The Hindu : Conversion politics

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Nov 06, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Conversion politics - I

By P. Radhakrishnan

In the context of secularism and religious pluralism, conversions are legitimate, well within the Constitutional provisions, and entirely a personal affair of the citizens.

"To diehards who have developed a kind of fanaticism against minority protection I would like to say two things. One is that minorities are an explosive force, which, if it erupts, can blow up the whole fabric of the state. The history of Europe bears ample and appalling testimony to this fact. The other is that the minorities in India have agreed to place their existence in the hands of the majority. In the history of negotiations for preventing the partition of Ireland, Redmond said to Carson `ask for any safeguard you like for the Protestant minority but let us have a United Ireland'. Carson's reply was `Damn your safeguards, we don't want to be ruled by you'. No minority in India has taken this stand. They have loyally accepted the rule of the majority, which is basically a communal majority and not a political majority. It is for the majority to realise its duty not to discriminate against minorities." — B.R. Ambedkar

IN THE administration of a State, when the Assembly is not in session, ordinances are occasional necessities. But the exceptional nature of such necessities should be justified by their validation through people's backing, the constitutionally prescribed motions of having them subjected to informed debates in the Assembly and then passed by it as Bills, enactment through Presidential assent, scrutiny by the highest judiciary, and so on.

However, as ordinances are generally hurriedly hashed wish lists of a party or parties in power, they are much-hackneyed short cuts to law. More often than not they are spurious and militate against the spirit of democracy. More so, when the time between occasions of their necessity and Assembly sessions is too short as to warrant them as exceptions, or when as exceptions they gobble up the rule of democratic law-making. In any case, when used recklessly, ordinances can override and overrun the very raison d'etre of the Assembly and subvert it. That the Tamil Nadu Assembly is now facing this scenario is stating the obvious.

In about eight months since becoming Chief Minister, the AIADMK leader, Jayalalithaa, had the Governor promulgate just as many or even more number of ordinances. Of these, while the ordinance of August 8, hiking court fees for suits and petitions by five to 100 times, was appalling, that of October 5, to provide for prohibition of conversion from one religion to another by the use of force or allurement or by fraudulent means and for matters incidental thereto, was apocalyptical. Its explanatory statement clearly shows what an ordinance in a secular democracy should not be: "Reports have been received by the Government that conversions from one religion to another are made by use of force or allurement or by fraudulent means. Bringing in a legislation to prohibit such conversions will act as a deterrent against the anti-social and vested interest groups exploiting the innocent people belonging to depressed classes. It may also be useful to nip in the bud the attempts by certain religious fundamentalists and subversive forces to create communal tension under the garb of religious conversions. The Government has, therefore, decided to enact a law to prevent conversions by use of force or allurement or by fraudulent means."

The discussion of the Ordinance and related turn of events for about a month now raise at least 12 issues.

One, whatever was the urgency for an ordinance on such a socially and politically sensitive issue when the Assembly was to meet barely three weeks later?

Two, the secretive, sloppy, bewildering, sweeping and derogatory nature of the Ordinance, which raises doubts about the very integrity of the Assembly, and its earnestness in purpose. A discussion of this will involve several issues.

Three, if reports had been received by the Government, knowing full well that it owed its existence to the people, the least that it could have done was not being secretive about them, confirm their veracity, and append to its ordinance these reports and the nature and magnitude of their perceived and real consequences for secular democratic governance of a pluralist and multi-religious society as mandated by the Constitution.

Four, if legislation was the remedy, the introduction in the Assembly on October 30 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Bill, 2002, in less than a month after the ordinance, and its adoption the next day with barely three hours' debate, not only called the Government's bluff on the urgency for the ordinance, but, more importantly, confirmed that the Assembly was indeed in the throes of systematic subversion by political manoeuvres.

Five, though force, allurement and fraudulent means are the `culprit causes' of conversion in the Ordinance, the Ordinance is sloppy and bewildering in the use of these, inasmuch as, among the many things it could have said, it has not said in whose perception they are such causes; and it has not been eloquent on what constitute these causes, who will determine them so, how, to what end, and so on.

Six, even if conversions are taking place, there cannot be one set of rules for Hinduism and another set for other religions. Ambedkar said Hinduism was a missionary religion without which it was impossible to account for its spread over a vast continent inhabited by diverse races with a distinct culture of their own. In his view, the answer to Hinduism ceasing to be a missionary religion was to be found in the development of the caste system: "Caste is incompatible with conversion. So long as mass conversion was possible, Hindu society could convert, for the converts were large enough to form a new caste, which could provide the elements of a social life from among themselves. But when mass conversions were no more and only individual converts could be had, Hinduism had necessarily to cease to be missionary, for its social organisation could make no room for the incoming convert."

What is, however, more to the point is that in the context of secularism and religious pluralism conversions are legitimate, well within the Constitutional provisions, and entirely a personal affair of the citizens; and though Christianity and Islam have been in India for centuries and the country was under rulers from these religions for a long time, the population of Christians and Muslims is less than three and 13 per cent in the country as a whole, and just about six per cent each in Tamil Nadu.

Seven, as conversion in the ordinance is of religion and not of currency or commodity and as the state as a secular entity has no religion, taking on religion headlong instead of only looking into complaints, if any — that too only by the victims — of the use of allurements, force and fraud as law and order problems as any benevolent Government is wont to do, is a red herring. For, in a society which is so large, diverse, complex, and heterogeneous, the use — both manifest and latent — of allurements, force and fraud can be in any number of social realms for any number of reasons and need not necessarily be limited to religion and construed as being for conversions. Even if the use has religious nexus, as such nexus can be seen in all religions it is ludicrous to isolate one or two religions and start a witch-hunt against them. To cite one instance: the offer of prasadam by a temple priest is allurement and fraudulent means to ensure that the recipient remains within the fold of that particular religion, for which prasadam is offered, through a process of continuous conversion ensured by the regularity of its offer, while the refusal to offer it or threats of such refusal in known cases as a tacit chide to ensure that a prasadam recipient prone to playing truant is before the priest more frequently can be construed as use of force. There may be any number of these instances in rural areas.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Timely action

A lone hand by the Commonwealth

Kashmir: Sangh Parivar's Waterloo

Conversion politics - I

Europe's marginalised community

`Bill aimed only at forcible conversions'