You can't be secular and object to conversions

Whenever the debate on religious conversions starts up, the standard knee-jerk liberal response always leaves me slightly apprehensive.

Let me say, first off, that I understand why liberals are so upset about the conversions in Agra and about the RSS’s purported plans to continue converting India’s minorities to Hinduism all over the country.

 

One reason why Indian secularism and democracy have flourished is because of the tolerant nature of Hinduism. On the whole, Hindus do not seek to convert others or believe that Hinduism is the only true faith and that those who do not follow it are doomed to spend eternity in hell. Because Hindus are content to live and let live, they are happy to let people follow the religions of their choosing.

 

   Many Hindus are upset about the recent conversions because they feel that they go against the ancient spirit of Hinduism. A frequent criticism of the Hindutva hardliners is that they have Semitised and militarised Hinduism, trying to take a deep philosophy and a simple way of life and to turn them into mirror images of the religions that emerged in the Middle East: Christianity and Islam.

 

   The conversions seem, to many Hindus, to be one more example of that trend. They are not the sort of thing that Hindus regard as their sacred duty.

 

   Another reason is that those of us who believe in a secular India always regard it as vital that we do not become a majoritarian society like, say, Pakistan. In Pakistan, Hindus and Christians face death, rape and discrimination with little hope of protection from the State. Many (perhaps most) Indian Hindus are clear that India will never become like Pakistan. That every Indian, no matter what his religion is, will remain a citizen of this country with all the rights and privileges that entails. Any suggestion that minorities will benefit (by getting ration cards or whatever) by converting to Hinduism is repugnant to us.

 

   And finally, there is the Hindutva versus Development debate. All polls suggest that Narendra Modi led his party to victory at the General Election because he promised growth, stability and development. So when the crazies within the Sangh Parivar crawl out of the woodwork, start praising Nathuram Godse, calling people ‘haramzadas’, asking Muslims to go to Pakistan and embarking on conversion programmes, voters have a right to feel cheated – and concerned.

 

   This is not what India voted for. If Indians wanted a Hindu Rashtra then the RSS-Hindu Mahasabha would always have been the dominant force in India and the Jan Sangh would have won an overall majority decades ago.

 

"At the end of the day, if the rag-pickers thought they were better off as Hindus with some benefits rather than Muslims, it is their right to choose."

   So yes, the concern over the conversions is legitimate and well-intentioned. But it still worries me. Here’s why.

 

• Any secular society that gives people the right to follow the religion of their choice must also give them the right to convert. If you can’t convert or change your religion, then you don’t really have a choice and secularism is meaningless.

 

• Most people concede this. But, they say, forced conversions are bad. Sure. Nobody can dispute that. But how do you define ‘forced conversion’? In the Middle Ages, Semitic conquerors (Christian and Muslim) often told people that if they did not convert they would be put to death. In Goa, the Portuguese forced Hindus to convert to Christianity. Islamic rulers imposed taxes on Hindus.

 

   All this was terrible. Even modern day Christians and Muslims will concede that. And yes, it amounted to forced conversion.

 

   But it is hard to argue that there is much (if any) forced conversion in India these days. So the debate about contemporary ‘forced conversions’ is a red herring.

 

• That leaves us with conversions through bribes, gifts and blandishments. Most of us disapprove of them at an intuitive level. But is hard to see if we can legislate against it. If say, a Dalit converts to Christianity and gets a few kilos of rice in return (to paraphrase one of Gandhiji’s more famous examples), we may disapprove of the religious figures who believed that bribery was the way to convert people to their faith. But can we ban the Dalit from changing his religion? And if we did so wouldn’t we be interfering with his fundamental right to choose his religion? Wouldn’t we be making a mockery of secularism by saying that we would decide whether his conversion was ‘genuine’ or not?

 

• Pretty much the same argument applies to the Agra conversions. Perhaps the Sangh Parivar used blandishments to convert the rag-pickers. But so what? At the end of the day, if the rag-pickers thought they were better off as Hindus with some benefits rather than Muslims, it is their right to choose. We may believe that the converters have made a mockery of Hinduism by behaving in this manner. But we cannot blame the convert. The rag-pickers were exercising their secular right.

 

   And finally, here’s my ultimate concern about the liberal outrage. The BJP has already responded to protests about the Agra conversions by saying that: fine, if liberals think that conversions are bad, then let’s pass a bill banning all conversion.

 

   This is an old BJP ploy. Such legislation can always be used to harass Christian missionaries, Muslim clerics and other minority preachers. It would allow government officials to decide who is converting freely or because of blandishments. And far from weakening the forces of Hindu majoritarianism, such legislation will actually strengthen them.

 

   So lets step back a little. Yes, what happened on Agra went against this spirit of Hinduism. But that is a personal, moral judgement. And we must leave it at that. To go further would be to challenge the basis of India’s secularism.