The Question of Conversion in India

8/3/2019 The Question of Conversion in India

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-question-of-conversion-in-india 1/9

The Question of Conversion in IndiaAuthor(s): Sarah Claerhout and Jakob De RooverSource: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 28 (Jul. 9-15, 2005), pp. 3048-3055Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4416875 .

Accessed: 27/08/2011 11:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4416875?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4416875?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw



T h e Question o f Conversionn I n d i a

The Indian debate on religious conversion has been an ongoing one for a few centuries now.

However, the mutual understandingbetween the advocates and the adversaries of conversion

has not advanced much. This paper suggests that this is due to the fact that Hindus and

Christians refer to two different objects when they discuss 'religion'. The traits which the

Christians ascribe to religion account for the premium they put on the right to convert, whilethe traits of the Hindu view of religion explain the opposition to conversion. As the two parties

attribute mutually exclusive properties to religion, they encounter difficulties while seeking to

make sense of each other's claims about religion and conversion.

SARAHLAERHOUT,AKOBEROOVER

* R eligiousconversionhas becomethesubjectof passionatedebatencontemporaryndia.From heearly20thcenturynwards, t has surfacedagainandagain n thepolitical

realm,nthe mediaand n thecourts.During he last ew decadesthe disputehas attaineda new climaxin the plethoraof news-

papers, ournals,and books whose pageshave been devoted othequestionof conversion.Apparently, largegroupof Indiansconsiders his to be an issue of crucial mport o the futureoftheircountry.

Thepositions n thedisputeare clear. Ontheone hand, herearethosewhoplead or a banon conversion,because tdisturbsthe social peacein pluralIndia.This groupconsistsmainlyofHindus.The aversion owards he proselytisingdriveof Chris-

tianityandIslam s widespread mongvariousHindugroupsfrom heradical pokesmen f theSanghparivaro themoderateGandhians.On the otherhand,thereare those who arguethatconversionis a fundamentalhumanright, which should be

protectednanydemocracy.Generally,heproponentsf theright

toconversion reChristians ndsecularists.nspiteof theclarityof these wopositions,whichhaveremained nchangedhrough-out the previous century,the debate has not seen significantprogress.Thediscussions restillgovernedbyfeelingsof mutual

incomprehension,nease,and resentment.The participantsnthe debateseem to agreeon one thing only: the gap betweenthe differentviews on conversion s unbridgeable.

There s much to be said in favourof this conclusion,sinceall attemptso settlethe conflicthave failed.The IndianCon-stitutionaddressed he issue of conversionmore thanhalf a

century go.In Article25, it is stated hat"allpersonsareequallyentitled o freedomof conscienceandtheright reelyto profess,practiseandpropagate eligion".Soon, it would turnout that

this piece of legislationwas not able to resolvethe problemsaround onversionnIndianociety.In1954, heMadhyaPradeshstate government aunched an inquiryinto the proselytisingactivitiesof foreignmissionaries,whichresulted n a reporthatrecommendedegal restrictions n conversion.In the next de-

cade, the Orissagovernment ndorseda Freedomof ReligionAct thatputsuch recommendationsnto practice.Otherstateswould ollow.Recently, heTamilNaduProhibitionf ForcibleConversion f ReligionOrdinance ddedmoreconfusion.The

ensuingpolemicsdemonstratedhatthequestionof conversionis still as contentiousas it was before.

The situations growingworsetoday.Theencounters etweentheHindu raditions nd heproselytising eligionsofChristianity

and Islam are moreexplosivethanever.Little s needed,these

days,for hostilefeelings to flareup. In recentyears,a similar

enmity towards the proselytisingactivitiesof Christianshassurfacedn Sri Lanka.Conversion eemsto playa crucialrolein these conflicts.Thus,thereis an urgentneedto understand

whysomanysouthAsiansaredisturbed ytheissueof religiousconversion.Whyhas this issue become a bone of contention?As yet, our researchdoes not allow for conclusiveanswers.

However,giventhe currentweightof the issue, we wouldliketo submit some provisionalresultsfor consideration.

Religion ndConversion

The currentxplanationsuggest hat hecauseforthe conflictis not to be located n theissue of conversiontself,but n somehiddenagenda f thedominantHindu ommunity. omesaythat

highcaste Hindus eartheywill lose theirgripon Indian ociety

if moreandmoremembers f the owercastesareconverted wayfromHinduism e g, Vyas2002]. Others uggestthat heattackon Christian onversion s merelya convenientpretextof the

Sanghparivaro supportts agendaof Hindunationalisme g,Sarkar 999;Menon2004].Theseexplanationsrenotsupportedbyananalysisof thedebate n conversion.Theyseem o considertheviewpointsn thisdebateasside ssues n thestrugglebetweenthe aggressiveHindutvamovementon the one hand and the

religiousminorities, he downtroddenastes,andtheir secular

protectors n theother.At theveryleast,a genuineexplanationof the clash overconversion n contemporaryndiashouldgiveus insight nto the viewpointsof the differentparties. t shouldtell uswhyso many ndianshave nvested o much ime,energy,

andemotionin discussingthis particularssue.As SebastianKim's recentoverview (2003) illustrates, hedebatesof the last70 yearsorso haverevolvedaround he sameconcerns.One of the early20thcenturydebateson conversiontookplacewhen MahatmaGandhiwas interviewedn 1931byTheHinduabout herole of foreignmissionariesn independentIndiaof the future.He said he would ask them to withdraw f

they engaged in proseiytisingby means of medicalaid andeducation.His argumentswereclear:"Everynation'sreligionis as goodas anyother.Certainly ndia'sreligionsareadequatefor herpeople.We need no converting piritually"CollectedWorks,Vol XLV:320). A!tr.oughGandhi aterpointedoutthaL:hereporter adtwistedIh'swords,the modificationshe mare.

