Anti-Conversion - By Hilda Raja

[Guest guest]

Indian Christian Hilda Raja has asked:

 

"What is puzzling is why the church leaders while saying that they

do not indulge in forced conversions are so worked up and demand the

revocation of the law? "

 

###

 

Anti-conversion law

Author: Hilda Raja

Publication: The Hindu

December 3, 2002

 

It has been reported that a broad-based platform comprising 65 Dalit

organisations, religious minority fora and civil rights groups has

decided to take their opposition to the anti-conversion law to a

higher political platform. So they also want to rope in the Left

parties. Each of these in its own perception seeks political gains

out of the whole opposition strategy.

 

Conversion is a question of faith but what seems to surface is that

it has become a ransom to demand this or that and it is used as a

threat. "If you do not give us land we will convert, we want

equality and so we will convert," are the reasons given to justify

the need for conversion. Constitutionally equality is guaranteed to

all. The operation of this has been far from satisfactory. What is

needed is social awareness, a change in the attitude and recourse to

the judiciary in specific cases of discrimination. The cases of

oppression and the discrimination against the SCs as reported in the

media and from what I have personally witnessed are perpetuated by

the BCs and the MBCs (these are referred to as `caste Hindus' in the

media).

 

In a village in Villipuram district, the SCs are not allowed to

enter the village temple by the Udayars. The tragedy is that the SCs

too practise discrimination. For example, the Pallars will not inter-

dine or intermarry with other SCs such as the Arunthathiyars.

Political parties and leadership are also based on these divisions.

Exceptions are not the rule. For that matter quite a few Pallars

have married Brahmins. The former are Sanskritised and have become

highly ritualistic.

 

Sad reality

 

So when conversion from one faith to another is being discussed I

fail to understand how it can be an escape route to equality and

dignity. No religion including Hinduism sanctions oppression and

discrimination. It is a sad reality that the Dalits come in handy

for exploitation in every field and in any cause by the politicians,

the church leaders and those who are involved in the business of

conversion to suit their own vested interest. The protest against

the law which prohibits forced conversions is a telling example. For

one thing the Christian churches do practise discrimination even in

death, and continue to bury the Dalits in separate cemeteries even

today. If it is dignity and equality that force the Dalits to

embrace Christianity it is for them to articulate so when they get

converted and prove their volition. The Dalit leader Ambedkar opted

for Buddhism because he found Christian religion too practised

discrimination and Dalits were oppressed within its fold. So to

state that in Christian churches they find dignity is far from truth

and that makes it a misleading inducement - to promise equality and

then deny them that. Too long they have been exploited and made

scapegoats and used as a camouflage for the vested interests of the

high and mighty even by their own Dalit leaders.

 

The Dalit leaders who today are forging a broad-based platform also

have their political goals rather than the intricate faith question

of `conversion.' Even if all the SCs out of their free will opt to

become Christians or Buddhists who and what is preventing them? If

the Tamil Nadu CM showed an inexplicable hurry in ushering in such a

law the Dalit organisations are exposing their eagerness to use this

as a tool to gain political mileage and the Minority church leaders

are revealing their heartburns, because for them their `targets' for

each year will be affected - this will affect the flow of funds too.

Even the State Minority Commission which had a belated meeting with

the CM put forth very illogical views to press its demand for

revoking the law. For example, it stated that the punishment in

other States where such a law was in force is less harsh, that the

minorities are engaged only in service and that no statistics are

available to substantiate the argument that forced conversions took

place.

 

Is the law illegal? Does it violate personal freedom and the

Constitutionally guaranteed rights? Does it prohibit and/or hinder

service by the minorities? These should have been raised and

validated. If the law violates personal freedom, then would less

harsh punishment justify it? The law will become operative not

against service but against conversions.

 

Similarly each State has laws with its own degree of severity and

leniency. Is there any law that says that all the States should have

a uniform set of punishments? For example the minority institutions

in this country follow different sets of rules and regulations -

differing from State to State. In this State they come under no

government regulation! What is puzzling is why the church leaders

while saying that they do not indulge in forced conversions are so

worked up and demand the revocation of the law? On the other hand

when there is blatant discrimination against the Christian SCs and

STs in denying them the same concessions and reservation guaranteed

to the Hindu Dalits there was/is no consistent struggle and protest.

Half-hearted attempts were made. Even the neo-Buddhists are given

the same benefits as the Hindu SCs and STs.

 

The argument that the law can be misused is valid. It is reasonable

then to ask for safeguard provisions. But do the churches not have

the resources - the power and the strength: financial political, and

social - to prove in the courts the `truth'? All laws are misused.

Do we do away with them?