DID CONVERSION START WITH AGRA?

By S R Ramanujan

Is conversion new to India? Or, for that matter re-conversion? If we listen to the discourses of our fake liberals, it appears so. As if, it all started at Agra! If there is one subject on which there is pretentious ignorance, palpable prejudice and bias in the media narratives, it is the hyporcritic blabber on conversions.

A senior citizen journalist (I don’t have a word to describe a journalist of the colonial era), may be, we can call “vintage journalist” talks about conversions away from Islam/Christianity to Hinduism as “”BPL conversions”” because the reverse was branded as “”rice conversions””. In a way he admits, though not directly, there is “”inducement”” in both the formulae. Does our Constitution guarantee such a right to convert with inducements when it guarantees the right to propagate one’s religion? And that is what was and has been happening all these decades when our (il)liberals looked the other way. If a society fails to act on such a naked aggression on the indigenous faith of its people, pro-active resistance is sure to follow and that is what we are witnessing today.

Let’s admit. India is a nation of conversions. And all these centuries, it was just one way track. May be, the faultlines of the indigenous religion were exploited for “”harvesting of souls””. May be, the followers of indigenous faith were so passive and powerless that the invaders could convert them with tremendous  ease. There was resistance at different stages in history. But such a resistance was quite feeble. The state power was in alien hands, first with Moghuls and later with the Missionaries, followed by the Communists who enjoyed state patronage under Jawaharlal Nehru and whatever the Left historians might write “force” was the only instrument used for conversion. There was no conversion which was out of one’s own sheer will. Either there was allurement and fraud or threat to life. 

Well, one may argue that it’s all history and what we should be concerned about is what is happening post- Independence. Quite right. But, let’s ask this basic question.  Why did six states of the Indian Union pass an anti-conversion law? All of them were not ruled by right wing parties at the time of such a legislation. For example, Odisha had to enact an anti-conversion law because the tribals in the state were exploited for conversion away from Hinduism to Christianity. So is the case with Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Arunachal Pradesh. What is more, these legislations were endorsed by the highest court in the land. When this verdict doesn’t suit the agenda of the fake seculars, there is clamour for revisiting this judgment.

Now, that is, in the background of Agra programme, liberals argue “that (such) programmes no doubt carry enormous potential to incite violence and hatred between communities; they are immoral, wicked and capable of producing dire consequences…Such legislation (anti-conversion law) can produce even greater damage; it would render nugatory our rights to freedom of conscience and religion, and in the process, it would scuttle any genuine attempts at achieving a peaceful, democratic society””.

Yes, the liberals are right. But the problem is selective amnesia. What they apprehend for Ghar Vapasi programme equally applies to conversion from Hinduism to other non-Hindu religions. No! That is not acceptable. Only “Ghar Vapasi”” is criminal or unconstitutional. Conversion of Hindus is perfectly Constitutional and it reinforced the fundamental right to freedom of conscience.

What happened in Kandhamal (Odisha), despite an anti-conversion law, is a classic example as to what could happen when conversions from the indigenous culture or religion to other alien faiths take place. When an Australian missionary and a Hindu saint were brutally killed in Odisha, none of these liberals raised their finger against conversions through inducement or ridicule of indigenous beliefs which were responsible for communal violence and hatred; but directed their wrath against “”fascist forces””. It was a clash of civilizations. Followers of indigenous faith whose tradition was to rever cows was not merely challenged by the alien faith, but ridiculed. What was the outcome of this clash is now part of history. 

When the Hindu saint was murdered as he was performing a religious ritual, the blame was put on naxals. For the post-murder violence, saffron forces were hauled up. First of all, why was he murdered? He could successfully arrest the pace of conversions among the tribals with foreign funds. The same liberals who now say that such conversions (mind you, they only refer to reconversions) were immoral, wicked and capable of producing dire consequences did not recognise the dangers involved in the business of conversion by missionaries imported from abroad. None of these liberals took time for honest introspection. Only when Agra happens, their conscience is aroused. Freedom of conscience comes into play.

Those who cry hoarse over Agra should ponder over the reality that conversion is the antithesis of secularism or secular spirit. Our founding fathers of the Constitution would not have imagined that billions of dollars would flow into the country for conversion by all foul and fraudulent means. Otherwise, they would have made a specific provision against conversions by inducement or allurement. Why does one convert a person belonging to another faith? Because he thinks that his faith is superior to the other and only when he/she follows his religion he/she can attain salvation. How does it gel with the spirit of secularism which warrants that all religions should be treated with equal respect? Do the converters endorse the indigenous faith “”Sarva Dharma Samo bhav””.

In today’s political jargon, “”secularism has an anti-Hindu animus””. Christian missionaries believe that India was a land of darkness, of heathenism, of paganism, of unbelievers and they want the entire country had to be converted into a land of Christ. India is poor, according to them, and backward because the land is full of unbelievers, and Joshua Project targets these heathens for the “”harvesting of souls””. When it comes to Islam, any religion that does not owe allegiance to the Prophet is “false religion” worshipping false gods. Does this square up with the spirit of secularism? If someone raises such questions, he will be immediately branded “”communal”” by our secular warriors.

When will our seculars see the reality?