3048 Econor.mi and Politicai Weekly July 9, 2005



did not changethe picturemuch. His truestandpoint, e said,was thefollowing:"Everynationconsiders ts own faith to beas good as thatof anyother.Certainly he greatfaiths heldbythepeopleof Indiaareadequateor herpeople.Indiastands nno needof conversions romonefaith o another"Young ndia,

April 23, 1931). An Americanmissionary,E StanleyJones,

replied n anopenletter o Gandhi.He asserted hat althoughhe agreedthat hospitalsand schools should not be used to

proselytise it is "a undamentaluman ightandafundamental

humanduty" o sharewhat one finds precious n the spiritualrealm.OpposingGandhi'sclaimthateverynation'sreligion sasgoodas anyother,he said thatreligious ruth like scientifictruth is by its verynatureuniversal.JonesreproachedGandhifordenyingChristians heright o share he truthof Christwithothers[Kim2003:28].

Intheconstituentssemblydebates CAD),similarviews were

expressedduring hequarrel egardinghe questionwhetherornot Article25 of the Constitution houldgrantIndiancitizenstheright"topropagateheirreligion".The Christian articipantshad very strong feelings about this matter.They repeatedlyasserted hat"millions fChristians"eltpassionately bout"this

right o propagateheirreligion"andthat t is perhaps"themost

fundamentalf Christianights"FRAnthonyn theConstituentAssemblyDebates III:489-90]. The Hindusinvolved in this

quarrel, n the contrary,did not at all agreethatbelonging oa religionentailed a rightto convert others.PurushottamdasTandon ut tthisway:"WeCongressmen eem tvery mproperto convert rom one to anotherreligionor to takepart n suchactivitiesand we are not in favourof this"and "it is absolutelyfutileto be keen on convertingothers o one's faith" CADIII:

492]. Nevertheless,heyagreed o retain he formulaabout he

propagation f religion,becausethey desired to stay on goodterms with the Christianminorities n India.Tandonagain:"Generally,we, Congressmen, o not think t atall right I sayso frankly thatpeopleshouldstrenuously o about ryingto

convertpeoplesof otherfaiths into theirown, butwe want tocarry our Christian friends with us [...]" [CAD III: 493].

The debatesof the last few decades have been variations nthe same theme. On the one hand, there are Christiansandsecularistswho insist thatconversion s a fundamental ight,which s partof theuniversal reedomof conscience:"Therightof an ndividualoconvert oanother eligionmustbeconsidereda universalhumanrightandshouldbe vigorouslydefendedbyChristians ndotherreligiousleaders.No state,church,or in-stitution houldstand n the way of an individual'spursuitof

religious ruth"Christianity oday1999:28].On theotherhand,we haveHinduswho say thatconversion s an act of violence,whichviolatesreligioustraditionsanddisrupts amilies,com-

munities, ndsociety ngeneral:"Religious onversiondestroyscenturies-oldommunities ndincitescommunalviolence.It isviolence,and t breedsviolence" SwamiDayananda araswati1999).While tisobvious ooneparty hatbelonging o areligionimpliestheneedand theright o convertothers o thatreligion,the otherparty howsnothingbut ncomprehensionowardshis

professed ink betweenreligionand conversion.Thesedifferent tancesbringaboutconfusion.Consider he

followinginterpretationf theconstitutional ightto propagatereligion.na 1977SupremeCourtjudgment,hiefjusticeA N RaysaidArticle25 does notgrant heright oconvertanother ersontoone' ownreligion.n act,hecontinued,theres no undamentalrightto convertanotherpersonto one's own religionbecause

if apersonpurposely undertakesthe conversion of anotherpersonto his religion ... that would impinge on the 'freedom of con-

science' guaranteedto all the citizens of the country alike" [citedin Kim 2003: 79]. From the very beginning, the Christians had

argued that freedom of conscience also implied the freedom to

convert: "Freedom to believe without freedom to spread that

belief is nothing but bondage" [Christianity Today 1999:28].Justice Ray, however, thought differently. Religious conversion,to him, is a violation of the freedom of conscience of the Indian

citizens. Thus, to one group, freedom of religion means to be

free to convert; to the other, it means to be free from conversion.

What is happening in the Indian debate on conversion? The

two partiesdo not seem able to make sense of each other's claims

about religion and conversion. The Christians consider it self-

evident that conversion lies at the heart of what religion is all

about, while the Hindus cannot see how this could possibly be

the case. In the words of a participant in an internet discussion

on the topic: "Indeedthis whole notion of conversion seems all

wrong to me. What are they converting? Why can't anyone who

wants to practise Christian religion do so without converting?I may be asking stupid questions here, but at this moment, the

whole premise of conversion strikes me as odd." In this article,

we take the first steps towards an explanation of the difficultiesthe two parties have in making sense of each other's claims. Our

tentative hypothesis is that Hindus and Christians are not talkingabout the same object when they discuss 'religion' and its relation

to conversion. Religion according to the Hindus is something

completely different from what the Christians refer to as religion.On theone hand,we will look athow Christianshave attributed

certain traits to religion throughoutthe history of their encounter

with the Hindu traditions. These traits explain why, accordingto the Christian view, belonging to a religion entails the dutyand the right to convert others to thatreligion. On the other hand,we show that Hindus have attributeda different set of propertiesto religion in their encounter with the Christians. From this

perspective, the incomprehension they express towards the

professed link between religion and conversion becomes under-

standable. Finally, we come to the suggestion that Hindus and

Christians do not have the same object in mind when talkingabout religion. If this turns out to be true, the currentdebate on

conversion is predestined to remain the dead end it is today.

II

TriumphftheCrossoverIdolatry

Fromtheearliest encounters, missionary zeal characterised the

way the European Christians approached Hindu traditions. The

Portuguese Catholics who conquered the isle of Goa were thefirst to put the typical Christianstance towards the traditions ofthe Indian subcontinent into practice. In 1545, King John III of

Portugal gave a series of detailed instructions to the governorof Goa about dealing with Indian heathens:

In this brief the king ordersthat neitherpublic norprivate'idols'be toleratedon the islandof Goa and thatsevere punishmentmustbe meted out to those who persist in keeping them. The housesof people suspected of keeping hidden idols are to be searched.Heathenfestivals are not to be toleratedandevery brahman s tobe banishedfrom Goa, Bassein andDiu. Public offices areto beentrusted o neophytes and not to heathens;Christiansare to befreed from heavy labour at the port of Goa, such tasks in the

Economic and Political Weekly July 9, 2005 3049



future being reserved exclusively for heathens. Portuguese,under pain of severe punishment,are forbidden to sell heathenslaves to Muslims. since heathens are converted more easily to

Christianityunder the Portuguese and to Islam under Muslim

ownership.Revenues previouslyused for the supportof mosquesandtemples should be diverted to aid in spreading the gospel[Lach 1965:239-40].

