Two Fox News Reporters were recently forced to convert to Islam as part of negotiating their release from Palestinian captors (the other part of the package was a monetary ransom paid in American dollars, said to be in the six figures). In the video they made of the event, the captors made the bizarre claim that the conversions weren’t under duress. Yeah, right. (Interesting Slate.com essay on this here)
That surreal spectacle led to an interesting column in the Wall Street Journal by David Aikman, where he mentions India in conjunction:
Under the sheltering wing of the First Amendment and a core civic belief that religious faith is a private matter and a private choice, religious Americans have overwhelmingly made the selection of their private faith as normal as choosing a breakfast cereal. Sometimes the selection seems to be as inconsequential as well. . . .
In the Hindu and Islamic worlds, the conscious choice by someone of a new religious conviction is very serious business. There are family pressures to overcome, community prejudices and, often enough, threats of violence if a conversion is actually made. Even in India, where there is a strong legal tradition since British times of religious freedom, advocates of Hindutva (“Hinduness”) do everything possible to prevent people defecting from Hinduism to join other faiths. In much of the Islamic world it is technically a capital offense under Sharia, or Muslim religious law, to change one’s faith. But even if it weren’t, the prevailing response to a suggestion to alter one’s religion would be: “Why would I want to?” (link)
In India, several states having been passing laws to restrict conversions to Christianity (Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh). And in Malaysia, the case of Lina Joy, an ethnic Malay who has not been allowed to “legally” convert and marry a Christian man, is proof yet again of the madness of governmental intervention in matters of personal belief.
Malaysia may be a lost cause with regards to secularism (see my earlier post here, and an informative recent IHT article here), but India isn’t. These laws banning (or at least, severely restricting) conversion from Hinduism are structurally no different from the laws in Muslim countries banning conversion from Islam. Such laws should be struck down to avoid replicating the absurdity of the Lina Joy case in Malaysia.
It seems to me the root of the problem is the basic idea of differential civil laws based on religious identity. The same laws regarding marriage, inheritance, divorce, custody-rights, alimony/maintenance, head-of-household status, etc., should govern everyone. In India at least there is the “Special Marriage Act,” which would presumably allow someone in Lina Joy’s position to marry whomever she chooses, whether or not the state recognizes her conversion (such a law doesn’t exist in Malaysia, as I understand it). But the best way to make religious conversion a political non-issue would be to take the government out of it entirely. The U.S. first amendment is looking pretty good right now.
From my earlier comment it may appear that I am against conversions made via spiritual route. Thats NOT my stand at all. I fully agree with a person’s choice to convert to whatever religion he/she wishes to, out of genuine interest.
What I was trying to point out with SHAH BANO case is that in the absence of Uniform Civil Code, conversions can create a huge legal mess. In India had there been a real secular, or a real left of center party, they would have never passed a law overturning supreme court ruling (Shah Bano), which is so anti-women.
RC, conversion was not an issue in the Shahbano case. What you’re saying simply doesn’t make sense.
I agree with you that the Congress decision in that case was wrong. But restricting conversions is also wrong.
Amardeep, Ofcourse conversion was not an issue in Shah Bano case. What was at issue was the lack of UCC. Conversion so far has never been taken up by the supreme court of India. (As far as I know) Even if it did, it wouldnt matter, because both major political parties would just ignore Supreme court ruling anyways.
Why Shah Bano is related is because its a UCC case. UCC and Conversions are linked.
Just imagine if in the US, there were no common civil code, there could never have been any high profile polygamist prosecutions .
You should show me how and why UCC and Conversions are totally seperate issues.
Even Indian Supreme court has ruled against prosyletism
So even Indian Supreme court is with me on this one.
Amardeep, Ofcourse conversion was not an issue in Shah Bano case. What was at issue was the lack of UCC. Conversion so far has never been taken up by the supreme court of India. (As far as I know) Even if it did, it wouldnt matter, because both major political parties would just ignore Supreme court ruling anyways.
