Pope asks India not to ban religious conversions

Hindustan Times ^ | May 20, 2006

[nickcarraway]

India has responded with diplomatic equanimity to Pope Benedict XVI's seemingly provocative remarks condemning attempts to ban religious conversion in certain states.

The pope had told India’s new ambassador to the Vatican, Amitava Tripathi, on Thursday that the country should "firmly reject" attempts "to legislate clearly discriminatory restrictions on the fundamental right to religious freedom". He had also taken note of the "disturbing signs of religious intolerance which had troubled some regions of the nation".

New Delhi responded on Friday with a statement, reiterating the constitutional "freedom of conscience" and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. "It is acknowledged universally that India is a secular and democratic country where adherents of all faiths enjoy equal rights," said a foreign ministry spokesperson.

It was the pope's second declaration this week in defence of religious freedom in countries where Christians are a minority. In India, the statement comes in the backdrop of Rajasthan planning to become the sixth state to enact the anti-conversion law the pope was referring to. Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Orissa already have laws that bar conversions but allow re-conversions to Hinduism. Jharkhand has declared its intention to enact a similar law.

The BJP-ruled Rajasthan, however, has not been able to convince Governor Pratibha Patil to give her assent to the Religious Conversion Bill. She returned the bill making a point similar to the one made by the pope -- that its provisions would affect the right to freedom of religion.

The BJP has often attributed attacks on Christian missionaries, including the murder of Graham Staines in Orissa, as reactions to their proselytising. During his recent Bharat Suraksha Yatra, BJP president Rajnath Singh had described proselytising "dangerous" and asked all BJP-ruled states to enact a similar law.

[David Allen]

I support a Christian mission in India. We've helped them build a building. We buy clothes, Bibles, and other things, too.

There is great hostility to Christianity among many in India. They only have about 1000 dieties there, maybe more.

The part of India that is a success is the part that has followed Western ideals.

[Cronos]

The laws are meant to stop organized proselytization activity.

Define that. If tomorrow there is a large mass for Christmas and Hindus go for that (and many already DO), is that organised proselytisation?? What if hindus are invited to learn about Christianity? What if Christians are invited to learn about Hinduism?

[Gengis Khan]

proselytization activity != freedom of speech

[Gengis Khan]

And exactly which part is that?

[voice of india]

I am afraid you are mistaken,infact the indian government is widely blamed for its spineless minority appeasement.The govt does all it can to support those real missionaries in their mission, let us take the example of the state of tamil nadu where the government is providing free mid day meals through the churches the move marked a milestone when seen along with the privileges enjoyed by the churches at the moment, such as grant-in aid for schools and colleges, mid-day meal scheme and minority rights.

I hate to say but many of the evangelists who come here are engaged in the " forced conversion" lobby.They work in rural areas,insult and degrade hindu gods and then offer incentives to those who would become christians.By forced conversions we indians are talking about those who come in the disguise of missionaries and hold people's faith for ransom.

I am a devout catholic and i think i know what is happening here,It is very unfortunate that few real missionaries are becoming victims of crossfire. Friend,once you live here for a while you will feel sorry for the hindus, though they are the majority no seems to care for them.I can'nt imagine the situation if india were a muslim country....

[AmishDude]

You could have just said, "The National Liberation Front of Tripura". It seems to have Baptist origins although the original missionaries seem to have been long gone and they are very cozy with Pakistan's ISI, having received passports and visas from the ISI in the late 90s.

They are terrorists and should be wiped from the face of India. It seems that Christianity is nothing more than their way of undermining the tribal structure. They're also fighting a force called the All Tripura Tigers Force.

Here is a blurb on them from the Tripura police website, no less.

[Cronos]

Oh now its the fault of Delhi that they "alienated" the NE eh? You sound so much like the Pakis talking about Kashmir.

Read a little bit -- you have/had Hindu and Buddhist groups fighitng against India -- remember the Bodos? And "alienation" in the case of Kashmir (which is so close to Delhi) is silly, but you can't deny that the NE was ignored economically by Delhi until the 90s. Now that the economy has picked up there and satellite TV is awailable and Hindi movies are available, the alienation is dying away. Face facts -- NE Indians look different from Indians from other parts of India, they could be mistaken for Orientals. Not so Kashmiris who could pass for Punjabis or other NOrth Indians.

I also pointed out the alienation felt by the Tamils in the 60s. You can't deny that. But that has been licked slowly by Tamil Nadu's growing economic and social integration with the rest of India.

You dont condemn the Christian terrorist activities backed by the Church and killings of innocent Hindus in NE and you hold Delhi responsilble for what is going there. Thats rich!

