One of my most terribly Americanized tendencies is to find out what’s going on in India mostly from non-Indian sources. For example, while editing an article about prison rape, I ran across a couple of press releases by a Southern Baptist organization that was trumpeting its success in Christianizing higher caste Hindus. Presumably their particular delight in making inroads in this sector of Indian society is not due to caste snobbery as such, but to missionizing’s generally having its best luck among marginalized groups rather than the mainstream. This is true not only for Christianity in India, but also of Islam in the United States, which found many more converts among African Americans, particularly those who were imprisoned, than among affluent whites.
My reaction to this news was complex. On one hand, I’m very opposed to the laws in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat that briefly attempted to ban mythical “forced conversions” and required people to register any change in religion with the government. If people wish to peacefully convince others of a particular belief, even one with which I don’t agree, they should be free to do so without fear of punishment or deportation.
On the other hand, I find conversion activity vaguely displeasing because it inherently pre-supposes the superiority of one religious faith over another. For whatever reason, I don’t mind thinking liberalism preferable to conservatism, capitalism to communism, but a similar judgment on religions tends to raise my hackles. Moreover, one could claim that the Indian government appears to treat all conversion activity as objectionable, even when it doesn’t involve Hindus. Ennis’s mention of Indian Jews two months ago neglected to note that the Indian government objected to having the previously-Christianized, long-ago descendants of Jews officially converted to Judaism on Indian soil.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s office sent to India six rabbis, who converted 600 members of the tribe to Judaism to ensure they could immigrate to Israel under state law […] India had pressured Israel to stop the conversion activity, implying that it violated Indian law, Regev said. In response, an Israeli parliamentary committee asked Sharon to reconsider the location of the conversions, Regev said.
Another little-known fact about the Bnei Menashe members brought to Israel is that most were settled in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, which Israel recently evacuated.
I have seen religion give neither more nor fewer benefits to my Hindu family than it has to my Jewish and Christian friends, which is not something that I can say of my shallow observations of political and economic regimes. A good person seems to produce an equally generous Christian or kind Muslim, depending mainly on the culture in which that person was raised, whereas the same nation subjected to highly restrictive economic and social conditions versus reasonably liberal ones will turn out quite differently.
Thus the amount of effort expended in altering others’ beliefs about deities often strikes me as wasted. It is effort people should be legally free to waste, just as they can waste it on computer games and other things that give them pleasure. But it is nothing I can applaud regardless of what alteration has been made, though I encourage the work of missionaries who bring significant secular educational, medical and capitalist resources to India along with their tracts.
Of course, this is the inevitable viewpoint of an agnostic, and perhaps that of a person raised as a Hindu, if one remembers the infamous exchange between Gandhi and Jinnah: Gandhi – “I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Zoroastrian, a Jew.” Jinnah – “Only a Hindu could say that.”
PG – thanks for the balanced approach.
Allow me respond with the confession that I am often embarrased and humbled by the generousity and the genuine interest of friends and acquaintances, who don’t share my Christian background, regarding my own faith tradition. On these threads, Razib and Saheli (among others) have often surprised me with the detail and nuance of their understanding of Christian history/theology.
Some time back a Muslim friend joined me at Church on a Sunday and when the bread and wine were passed around he thought nothing of participating as well – I was so touched by this innocent gesture.
I only hope that more of this mutual respect for religious tradition will start to emerge within the missionary community in India. It will be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few decades.
For example, while editing an article about prison rape, I ran across a couple of press releases by a Southern Baptist organization that was trumpeting its success in Christianizing higher caste Hindus.
That’s a pretty fierce, albeit indirect, indictment of [all] forms of conversion, it more-or-less frames your argument and makes this confusing:
It is effort people should be legally free to waste… But it is nothing I can applaud… though I encourage the work… Of course, this is the inevitable viewpoint of an agnostic
As an agnostic, you see the value of god, but not the value of conversion. But is that because you don’t find value in religion and or is it because you truly equate conversion with rape? Your opening statement seems to indicate you do, but your ambivalence in the last few paragraphs says something different…
(Either way, “…while editing an article about prison rape” is a grandly disturbing line and one of those things that only a few people can pull off, sans humor, while making a point. Good.)
i think the religious ‘arguments’ on SM are actually a lot more fruitful than in many other places because the fact that many here are hindu serves as a sort of rhetorical ‘ballast.’ whether hinduism on the mass scale is really that different from any other religious expression on a level cognitive (i’m skeptical), elite practioners do seem to take the eclectic and latitudinarian attitude seriously, and this is not necessarily inversely related to the magnitude of their religious devotion.
Why the forced conversions in double-quotes? Forced conversions do happen!! Check out http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html So if a hungry mother and child convert to Christianity for food, can that really be called a choice? You need to get a better understanding of how Christian missionaries operate not only in India, but also around the world.
@badmash: The core essence of Christianity is based on intolerance — “only if you believe in Jesus Christ can you be saved”. So what’s the point of this “mutual respect for religious tradition[s]”?
So if a hungry mother and child convert to Christianity for food, can that really be called a choice?
1) we all make choices.
2) even behavior like this is not necessarily modal.
