Tags
Christianity, dharma, Greece, Hinduism, India, Islam, Jawaharlal Nehru, proselytism, religion, secularism
To most observers, India appears a paradox – teeming with diversity of cuisine, dress, language, pigmentation, and faith under one flag yet simultaneously simmering with communal tensions. The paradox is even more glaring in light of the democratic structure of government, the constitutional protections to minorities, and the high degree of integration of various communities into the public sphere. Social theories shaped by the European experience and projected as universals flounder on India’s shores, confusing the neophyte and outsider alike.
The crux of this discombobulation lies in the weakness of normative vocabulary to describe India. While scholars have considered if modernity can exist outside its present European framework, few have been brave enough to chase down the answer. As a result, false universals of European history such as secularism, liberalism, nationalism, and even time are used to decipher the non-West; any society that fails to conform to these European ideals are less evolved or have failed.
The root of India’s communal tensions lies in its constitution. Outwardly appearing to take a neutral – secular and liberal – hand in religious affairs, the document remains a travesty imposed upon Indic culture. The reason for this lies in the Nehruvian venture – an Anglicised Kashmiri Pandit that he was, Jawaharlal Nehru made no secret of his disdain for Hindu traditions. In his own words, he approached them “almost as an alien critic, full of dislike for the present as well as for many of the relics of the past.” As a result, the Indian republic’s first prime minister transplanted the Western notion of a liberal and secular state onto Indian soil. The dissonance between East and West in this regard is made clear when comparing the dharmic systems of the former with the Abrahamic faiths of the latter.
Unlike Indic belief systems, the Abrahamic faiths believe themselves to be of divine origin. In the time of Adam and Eve, there was the perfect religion from which Man fell into idolatry, superstition, witchcraft, and false worship; humanity was led back to the True faith by G-d as He revealed Himself to Abraham. Since the Word cannot be false, Abrahamic religions came to revolve around a truth axis – either you believed in the True religion or you were wrong and therefore blind, misguided, or evil.
Dharmic faiths, however, remain closer to the true sense of the Roman religio. Wisdom, not Truth, came from the meditations and experiences of previous generations as well as one’s own. A philosophical kernel was wrapped with customs, traditions, and rituals that were meant to bind families and communities together. Hinduism, for example, has no founder, no particular doctrine or practice, no specific scripture, no central ecclesiastical organisation, and even the concept of god is not essential to it. The notion of absolute truth in such a system is not just irrelevant but impossible to imagine. Thus, these faiths can comfortably coexist without competition or animosity.
This difference is highlighted in the famous conversation between French traveler François Bernier and some brahmins in 1671 when he tried to introduce them to Christianity: “they pretended not their Law was universal; that God had only made it for them, and it was therefore they could not receive a Stranger into their Religion: that they thought not our Religion was therefore false, but that it might be it was good for us, and that God might have appointed several different ways to go to Heaven; but they will not hear that our Religion should be the general Religion for the whole earth; and theirs a fable and pure device.” The Hindu view of other beliefs, be they Indic or Abrahamic, can thus best be described as indifference rather than tolerance.
These two systems of thought are mutually exclusive: religion is about the absolute truth or it is not; there is one True faith and others are false religions or all beliefs exist in parallel; the True faith is in competition with falsehood or beliefs are indifferent to one another. This antagonism creates a flashpoint when it comes to the freedom of religious thought and its propagation. To Christians and Muslims, the freedom to proselytise is essential to their competitive and antagonistic world view whereas non-proselytising religions find such behaviour to be an importunate intrusion into their world.
Unfortunately for the modern secular-liberal state, there is no neutral ground between these two positions; to pretend there is would be akin to accepting an agreement between the lion and the lamb not to eat each other as one among equals. For a people whose conception of religion is not just a metaphysical and ethical philosophy but also set of ancestral traditions, proselytism is felt to be an aggressive and often uncouth interference from the outside. Religious conversion disintegrates communities as the convert is torn from old moorings and subject to new rules governing inheritance, lineage, and familial life. The moral condescension towards paganism often means an abrupt and sometimes hostile unmooring of a convert from family and friends, tearing the social fabric that had done so well until then with its stance of indifference or non-interference. The problem of social disruption is so severe that Mohandas Gandhi considered religious conversion harmful to the Indian social fabric. He wrote, “If I had the power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytizing… In Hindu households the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink.”