Why Shah Bano is related is because its a UCC case. UCC and Conversions are linked.
Just imagine if in the US, there were no common civil code, there could never have been any high profile polygamist prosecutions .
You should show me how and why UCC and Conversions are totally seperate issues.
Even Indian Supreme court has ruled against prosyletism
So even Indian Supreme court is with me on this one.
Again I am not very clear in my comment. When I said the Supreme court has not taken up Conversion, I mean that Supreme court hasnt ruled on the validity/constituitionality of conversion. Supreme court has clearly ruled on related issues.
But restricting conversions is also wrong.
?? Sez who? It isn’t wrong in the social and legal context of India. Where there have been conversions to evangelical Christianity that have been wholescale and overnight (not the sort that happened over centuries in an organic manner as in Kerala), there have been massive social problems (see: Northeast).
Nehru, who cannot be accused of being either pro-Hindu or pre-modern in any manner, has written eloquently about his decision to keep missionaries from Arunachal Pradesh. See Essential Writings of Jawaharlal Nehru. For a different perspective far more to the left of Nehru, see Savaging the Civilized – Verrier Elwin, His Tribals and India by Ramachandra Guha (another man who cannot be accused of being non-secular in ANY way).
I’ve seen no defense of conversion on these pages in any manner that speaks to India other than useless, abstract appeals to modern principles. India isn’t a modern secular state!
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1156268828
Th Hindu fightback against Christianity, Inc. has to take place on multiple levels. Arvind Sharma, a Professor at McGill University is attempting to revisit the UN charters on human rights which he claims are biased towards abrahamic faiths. He has apparently put forth a new human rights declaration with scholars from other faiths. caveat: Sandhya Jain is a Hindutvavad, but Sharma, though a practicing Hindu, is most certainly not.
The world needs a genuine Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Religious scholars at McGill University have made a credible effort to prepare a wholistic document titled, Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the World’s Religions, which is now set to be discussed at the forthcoming global congress on World’s Religions after September 11 at Montreal (September 11-15, 2006).
Some clauses are exemplary, such as “Everyone has the right to freedom from violence, in any of its forms, individual or collective; whether based on race, religion, gender, caste or class, or arising from any other cause” (Article 2). Interestingly, Article 9 (1) equates proselytisation against the will of a person with arbitrary detention. There is also the right “not to have one’s religion denigrated in the media or the academia” (Article 12, 4), along with the corresponding duty of adherents of every religion to ensure that no religion is so denigrated (Article 12, 5).
Article 18 (1) explicitly bars compulsion in religion, giving everyone the right to retain his religion or change it (2). The right to retain one’s religion has thus for the first time been brought into the international arena on an equal footing with the freedom to change one’s faith. Finally, the document enshrines the right to protect one’s cultural heritage and accords world heritage status to everyone’s cultural heritage (Article 27, 3).
If adopted by the United Nations, this document could mitigate the burgeoning civilisational strife and blunt conversion as a foreign policy tool of many Western nations. It could facilitate respect for the natural geographical borders of myriad faiths, and check the expansionist drives of crusading monotheisms.
RC-
I’m 100% Indian and Hindu 😀 michael valentine smith is just a net ID I thought of when I read the conversion post (man from mars who discovers religion and all that. seemed kind of fitting. except I’m a chick…but never mind that)
Also, the Indian Supreme Court did rule at least once on the conversion issue, in 1977, when it considered the constitutionality of conversion bans in MP and Orissa. I think. It decided in that case that there was no fundamental right to conversion under the indian constitution. I’m too lazy to google to confirm details.
http://www.christianaggression.org/features_sikhism.php
Here’s a somewhat humorous account of how christianity Inc. is working to disrupt social harmony among Sikhs in Punjab. Keep in mind that Punjab has a lower rate of absolute poverty than Mexico (according to the recently released world bank report), so its not a matter of filling bellys.