Hey,
I totally agree with your point on conversions. Especially Gandhi’s line holds so true in every Hindu mind. I am not blowing Hinduism’s trumpet or establishing its moral superiority over other religions but after interacting with people from other religions all my life, I have realized that Hindus (and the ever lovable Parsis too!) ARE the most tolerant and understanding. This is a pretty big statement and it holds true somehow because of the various forms, practices and choices that Hinduism offers to its followers. One can b truly spiritual and go deep into the Vedas and Yoga for “finding oneself” (as the Westerners say!). Or alternatively one can chose the path of Bhakti and be totally devoted to serving a God. They can be Karmic and believe in the missive – “Work is Worship” and “As you sow , so shall you reap” and go about performing worldly duties with all the zest and vigour. The ways and methods to reach God and happiness are astonishing indeed.
What is more interesting is that, Hindus themselves know how different the other Hindus practise religion in their own way. Especially, people in cities like Bombay where you may have a Maharastrian Brahmin living near a fish-eating Mithila one. Or a Haryana Jat sharing corridor space with a Pushtimargiya Gujju. People realise that when there are so many ways to reach God within Hinduism (and with it the associated rituals and mannerisms that follow),acceptance of the other religions becomes so easy.
It is not that Hinduism is the panacea for all the world religions given its caste-based prejudices along with some weird beliefs (like one cannot cross the seven seas – a DEFINITE block to ancient Indians domination of the world) certainly need to be addressed at. But Hinduism almost certainly never says that – “We are the best and if you don’t follow us, you are not on the path of the true HIM”
Personally, I am an agnostic and in fact I totally agree on the scientific and rational explanation of the creation of the world but I really cannot stand people claiming that their religion is the best and go on other vilifying other religions. And on top of that, exploit people’s helplessness to their advantage and converting them.
shx – The interpretation of Christianity you point to is not universal. There has always been a strong tradition of inclusiveness in the Christian tradition in opposition to the power-centered tradition of exclusiveness that you point to.
Read: Meister Eckhart, Teresa of Avila, Francis of Assisi, F Schleiermacher, CF Andrews, Simone Weil, Albert Schweitzer, A von Harnack, Thomas Merton, Brian McLaren… the list goes on.
I actually have a very good idea of how missionaries in India operate; when I travel to India I usually visit the free clinics, shelters and other institutions run by my relatives which are free of any ideological price (i.e. conversion) e.g. CMC Vellore and CMC Lidhiana do not ask their patients to convert before they are treated.
I’m aware of the “rice-conversion” criticism and frankly I think when/where so-called missionaries act this way it is utterly reprehensible and immoral. However, I think the point of the news report you linked to is that the people did not agree to convert – whereas the premise of the rice-conversion criticism appears to be that the simply people don’t have the choice to say no.
above should read: “Ludhaina”, “simple people”
aarrrgh, still not right! it’s late, i’m going to sleep…
Awww. Thanks Badmash. Group hug!!!! more later. . .
Sorry folks – could not get a link for the article…
M. Nam
There is clear evidence which confirms that some international Christian organizations are backing terrorism and separatist movements in IndiaÂ’s North-east. These church backed organizations are providing funds, arms and ammunitions with the aim of creating a separate Christian state.
Tripura
The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) was founded in December 1989. Since its inception the NLFT has been engaged in an armed struggle to carve out a separate Christian nation – Tripura. The backing of the Baptist church right from the beginning has enabled this organization to spread its base. Due to its terrorist activities, the organization was banned by the government in 1997 but it continued its operations from across the Bangladesh border.
The priests of the Baptist church supply arms and ammunitions to these terrorist rebels. Nagmanlal Halam, the secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura was arrested by CRPF in April 2000 on charges of aiding insurgents and possessing a large quantity of explosives including 60 gelatin sticks, 5kg of potassium, 2kg of sulphur and other ingredients for making powerful bombs. Two junior members of the same church, who had been arrested earlier tipped the police off about the explosives which were meant for terrorist organizations like the NLFT. Mr. Halam confessed to buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT. Another church official, Jatna Koloi, who was also arrested, admitted that he received training in guerrilla warfare at an NLFT base.
It is now apparent that the pattern of forced conversions at gunpoint are irrefutably linked to the Baptist Church in Tripura. The NLFT is accused of forcing Tripura’s indigenous tribes to become Christians and give up Hindu forms of worship in areas under their control. For decades Tripura’s
indigenous tribal population has been dragged out of their homes and forced to convert to Christianity under threat of violence. Whenever any of the tribals organize Hindu festivals or rituals, the terrorist groups attack to desecrate and kill the participants. There have been incidents of issuing a ban on the Hindu festivals of Durga Puja and Saraswati Puja. The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura. The hill tribe ‘Jamatiya’ worship their traditional god ‘Gadiya’, who is supposed to be an incarnation of Lord Shiva, in the month of March. The terrorists have issued an order that the ‘Gadiya’ be prayed on the Christmas day instead.
The Baptist Church in Tripura was set up by missionaries from New Zealand 60 years ago. It won only a few thousand converts until 1980 when a mass scale ethnic riot was engineered by the Church in which systematic ethnic cleansing of Hindu and Buddhist tribals was initiated. Thousands of women were raped and kidnapped and forced to convert to Christianity. The terrorists receive military aid from extremist Christian groups in Australia and New Zealand. They also have ongoing exchanges with Islamic terrorist and ISI who push in arms from the Bangladeshi border.
