In the following article, Chandrahas Choudhury writes, "Hinduism suffers because it has historically never been a proselytizing religion (its identity is partly based on being born into a pre-existing caste order). Therefore, if religion were to become a sort of free market in a multifaith country such as India, Hinduism could only stand to lose followers, not gain any."
The deeper question is why does it matter if each one of us minds our own business? What difference will it make if you are a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or the other? Let every one have the freedom to eat, drink, wear and believe whatever the hell he or she wants to believe.
The author hits the right buttons on conversions in the following article, and I have written many articles on the topic and a link to one of them is appended here below.
I find another of his thoughts in tune with me, "As a Hindu, I have some sympathy with this viewpoint. Missionary activity has always seemed to me unacceptably crude and arrogant, not only in its conviction that there is a single truth that must be propagated, but also in its contempt for two of the forces that most strongly influence religious belief: the accident of birth in a certain religion, which is then followed by many years of socialization into its worldview. "
Indeed, as a Muslim Pluralist, I find it agonizing to look down, or find faults and deficiencies in other faiths. It is a faith one grows up to be in love, just as one is in love with his or her mother. It would indeed be crude to ask one to give that up. I feel the pain that Muslims, Christians and others have inflicted upon people forcing them to convert in the past.
Those brutish Muslims and Christians from the past are reincarnated as the "Hindutva" forces, doing the same ugly things, what was done to Hindus in the past, keeping the cycle of hate and conversions back in business.
I really like this note from the author, "I respect an individual’s freedom not only to practice his or her faith but also to change it, " Indeed, that is the crux of my article - every individual should be free in his pursuit of happiness, let no one dictate what one eats, drinks, wears or believes.
Indeed Prime Minister Modi's silence is dangerous to the nation's cohesiveness, will he speak after the Hindutvadis dig in their heels and find it difficult to back out? There are many good articles written about his silence. Either he is approving it, or does not know what to do or let them do the harm as a revenge for the past and then I will stop.
If we can learn to respect the otherness of others and accept the God given uniqueness of each one of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge.
Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net
# # #
A New, All-Hindu vision of India
Courtesy Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-a-new-vision-of-india-100-percent-hind-20141226-story.html
97
This month, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, India’s
powerful, male-only Hindu nationalist outfit, finally played a card it has long
held in its hand. It announced an intensive conversion
program to recover its “lost property” in India, feeding the dream of its
cadre and allied organizations of an India that is nothing less than “100
per cent Hindu.”
The
RSS has visibly grown in power and ambition in the seven months since the
arrival of a new government -- unsurprisingly, as it counts among its past
members the
current prime minister, Narendra Modi, as well as many old and new chief
ministers in the states. With this carefully calculated provocation under a
regime sympathetic to its ideology, the nongovernmental organization is seeking
victories in many arenas.
In the realm of law, the RSS wants the passage of a stringent nationwide bill
that would ban religious conversions. In the public sphere, it has arrogated
the right to pronounce not just on the future of minorities in India but that of
India’s Hindu majority as well. In the war of the religions, it seeks to spread
the news that there is now a Hindu fundamentalism eager to goad and trump
well-established Christian and Islamic fundamentals in India and around the
world. And among its own vast cadre, it has generated the sense that it, much
more than the government of the day or the diverse institutions of civil society
and business, holds the keys to India's future.
But let’s consider conversion as a
recurring question in Indian history, one that reveals the tensions between
a religious society and a secular state, between conservative and liberal
adherents of a religion, between majorities and minorities in a multicultural
milieu, and between religions that have a history of proselytizing and those
that don’t.
The RSS’s new emphasis on conversion actually represents an about-face for
the organization, which has for decades condemned
missionary activity by Muslims and Christians in India. In so doing, the RSS
often points out that Hinduism suffers because
it has historically never been a proselytizing religion (its identity is partly
based on being born into a pre-existing caste order). Therefore, if religion
were to become a sort of
free market in a multifaith country such as India, Hinduism could only stand
to lose followers, not gain any.
As a Hindu, I have some sympathy with this viewpoint. Missionary activity
has always seemed to me unacceptably crude and arrogant, not only in its
conviction that there is a single truth that must be propagated, but also in its
contempt for two of the forces that most strongly influence religious belief:
the accident of birth in a certain religion, which is then followed by many
years of socialization into its worldview.
To be sure, I respect an individual’s freedom not only to practice his or
her faith but also to change it, as allowed in India by the constitution. But
shouldn't this follow from a person’s own dissatisfaction or personal struggle,
not as an outcome of the outreach work or material inducements of an organized
religion? I even find myself in sympathy with Mahatma Gandhi’s unusual
idea that it’s best that a person rule out the option of changing his
religion and instead live through his or her quarrels with it (as Gandhi very
vividly did).
So if the RSS’s new and crude campaign were aimed at simply drawing
attention to
the absence of a level playing field in India on the issue of conversion, as
well as to generate the necessary debate leading to the passage of such a bill,
I could see the point of it. But in truth, even if such a bill were passed, the
RSS would insist that it would nevertheless not be bound by the bill's terms.
That’s because the present aggressive campaign of the RSS is, in its own eyes,
not about conversion but about reversion:
the
return, after many generations, of Christians and Muslims whose forefathers
were once Hindu but were
converted during India’s centuries under Islamic and colonial rule.
What the RSS seeks, then, is a new disequilibrium in which no other
religious organization would have the right to convert people. No wonder it
salivates at the prospect of a future India in which, by generating a consensus
against the missionary activity of other religions, it can engineer a society
that’s 100 percent Hindu.
And we shouldn’t lose sight of the even more slippery and sinister part of
the RSS’s sinister agenda: the simultaneous conversion of a few hundred million
people from Hinduism to Hindutva,
the rancorous, intellectually and morally impoverished version of Hinduism that
the RSS propagates.
This is a dour
doctrine that -- like other religious fundamentals -- makes
no distinction between myth and history, science and religious belief, and
often comes close to caricature. It believes that Hinduism is a thought system
perfect from its very origins, that all the problems of modernity and history
were foreseen by Hindu sages 2,000 years ago, that all modern scientific
achievement was prefigured
in Hindu thought, that Indians of all faiths are “culturally Hindu,” that
India’s four-fifths Hindu majority is under threat from minorities, and that all
Hindus should fall in line with a singular interpretation of Hindu tradition
controlled by a central authority. That body would be -- surprise, surprise --
the RSS.
What's the view of the Modi government on all of this? In the firestorm
that has erupted around the conversion issue, one man’s refusal
to comment has come to seem as meaningful as any argument: Prime Minister
Modi, who in recent months has taken his message of development and an
economically resurgent India to many parts of the world, has remained shamefully
silent. (As usual, his friends in the media have found inventive
ways of coming to his defense.)
Perhaps this nongesture reflects Modi’s divided allegiance between the oaths and
responsibilities of his present post and the convictions and prejudices of his
often murky
past. But there's no getting past the truth that the evasion by this
allegedly firm and decisive leader -- the holder of the largest majority in
India’s parliament in three decades -- of the conversion debate holds profound
implications for the freedom and future of all of India’s 1.2 billion
people.
To contact the author on this story:
Chandrahas Choudhury at cchoudhury@bloomberg.net
No comments:
Post a Comment