As far as religion is considered, I am no fan of the present Hinduism. It appears as ritualistic collection of superstitions and most people that I have came accross dont know or understand why they do certain rituals they do.
I am a huge fan of Christian organization. I think Hindus and all other non Christians can learn a lot from Christianity. Having said that, I totally understand why in Indian political scene there might be resistance against coerced conversions. The political effects of conversions are not lost on me.
I am curious as to why the UN Declaration of Human Rights is perceived as a “Christian” document. And what foreign policies of nations include “conversion”?
Topically relevant:
God’s Country?
Summary: Religion has always been a major force in U.S. politics, but the recent surge in the number and the power of evangelicals is recasting the country’s political scene — with dramatic implications for foreign policy.
From the FA article:
“Evangelicals have not, however, simply followed the human rights and humanitarian agendas crafted by liberal and secular leaders. They have made religious freedom — including the freedom to proselytize and to convert — a central focus of their efforts. Thanks largely to evangelical support (although some Catholics and Jews also played a role), Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, establishing an Office of International Religious Freedom in a somewhat skeptical State Department.”
Hinduism cannot expect to compete with such a fierce combination of money and institutional power. The anti-conversion bills are nothing but feeble attempts to create at least some ramshackle line of defense against the missionary invasion. The whole notion of requiring religions to compete in a free market of ideas in India is ludicrous – the market is not free, the playing field is not level and there’re no regulatory mechanisms to enforce fiar competition. The link in comment 169 was a shocking eye-opener : it’s disgusting hate speech that illustrates the need for – at the very least – “truth in advertising” laws in the religious market place.
Of course, at the meta level, even accepting the characterization of the playing field as a free-market competition for winning converts itself is ridiculous in the Indian context. Conversion is an Abrahamic monotheist obsession that las led to all sorts of rationalizations for sociio-cultural destructions and genocide in the past. In comparison, the Indic religions have lived in harmony for millennia by following a non-violent model of inter-religious relations. There were no Hindu, Jain or Buddhist crusades in the history of India, for example. Such gradual and non-violent co-existence, free practice and propagation of religions offers an alternate model to a race-to-the-bottom dirty competitive market place.
Conversion is a singular manifestation of the Western monomania of seeking utter domination over centuries. It was crusades and colonization in previous centuries, it’s Joshua Project and Billy Graham now. Nothing new here – the same old quest for conquest manifesting itself in a new avatar.
breddren, hear me naa. Neva surrenda fi de down pressa, my lord. mercy. affi keep on strugglen staarr. One love.8=)
hairy_d
Nothing really happened philosophy, ethics, morality, culture. I was already living consistent with Hinduism on all those counts. Since I was never into rituals of any kind, none of that came into the question. And because I was already living in the US, no social angle to it, except with immediate family. Overall, quite easy 🙂
The FA article underscored what I see with the U.S. Foreign Policy – greater involvement in social change and to prevent genocides like Darfur or Rwanda. There is also a move towards social service through NGOs rather than governmental organizations. However, evangelicals deciding the US Foreign Policy is overblown – there is no radical shift in policy.
In the past, people like Rammohan Roy and Swami Vivekananda have tried to reform Hinduism when people started converting to Christianity. Swami Dayanand Saraswati is doing his bit for reforming Hinduism. While Indic traditions may not have had crusades, Buddhist missionaries were sent to all corners of the world for proselytism.
John George (#176):
Yeah, they promoted versions of Hinduism which responded to Christian critiques of Hinduism. It was also a time entirely different than today: yes, there were missionaries peddling their faith with zeal, but they were greater in number, and those who supported them held political power. This is not the case today, where Indians (mostly Hindus) hold political power.
Hindus are not being oppressed in India. Evangelical missionaries’ influence is concentrated in particular regions and is insignificant when you look at the over-all population.