In the Portuguese view, the future of the indigenous traditions

was clear: these had to be eradicated. The 'idols' could not be

tolerated and neither could the heathen festivals. Measures hadto be taken to spread the gospel and to promote the conversion

of heathens to Christianity. The Christianreligion was somethingto be spread, if not peacefully, then through force. Apparently,there was something deeply wrong with the native traditions,and

the only way to right this wrong was to guide the natives into

the Christian faith.

What exactly was wrong? To answer this question, let us turn

from theCatholic Portuguese to a GermanProtestant who landed

in India a few centuries later. In the early 18th century. the

Lutheran missionary Bartholomeus Ziegenbalg composed a

pamphlet entitled Abominable Heathenism, which contains a

clear formulation of the reasons behind conversion. Originally

written inTamil, this pamphlet was spreadinTamil Nadu in orderto convince the local Hindus that their lives were rooted in error.

Using the word a-jnana to convey the idea of sin or error,

Ziegenbalg told these Hindus the following: "We have come to

you to save you from a-jnana. ... Make a study of the Christian

precepts and accept them in faith, and so become the people of

God" [cited in Grafe 1972: 59]. In the eight chapters of the

pamphlet, Ziegenbalg told the heathens how the gospel would

save them from their ignorance:

(i) What is a-jnana? - It is idol-worship and moral perversionaccording o Rom 1:21-32. (ii) How a-jnanaspread n thisworld.- It did so because of the devil's deceit and men's guilt and notbecauseof God. (iii) There is mucha-jnana in the wholeof Tamil

Nadu. (iv) How detestablea-jnana is - Because by a-jnana soulandbody will be pervertedandpunished.(v) How Godis helpingthose in a-jnana to be saved. - Jesus Christ took upon himselfthe burdenof a-jnana anddelivers froma-jnana saving soul and

body. (vi) Whatthe things are which thosewho wish to be savedfroma-jnana have to do - Answer:Scripturereading,realisationand confession of sin, faith in Jesus Christ,asking for baptismwith renunciationof a-jnana and acceptance of the triuneGod,livingin thecommunionof the Wordof Godand heLord'sSupper,living a life of witness andsufferingand a life of love and ustice.(vii) The trials andtribulationswhich those who give up a-jnanaand enter the church experience in the world for the sake of

righteousness. viii) The benefits promisedto those who give upa-jnana, accept the truereligion and standin the Christian aithunshaken[cited in Grafe 1972: 59].

This summary discloses what type of a phenomenon religionis to a Christian like Ziegenbalg. On the one hand, the false

religion of the heathens consists of sin and error. It perverts souland body. It is the religion of the followers of the devil. Theheathens should be saved from this false religion. On the other

hand,thereis thetruereligion of the people of God. This Christianfaith is a divine gift to humankind. It is the only way to salvationof body and soul. To escape from false religion, the heathenshave to turnto God: they have to read the scripture, accept thetriune God, confess their sins, have faith in Jesus Christ, etc.In short, they have to give up false religion, "accept the true

religion and stand in the Christian faith unshaken".

Naturally, not all Europeans travelling to India in this

period shared the missionaries' fanaticism to do away with

the heathen idolatry. Some of the East IndiaCompany officials,for instance, gave more sympathetic accounts of 'the Hindoo

religion'. Among the latter was Alexander Dow, who wrote a

dissertation on 'the Hindoos' in his History of Hindustan (1768).What struck him about these Hindus was that they did not tryto convert:

Contrary o the practice of all other religious sects, they admitof no converts;but they allow thatevery one may go to heavenhis own way, though they perhaps suppose, that theirs is themost expeditiousmethod o obtain hat mportant nd.Theychuse

(sic) ratherto make a mysteryof their religion, than impose it

upon the world, like the Mahommedans,with the sword, or bymeans of the stake, after the manner of some pious Christians

[Dow 1768:110].

As he repeats a few pages further, the Hindus never tried to

convince others that theirs was the one true way to heaven:

It s, aswe havealreadyobserved,aprinciplepeculiar o the Hindoo

religion,not to admitof proselytes.But insteadof being solicitousaboutgainingconverts,they alwaysmakea mysteryof theirfaith.

Heaven, say they, is like a palacewithmanydoors,andeveryonemay enter in his own way [ibid:115].

Many would laterjoin Dow inpointing out thepeculiar absence

of anurgeto convert in the Hindu religion. This absence becomes

peculiar only if one expects each and every religion to convert.

How does one come to such a belief? On the one hand, Dow

could have reached this point through induction. All religioussects he hadencountered so fardid convert, andthus he expectedthesame to be true of the Hindus.Considering the limited number

of religions he could possibly have known in the 18th century,this makes a rather weak case. On the other hand, Dow could

simply have assumed that all religions do proselytise. That is,he may have held an image of religion which told him that there

is continuous competition among religions with respect to gain-ing converts. Dow may not have been a fanatic or a missionary,but of course he was a Christian. He shared this image with his

fellow Christians. Itderived from the belief thatreligion revolvesaround the struggle between God and the devil for the souls ofmen and women. Satan seduces humanity with subtle lies; Godsaves with the gift of truth.Given this background, the surprisemust have been great indeed when one came about a religionthat did not in the least bother about gaining converts.

To the more zealous Christians, the Indian subcontinent

literally appearedas a battleground of the clash between God'struthandSatan's fraud. Inthe early 19thcentury, theevangelisticmissionaries of the London Missionary Society already knew

what to expect when they set foot on Indian soil. One of them,George Gogerly, tells us "an unusual feeling of solemnity"

gradually crept over his mind as he caught his first sight ofIndia:

Before me was the landof idolatry,concerningwhichI hadheardandread so much;and I was now to come into contactwith that

mighty system of superstition and cruelty which was holdingmillions enslaved in its bonds;to see its hatefulrites, andby theexhibitionof the Truth. o contendwith its dreadfulpower[citedin Kitzan 1970:29-30].