The defence of proselytism and religious conversion bases itself on the notion of religious liberty. This is a befitting solution in a system wherein all religions compete against others for followers and the supremacy of their truth claims but not as appropriate in one in which some religions demand only to be left alone. As Jakob de Roover of Ghent University argues, the liberal principle of religious freedom implicitly endorses the Abrahamic view of the world that religion revolves around doctrines and truth claims and citizens should be able to not just choose in the free market of religious ideas but persuade others of one’s convictions.
Makau Mutua of the State University of New York, Buffalo, exposes the inherent bias of religious liberty by arguing that the doctrine does not level the playing field for all religions but creates an obligation on dharmic systems – for which they are not culturally geared – to compete as Abrahamic faiths do. This benefits the evangelising religions in their quest for intellectual hegemony. In essence, the preference shown towards the competition of ideas is nothing short of a cultural invasion in a skewed contest to eliminate local customs.
Perhaps the most subversive danger in this debate is secular theology. Usually understood to be a movement from the early 1960s, secular theology was Christianity’s reaction to modernity. Scientific advancement and political utilitarianism pushed some Christian theologians to treat the Bible Christian mythology, thus divesting the sacred yet retain the ideals. Taken out of context, Christian principles appear secular. For example, John Locke’s treatise on toleration can hardly be a secular creed when it excludes Catholics and atheists from its ambit. Furthermore, Locke’s tolerance appears to be based on the free will of souls to choose between good and evil without which salvation would be meaningless. Human existence is still divided into a spiritual sphere of the soul and a political one of the flesh, and the Protestant Truth was arrayed against the falseness of the world.
As SN Balagangadhara of Ghent University explains succinctly, the assumption of the cultural universality of Christianity informs the Western gaze. Christianity’s “theological truths have become the facts of western common sense and scholarly consensus.” One of the features of this universalism is that it wrongly puts Hinduism and other dharmic faiths on par with Christianity and Islam and to the detriment of the former.
To return to the Indian state, the framers of the Indian constitution implicitly endorsed the Abrahamic theological claim that religion is about Truth when establishing India as a secular republic. An important virtue in a competitive market of religious Truth like Europe or the Middle East, secularism has little meaning in a dharmic system and only serves to buttress Abrahamic binaries when applied to Semitic and dharmic religions evenly. There is nothing neutral about the Indian secular state; in fact, the constitution was informed by a negative attitude towards the local dharmic culture.
The problem of hindutva also stems from Nehru’s flawed sense of secularism. Temples were taken over and Hindu customs abolished while personal codes of the “minority” Abrahamic faiths were left untouched in the name of secularism. Faced with a political order that worked against them, Hindus were forced to respond to the doctrinaire threats to their way of life and defend their value of indifference. Attempts were made to define a core set of beliefs, customs, and scriptures as is evidenced by movements like the Arya Samaj; the earlier attitude of indifference was replaced by tolerance, and Hindus claimed that their non-proselytising nature was a demonstration of their comity towards all faiths unlike Christianity or Islam. The hindutva adoption of the notion of equality of all religions upset the Semitic faiths – divine revelation forces the Christian or Muslim to accept his faith as infallible and supreme; the Abrahamic faiths at least shared a common G-d even if there was some disagreement about subsequent prophets and messiahs but to be measured alongside idolatrous pagans was unacceptable.
By privileging the Semitic moral world order, the Indian state sowed the seeds of violent conflict. The perceived protection of the state via preferential treatment in terms of personal laws, religious institutions, educational establishments, and the outright legal bias (think Shah Bano or the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence bill) instigates communities against each other and against the Nehruvian state. As Roover eloquently states, “the seeds of religious violence are sown by the liberal state; however, it is the communities that harvest them.”
