In an indication of the shallowness of socio-political discourse on key sensitive issues in India, political adversaries are presenting the controversy over religious conversions in a manner which suggests that this is the first time the issue has erupted. The din generated by the conversion — and its reversal — of a group of Bengali Muslims in Agra has contributed liberally to the confusion already prevalent on the subject. The way in which both the Opposition and treasury benches have framed the debate and placed their demands underscores that religion continues to be a favourite tool for political parties to carve out support base. It would be pertinent to recall at the outset what Mahatma Gandhi once said about religion: that it is a “complex problem, as complex as life itself. It is remarkable how much humbug can pass under its hallowed name.”
The logjam was as follows: seeing the success of the Agra incident in bringing the issue of conversions to the fore, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh affiliated organisation that spearheaded the programme and several hardnosed members of the Bharatiya Janata Party announced similar programmes in other sensitive cities in Uttar Pradesh. When the resulting storm threatened to derail the Winter Session of Parliament, the ruling party got its affiliate to beat a hasty retreat. But this did not satisfy the Opposition. It kept up its demand that Prime Minister Narendra Modi make a statement on the matter.
Meanwhile, in the course of a discussion in Lok Sabha, parliamentary affairs minister Venkaiah Naidu significantly called for a nationwide anti-conversion law. Instead of arguing that such a demand from the BJP is not new — it was suggested by Atal Behari Vajpayee as Prime Minister in January 1999 — and that such a discussion cannot be conducted under provocative circumstances, the Opposition parties acted as if they were opposed to a debate on the issue. This willy-nilly gives the indication that both Opposition and religious minorities are shying away from debating conversion, thereby suggesting that they have something to hide.
To evolve a logical and rational narrative of the controversy, a beginning has to be made with media reports on the Islam to Hinduism conversion in Agra. This was not the first instance of such conversion. From the last decades of the 19th century, the Arya Samaj has been carrying out rituals of shuddhi. This campaign coincided with the emergence of a centralised colonial administration and greatly contributed to vitiating the social situation.
The British decision to enumerate people on religious lines from the first Indian census of 1872 and viewing religious identities as conflicting resulted in fundamentalist forces in the three main religious groups — Hindus, Muslims and Christians — being more conscious of numbers. This resulted in clear demarcation of “them” and “us” in the early decades of the 20th century and concerted conversion programmes by all communities. The danger from these programmes worried Gandhi and he remarked in January 1927 that he was “against conversion, whether it is known as shuddhi by Hindus, tabligh by Mussalmans or proselytising by Christians”. Being a devout Hindu, he was more concerned about damage to his religion’s image by the shuddhi programme. As a result, Gandhi added that through this programme “we only encourage corruption and obstruct worldwide reformation among the Hindus.”
Despite such calls for an end to conversions, the practice continued and, after Independence, the Madhya Pradesh government constituted a committee headed by Bhawani Shankar Niyogi, a retired chief justice. The committee, which included a Christian representative, was formed after the Jan Sangh launched its first mass movement, an “anti-foreign missionaries week”. It submitted a voluminous report in April 1956, which among other observations, stated that churches with their money from Western countries carried out large-scale proselytisation among backward tribes and low castes. The report added that missionaries used their schools, hospitals and orphanages for such evangelical activity.
The report buttressed the claims of the RSS and recommended banning religious conversions. But the Congress did not introduce such legislation as it would have violated the principle of religious liberty that was enshrined in the Constitution. Despite this, several state governments have in the past decades enacted laws to prevent coercion or inducement to convert people. Not much is known about utility of these laws. Among these states is Gujarat. Its Freedom of Religion Act contentiously makes it difficult for anyone to convert because prior permission is required from district authorities. The law is now under legal scrutiny with pleas being heard about its constitutional tenability.
Custodians of Hinduism, leaders of the churches and Islamic institutions need to address the issue from a non-political perspective and evaluate why people get repelled from their faith and seek options elsewhere. Historically it has been established that those who lived on the margins of Hindu society were the first to convert to other religions. Christianity made its advent largely on the back of a colonial order which mixed religion and Western education as vehicles for enlightenment.
Contemporary conflicts have to be viewed in the historical context. The basic thrust of the shuddhi movement and the current “ghar vapsi” programme is to undo the past. This was also the theme of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. In the course of the social settlement in the post-demolition period, the status of all religious places, except the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi complex, was frozen as they were before Independence. Such a cut-off date cannot, however, be applied to the issue of conversion. The conflict can possibly be resolved if religious leaders take control of the “territory” that is essentially theirs but has been usurped by political parties.
The BJP’s gambit of seeking a debate on religious conversions must be accepted and it needs to be demonstrated that offering inducements is a standard practice from all sides. Legislative steps, if any, should be aimed at eliminating this and individuals and institutions that violate law by using coercion or inducement must be penalised.
The writer is the author of Narendra Modi:
The Man, the Times