The missionaries hadtheirexpectations confirmedeverywherein the traditionalpractices and stories of the Indians. When theywere confronted by "the vaunted holy books of the Hindus," the

3050 Economic and Political Weekly July 9, 2005



strongest terms of denunciation could not do. In the words of

William Campbell:

Inwhat erms hallI describe heHindumythology?Therewasnever,inanyage, norin anycountry,a superstition o cruel,so atrociousand so diabolical as that which has reigned over this people. Itis a personification of evil. Satan seems to have used all his

ingenuity, his malice and his gigantic power to create a systemwhich wouldrepresent ll his own attributesupontheearth,renderitsvotariesas much ike hisangelsaspossible,andmakeHindosthan

an image of the infernalregions [cited in Kitzan 1970:31].When this is how one views the practices and the stories of

the Hindus, the desire to convert must be strong indeed: the

Hindus have to be liberated from the mighty system of super-stition thatholds them enslaved in its bonds. What should come

in its stead? Why, the Truth,of course! That is, the truemessageof the atoning death of Jesus Christ has to replace the false Hindu

mythology.Theworshipof thetrueGod mustreplacethehonouringof the false gods. For instance, when Christian Wolff arrived

at Goa on October 31, 1833 and saw the cross of Christ plantedand heard the church bells ringing, he could not help but exclaim:

"Behold! the triumphof the cross over idolatry" [excerpted in

Kaul 1998:56].

This was notjust the victory cry of an aggressive religion outto rule the world. Instead, these Christians were honestly and

deeply concerned about the souls of the Indian subjects of the

Empire. In his Letters on India: With Special Reference to the

Spread of Christianity (1840), for instance. Reverend William

Buyers writes the following:

The fact thatnearlyone hundredmillions of ourfellow-subjectsare living anddying in a state of awful estrangement romGod,and without the means of having that estrangementremoved -

the victims of error,superstition,pollution and horridcruelty -

while we possess every facility of access to them, involves a

responsibility hemost tremendous hatcanpossibly beconceived

[Buyers 1840:viii].

Another missionary, William Carey, also reminds the Chris-tians of their obligations in his An inquiry into the Obligations

of the Christians, to Use the Means for the Conversion of the

Heathens. He asks rhetorically:

Afterall, theuncivilised state of the heathen, nstead of affordinganobjectionagainstpreaching hegospel to them,oughtto furnishan argumentfor it. Can we as men, or as Christians,hear thata great partof our fellow creatures,whose souls are as immortalasours.andwhoareascapableasourselves,of adorning hegospel,contributingby theirpreaching,writings,or practicesto thegloryof ourRedeemer'sname,andthegoodof thischurch,are nveloped(sic) inignoranceandbarbarism?Can we hear hat heyarewithoutthe gospel, withoutgovernment,withoutlaws, and without arts,andsciences; and not exert ourselves to introduce

amongstthem

the sentiments of men. and of christians? [Carey 1792:69-70]

Why were the Reverend Buyers, the Reverend Carey, andtheir

Christian audience burdened by the responsibility to bring their

fellow-human beings back to God? In Christ, they believed. God

had disclosed His will to humanity. It is only through belief in- and submission to - His revealed will that human beings can

be saved from the devil and eternal damnation. Thus, it becomes

tlw duty of the Christians to try and convert others. It would be

sheer cruelty and a violation of God's will not to do so.

This backgroundallows us to make sense of the claims of both

Indian and European Christians that conversion is a right and

a duty of the religious. They simply have to share the universal

truth of Christ with the rest of the humankind. They should at

least attempt to convince the heathens that the latter's corruptbeliefs ought to be replaced with pure Christian doctrine. This

explains why E Stanley Jones reacted so strongly to Gandhi's

claim that every nation's religion is as good as any other. And

it also accounts for the position of the Indian Christians in the

constituentassembly debates. Listento how two Christianauthors,J F Butler and S Samuel, summed up the issue in a pamphletentitled The Right of Conversion, issued shortly before the

inauguration of the constituent assembly:

Truth s universal true,and thereforegood, for all: hence, whenit fully grips a man, it (or what is sincerely takento be it) gripshim not only as a thing to hold, but as a thing to spread. And

(subjectto the usual provisioes (sic) aboutanti-socialconduct)amanhasaright ogivedueexpression o so fundamental convictionas this. This right is a universal one (cited in Kim 2003:40).

As the truereligion conveys the will of God for the humankind,its truth should be spread among all the nations. Although God

and Satan are not always explicitly present in the contemporary

pleas for the right to convert, the notion of turning from false

to truereligion presupposes the opposition between the true God

and the false god. This remains the implicit background that

propels demands for the right to convert.1From the 16th to the 21st century, the Christians have viewed

their encounter with the Hindu traditions as a battle between

Christianity and idolatry. This theological framework attributes

certain characteristic properties to religion: it is conceived of as

a struggle between the true and the false. The struggle has

differentaspects to it. Firstly, it involves rivalrybetween religionswith regardto the truthof doctrines. Insofar as different religionsare either true or false, they revolve around a set of doctrines

or beliefs. Therefore, the Christians oppose the Hindu traditions

to the Christian religion in terms of the beliefs these 'rival

religions' proclaim. The main issue of religion is to make a choice

between these different sets of beliefs - themessage of theatoning

death of Jesus Christ and the related precepts on the one handor the errors of false religion on the other. Secondly, the com-

petition between religions revolves around the gaining of con-

verts. The true religion strives to save the souls of men and

women, while false religion keeps them in the command of the

devil. This can also be put in terms of their respective ends. The

true religion is the only path to salvation. Hell is the fatal

destination of all other religions. Thirdly, the rivalry does not

only concern the life to come, but is also expressed in the conduct

of the followers of the different religions here on earth. As false

religion, Hinduism embodies immorality.2 And the truereligionof Christianity exemplifies morality. Conversion, then, cannot

butbe a fundamentalright, since it allows individuals to be guided

from falsity to truth and from depravity to the good.