Proselytism and religious conversion is a sore subject in many parts of the world. It is banned in Greece, China, and most Islamic countries, while many others such as Russia and Israel are deeply uncomfortable with it. While Hindu spirituality is not threatened by reading and learning from, say, the Tanakh, Christians, for example, can give up neither the Great Commission of Jesus nor Exodus 20:3-6. In other words, a Hindu need not convert if he wishes to incorporate any idea from another religion into his life but that is not an option for the Christian or Muslim. That is why, as one author wrote, banning conversions is not part of the hindutva agenda but not banning them is the agenda of aggressive religions.
All democratic societies realise that freedoms are not infinite; as a result, international declarations such as the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981), the UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance (1995), or the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) allow the limiting of religious freedom if it is necessary in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Though these are not normally considered to include a restriction on proselytism or religious conversion, they have only been tested in European conditions.
A complete ban on proselytism and religious conversion in India is hardly a curb on freedom of religious thought – from the dharmic perspective, it is only a ban on religious thought of an exclusivist and binary nature; yet Abrahamic religions cannot abandon their doctrines of exclusive Truth without violating their core principles. However, a ban on religious proliferation does not create any new obligations upon Christians or Muslims that would violate their sacred tenets. It would only protect local traditions and customs. For some, this might not be an acceptable solution. One can be reminded that secularism does not truly fit the Indian ethos but more importantly, it is vital to realise that the public sphere has not be desacralised completely anywhere in the world nor is it desirable. Countries still place their weekends around the holy days of their majority faiths (Fridays in Islam, Saturday in Judaism, and Sunday in Christianity), the common calendar is marked from the birth of Jesus Christ – anno domini – oaths are sworn upon religious texts, and Christmas is still a national holiday in many countries. Furthermore, restrictions and bans on controversial issues such as abortion and stem cell research are still informed by religious beliefs. In this climate, a hat-tip to the millennia-old traditions of the overwhelming majority of the Indian people without creating blasphemous obligations on other faiths ought not be a problem.
This post appeared on FirstPost on September 08, 2014.
Chaturanga 
Hey @orsoraggiante awesome article yesterday on religious freedom and conversions. I agree with most of it (Nehruvian condescension, the different world views on conversion between Abrahamic and Dharmic religions and the flaws in our Constitution), but I think you are wrong in taking on religious liberty as a concept for its abuse by some religions. True, Abrahamic religions which emphasize on proselytizing have benefited from an ‘open market’ of religious ideas and have used it to further their own agenda, but does that really mean that religious freedom, even in the Indian context, is flawed as an idea? And is government intervention, in the form of banning proselytizing a solution? I don’t think so.
Few points:
1. Does Hinduism need protection? Correct me if I am wrong, but you say that Hinduism is somehow not prepared to withstand the ‘onslaught’ of Abrahmic proselytizing. I don’t think so. It wasn’t laws which conserved Hinduism over centuries. The religion has evolved over thousand of years, adjusting itself to demands of society in each period in time. Your argument is a more suave way to convey the same paranoia the “Hindu Dharm Khatre Mein Hai” posters intend to at Kumbh Melas. India is a Hindu majority country. We must encourage religious debate. And I think in any free debate over religion India, Hinduism will be able to withstand any religious threat from outside, if any. That Hinduism has modeled itself around ‘indifference’ rather than ‘tolerance’ might be right (or not), but that does not exclude open religious debate. A ban will restrict religious debate and free exchange of ideas. The law banning itself will be open to misuse and lead to further problems. If there is a massive campaign to convert people, I don’t think our Shankaracharya’s will stay away from contesting it. It is in fact already happening, there are Hindu religious leaders who are indeed plotting to counter conversion campaigns. The fundamental flaw in your argument is assuming that there is ‘one’ way Hinduism has been practiced over the years. If Abrahmic religion is placing new obligations on Dharmic practice, then so be it. It has happened before and Hinduism reacted to it and has conserved itself. We must seek to make religious interaction less violent, not shut it down. And we have criminal laws to counter violence.
2. By seeking a ban, we seek state intervention in our religious freedom. I think it is important to understand that what was wrong with Nehruvian idea of ‘reforming’ religion is not just that he was condescending towards anything Indic, or Hinduism for that matter, but that he thought that the state could change society and religion. It is not a government’s job to be involved in religion, it should not be. In fact, it is government intervention which has lead to so many problems, think you mention that in you piece. Today government intervention might work to Hinduism’s favor because there is a sympathetic govt at the Center, but what if that’s not the case later? Do we really want to give more power to governments to legislate how one must practice religion? As you said, by privileging the Semitic world order, the Indian state sowed the seeds of violence. Now by allowing further intervention, it would only further add to our woes. We need to tear down privileges, not create more.