When the RSS and other Hindu organizations decided to help the Hindus under attack in Tripura by aiding them in reconversion, hundreds of the RSS volunteers were attacked, threatened and blackmailed. Several of them were murdered and a number of them were kidnapped and held hostage by the Christian terrorists. In August 2000, Swami Shantikali Maharaj, the famous Hindu sage known for his social services was killed by the terrorists. In December 2000, Lavkumar Jamatiya, the priest of the ‘Jamatiya’ tribe was killed, two Hindu temples and one Buddhist temple were destroyed and order was issued to end all non-Christian methods of praying. In the year 2001, there were 826 terrorist attacks in Tripura in which 405 persons were killed
and 481 cases of kidnapping by the rebels.
Nagaland
The National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), a separatist organization has two main factions. Both the factions are headed by Christians and get financial support from World Council of Churches, a missionary organisation. China provides arms and ammunitions to both the factions.
The NSCN has its offices in New York, Geneva and Hague which display boards with legend ‘Peoples Republic of Nagaland’. It has twice raised its demand for an independent nation in the United Nations. The NSCN has its own government which collects money from the local people. One third of the salaries of the government servants is taken away as Nagaland Tax before disbursement. Most of the banks in Nagaland have closed down because of the huge sums extracted by this outfit. The letterheads and stamps of this unofficial government read ‘Nagaland for Christ’.
There is evidence of NSCN having ties with the ISI. The NSCN general secretary in an interview with the English daily ‘Hindu’ accepted that they were trying to create pressure on the Indian army in the north-east so that there was less pressure from the army in Kashmir.
Meghalaya
The proselytizing activities of the Christian missionaries during the 150 years of patronage from the British rule have resulted in the conversion of two-thirds of the people of the state to Christianity. After independence in 1947, many of the locals started reverting to their original tribal religion and lifestyle. The natives of the Khasi hills started to once again get associated with their roots. They formed an organization called ‘Sengkhasi’. Shri Rejoy Singh Khongsha, an important official of this organization, at first got threats and later was abducted by North-east Red Army, a separatist and terrorist outfit known to have direct links with the church. The church has been threatening the leaders of ‘Sengkhasi’ for their connection with the Hindu organisations.
The Church in the north-east is also known to be associated with smuggling across the borders and circulation of fake currency notes. In December 1998, Bedang Tamjen, a Jemi-Naga missionary was arrested for making fake currency notes.
The most shocking fact is that the Indian media has not even mentioned these facts in their coverage. Whereas even unconfirmed rumors about any attack on Christians are immediately touted as “an assault on minorities”, not a word is spared to enlighten the Indian citizenry about the religious terrorism that is taking place in the north-east
Honestly, if she gets fed, that’s what’s most important.
@badmash: Most Christians are part of the “power-centered tradition” as opposed to the tradition of “inclusiveness” that you talk about. So you need to start educating you fellow Christians on how to practice Christianity (start fixing their interpretation of Christianity) before this mutual respect of religious traditions can really occur.
And the problem with Hindus is what Gandhi said: most Hindus (falsely thinking that they are like Gandhi) say “I am Christian, Jew, Muslim and Hindu”. Most of them will go to Churches and Mosques. They think that doing all this makes them spiritual. But unfortunately, it only makes them confused. And they seem to have the view, “if conversions happen, then it is meant to happen, it is God’s will”. The attitudes of these “modern” Hindus are a major problem for the Hindu culture…
@shx: I hate to say it, but in a sense, some Hindu’s are too liberal.
Or you could take it from the point that some Hindu’s aren’t educated enough in the spiritual points of Hinduism. They are simply following tradition in terms of rites, ceremonies, marriage, etc. A true spiritual revolution needs to occur before they will learn, however. They are far too many people to teach one by one.
Psychic are we? Do you know what is in the hearts of the majority of the world’s Christians? Maybe the “power-centered” traditions are just far more vocal and visible.
You need to educate yourself about India’s most ancient Christian community, which Badmash, Vinod and I are all a part of; the world’s first Christians created beautifully unique, syncretic traditions while the ancestors of the evangelical missionaries you are referring to were putting their faith in trees and fairies. Badmash clearly stated that he thought insincere rice/forced conversions were reprehensible (and I concur). What more is needed?
Some Hindus are sputtering, violent intolerants who think I’m not Indian b/c St. Thomas converted my family 2000 years ago. Does that make most Hindus scary? No. Do I expect YOU to educate such ignorant morons? NO. Desist with the blanket proclamations please, I’m warm enough thanks.
Anna
Your point about Syrian christians is well made and I concur with it.My mom’s best friend was a Syrian Christian and we grew up playing with her kids, being well aware of how Indian they are.
However, its interesting how your post shows exactly why conversion creates fissures which are unrequired in society.
A conversion 2000 years ago, still creates distrust with neighbors? Why do you still feel the need to justify it? Why do others still distrust? I agree its not fair, but that is the natural outcome of creating a false devision in society on the basis of religion. One can argue tioll kingdon come about equality but the very fact two different faiths needed to compete creates a fissure, never to be healed.
Conversion creates that distrust in society. Dont you see why it creates more harm than good?Through your own experience? The great great grandchildren of the converted will keep justifying who they are for centuries and the cycle of distrust will continue.