IllCountlessRiversFlowing eaward

The attacks of the Christian missionaries on the native tradi-

tions provoked reaction among the Indians. Surprisingly, this did

not take the form of a plea for the truth of the Hindu religion.Nor did the response consist of a counter-attack on the Christian

teachings. We can move back to the 18thcentury to get a flavour

of Hindu resistance to the missionary zeal. In 1719, Ziegenbalgpublished reportsof some conferences in which he haddiscussed

the truth of the Christian religion with the 'Malabarian' natives.




The first conference gives an account of Ziegenbalg's attemptto convince one of the local brahminsof the falsity of his religion.When the missionary urged him and his fellow Hindus to "break

off the Cords of inveterate Errors, and save your own Souls,

seeking diligently the knowledge of the One only True God,"

the brahmingave thefollowing retort;"OurReligion is Venerable

for its Antiquity, and has been professed by many pious Kingsand holy prophets. thro' an Uninterrupted Succession of many

incircling Ages..."

[Ziegenbalg 1719:4-5].His

religioncould

not be an imposture, the brahmin continued, since so many

generations had continued its practice. In Ziegenbalg's opinionthis was a ridiculous argument:

Uninterrupted uccession, andgreatthrongsof proselytes are no

characteristicks f the truthof any religion;else it would follow,that he devil is veryorthodox:For he is asfamous forthemultitude

of his disciples, as he is for his hoary venerable antiquity.But

you mustjudge of the goodness or badness of religion, by the

FundamentalArticles thereof, agreeing or disagreeing with the

revealed word of the true God; but you Malabarianshaving no

Knowledgeof God's Word,can take no Cognisance of what is

true Worship, believing with an implicit Faith, the Fables and

ReveriesofTradition-mongers, ourPoetsandDoctors ... [ibid:5].

The brahmin's conclusion that his religion must be 'true',because it had existed for so many ages, was "altogether llogicaland an unjust Way of arguing,"according to Ziegenbalg [ibid:6].

Nevertheless, the Hindus consistently defended their tradition

in termsof its antiquity, ratherthan in terms of truth. In another

conference, while Ziegenbalg was heaping ridicule on the Hindu

deities. "a Venerable Old Man" stood up and said: "... that we

have no True, but false Gods in our Country, this you are still

to demonstrate: For tho' the Christians call us Heathens, we are

not so in Reality; but we are a very Ancient Nation, whose

Religion is as Old as the World itself..." [ibid:103].

To a Christian missionary. these claims to antiquity provided

no proof for the value of a religion. The European heathenshad also worshipped the devil for thousands of years before

they were enlightened by Christianity. Besides, Ziegenbalgasserted, God had from the beginning of time given to human

kind the promise of sending his son as the redeemer: "And thus

you see, that the ChristianReligion has been professed from the

Beginning of the World. and is certainly the most Ancient of

all Religions; and your Religion is nothing else but the

Corruption of ours" [Ibid: 11 . But when Ziegenbalg explainedthe promise of God's grace in Christ, his brahminopponent was

equally unimpressed:

Ibelieveallyou sayof God'sDealings withyouWhiteEuropeans,to be true;but his Appearancesand Revelationsamongus Black

Malabarians,have been quite otherwise:And the Revelationshemade of himself in this Land are as firmly believ'd here to be

true, as you believe those made in your Country:For as Christin Europe was made Man: so here our God Wischtnuwas born

amongus Malabarians;And as you hope for Salvation throughChrist;so we hope for Salvation throughWischtnu:and to save

youoneway,andusanother, s one of thePastimesandDiversions

of Almighty God [Ibid:14].

The Christian religion might be fine for the Europeans, the

brahmin suggested, but the Hindu traditions were as good for

the Indians. In other words, the Hindus simply refused to see

Christianityas a rival to their own traditions. No matterhow much

the missionaries stressed the falsity of the Hindu religion, their

subjects of conversion maintainedthat "every one may be saved

by his own religion, if he does what is Good, and shuns Evil"

[Ibid: 15]. And when Ziegenbalg triedto show how wicked and

ridiculous theirGods were, one of the"Malabarian"Hindus stood

up and told him "that it does not become an holy Man to

blaspheme our Gods: for true Piety despises no Man uponAccount of Religion; and 'tis therefore we Malabariansdo neither

condemn nor despise the Christians upon the Account of their

Religion" [ibid:107].Over the nextfew centuries, the Christiancolonials would make

more attempts to convince the Indians that Jesus Christ was the

only way to salvation. In 1839, the East India Company servant

and OrientalistJohn Muirpublished the Matapariksa, a Sanskrit

tract that - as always - was to prove that Christianity was true

religion while Hinduism was false. When three Hindu scholars

wroterejoindersto this tract,they opposed the idea that one single

religion was to be followed by all human beings. One of them,Nilakantha Goreh, pointed out the many different ways of

attaining 'moksha':

If someone located in Gaya wants to go to Kasi, he asks peoplethereandtheytell him, 'You mustgo west,' whereasan inhabitant

of Prayaga,wantingto go to Kasi, asks peoplethere and is

told,to the contrary, Go east'. Going botheast andwest, which is byall means contradictory,yields one result on account of beinglocated in different places. By the same token, one way (to

salvation) would not be rewarding o (all) men, whose aptitudesaredifferent,on accountof theunarguablematuration f theirgoodand bad deeds. Reflecting in these terms,Bhagavan,anocean of

compassion, made various kinds of margas by which everyone

may attainsalvation. For instance, among all the scriptures, he

Sankhya,Vaisesika and others, likewise the devotionalmargasof Vaishnavas,etc, in which theirfaultsarecompletelydoneawaywithby meansof muchexaminationandmeditation, ome peopleesteem the Vaisesika, some the Sankhya or others, some the

Vaisnava marga, and others the Saiva, etc. This indicates that

peoplehavedifferentaptitudes .. Yetonly oneamongthemargasyields a directresult, t aloneis followed by peoplewhoseaptitudeis pure [excerptedin Young 1981:123].