I’m not really sure why those of you who oppose evangelical Christianity are so ready to go on the defensive and claim victim status for Hinduism. There is a reason that so many people are willing to listen to Christian missionaries when they tell them they’re being oppressed and that they should convert. Jesus and the Bible are peripheral to this central problem.
Majoritarian politics will only further alienate minorities and make them more antagonistic and zealous and THEN we’ll have a real problem on our hands. The vast majority of the Indian population is Hindu, and it shows!
There is a reason that so many people are willing to listen to Christian missionaries when they tell them they’re being oppressed and that they should convert. Jesus and the Bible are peripheral to this central problem.
Do you even have any idea how evangelical missionaries operate? The evangelical message is generally not, “you are being oppressed, convert,” its more like “your gods have no power, my god does, convert, oh and by the way, the world is coming to an end.” 🙂
The success that Christians have had recently comes among tribals, who have a very tenuous relationship with the caste system to begin with, and tribal identity has become politicized and contested.
Also you keep ignoring the fact that there is manifest discrimination within Christian churches themselves, and that the message of liberating one from oppression would ring very hollow.
from dalitchristians.com:
“Though Christianity also does not recognize caste system, there are upper and lower caste among Christians. In Goa, for example, there are upper caste Catholic Brahmins who do not marry Christians belonging to the lower castes. In many churches, the low caste Christians have to sit apart from the high caste Christians. In Andhra Pradesh, there are Christian Dalit, Christian Malas, Christian Reddys, Christian Kammas, etc. In Tamil Nadu, converts to Christianity form Scheduled Castes – Latin Catholics, Christian Shanars, and Christian Gramani are in the list of Scheduled Castes. Such instances are many and vary from region to region. (Art. 477, Mandal Case Judgment, Vol. 6, No:9, November 30, 1992, Judgment Today).
Looking at “power” solely from the vantagepoint of the nation state is absurd and outmoded. Money is power as well, especially when it has unhindered access across borders. Imagine if India suddenly became very rich, and some Krishna worshippers decided it was time to take the message abroad. They decided their best efforts would be among African Americans because of their long and tortured history of oppression. They start witnessing in the South. To bolster their case that Christianity is an oppressive religion, they quote to the undereducated blacks selective passages in the Bible justifying slavery and demosntrating that Christianity has had it in for you all along. In fact, they justify all of the long history of racism by quoting verses from the bible. They do this not just on the ground, but through television, through professors, through scholarly articles published in university journals. Some convert, and then, over the years, some more. Some unscrupulous organizations give out $20,000 cash gifts to converts as well (nothing in mythically rich India, but a lot here). In a pocket in Southern Louisiana, a black group declares that they are the Republic of Black Krishnaites and that they seek to free themselves from the American hegemon. In solidarity, some marginalized Mexican metsizos join on to the cause. America starts reigning in Krishnaites and the Krishna message. India protests; some powerful Indian Krishnaites have passed a freedom of religion bill monitoring poorer countries like America. America’s score goes down on India’s freedom of religion index, and Indian bureacrats (several of them fervent Krishnaites) “voice grave concerns,” in international bodies. America, being a smart country concerned about the integrity of its borders, tells India to fuck off. 🙂
And also, while it is true there is still much discrimination among some sections of the so-called lower castes (often perpetrated by other so-called lower castes) you would have to be a fool to think that Evangelicals would stop and go home when every last bit of discrimination has disappeared (and in which country has it completely disappeared?); its the message that they live and die for; and good tacticians that they are, theyd find new ways to demoralize and split their intended targets. Once they even emulated brahmins and took a “top down’ approach to conversions. this bottom up approach is relatively new and is partially the result of the failures of the top down approach
Although this article I am giving link to is not about religious conversions – it is about recent issue in India
The interview is with BJP vice-president, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, a muslim (and the quintessentioal muslim that india needs for other muslims and minorities to follow)
I for one cannot wait for the day BJP is back in power again –
i am linking this article to showcase that BJP is the ONLY party in India that has a solid stance on such issues
http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/05naqvichat.htm?q=tp&file=.htm
As far as religion is considered, I am no fan of the present Hinduism
then you can always go back to liking past hinduism naa…
risible,
The scenario you described in #178 was just awesome! Happy Onam to you too.