Its not fair, I agree, but isnt that what happens?
Why do we think conversion wont create that strife? This is my purely philosophical discomfort with the principle of conversion, that is presupposes one way is better than the other. This is a power dynamic. Its not important which faiths are involved. Its NOT a win-win situation.
I feel its an extreme act of violence as it creates a rift in a person’s identity that they are forced to take sides against their brothers and sisters. And this continues for generations, as the governing principle of conversion is the principle of one faith being “higher” or a “better” than the other. How can this power inequity be ever balanced? Unless one acknowledges that the other path was equally valid?
For this reason alone, conversion leaves me feeling uncomfortable. It doesnt matter what religion indulges in it. Heck, I know Buddhist cults too who convert, and I oppose all equally.
Do you not agree?
Sumita
Moornam – this is an entirely different kettle of fish from rice-conversions.
The World Council of Churches is not a missionary organization – in fact they are one of the most ecumenical bodies in the world today, so I’m a bit skeptical regarding their involvement in conversion, especially at the point of a gun.
In addition to the article above I”m referencing this story This article concludes with, “they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura.” A twisted interpretation of what the term “baseleia theo” means in the New Testament, which, frankly, has absolutely no theological merit. I don’t know a single international Church body that would support such an interpretation.
Some additional details to think about – the article you quote above didn’t account for the possibility that Church leaders themselves are forced to cooperate at the point of a gun. It didn’t convey the strong terms in which these activities are condemned by local Church leaders in India. It failed to mention that the NLFT (and similar groups) also targets other Christian Churches and personalities (e.g. Father Victor Crasta). Although it mentions support from the Chinese army, ISI, Gulf States I suspect that the logistical training and funds comes from these quarters. Baptist organizations support work all over India both monetarily and logistically, but there is no terrorist activity transpiting in these other regions.
Remember that North Eastern separatism has been around since the fifties, long before any significant role (or conversions) was being played by Baptist missionaries. I suspect that these groups are using forced conversions to Christianity in the capacity of identity politics – to give a distinct religious/cultural identity to their movement. This could not be more at odds with the pietistic conversions that missionaries seek.
Such groups must therefore more accurately be described as sectarian and separatist terrorist groups. They are not missionary groups. They are therefore as representative of South Asian Christianity as the Taliban is of South Asian Islam.
Razib wrote:
Sheltering of the Parsis (Zoroastrians) and the Jews…and not forcing them to assimilate…
Not persecuting a longstanding Christian tradition in Kerala out of existence…
Scant evidence of anything remotely resembling a abrahamic style religious war.
Two hundred thousand Tibetan Buddhist exiles today freely practicing Buddhism
Hindus have taken it seriously. Thats one thing of which we can justly be proud.
Anna – 🙂
true story guys. I know of a family from tamil nadu here. They were convereted to christianity. The story goes like this. The young son had a life threatning condition requiring immediate medical attention. The parents have no money to fund the operation. The local catholic church steps in and generously offers to pay for it….if and only if… they all convert. I consider this immoral and i’ve seen plenty of this kind of things going on in TN. Will this kind of activity be tolerated in US? The family by the way still practices hinduism. Christian nations tend to be wealthy(mostly because of their historically immoral practices such as slavery and colonialism). They have a lot of money to spend and have now made it a practice to use those resources for conversion. I’m not talking about all… there are some first class missionary institutions that have done well in the field of education and healthcare. Now a days more and more missionary activity tend to be overtly aggressive with service being a distant second to conversion.
Deepa writes:
No. The means are more important than the end itself. What if the hungry mother was forced to prostitute herself or make porn movies to feed her child – would you have made the statement?
Badmaash,
Most Christians who seek to convert Hindus in India (and many lay Christians as well) carry out their activity without malice. They genuinely feel that Hindus should convert because X-ty is better. They believe that India is a poor and destitute country with bad infrastucture and pot-holed roads because Hinduism is practiced there. They love India from the bottom of their heart, and want Hindus to convert for the betterment of India! They belive that conversion to Christian values with promote health, wealth and happiness.
However, when pointed out that the best wealth creators of India have always been primarily Hindus, they draw a blank. When pointed out that in the pre-British days, India contributed to 25% of the world’s economy, despite stifling Muslim rule, they refuse to listen. When pointed out that the X-ian majority countries of South America have the same situation that India has, they refuse to listen. When we challenge their claim that X-tians run the best schools in India, by saying that they only do so because Article-30 of the Constitution prohibits Hindus from running their own schools as they seem fit, they close their ears. When their claim of highest per-capita income of X-tians is challenged on the grounds that if you take out foriegn contributions to Churches and Conversions, the per-capita income of Indian X-tians is more or less on par with that of muslims, far below Hindus. Sikhs, Jains etc.
They’ve been brainwashed. You cannot reason with them.
Here’s another article:Re-Imagining Religious Freedom.
M. Nam
This is not completely true. It’s a simple explanation to a more complex issue. The reason many people did convert to buddhism was because of the discrimination that they faced in the caste system. It’s not hard to imagine for people who are told that they belong to a lower strata of society, to actually consider believing in a different faith which tells them they’re all equals. Now, i’m sure there are many occurences of “forced” conversions, where people are told that they will be helped ONLY if they convert to a certain religion. I don’t deny that. But the belief that conversions only presuppose that one way is better than the other is not true.