As there are various kinds of people with different capacitiesand skills, so there are several paths they can take to arrive at

moksha. This is not to say that all paths are equal. As another

critic of Muir's, Somanatha, wrote:

Men who travelon otherroads are not said to be competent for

the Vedicmarga.Itis for thisreason hatHariwould be displeasedwhensomeone spurnshis own religion. ... When men who dwell

invariousquarters regoing to acertaincity, in nowaywhatsoever

would they reach it by [travelling] only on one path. Likewise,thosemen, whom the all-creatormade to possess differentquali-

fications(adhikara)and (put into) different situations,would beunable o attainGodbymeansof anysingle path.... Foreachpersonhis own religion is best; the same religion would be perilousfor

anotherperson. Now, therefore,praise be to those who worshipHari according to their religion without reviling other [paths][excerpted in Young 1981:145].

The religion one should follow depends on one's specificsituation. Therefore, persons belonging to different religionsshould neither dismiss their own religion nor that of others. In

fact, the deities would be displeased to see this happen. If this

is basic to religion, this 'religion' is different from the pheno-menon the Christians were describing. In one case, the diversityof religions is said to consist of one path through which God

3052 Economic and Political Weekly July 9, 2005



saves humanity from eternal damnation, while the other pathsarethe devil's snares. In the other case, the diversity of religions

correspondsto the innatediversity among humanbeings. Various

valid paths exist, which have been developed for - and by -

different groups of people.In the 18th and the 19th century, the Hindus had not as yet

adopted the tendency of the Christians to conceive of religionin terms of truth and falsity. This would change in the 20th

century, when Mahatma Gandhi began to expound his views on

the relation between religion and truth. In a 'discussion on

fellowship' between Gandhi and some members of the Council

of InternationalFederation, which was published in YoungIndia

in 1928, Gandhi explained his position on this issue:

I came to the conclusion long ago, after a prayerfulsearch and

study anddiscussion with as many people as I could meet, thatall religions were true and also that all had some error n them,and that whilst I hold my own, I should hold others as dear as

Hinduism,from which it logically follows that we should holdall as dear as our nearestkith and kin and that we should makenodistinctionbetween hem. So we canonlypray, f we areHindus,not hataChristianhouldbecomeaHindu,or f we areMusselmans,notthat a Hindu ora Christianshould become a Musselman,norshould we ever

secretly pray that anyone should be converted,but our inmost prayershould be that a Hindushould be a better

Hindu,a Muslima betterMuslim and a ChristianabetterChristian

[Gandhi 1986:536].

Different Paths to Realisation

All religions aretrue,Gandhi suggests, and all have some error

in them. Again. we can only note how strongly this notion differs

from that of the Christians. If no religion is false, there is simplyno point in religious conversion. There is no question of turningfrom falsity to truthby converting from one religion to the other.

So, even if Gandhi appropriates the Christian vocabulary of

'religion' and 'truth', the statement 'a religion is true' has a

completely different meaning to him. It does not mean that thisparticularreligion is the unique gift of God that leads humanityto salvation. Rather, it means that this religion is one of various

roadshumanbeings can taketo reach 'thegoal'. Inhis own words:

"Religions aredifferent roadsconverging to the same point. What

does it matter that we take different roads so long as we reach

the same goal? Wherein is the cause for quarrelling?" [Gandhi1942: 2] When all religions lead to the same goal, one should

not try to have others follow one's own path. One should rather

strive to improve one's own practice of religion and stimulate

the devotees of other religions to do the same.

Gandhi was not the only one to translate the Hindu view that

human beings could follow various paths to moksha into the

proposition that all religions are true. In the Gospel of SriRamakrishna, Ramakrishna is recorded to have made the same

point about the variety of paths: "God can be realised throughall paths. It is like your coming to Dakshineswar by carriage,byboat,by steameroron foot. You havechosen theway accordingto your convenience and taste; but the destination is the same.Some of you have arrivedearlier thanothers, but all have arrived"

(cited in Neufeldt 1987:67). And he also presented the claim thatall religions are true as the equivalent of this point: "God can

be realised throughall paths. All religions aretrue.The importantthing is to reach the roof. You can reach it by stone stairs or

wooden stairs or by bamboo steps or by a rope. You can also

climb up by a bamboo pole" (cited in Neufeldt 1987:68).

Whatdoes it meanfor these Hindusages to say that all religions

are true? When the Christians attribute truth to their religion,

they arereferring to a particularset of doctrines - including, for

instance, thathumanity is taintedby original sin and can be saved

only throughChrist's redemptive death- which is god-given truth

according to them. Other religions consist of deviant sets of

doctrines and therefore they are necessarily false. If the Hindu

thinkers were addressing the same issue of doctrinal truth, the

claim that all religions are true would render them inconsistent.

That is, if this means that all doctrines of all religions are true

- even when standing in plain contradiction - then it also implieseach and every statement about the world is true. This was not

the message the Hindu thinkers intended to convey. As yet, we

cannot argue conclusively what 'truth' did mean to them. But

it certainly does not concern the truthof doctrines or claims about

the world. In their view, this kind of truth predicate does not

apply to religion. InRadhakrishnan'swords: "TheHindu attitude

to religion is interesting. While fixed intellectual beliefs mark

off one religion from another,Hinduism sets itself no such limits.

Intellect is subordinated to intuition, dogma to experience, outer

expression to inward realisation" [Radhakrishnan 1969:131].When religion does not revolve aroundthe truthof a particular

set of beliefs, it becomes futile to compare different religionsin terms of their respective truth or falsity. Or, as Swami

Vivekananda put it, only those who do not properly understand

religion, insist that religions be compared in order to decide

which is the best. Religion, according to him, has nothingto do with the truth of certain views, but everything with "the

great universal truth".Instead of being contradictory, religionsare supplementary, said Vivekananda, "each religion, as it

were, takes up one part of the great universal truth and spendsits whole force in embodying andtypifying thatpartof the greattruth" Vivekananda 1963:365]. Different religious traditions are

not conceived of as rivals, neither when it comes to the ultimate

goal they pursue, nor where it concerns the morality of their

followers:

We do not say that ours is the only way to salvation. Perfectioncan be hadby everybody,and whatis the proof?Because we seethe holiest of man in all countries,good men and women every-where, whetherborn in our faith or not. Therefore it cannot beheld thatours is the only way to salvation. "Likeso many rivers

flowing fromdifferentmountains,all coming andminglingtheirwaters n thesea, all thedifferentreligions,taking heirbirths romdifferentstandpointsof fact, come unto Thee." This is a partofthe child's everyday prayer n India.With sucheveryday prayers,of course,such ideasasfightingbecause of differencesof religionare simply impossible [Vivekananda 1964:210].