It was pretty great and rhetorically very impressive. But Christianity isn’t the reason Blacks are oppressed in the US. The caste system is the reason that Dalits are oppressed in India. And if they want a way out, they should have it, and it’s not up to you or me to tell them how. If we believe strongly that the evangelist preachers coming from the America for their quota of converts are a bunch of assholes (and I do), and we think that something really needs to be done about it (here’s where I think there are plenty of other things to be worried about first) then maybe we should do our bit to make life better for them as Hindus instead of telling them they can’t convert (something I think must be done whether or not I think the Bible-thumpers threaten the fabric of the nation).
In a pluralistic society, the burden is on the majority community to ensure that there is communal harmony.
Too true, my fellow PTRer. It is so important that people realise the level of discrimination that religious minorities face in India. Just the other night I decided to re-watch a really old Bollywood movie I hadn’t seen since I was little, a classic in fact –> ‘Kuch Kuch Hota Hai’. I was horrified to see a character called ‘Almeida’ running a children’s camp where he insisted on flying the British flag, kissed huge portraits of the Queen and said ‘I love you Mummy’ to them and ran around in bright clothes literally looking like a strange and grotesque clown.
My tiny little child’s mind must have just remembered the lovely songs and dancing through the fiels and tortured Will They Won’t They moments between Kajol and Shah Rukh, but looking at it now that movie is so tainted with those images of Almeida. I know it’s only a movie, and there are plenty of movies with Suzy the Slutty Unmarried Christian Secretary and many other Brown Sahib Almeidas, but if such discrimination is part of our popular culture it’s no wonder it seeps into our political parties and ultimately our legal and governmental systems.
It freaked me out and made me glad I live in a country where to the dumbass white peoples all Indians are just World-Vision-mud-hut-living-taxi-driving Third Worlders 🙂 Then I don’t feel so bad about being Sandra from Bandra 😉
Vivek,
Undoubtedly there is discrimination. BUT:
The tribals and other marginalized peoples I’ve met are generally proud of their often intricate and complex traditions. Pochamma, Sitala, and- as I’m sure you’ll be familiar with since your from Tamil Nadu – Mariamman and Muneswarar, can be termed ‘subaltern’ deities; the temples and rituals conducted in their honor are carried out by subalterns themselves, in a universe where elite Hindus would have no role at all (except that elite Hindus from cities often visit these temples too, and consult their shamans, mystics and healers whenever they have an unsolveable problem 🙂 When elite Hindus try to ‘reform’ subaltern Hindus, they are often met with revolts. Again, from Tamil Nadu, recall the outrage that ensued when jayalalitha tried to ban animal sacrifice.
What evangelicals do is mess with radically pluralist cultural ecosystems and social contracts long developed; they try to render their gods impotent by demonstrating through sham ‘magik’ and ‘faith healings’ that only Jesus can be real.
Hindu Press International reported on this global evangelical gameplan yesterday. Though not a Huntingtonian by temperament, this looks like an all-out war to me.
desitude (#185):
desitude, while I generally agree with you, I’m not really sure how you’re defining the term subaltern.
I agree with risible on the following point in #179:
(although Dalits aren’t lower castes, they’re scheduled castes)
In the example I used in #113, the temple in question was a Muthumariamman (who I think would qualify as one of your subaltern deities?) temple at which caste Hindus (in this case Vanniyars) refused to take the idol through through the Dalit colony on the procession for the festival for the deity (in addition to other offenses) (Frontline).