The problem we face today, apart from any external threat, is the way a minority of Hindus have chosen to confront religious conversions. How one counters should be the question, and it must be the role of a society and religious organization, not the government. We must seek to reduce conflict between religions, and that will not happen by state intervening, especially through a ban. I am in agreement with you in identifying the problem, not so much in the solution to it.
There are legal options for reducing social injustices perpetrated by religion and religious conversions, but it has to be based on the freedom of an individual to choose, based on individual liberty, not based on what a paternalistic state thinks is good for us.
I join you in your hat-tip, but I think that it has been possible because of more religious freedom within Hinduism. And we must seek to extend that freedom.
Looking forward to what you have to say, with an open mind!
Thanks for your thoughts @madarassi, and for the opportunity to clarify a couple of my points. Let me try and explain my position by separating my thoughts by meme:
Religious freedom: There is nothing wrong with religious freedom as long as it means the same thing for all. In any country with non-proselytising non-Abrahamic religions such as India or Japan, religious freedom gives an advantage to the Abrahamic faiths in terms of harvesting souls. Hindus don’t proselytise and should not have to be forced to just because Muslims and Christians want to do so; the expectation is that Hindus change their traditions to accommodate Christianity and Islam. Why can it not be the other way around? Why can Christianity and Islam not give up their need to spread the Word just in countries like India or Japan? Furthermore, the relationship of the Hindu to the Supreme Being is personal. What is visible is the social relations, customs, and rituals. These are not subject to conversion the way an idea can be and hence conversion does not even make sense to dharmic faiths.
Hinduism in danger: Yes, Hindus are certainly in danger of losing their customs and traditions but this is an internal problem and not because of Christianity or Islam. The danger comes from more and more people losing touch with their literature, practices, and even language but as I said, this is an internal problem for Hindus.
Religious debate is fine and it is disingenuous to pretend that Hindu society has not evolved over the years due to internal pressures to reform. The people of the Indian subcontinent hardly needed Christianity or Islam for Buddhism to arise and critique the evils of Hindu society. In modern times, given the prevalence of the internet and libraries, it is not difficult to find material on all aspects of various religions if one is curious enough – a ban on proselytism does not change that.
The fundamental error in thinking this is a free market of ideas is that the systems are not at all alike. For example, what is the Muslim position on apostasy? To give you an example, a Hindu who is dating a Muslim can easily decide to maintain Ramadan to accompany his/her significant other and not be any less Hindu; sure, Islamic scholars may deny him/her the religious fruits of his/her actions but that was not the purpose anyway. Yet can the Muslim accompany his/her significant other to a major festival like Ganesh Chaturthi or Shivaratri? Heck, they balk at even singing Vande Mataram! What sort of free market is this? A Hindu need not convert to accept the teachings of Jesus or Muhammad but he does need to do so to accept the dogmas of either.
State interference: While I support a ban on proselytism, conversion is a little trickier. If someone goes to the library, reads about either Christianity or Islam, and wants to not just accept those teachings but reject his/her traditions and past, it would not be right to hold such a person a prisoner of his or her own conscience. However, conversion is not simple and does cause disruptions – Islam, for example, has issues with a non-Muslim spouse inheriting anything or the children being brought up as infidels. I do not have an answer to this yet and it is worth thinking over.
As for Nehru’s condescension towards Hinduism, that is a matter of record and often from his own quill. You’re right that he took the typical modernist and statist approach to fix what he saw as ills but one of the main points I make in my post is that there is no neutral ground between the Abrahamic and dharmic world views – a state cannot be neutral for doing so stacks the dice in the favour of the Semitic systems. This is the crux of the argument – freedom and non-interference cannot mean the same thing to the two systems because they are very different themselves. It would be like clubbing a horse and a car together as methods of transportation and then filling them both up with petrol (unleaded, I hope 🙂 )!