It is not as though the Hindu spokesmen were ignorant of

Christianity's claims to universality. But even after spendingmany years on "thecomparative study of religion", the philoso-

pher SarvepalliRadhakrishnandid not consent with theChristiannotion of true and false religion. In fact, he went so far as to

say that the idea of one single religion for the humankind is

illogical:

The illogical idea of one single religion for all mankind,one setof dogmas, one cult, one system of ceremonies which all indi-viduals must accept on pain of persecution by the people and

punishmentby God, is the productof unreasonand intolerance.A religion representsthe soul of the people, its peculiar spirit,thought,andtemperament. t is not a mere theory of the super-naturalwhichwe canputon or off as we please. Itis anexpression

EconomicandPoliticalWeekly July 9, 2005 3053



of the spiritual experience of the race, a record of its social

evolution, an integralelement of the society in which it is found

[Radhakrishnan1969:81-82].

The religion of a people is a record of its social evolution and

an expression of its spiritual experience. To understand what

Radhakrishnanmeans, we can turn back to the Hindus who told

Ziegenbalg that they had venerable antiquity on theirside, since

they were "a very Ancient Nation whose Religion is as Old as

the World itself'. Religion, both to these 17th century Indiansand to a 20th century Indian philosopher, is the tradition of a

people or a community. It consists of the practices, customs, and

stories that have been passed on by the ancestors of this com-

munity from ancient times.3 Therefore, the older it is, the more

respectable. When they are accused of being followers of false

religion, the Hindus reply that their religion is tradition, so how

can it be false? As tradition, religion represents the past expe-rience of a people, and hence the idea of one single religion for

humankind becomes illogical or even inconceivable.

The foregoing permits us to sum up some of the propertieswhich Hindus attribute to the phenomenon they have called

'religion' since colonial times. On the one hand,religion consists

of avariety of paths an individual can take to attain moksha.On the other, religion is the ancestral tradition of a people, viz,

the system of practices, customs, and stories a particularcom-

munity has passed on over time. In both aspects, different re-

ligions are notrivals with respect to gaining converts norcompeti.-tors with respect to truth. Religion does not revolve around the

belief in a system of doctrines, which is either true or false.

Therefore, truthpredicates do not apply to the object thatreligionis. All religions may be true in the sense that they all lead to

the same goal of moksha, but no religion can possibly be false.

Finally, the various religions are not rivals when it comes to the

moralityof theirfollowers. All religious traditionsproduce goodmen and women.

These traits ofreligion,

as the Hindus view it, allow us to take

a first step in understanding the antagonist position in the

conversion dispute. Forinstance, inDecember 1946, aconferenceof the heads of various Hindu institutions issued a memorandumto theconstituentassembly, inwhich they concluded that"[s]ocial

peace and political stability can best be secured by allowingcultural and religious groups to live their own life, unhamperedby external interference and aggression," letting the people"continue in the faith in which they were born," free from

"proselytising interference" [cited in Kim 2003:42]. Or, as the

Constitution of the Hindu nation of Nepal puts it: "Everycitizen,

subject to the current traditions, shall practice and profess his

own religion as handed down from ancient times. Provided that

no person shall be entitled to convert another person to his

religion." When religion is the traditionof a community and one

of various valid paths, this advocacy of non-interference makes

perfect sense. The proselytising drive of the Christian religion,then,indeedbecomes "one-sided violence", as Swami DayanandaSaraswati (of the Arsha Vidya Gurukulam, Coimbatore, Tamil

Nadu) wrote in his Open Letter to His Holiness The Pope JohnPaul II. This document - composed on the occasion of thepope'svisit to India in 1999 - voices the hurtconversion causes to thosewho conceive of religion as tradition:

Any protest against religious conversion is always brandedas

persecution,because it is maintained hatpeople arenot allowedto practicetheirreligion, that theirreligious freedomis curbed.

The ruthsentirely ifferent. heother erson lsohas he reedomto practicehis or herreligionwithoutnterference. hat s his/herbirthright.eligiousreedom oes not extent sic)to havinga planned rogrammef conversion. ucha programmes to beconstrued s aggression gainsthereligiousreedom f others.

"Religious onversions violence and t breedsviolence", heSwamiconcludes.Thus,whenreligion s thetraditionhatmakesa peopleinto a people,conversionbecomes a disruptingnter-ference in the life of a community.

IVMisunderstandingeligion ndConversion

To conclude this interimresearchreport,we will formulatea hypothesis o account or the lackof mutualunderstandingnthe Indiandebateonconversion. n theforegoing, t has becomeclearthatheChristiansnd heHindus ttribute utuallyxclusive

propertieso religion.Theformerclaim thatsomereligionsare

false,thatdifferent eligionsarerivals,and hatonereligion eadsto heavenand all others o hell. The lattersay that no religionis false, thatreligionscannot be rivals,and thatall religionslead to the same goal. These are contradictory redicates hat

cannotbe ascribed o one andthe sameobject.4Therefore,wearecompelledto concludethat the Hindus andthe Christiansaretalkingabouttwo different hingswhentheydiscuss 'reli-

gion'.The mplicationsorthedispute nconversion eed urther

investigation.However,one implications clear.If it turnsoutto be truethat the advocatesand the opponentshavedifferent

objectsin mindwhendiscussing 'religion'(andits relation o

conversion), hey shouldcontinueto have greatdifficulties n

makingsense of each other'sstatementsand arguments.This raises severalproblems.How come the two parties n-

volved in the debate have not seen that the term'religion'as

they use it does not refer to the same object?This cannotbeansweredhastily.Theconversiondebatehasgoneon fora few

centuriesandtheparticipantsave beenas giftedas theycome.Thus,the lackof understandingheyshow towardseach otherbecomes all the moredifficultto explain.Likewise,why have

theycontinued oengage nthisdebatewithsuchvigour, nspiteof the mutualincomprehension?Our futureresearchon the

questionof conversion n India will focus on these and other

questions. 31

Email: [email protected]@Gent.be

Notes

[The authorswould like to thankBalu and the members of the ResearchCentreVergelijkendeCultuurwetenschapor theirconstructivecriticisms.]