FEDERALISM IS NO ONE WAY ALLEY

By S R Ramanujan

Federalism is the latest buzz word in political discourses these days, of course, next only to “secularism”. Is federalism a one-way street?  Is it the responsibility of the Centre alone to respect and maintain the federal spirit of the Constitution with no role for the States to reciprocate? After the booing incidents at the functions organized by the state where there was an attempt to silence the state chief ministers by a small section of the audience in contrast to the cheering of the Prime Minister, the debate for true federalism has become more shrill.

Undoubtedly, what happened at Kaithal, Solapur and Jharkand are not in good taste and a little prod from the Prime Minister could have averted an ugly spectacle. But, this, in no way, can be stretched to conclude that the Centre has violated the federal spirit of the Constitution. Federal spirit has nothing to do with the unpredictable behavior of the “aam admi”. What the chief ministers did in retaliation saying that they would never share the dais with the PM and would never follow the protocol was also indeed a violation of the federal spirit. Petty incidents, that too, in poll-bound states, cannot and should not be blown out of proportion. Maharashtra chief minister did violate the protocol when he refused to receive the Prime Minister at the Mumbai airport, and instead sent one of his junior ministers. He went a step further and said that he wanted a guarantee for boo-free audience if he were to participate in the functions of the Prime Minister.

Well, what Prithviraj Chavan chose to ignore was the fact that in his own state his partymen breached PM’s security to show him black flags. This protest was perfectly legitimate in a democracy, as legitimate for a section of the audience to boo a chief minister. The argument was that such a protest was orchestrated by the BJP to humiliate the state chief ministers. Can the BJP or the PM put a counter-condition that the PM would visit a state only if the state chief ministers could guarantee that there would be no black flags against the PM. That would have been silly, as silly as Chavan’s demand for a similar guarantee. But the national English media went to town that there was “a rape of federal structure of the country”. The very same media thought it was no news when Modi invited Haryana chief minister Hooda for a chat over tea to mollify his hurt sentiments. When the slogan shouting clip was repeated ad nauseum, there was no clip of Modi-Hooda meet.

Anyway, let us come to the basics. If there could be one party which cared a damn for the federal spirit of the Constitution, it is the Indian National Congress of the Nehru era, Indira Congress of the Nehru dynasty and now the Sonia Congress. In between we had many more Congress parties with different “suffixes” like Congress (O), Congress (U), Congress (R) and the splinter groups led by Arjun Singh,ND Tiwari and others. The extant splinter group is NCP. Why did we have so many Congress groups? The reason is quite simple. Those at the helm at the Centre, whether it was Nehru, Indira, or Sonia did not respect the federal spirit of the Constitution and treated the States like the vassals? That arrogant attitude caring a damn for the federal spirit splintered the party and laid the foundation for political immorality. 

We may hail Nehru as the greatest democrat. But, he was the first Prime Minister to strike a blow to the federal spirit of our Constitution when he dismissed EMS Namboodiripad government in Kerala on 31st July 1959. The undivided communist party of India won the polls with a thin majority of two seats. The Congress could not digest this defeat and the party under the leadership of his daughter, Indira Gandhi, unsuccessfully tried its best for defection. Under the guise of “Vimochana Samaram” (liberation movement), a situation was created to dismiss the duly elected government using Art. 356 of the Constitution.

The tips that Indira leant under her father to (mis)use Art 356 came very handy for her when she took over the reins. She imposed President’s Rule misusing Art 356 on 39 occasions between 1966 and 1977. Janata Party government, formed after the Emergency, was no angel. It also resorted to this authoritarian trend by imposing President’s rule on nine occasions in the states ruled by the Congress.  If Art 356 remains in cold storage for some time now, it is not because of the mercy shown by the Centre to the states or respect for federalism or the wisdom of the political class, but the credit goes to the SC judgement on SR Bommai case that restored a semblance of sanity in dealing with the states.

 Sonia Gandhi, a loyal “bahu” of the dynasty proved that she was no different in trashing the federal spirit of the Constitution and treating the states like vassals when she wanted to bifurcate Andhra Pradesh. The resolution of the State assembly was thrown into the dustbin. A legal pundit made a succinct remark over this episode. Let me quote: “To treat the State’s views as carrying merely formal value, as has been widely suggested, would render the Constitutional process of consultation entirely nugatory in a matter of national importance”. Well, it is like quoting scriptures to a devil. It cannot also be forgotten as to how Lalu Prasad Yadav, when he was the Union Railway Minister, destroyed the federal spirit,  when ordered a parallel enquiry, without the state’s consent, into the 2002 Godhra violence, as a political tool to beat Modi with.

Law and order is another state subject and the Centre cannot intervene unless in an advisory role. But what is the record of the states in equipping themselves with competent manpower and arms and ammunition, besides intelligence network, in order to maintain the federal spirit?  States have not implemented police reforms and the police force has been completely politicized. Every time there is a terror attack or Maoist violence, states were caught napping. It is the Centre that has to intervene with its men and material. Even the failure to control Maoist insurgency is because of the dual authority. Centre cannot directly intervene and it can only supply men and material but the operation has to be under state control. Most often, lack of coordination, as we have seen in Chattisgarh, led to enormous violence and loss of lives.

It is, therefore, funny that states that cannot handle the subject of law and order that was given to them under the federal structure and failed to protect its people is raising a silly incident like booing to talk of “rape of democracy”.  Let the surviving Sonia Congress and for that matter the people who are around and who were partners in Janata experiment introspect as to who trampled the federal spirit of the Constitution for decades instead of blaming the present dispensation!