@shx Everything in the bible is not meant to be taken literally. Some things have to be interpreted based on who wrote it, when it was written , the reason it was written the way it was( political reasons at that time etc.). A lot of christians are guilty of believing everything in the Bible as written. You talked about … “Only if you believe in Jesus Christ can you be saved”. Something like this is not meant to be taken literally, this was written by people years after jesus’s death. His story has been altered in few ways to serve the situation then. Even the different gospels have slightly different stories.
MoorNam, thanks for the link — will read and post comments in a bit…
Derick writes:
and then writes,
!!!
This is slightly off topic, but Buddhism gave the common man very simple means to Moksha/Salvation, as opposed to Hinduism which was very complex and difficult to practise. This is convered briefly in my article: Myth of Brahminical hegemony.
Later, when Adi Shankara appropriated Buddhist practices into Hinduism, the masses flocked back within a couple of centuries. This is convered in another of my articles: The trial of Adi Shankara. M. Nam
There is little evidence of that. Almost every Madhyamika and Yogacara philospher, metaphysician and logician–Nagarjuna, Ashvagosha, Chandrakriti and tons of others, who had an intellectual impact throughout Asia–was a Brahmin.
The Buddha himself was of high caste origin and 80% of the original sangha was also high caste.
Buddhism believed that nirvana was available to all, and he railed against the casteism of Brahmins and their (to him very unproductive) adherence to the Vedas, but Buddhism was not a lower caste movement.
The Hindus also believe that moksha is available to all–read the Bhagavad Gita.
70% of the Nayanmars (South Indian Saivite Saints) and over 50% of Maharastrian Bhakti saints are of sudra origin.
That should have read – “One of the reasons …”. My point was not to reduce the whole conversion to – “..it’s because my religion is better than yours”. I’m saying that there are more reasons, and just saying that the basis of all conversions are because of one religion’s attempt to show it’s superiority, is not how i see it. I’m also not denying that other some people might actually lsee it this way. @Eddie. I wasn’t saying it was a strictly lower caste movement. The point being, that there were willing converts, who converted because they felt it would make a difference to them. It might have been more about just being able to attain moksha.
Excuse the typos in my (just coherent) comment above… sheesh
it is possible to be a patriot without being an asshole.
I am only a lurker at sepia . This is the my first interaction here. I think this site is dominated by ‘south-asian’ types or 2nd generation Indian-Americans whose attachment to India is negligible compared to you or I…that is why you are wasting your time if you expect them to worry about the threats to Indian nation arising from the church , leftists or whatever.
What a joker. How dare you typecast 2gens, you FOB with an identity crisis. Go be a big bad nationalist in your cocoon with others like yourself (while living in the US, of course.)
@Anna: OK, then: What is the percentage split between those who are “power-centered” versus those like you, who are “inclusive”? Please educate me!
But yes, I really do expect you (and badmash and other clue-ful Christians) to educate (or try to educate instead of sitting silently) those Christians that you meet who are narrow minded. I have always done that with friends and people that I have met (and yes I have heard about Albert Schweitzer and Meister Eckhart and read articles on them to understand they aren’t these “convert now, convert now, convert now” type of Christians). (But, no, you don’t have to make it a central mission in your life and go everywhere with a loudspeaker in hand.) But you do this, because, people might actually listen to you and lose their evil ways ;-), especially since you are part of their group (that is, you share a common bond — in this case Christianity — so other Christians /might/ listen to what to say and actually take it into consideration). How else do you expect to solve serious issues between religions — if you can’t start with one’s own religion?
I think that you are seriously confused, if you can’t see what mainstream Christianity really is. The Pope’s plan is to convert Asia to Christianity (see http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2000/2/2000-2-11.shtml) That is what Christianity does. That’s the defense used by Ravi Zacharias (http://www.rzim.org/ravi.php) in his book “Jesus Among Other Gods.” He says, “..to be Christian, is to Convert, and if we are not allowed to convert, then you are tell us not to be a Christian. Oh the humanity!!”. I think conversion is fine, but this attitude of “only Jesus” is a virus, that spreads and kill everything else like cancer. I have been to church (even house chruch) and read books on Christianity — and everyone has said, this “only Jesus” is the common thread among all the different Christians. So you see, if you don’t believe that, them all these Christians, won’t consider you to be Christian. Really!
So if I say something against Christianity and you speak out by saying “no, no, no…christians aren’t like that” — then you are doing a disservice to everyone involved in the debate. You are defending people who don’t even consider you to be Christian.
So, now I am really looking forward to the percentage split between the two groups. Thanks.
These are hardly to be equated with conversion to Christianity.
@Eddie: If you are flaming me or someone else, please, please, please make one that makes sense. Otherwise, you see, neither the flamed (the one who is at the receiving end of the flame) or nor anyone else will understand the hate you put forward — thus wasting all your time and energy. Thanks!
@Eddie: If you are flaming me or someone else, please, please, please make one that makes sense.
Dude stop being so damn sanctimonious. Which word didnt make sense? FOB or loser? As to the morality of making those statements, and to your presumptions regarding my time, the less said the better.
You appear to protest Christians believeing there way is the only way, but why should they change to please you? Most of the latitudinarians I’ve encountered have never been able to answer that question.