So there are more layers than “elite” and “subaltern,” and in this case some Dalits of Koothirambakkam, because of the actions of caste Hindus, find themselves compelled to abandon the goddess whom they worship:
Sorry, my internet connection is being really crappy just now and I’m not able to get to that worldmap.org link. I’ll check it out in the morning and get back…
So there are more layers than “elite” and “subaltern,” and in this case some Dalits of Koothirambakkam, because of the actions of caste Hindus, find themselves compelled to abandon the goddess whom they worship:
Sure, and yes, subaltern is a nebulous term, I admit 🙂
temple at which caste Hindus (in this case Vanniyars) refused to take the idol through through the Dalit colony on the procession for the festival for the deity (in addition to other offenses)
Vivek, Vaniyars have been traditionally considered a “low” caste themselves, though not a “scheduled” caste and since the colonial period they have progressively Sanskritized themselves. They now self-identify as Vaniya Kula Kshatriyas (they made themselves into Kshatriyas). I believe their political leader, Ramadoss, wanted to form a separate Vaniyar province in the Indian union a few years ago! In fact 95% of Dalit violence is ‘lower’ caste on dalits.
In India, I would argue there is substantial goodwill for Dalits. There is a national consensus for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe reservations, for example, whereas OBC (Other Backward Caste) reservations have been fierecely contested. There are also reserved seats in Parliament for them.
And while I absolutely support the Dalits right to convert here (since it seems to be a personal decision, made out of desparation), there is another side to the ‘liberation’ story too.
1) The Catholic Church in Tamil Nadu is dominated by Vellalas (an upper caste), whose conversion numbers swelled during the British period.
2) The other very prominent Christian group in Tamil Nadu is the Nadars, whose numbers also swelled during the British period, though Nadars are not an upper caste, they are certainly not Dalit. (and they benefitted greatly SES wise from conversion; though the Hindu Nadars seem to be doing well too).
3) This has lead to very serious discrimination against Dalit Christians in Tamil Nadu. All Christian groups in TN marry among themselves. So in the case of the Dalit Christians, the change of religion did not help their social status very much at all.
4) There is lots of resistance to conversions among Dalits and lower castes too (I am at work so can’t provide supporting links, if I remember I’ll do so later), but the fact that the majority of Dalits have remained Hindu is prima facie evidence of this. Another fact: Do you know that the predominant communities represented in the Hindu Munani (Tamil Nadu’s Hindutva group) are actually Dalits?
5) The Dravidian movement has systematically discriminated against Dalits in TN as well, which seems strange, since they sold themselves as an anti-caste Tamil unity front.
6) Even within Dalits there is severe discrimination – Dalit on Dalit, if you will.
7) Spontaneous conversion of the heart: I accept. Organized multinational efforts to convert everyone, not just Dalits? Problematic for India, to say the least.
In Neyveli, there’d be the occasional Vanniyar strike. The first time this happened, I thought, school was going to be out for a whole year since “Vanniyar” and “One Year” were pronounced the same way in my surroundings. That was a disappointment 🙂
Hmmm… I didn’t know this. Could you elaborate, please? Not looking for examples of individuals the movement discriminating – this always happens. Did the movement/some party officially do this?
Thomas,
Yeah, in allocating MLA tickets for example, in putting down Dalit parties, often violently, in allowing terrible social practices to continue despite longstanding control…
desitude, I agree with all of your points. I had a problem with what I thought was your characterisation of Hinduism into two camps: elite and subaltern. The Vanniyar example was just to illustrate what you said here:
I don’t think this makes them elite. Right anyway, long story short: you’re right.
I’ve been looking for a while for information on the make-up of the Hindu Munnani – can you give me a reference for this or is it anecdotal?
Hmm, so what’s to be done?
Thomas Kurma:
The non-Brahmin movement started among the upper castes (Periyar was a Vellalar himself). Periyar split from Congress in 1925 because of his differences with Gandhi over the temple agitation in Vaikom, Kerala, where Dalits were not only prevented from entering the temple, but were prohibited from walking on any of the streets surrounding the temple. Gandhi settled for a compromise which would allow Dalits to use the streets but not enter into the temple itself. Periyar was furious, left Congress, and started the Self-Respect Movement.