1 We havetriedto elaborate hispointin ourongoingwork on conversion,truth,and violence.

2 For an analysis of the impactwhich the Christianview of Hinduismasanimmoraland alse religionhashad on thecontemporary nderstandingof the Indiancaste system, see Raf Gelders andWillem Derde (2003).

3 For a scientific account of the dynamicof religion and its implicationsfor the relationbetweenreligionandtradition, ee S N Balagangadhara(1994).

4 Fora furtheranalysis of this aspectof the Indiandebate on conversionand its implicationsfor the neutralityof the secularstate in India,seeS NBalagangadharandJakobDe Roover: SecularStateastheHarbingerof Religious Violence' (forthcoming).

3054 EconomicandPoliticalWeekly July9, 2005



References

Balagangadhara, N (1994): 'TheHeathenin His Blindness...': Asia, The

West and the Dynamic of Religion, E J Brill, Leiden.

Buyers,ReverendWilliam(1840):Letterson India: WithSpecialReferenceto the Spread of Christianity,John Snow, London.

Carey,William (1792): An Enquiryinto the Obligationsof Christians,to

Use Meansfor the Conversion of the Heathens, Leicester.

ChristianityToday 1999): 'Protecting heRightto Convert'in Christianity

Today,43(3), p 28.

CAD(1946-1950): ConstituentAssemblyDebates: Official Report,Managerof Publications,Delhi.

Dow, Alexander 1768): 'A DissertationConcerning heCustoms,Manners,

Language,Religion andPhilosophyof the Hindoos' in P J Marshall ed)

(,970), The BritishDiscovery of Hinduismin the EighteenthCentury,

CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge,pp 107-39.

Gandhi,MohandasK(1942):To the HindusandMuslims,AnandT Hingorani(ed), Hingorani,Karachi.

- (1960-1993): The Collected Worksof MahatmaGandhi,Governmentof

India, PublicationsDivision, New Delhi.- (1986): The Moral and Political Writings of MahatmaGandhi, Vol I,

Raghavan Iyer (ed), ClarendonPress, Oxford.

Gelders, Raf and Willem Derde (2003): 'Mantras of Anti-Brahmanism:

Colonial Experienceof Indian Intellectuals'in Economicand Political

Weekly,38(43), pp 4611-17.

Grafe,Hugald 1972): 'HinduApologeticsat theBeginningof the ProtestantMission Era in India' in the Indian ChurchHistoryReview,6(1), 43-69.

Jordens,JF T (1987): 'GandhiandReligiousPluralism' n HaroldGCoward

(ed) (1987), Modern Indian Responses to Religious Pluralism, State

Universityof New York Press, Albany, pp 3-18.

Kaul,H K(ed) (1979): Travellers' India:AnAnthology,OxfordUniversityPress, Delhi.

Kim, Sebastian (2003): In Search of Identity: Debates on ReligiousConversionsin India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Kitzan,Lawrence 1970): 'TheLondonMissionarySociety and the Problem

of Conversion in India and China, 1804-1834' in Canadian Journal

of History, 5(2), pp 13-41.

Lach, Donald F (1965):Asia in the Makingof Europe, Vol I: The Century

of Discovery, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Menon, Nivedita (2004): 'All Ye Faithless:Why Is Religious Conversion

any Different From Other Conversions?' in The Telegraph, May 6.

Neufeldt,RW(1987): 'TheResponseof the RamakrishnaMission' in Harold

G Coward ed) (1987),ModernIndian

Responsesto

ReligiousPluralism,State Universityof New York Press, Albany, pp 65-84.

Radhakrishnan, arvepalli(1969): RadhakrishnanReader: An Anthology,P NagarajaRao, K Gopalaswamiand S Ramakrishnan eds), Bharatiya

Vidya Bhavan, Bombay.Sarkar,Sumit (1999): 'Hindutva and the Question of Conversions' in

K N Panikkar ed), The Concerned Indian's Guide to Communalism,

Viking, New Delhi, pp 73-106.

Swami DayanandaSaraswati 1999): OpenLetterto His Holiness ThePopeJohn Paul II, at URL: http://hindunet.org/conversions/pope99/

to_pope_from_swami_dayananada_sa.htmSwami Vivekananda 1963): The CompleteWorksof Swami Vivekananda,

Volume II, AdvaitaAshrama, Kolkata.- (1964):TheCompleteWorks fSwami Vivekananda,VolumeVIII,Advaita

Ashrama,Kolkata.

Vyas,Neena(2002): 'WhenTheir Gods Failed Them' in TheHindu,Sunday

October 20.Young,RichardFox (1981):Resistant Hinduism:SanskritSources on Anti-

ChristianApologetics in Early Nineteenth-Century ndia, Publicationsof the De Nobili ResearchLibrary,Vienna.

Ziegenbalg, Bartholomeus(1719): ThirtyFour Conferences between theDanish Missionariesand the Malabarian Bramans .. in the East Indies,

Concerninghe Truth fthe ChristianReligion,Transby Philipps,London.

SPECIAL SSUE

NATIONALELECTIONSTUDY2004December 18, 2004

NationalElectionStudy 2004: An Introduction -Lokniti Team

The Elusive Mandate of 2004 -Yogendra Yadav

Constraintson Electoral Mobilisation -Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Democracy,Economic Reforms and Election Results in India -K C Suri

ParticipatoryNorm: How Broad-based Is It? -Suhas Palshikar,Sanjay Kumar

ElectoralCoalitionsin 2004 General Elections:Theoryand Evidence -E Sridharan

MajoritarianMiddleGround? -Suhas PalshikarHow Gendered Was Women's Participationn Election 2004? -Rajeshwari Deshpande

Assessing the ElectoralSystem: A Positive Verdict -Ritu Rao

Analyses of States

Appendix

Forcopies write o:CirculationManager,

Economic and Political Weekly,HitkariHouse,284, ShahidBhagatsinghRoad,Mumbai 00 001.

email: [email protected]


The Question of Conversion in India

Documents

Transcript of The Question of Conversion in India