And, according to the Indian census, the percentage of Christians in India has remained fairly constant over the last 50 years–2-2.4%.
Do you have anything to refute that?
The issue is not conversion but proselytization which I understand as an active attempt to induce someone to join one’s own faith. Conversion is an individual act and it’s prohibition constitutes a violation of human rights – at least, my understanding of such rights. To my mind, countries – some Islamic ones, certainly – which have draconian laws on “apostasy” are certainly violative of human rights.
Proselytization is a different matter. A policy which freely permits conversion is compatible with a restriction on proselytization. For instance, Israel where I spent a year does restrict proselytization activities. Christian missionaries are allowed to hand out literature but are not allowed to hold meetings or even approach someone with a view to “converting” them. (If I’m mistaken on this, I’d appreciate being set right. This was my understanding of the relevant Israeli law.)
In the Indian context, things are complicated by the presence of many religions and of course, the caste system. Most of the discussion has focused on Christian missionaries vis-a-vis Hindus but there are of course, others. There have been reports of people converting to Islam periodically. Even more, there have been reports of Christians converting Sikhs (in Punjab) and Muslims (in of all places, Jammu and Kashmir). And of course, while many – dare, I say – upper caste Hindus are not comfortable with Christian proselytization activities, there are many Dalit intellectuals who do support it.
I should note that no religious group seems comfortable when it is at the “receiving” end of proselytization activities. I recall a newsarticle (can’t remember where) that the late Pope John Paul II was not very happy with the fact that in Latin America, the Catholic church was losing ground to evangelical groups from the US. I don’t want to rake up old wounds but in the Punjab between 1980-1995, one of the targets of militant Sikhs were the Nirankaris – a religious group I suppose not many remember – who did succeed in attracting many Sikhs (and Hindus) in that state. One of the leaders of the Nirankaris was shot dead. In Israel, I was surprised at the sensitivity of this issue. I remember an article in the Jerusalem Post about some Christians who got beaten up because they were suspected of indulging in “conversion.”
Given the plethora of caste and religious groups in India, I do think that an acceptable policy on proselytization activities badly needs to be negotiated. It is not going to be easy negotiating such a deal given the different groups and divergent viewpoints, but I think it’s better that this issue be discussed openly. (If I remember rightly, the Indian Constitution assembly did discuss this; some (Hindu) members want the clause on religion to give everyone the right to freely practice and profess their faith but not the right to propagate freely; this was opposed by the Christian members who argued that propagation was an essential component of their faith. The Christian viewpoint was the one which prevailed. Given the current scenario, perhaps it’s time to reopen the debate.)
MoorNam – quick comments on what you have written –
“wealth creators have been Hindus” – what of the Indus Valley? Greek trade routes (Taxila)? Arab/European trade?
“despite stifling Muslim rule…” This is not the picture that emerges from the detailed studies of commerce in the Mughal and post-Mughal period. Popular recognition of the cooperation between the “Hindu” and “Muslims” in India regarding matters of commerce go at least as far back as the famous partnership between Akbar and his finance minister Raja Todar Mal. See – Sanjay Subrahmanyam, the Aligarh School historians (Habib, M Athar Ali), Christopher Bayly.
Article 30 of the constitution: “Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.” How does this prevent “majority” groups from establishing institutions of their own? Sri Ram College of Commerce, Hindu College, BHU, the Arya Vidya Mandir schools are among the finest in India. Also most of the Christian-founded institutions (St. Stephen’s, Doon, Cathedral School) date from before the writing of the constitution.
“foriegn contributions to Churches and Conversions”. Can you substantiate your conclusion with facts? My own family for generations were spice traders in Cochin and merchants along the river route to the Shabarimala temple – a very actively commercial community. For about three generations since the 1930s they have worked as professionals in the Middle East – foreign Church contributions and conversions have very little to do with the commercial success of most Christians in Kerala and Goa.
You ended your comments with a statement about Christians being “brainwashed” against criticism. This unfairly does not give them the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of the fact that your criticisms above are don’t strike me as entirely accurate.
Moornam: I must say that though I’ve been exposed to a lot of Christian evangelism in India, this line of argument (“If India converts to Christianity, it will be a prosperous country”) is completely unfamiliar to me.
Also: if that story (from raga) about a family being enticed to Catholicism with promises of healthcare is true, I condemn it. But, frankly, while I’ve heard allegations of this sort on the internet I’ve never personally known of an instance like that. On the contrary, I personally know a doctor at a christian hospital in India who had to assure his patient that converting to christianity would not get him better treatment.
Thanks badmash for your comments.
In addition to many other good works (hospitals, orphanages), Christians in India seem to have played a huge role in bringing a high standard of education to the country. I know many in my Hindu family might not be where they are today if not for their education in Christian schools and colleges, founded (presumably) by missionaries. As far as I know, they were never approached for conversion (forced or otherwise).
In this discussion, it’s worth keeping in mind how much India may owe — and how much many of us non-Christians personally owe — to Indian Christians.
“Forced conversions,” of course, are outrageous — no one here has disagreed with that. But I wager that to the extent such people exist, they are outside of the mainstream of Xtianity. (Just think of the Christians you personally know, and whether they fit this mold.)