I agree with you entirely about the threat of hindutva but no one seems to understand this! Some might argue and with some merit that making an -ism of Hindu beliefs was itself a great act of cultural violence by the West but let’s keep that aside for another time! Hindutva is, as far as I can understand, an Abrahamisation of Hindu values. The movement seeks conversion and they push a puritanical and singular interpretation of Hindu society. Yet this is a reaction to the asymmetric assault they feel Semitic religions, with the willful neglect of the state, are mounting on Hindu culture. The violence against missionaries, which cannot be pardoned, is nevertheless understandable when you see the uncouth attack on Hindu deities that goes on in the name of proselytism. One pamphlet, for example, proclaimed that “Satan has retained his hold on Calcutta through Kali and other gods and goddesses of Hinduism.” Their defence? “To be held in Satan’s power is a different thing from being Satan’s ally” !!
I do not accept a dogmatic libertarian zeal for reducing the state’s role in all facets of social life. I’d have to look more closely at the umpteen sites of interaction between state and community, between state and individual. However, I agree with you that I do not want the modern nation-state regulating my spiritual life. A ban on proselytism (let’s hold off on conversion just yet) is no such interference but providing a calm environment for the practice of different customs, particularly since one system is predatory towards the other and the state does retain for itself the role of security provider. This is not a universal proposition either – just in India.
If a Hindu accepted the Abrahamic God will he/she ceased to be a Hindu? I am not getting your point, if your concern is not whom they worship but the culture and language then you are hypocrite as you speak/write different language(i.e. language invented by Abrahamic faith people) and study in the institutions/countries found by Abrahamic faith people. Will you go to Orissa and work with your fellow Hindus who were lepers? Do you have any word for the Hara Krishna, TM and other Hindu movements proselytizing the westerners into Hinduism through yoga?
1. A Hindu can have, for example, a crucifix, right next to his statue of Krishna and remain a Hindu but his Christian brethren may find it unacceptable.
2. The culture may or may not have its issues but it is not exclusive. The Arabic or English languages do not demand that you know no other language but the Islamic and Christian faiths do demand that you know no other god. You are conflating culture with theology.
3. Yoga is not a faith. I have no problem if Westerners come to India to propagate football, for example. As for real (re)conversion to Hinduism and not your poorly conceived examples, I am against those too. There is no love lost between me and ISKCON, for example.
I am not talking about crucifix next to Krishna but a crucifix replacing Krishna! Will he/she be a non-Hindu by worshiping Jesus alone? If a person who does not believe in any god is still Hindu then why not a person who believe in only one God? I just see your hastiness to ban Christian mission by (ab) using power (which is readily available in central government) than a valid case to prove the need of it. Yoga is a way of connecting to the higher power which starts with paganism (salutation to the sun god). It a deceptive way of Hindu guru’s to earn green currency and also proselyte the westerners into paganism (in their own expense).
1. The problem, which you keep missing, is due to the exclusivity of the Abrahamic faiths. One can’t be Christian and Hindu but the converse is true.
2. That is a rather obtuse understanding of yoga. I’ve been doing yoga for the past three years and there is a Muslim family in my class. They simply sit out the salutations in the beginning and end. Also, I’ve seen several classes in the US where there are no salutations at all. No one says that yoga cannot be done without the mantras.
I am not asking you to look at from the one who is converted but as a Hindu when you accept an atheist (who does not believe in any god) as Hindu why not the one who believe in the only God? I haven’t seen any newly converted Christian started eating beef and beer just because he is converted. The southern states of India are most educated and good hygiene than the northern states why? It is Because of the Missionary efforts in the area of education and health. Now you went outside India to study and changed your attire , language and habits like a westerner but wanted all the shudras (dalits) to be a salves of high caste (?) hindus? Do you know how much liberation is happening in states like Bihar for the dalits from the high caste hindus?
You’re still missing the point about exclusivity of Abrahamic faiths…therein lies the problem.
You are just escaping without explaining. Yes Abrahamic faiths are exclusive but Hinduism is not so I am not getting your cry against conversion. Do you think a person is not a hindu after conversion?
This is clearly explained in the article…I have no wish to rehash the point.
<>
I wouldn’t call that as yoga but stretching… 😀 .