial role in their countries. Slavery, exploitation, oppression, destroying local cultures and making many countries dependent on it economically, do not compensate for railway lines (India) or telecommunications and civil service (African countries).
There are plenty of non-European countries who have developed these without the blessing of colonialism. There is enough resentment among many commonwealth countries against Britain. Only pragmatism, diplomacy and Britain’s propped up power stops many from challenging Britain’s leadership of the Commonwealth. Many countries remember Britain’s role in colonialism as one of deceit and Machiavellian diplomacy. Agreements signed often had small print clauses which were interpreted creatively to remove indigenous powers once they were lulled into believing ‘friendship’. It is no wonder that a UK led resolution at the UN is carefully vetted by others.
The world has changed, Britain hasn’t changed. As Britain drifts, some of these commonwealth countries will pounce on the opportunity to weaken Britain even more. It is in the nature of politics that when competitors smell weakness, the powerful go for the kill. History will avenge. The first challenge in a few years will be to the reign of the British Monarch as head of the Commonwealth. A challenge was made in 1986 by the then Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi who questioned Britain’s legitimacy as head of Commonwealth when Britain refused to employ sanctions against the South African Apartheid regime. India, under its new nationalistic fervor harbours considerable anti colonial sentiment among the intellectuals who are behind the Hindutva project.
Once Britain is seen as weak, they are likely to push for review of the British Monarch’s role as permanent head of the Commonwealth, even though it is only a symbolic role. Once that happens, other will join in, marginalizing Britain’s role and influence in the Commonwealth, encouraged by the anger of colonial resentment. Britain’s so called special relationship with USA will also change. If Hilary Clinton wins, she may be the last of the Americans to value that special relationship as a cultural relationship. Trump has shown no affiliation to Britain’s historical roots with USA.
Obama has subtly expressed his indifference. Future Americans are increasingly of non British stock and have little ancestral affiliation with UK. Britain will be seen as getting weaker and losing its supporting props. Even its position in the Security Council will come into question. There is increasing clamour by several countries to change the structure of the United Nations. Of course the Commonwealth will change one day with or without Brexit. Britain’s current role in the Security Council will also change somewhat as the council expands.
But they will come gradually without much shock. With Brexit, the changes will be swifter and a shock to the system. Those Brexitors who are gambling on Britain’s current roles in non European clubs, such as Commonwealth, Security Council and UK’s deep historic links with USA and Canada may wake up to find that realpolitik does not spare drowning powers.
The shake up, or even breakup of the Commonwealth, a threadbare special relationship with USA and most possibly dethroning of the Queen as sovereign head of Canada may be the unintended consequences of Brexit. The world has changed much and there are very big political and angry crocodiles in the pond now. Even China hasn’t forgotten the Opium wars. Britain might end up drifting alone in the world, writing its own epitaph in the great corridors of power. Leaving Europe and putting faith in the rest of the world! The deceits of history may boomerang.
HealthCare.gov closes signups — register or get a penalty
For me personally, 7 years later, all these is just a short summary of all the promises Mr. Obama failed to deliver to America’s doorstep. All the great plans that could have made him a truly Reforming President, were not completed and so the 44th President of US will most likely remain an “intermediate” part of American history. That is confirmed by President himself, as he now constantly compares himself (unfavorably) to truly great US leaders, like Lincoln or Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
And I have to agree with him. And the funniest thing is probably that Obama still managed to accomplish pretty big steps during his Presidency. Such as the “Affordable Care Act” (Obamacare), or achieving some kind of ease of US image overseas (which, though, made us look weak now, instead of strong and intimidating before). Anyways, the way those great Presidents Obama mentions himself has changed the country is a great comparison. Like FDR, who was able to overcome the complete weakness of US federal government over private banks and financial sector in general, when dealing with the Great Depression. Or Lincoln, who held the bipartisan country together with a grip of a mountain grizzly bear.
Remember the Republican response to Obama’s speech that day? One of the most famous ones was Bobby Jindal’s reaction. He just buoyed the stimulus plan that was just approved by the Congress. Even tried to mock it up, while objecting to spending “140 million US dollars for something vaguely called Volcano Monitoring…”.
The irony is that next month after his words, the Alaskan volcano erupted (just as Obama’s intentions did) and covered the state for days with thick, 60000-foot ash and smoke cloud…
As CNN reporter once said then, regarding GOP response to these wonderful, though unfulfilled ideas of Obama:
“To come up at this moment in history with a stale, government-is-the-problem, we can’t trust the federal government—it’s just a disaster for the Republican Party.…in a moment when only the federal government is big enough to actually do stuff—to just ignore all that, and just say ‘government is a problem, corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending,’ it’s just a form of nihilism. It’s just not where the country is. It’s not where the future of the country is.”
Zika Virus Described in Detail
That is confirmed by President himself, as he now constantly compares himself (unfavorably) to truly great US leaders, like Lincoln or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And I have to agree with him. And the funniest thing is probably that Obama still managed to accomplish pretty big steps during his Presidency. Such as the “Affordable Care Act” (Obamacare), or achieving some kind of ease of US image overseas (which, though, made us look weak now, instead of strong and intimidating before).
Anyways, the way those great Presidents Obama mentions himself has changed the country is a great comparison. Like FDR, who was able to overcome the complete weakness of US federal government over private banks and financial sector in general, when dealing with the Great Depression. Or Lincoln, who held the bipartisan country together with a grip of a mountain grizzly bear.
Remember the Republican response to Obama’s speech that day? One of the most famous ones was Bobby Jindal’s reaction. He just buoyed the stimulus plan that was just approved by the Congress. Even tried to mock it up, while objecting to spending “140 million US dollars for something vaguely called Volcano Monitoring…”. The irony is that next month after his words, the Alaskan volcano erupted (just as Obama’s intentions did) and covered the state for days with thick, 60000-foot ash and smoke cloud… As CNN reporter once said then, regarding GOP response to these wonderful, though unfulfilled ideas of Obama: “To come up at this moment in history with a stale, government-is-the-problem, we can’t trust the federal government—it’s just a disaster for the Republican Party.…in a moment when only the federal government is big enough to actually do stuff—to just ignore all that, and just say ‘government is a problem, corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending,’ it’s just a form of nihilism. It’s just not where the country is. It’s not where the future of the country is.