Here’s an article on Christianity in India, from the Indian Embassy web site.
shx –
Ravi Zacharias, Vishal Mangalwadi and others of their particular persuasion of Christianity were highly influenced by Francis Schaeffer, Norman Geisler and other leaders of the original evangelical-conservative partnership of the Reagan years. Even in North American these people are recognized as having an incredibly narrow approach to theological issues, esp. with regard to other faith traditions.
In response to your request to educate other Christians about inclusiveness, better people than us already have and continue to do so. These include R Pannkiar (Catholic), MM Thomas (Marthoma), Paul Devanandan (CSI), Bishop AJ Appasamy (CSI) to only name a few.
ah, i feel a civilian watching a battle between multiple armies.
a few minor points
1) conversion. re: sumita’s response to anna, was h. sapiens simply born ‘hindu’ in the indian subcontinent? some of the other posters here have referred to back-conversion from buddhism to hinduism, shouldn’t those people have stayed with the religion they were born with to prevent fissures and conflicts in society? our ancestors, whoever we are, have likely shifted in ideological-confessional alliances multiple times over the generations back into prehistory. if one imagines that the ancient tribes of india engaged in forms of worship at sharp variance with hinduism, but eventually shifted their practices toward hindu norms, than that was conversion, and almost all of course ancestors did this. some of our ancestors shifted again to non-hindu religions, but this is deemend inauthentic by those whose ancestors did not engage in another shift, though i would argue that the difference is quantitative, not qualitative (that is, just another idea-hop). the idea that religious conversion promotes social amity can be flipped around, i have ancestors who converted from hinduism to islam within the past 80 years, and the circumstances clearly suggest that the conversion was strongly motivated by the need to ‘fit in.’ the logic of social amity implies hindus in the USA should become christians and christians in india should become hindus. anyone willing to make the trade?
2) my understanding is that the conversion of the nagaland (from a non-hindu religious substrate FYI) began around 1900 with american baptist missionaries. the key point is american baptist, as this is a liberal faction of the baptist cluster of churches today. i remember in cambridge, mass., a few years ago a sign up that said ‘we are an inclusive church of the american baptist tradition,’ emphasizing their openness to same-sex couples during that controversy. my point is that ideas do not exist in a vacuum, they can be transformed by local circumstances. re: badmash’s comments about the world council of churches, i note that several of the institutions listed above have traditionally liberal inclinations and are not part of the proslyetization-only camp within american christianity. there seems be a conflation of various arms of christianity and a lack of attention to details. i suspect that some of the forced conversion stories are true, and the abrahamic religions do have a tendency toward violent expression when the circumstances fit, but, if the details are sketchy than the whole case suffers (that is, if you are trying to convince those who don’t have a priori biases in that direction).
3) christians are a small minority in india. this seems a bit of a tempest in a teapot.
4) i think we should think of this in terms of distributions. the fact is that a subset of followers of the abrahamic religions are rather nutso. the key is to characterize the threshold, give a general estimate of number beyond the threshold, and be careful not to lump everyone in together.
5) the neo-buddhists in india today are of low caste origins, and their conversion was motivated by caste considerations. one issue above is that we are focusing on the violent and ethically unseemly (rice conversion) aspects of christianity, but there are many individuals and communities who flee hinduism for social reasons. christianity gives them a hope to establish ties with powers which can aid them against their social superiors. this is a common tendency, this is one reason that particular ethnic groups in myanmar and thailand have converted to christianity, as it gives them a sense of distinction with support against the buddhist majority. granted, this does result in dimuniation of social cohesion, but the individuals and groups in question would argue that social cohesion comes at the cost of their dignity.
MoorNam – if/when the above opinion is expressed with an attitude of superiority then I agree with you – it’s revolting and ignorant. However, this isn’t arj’s intent as it appears to me.
More importantly – how does the protection of minorities in the constitution equate to anti-Hindu?
If India converts to Christianity, it will be a prosperous country
i have heard this line of thinking on the 700 club before. i listened for 5 minutes, they were talking about the devlish religion of ancient babylon spread to india and that was hinduism. i would bet willing to be that 1 out of 3 american christians would agree with this assessment….
Re: Article 30 of the Indian Consitution. Here’s the text. I concur with badmash: it appears to protect minority rights, without limiting majority rights in any way. Is this reading incorrect?
Vivekananda College in Madras is another fine Hindu insitution, no? Is it somehow unconstitutional?
i think the problem is that the clause implies that you can do all that stuff to hindu insitutions.
Accoding to the article minority educational institutions have a right to get funding from the government to set up sponsored denominational schools (implying the right to a bias in recruitment of teachers and students and a religion-centred curriculum).
When the Constitutional Assembly voted this article, many delegates probably assumed that the extension of the same rights to the Hindu majority was obvious; but in practice, this ‘right’ is denied to the Hindus.
Hindu institutions that seek to to do this have to be completely privately funded.
This is pretty bad religious discrimination, I don’t understand why ‘secularists’ in India defend this article.
Epoch – specific to funding the clause reads “The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority… ” The premise of this clause is that (a) the state grants aid to educational institutions and (b) that it does so to “majority” managed institutions. Without premise (b) the clause makes no sense.