Despite all this, his political party, the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK, pre-cursor to the DMK and ADMK/AIADMK), represented only non-Brahmin caste Hindu interests and was comprised of upper caste non-Brahmins. While the spin-off parties became more inclusive of other castes, from what I know Dalits haven’t made it to major leadership positions in either the DMK or AIADMK.
Sorry, forgot source: Narendra Subramanian’s Ethnicity and Populist Mobilization: Political Parties, Citizens and Democracy in South India.
Somewhere along the line, graduate students should be required to attend a workshop on naming books.
vivek:
But Christianity isn’t the reason Blacks are oppressed in the US.
Have you spoken with a Black Krishnaite ultra lately? 🙂 But seriously, Christianity HAS been used to justify slavery, though in patriotic American discourse, this is swept under the rug. We tend to read more about anti-slavery Christians – William Wilberforce, abolitionists, Quakers, etc., and not about, say, Jefferson Davis’ views, or the ignominous provenance of the Southern Babtist Convention.
SenaX:
I for one cannot wait for the day BJP is back in power again –
Wishful thinking. They need a leader first. The cadres are demoralized and they are utterly directionless. They’ll have to sort that out before they can make a bid to rule the country again. Not winning back Maharsatra was a huge disappointment, for which sharing power in Bihar only partially compensates. Who is going to lead? Vajpayee is too old. Joshi is a history-rewriting buffon and a traditionalist elitist, Jaitley is very intelligent but he’s a westernized elitist with his treadmills and lattes – can’t relate to the masses. The dreaded moditva, imo, would be a huge mistake for the republic. Also Sonia-Manmohan is very popular with the people right now. But hey, you never know, a winback in Andhra and TN on the theory of another incumbent bounceout (poor farmers are still unfortunately dying), disaffection in parts of North India…and the saffrons could be back in Delhi stirring up a ruckus.
Thomas:
Happy Onam to you too. 🙂
I picked this up from one of my e-groups:
“Maveli nadu vaneedum kAlam, MAnushyarellarum onnu poley”
During the years when Maha Bali ruled the land (of Kerala), ALL human beings were treated as equals.
pagans, repent! repent from your idols and bow down to the one god on high, for there lay your salvation! toss your idols to the flames and hold the one true god to your heart! heathen let not the blackness of hell ride roughshod over your soul, infidel, let be no inequitous in the eyes of the lord god! turn not from the son of man to bow before the face of the demons from the depth, turn from satan’s brood and sing in glory of the heavens above and the angels of the lord shall welcome you into their bosom! toss aside your black hearted priests and open your hearts to the light!
Are you sure of this? Periyar’s real name, E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker, suggests that he belongs to the Naicker caste.
Sorry!
Was thinking of two things and typed the wrong one. You’re right, of course.
As far as
I’m all for the religious free-market, however I do feel that the Indian government, after finding itself at a loss as to what to do regarding mass conversions, did what it felt was best for the preservation of various Indian cultures/religions.
One thing to be noted is that Hinduism is NOT without various sects that are not caste conscious in the sense that no one is banned from participation or entering temples. Think about it; if so many swamis and gurus have been globe-trotting for several decades, accepting non-Indian disciples into the fold, why would they not accept Indian disciples, regardless of caste? The non-Indian people that many of these swamis and gurus preach to are totally outside of the confines of the “varnashram” system of India, hence they could be considered even lower than the “low castes” or the “dalits” or others. Many of the non-Indian pefople that join these various Hindu groups come from backgrounds of daily cow-eating and other habits deemed unfit from many Hindu sect’s perspectives. Yet these people are welcolmed. Hence my conclusion is that these same groups would and DO indeed accept the low or no castes of India.
Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a good example of this. That is why it always boggled me why Christianity and Islam were considered solutions to Hindus who were discriminated against regarding caste. Hinduism itself has it’s own answers to the problem in the form of sects that DO NOT discriminate. Why not just join one of those sects?