Oh, I DO condemn the terrorist activities of the guerilla groups in the NE -- whether they be Christian or Hidnu or other. But I don't consider it "Christian" terrorism because I don't see the Catholic Church issuing charities to send guns to those rebels -- do you? If those idiots are targetting people just because they are Hindus, then I condemn them.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"However, the church does send out a message of intolerance, and proselytisation much in the same manner that the mosque does.

Of course, a lot of this depends on your definition of "intolerance" and "proselytisation." Can you supply examples? Recent ones (say in the last two or three generations)?

[Cronos]

If you had a good friend, and you thought that giving him a better understanding of the laws of karma would improve his position on the next cycle of rebirth, would you seek to improve his understanding of karma, or would you keep your mouth shut and allow him to proceed on a path that you think will lead him in a bad direction? To a Christian, it's not a question of tolerance/intolerance. The Christian sincerely believes that a friend improves his prospects in life and after life, by becoming Christian

Good analogy -- and note Gengis, the Christian will also beleive that his friend has the freedom of Choice -- divinely given -- to choose or not to....

[Gengis Khan]

"If tomorrow there is a large mass for Christmas and Hindus go for that (and many already DO), is that organised proselytisation?? What if hindus are invited to learn about Christianity? What if Christians are invited to learn about Hinduism?"

I dont exactly know how the law would deal with it but IMO none of that would be aviolation of the law ........as long as they dont convert. And if at all anybody does convert the judiciary would verify the individual cases if indeed they are voluntary and not done under fraud, coercion or enticement.

[Cronos]

The part of India that is a success is the part that has followed Western ideals.

Crap, India was a succesful civilisation before Europeans could read and write. Many "western" ideals like democracy, secularism, freedom of speech were present in ancient India (i.e. before the Muslims conquered india), but went into slumber from the time india was conquered by Muslims.

[AmishDude]

I want to correct you. In much of India, particularly in urban areas, there isn't a legal problem with conversion. In "the huge nation that is India" there are only some states that want to ban conversion.

[Mrs. Don-o]

“What the Constitution grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets,”

This is exactly what's unclear. How can it be legal to "transmit and spread" one's religion, but not to accept converts?

Do we have a translation problem here?

[Gengis Khan]

Wrong analogy.

Exchanges on exposition of one anothers faith is perfectly all right and the anti-conversion laws do not seek to prevent that.

Proselytization however (as it takes place in practice) is far from just harmless exchanges of ideas.

[Cronos]

I dont exactly know how the law would deal with it but IMO none of that would be aviolation of the law ........as long as they dont convert.

Aha -- that's the clincher -- suppose a Christian goes for this mass meeting to learn about Hinduism and then he/she decides that they must convert to hinduism. Should the organisers of the "get-to know Hinduism" meeting be thrown in jail?

you see how fine the line is? There are black and white cases that shoudl be condemned like holding a sword to force you to convert or witholding food until you convert. But there are many, mannyyyyyy gray areas that the law will cause problems

[Unam Sanctam]

And each of those states that have enacted such laws contain how many millions in population?

[Cronos]

And if at all anybody does convert the judiciary would verify the individual cases if indeed they are voluntary and not done under fraud, coercion or enticement.

Now you know how long Indian courts take to deliver a verdict, do you really think this would be easy to debate?

[Diddle E. Squat]

How incredibly disappointing to see some Indians acting like the pre-civil war American south. Without freedom of religion there can be no real freedom, because by legislating against an individual's choice on what religion they choose to switch to and follow, you are legislating against thought and free will.

So will India be free or not? All equal, or a majority that suppresses and abuses a perpetual underclass? And spare me the straw man arguments about forced conversions. The few cases that happen are reprehensible and could easily be legislated against without the blunt overkill of laws banning voluntary conversions, which are simply banning rationale, persuasion, and thought. Reminds me of how southern US klansmen would find a case where a black committed a crime and then argue how all blacks are dangerous rapists and savages. A thin fig leaf excuse for blatent bigotry and suppression.

A shame, I had hopes that India would quickly emerge as a free, world power. But without true freedom, they will remain a 3rd-world country. Like China more powerful, but not a true democracy. We in the US had our shame, slavery and racism, but we confronted and overcame that, and long ago nullified legislation that still encouraged such. It is time for India to also grow up.

Yes, you can claim it is only India's business. But until you enact true freedom, you won't be a free country or a true democracy.

[Cronos]

Proselytization however (as it takes place in practice) is far from just harmless exchanges of ideas.

Not really -- there are few really black-and-white cases that you could point out. The overall effect of the law would be that things taht are strictly legal, like a meeting on "get to know Hinduism" would be banned under this law.

[Cronos]

But until you enact true freedom, you won't be a free country or a true democracy.

India HAS religious freedom -- and it had it right fromthe time of Independence. However, some states want to control this -- ti's not a central governmetn decision. India already has true freedom of speech and is a free country AND a true democracy.