Perhaps the source of the gap between theory and practice is elsewhere?
dogday:
You wholly misunderstand the 2nd sentence of this post. I meant only to explain why I was looking at a Southern Baptist website, not to make any connection between prison rape and proselytization/ conversion. Indeed, the SBPress piece that brought me to the site in the first place was about the lobbying Southern Baptists and other Christian conservatives have done to bring about reforms in our prison system.
As an agnostic, you see the value of god, but not the value of conversion. But is that because you don’t find value in religion and or is it because you truly equate conversion with rape?
I do not at all equate conversion with rape. However, in my mind the significant divide is between believers and non-believers; once you believe in a god or gods, there’s doesn’t seem to be significant differences in your ways of thinking regardless of whether you are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc. Most major religions include a belief that prayer is worthwhile, that death is not the end of an individual’s existence, and so on.
I find value in religion, but I do not see any one religion as more value-creating than another. Because religions are equal, trying to get someone to change from one to another doesn’t make sense to me. And as I said, I recognize that I am taking a very different view of religions than I have of secular belief systems, such that converting a group of people from belief in patriarchy to feminism, or from Marxism to safety-net capitalism, would not strike me as a waste of time because I do not see those beliefs as all being of equal value.
(Either way, “…while editing an article about prison rape” is a grandly disturbing line and one of those things that only a few people can pull off, sans humor, while making a point. Good.)
I am on the board of a law journal that will be publishing this article in the spring, and I would be happy to e-mail it to you if you thought I was joking or making some sort of metaphorical point by mentioning it.
Razib wrote:
I think your earlier insight (regarding elite support for Hinduism) is more valid. As long as the elites continue to support Hinduism (and right now there is no reason to think they will not), there is little chance that Hinduism will not remain dominant in India.
This is also the reason why the Southern Babtists in pjs post are ecstatic to convert “upper castes”; why the American Neo-Evangelist Ravi Zacharias boasts of his Brahmin antecedents; and why De Nobili (the missionary) emulated Brahmins.
Rodney Stark writes that new religious movements are not started by the marginalized or dispossesed, who would much rather assimilate into the mainstream religious culture.
This dovetails nicely with MN Srinivas’s seminal work on Sanskritization, which shows that the so-called lower castes Sanskritize (emulate the practices of communities above them in the social hierarchy) in order to improve their own status.
That several groups have been succesful at doing so indicates that the caste system is not the stagnant construct of Orientalist discourse.
That the absolute percentage of Dalits who have converted remains low (according to Indian census statistics) may also bear this out (though I suspect the politics of reservation has some influence as well.)
shx:
Oddly enough, it was the article on prison rape that most recently highlighted the distinctions among force, coercion and consent for me. The author criticizes the Prison Rape Elimination Act for failing to recognize that some people consensually have sex in prison. The PREA implicitly assumes that prison sex is always forced. The most problematic area for analysis, in fact, is coerced sex: prisoners who trade sexual services for protection from gangs or other favors. They are not being “forced” by the person with whom they have sex, but rather by the environment in which they live.
One should be able to live in prison without fear of gangs, just as one should be able to live on the outside without fear of hunger for one’s child. However, in reality, people make trade-offs in order to survive. Even if the stories of Christians’ offering food and medical care in exchange for conversion are true, they cannot be accurately described as forced. To do so devalues the meaning of force, which is what occurred during the Crusades or European religious wars, in which people converted at the point of a sword.
These distinctions are important to maintain because otherwise we fall into errors like equating prostitution by poor women with rape. Both are unfortunate, but only the second is a matter of force.
@PG: Logically, you are correct. The majority of conversions are probably coerced. But coercion forces a hard choice for the other person. It doesn’t literally force the person, that I agree — but forces a hard choice for the person.
But this is being done because, as a commenter noted above, these missionaries think that their religion really is better than everything out there. From their view point, they are doing a good thing — after all, what is the pain of a hard choice, if the other person accepts Jesus Christ, right? And you can’t really blame the missionaries for this, correct? After all everyone in life faces this — mother says to get up early in the morning and study, but the son doesn’t obey at all — because it is too difficult for him. So the mother forces the son to do so, and months later, when the son get A’s in all the classes, he realizes what the mother has done for him and thanks her for it. Makes sense? Same with missionaries.
But ethically, the above is reprehensible. But that’s from my point of view. From the Christian point of view, you can’t see that — that is, if the son says “mom, what you are doing is reprehensible”, the mother will just smile and do it anyway. That’s how these missionaries treat Hindus.
But the above scenerio isn’t really true, because if anything, the relationships among religions is more like among peers, as opposed to “i know what’s good for you.” For example, when Hindus (like in this thread) talk about conversion, we get a little bit emotional. Because our religion doesn’t actively convert others — which means we believe the path that others follow. But if you actively convert, then you don’t believe the path that others are following — and thus you really can’t have a conversation with other religions.
So when Hindus talk about conversions and are a bit emotional, but you say so very logically, “well technically it isn’t really /forced/ per se”, we can’t really have a conversation.
@Anna: Do you have an answer to my question or were you simply playing games?
(But, yes, forced convertions do happen. They might not be the majority, but they are forced — saying “accept Christianity or else” is equivalent to holding a sword to the other person’s neck. So, do use the words “forced conversions”, or it devalues what Christians missionaries really do!)
yeah, i’m playing the game where i don’t waste our time since we are not having the same conversation. if it makes you feel better to think that you “won”, feel free.