On the other hand, it should be noted that within most sects of Hinduism, reincarnation is an accepted tenent. There is no rush to become “saved” in this lifetime or else face eternal Hell in the next. Perhaps that is why many Hindu groups are not as zealous in preaching/proselytizing as the Christians and Muslims who believe you only get one go at it in this lifetime???
Also, I can speak as far as my own experience goes in a so-called “hindu” religion, that food, shelter and money will not be offered to those who want to join the sect, because then it would not be seen as a sincere motive. Not to say charity work is not done. It is. But there is an understanding that riches are not neccessarily a “blessing” from Ishwar (God), and poverty is not neccessarily a curse. There is a belief that God may take everything away from the spiritual aspirant in order that she may become wholly and solely dependent on Divine Intervention.
I’ve had a few encounters with foreign missionaries in India that I would like to share here.
Up at the Hindi school in Mussorie you will find more than 50% of the students to be foreign Christians. They come to learn Hindi so as to better communicate with their target audience. One girl explained to me that she was placed in a home of a mountain milk family. That family was not rich by any means, but they were not poverty stricken either. They keep animals for milk, deliver and sell that milk, and maintain a simple life that way. They are extremely kind and hospitable people. She said the modus operandi was to live with these families, become a part of them, and then after some time, when they are totally bonded with and attached to you, you spring the “good news” of Jesus upon them. By that time they feel so close to you that they cannot refuse but hear and accept your message.
I attended a Christian church in Delhi once with some of these very same Christians that I had met in Mussorie. The guest pastor was a United States military man from the deep south, Georgia, or somewhere like that. Oh my god the way he preached. Fire and brimstone and totally insulting to the “Hindu” deities like Kali Ma and others. He was saying the Hindu deities are nothing but “the Devil” and they must be SMASHED. Um, I have nothing against foreign preachers coming to India and preaching, I’m a pardesi myself, but at least they should have enough intellectual training and depth to be able to carry on a civilized diolouge regarding world religions. It was basically deep south American military culture being taught there rather than any of the philosophical teachings of Jesus Christ. Does India need that? No.
Along with these American and European Christian missionaries were a group of very young Indian women living with them. I started talking about some ancient historical folklore and mythology of India and they had no idea what I was talking about and seemed to be intrigued, wanting to hear more. I asked, how is it that you are Indian and don’t know this? They said they came from a village that had been Christian for 4 generations. Fair enough. But does being Christian in India mean that you cannot know the basics of the great epics of that land like Mahabharat and Ramayana? Come on!
I have nothing against the philosophical teachings of Jesus and other great spiritual luminaries being taught anywhere. In fact, it should be welcomed everywhere. But the experiences I had above showed me that that was not the case (at least among the lot I met). Let there be open discussions and philosophical debates between the learned intellectuals of all religions. Let the precepts and subtle nuances of the various philosophies be shared and compared/contrasted.
But let’s not have an entire culture completely supplant another.
A few more things to add to the above…
Gautham mentioned in one of his posts about missionaries trickily feeding beef to some of the kids in orphanages or whatever. Although I doubt that would be commonplace nowadays, there is enough reporting that it did take place on a more widespread level several decades back and during the time of the British Raj. Question is – Why? Was Jesus a big beef eater? Can one not be vegetarian and a Christian at the same time? There are many Christians who believe that Jesus and his followers were strict vegetarians. So why insist that an Indian give up their vegetarianism in order to become a Christian? My point is – the culture and customs at the time and place of Jesus were not unlike many of the cultures and customs that ancient Indians and modern Indians follow today. There are common themes throughout the East that cross boundaries of religion. But I have witnessed with my own eyes evangelical American Christians giving a modern American slant to the Christianity they are preaching in India. Is this neccessary? Is it desirable? I say no to both.
From my research I say that Jesus had more in common with the ancient meditative sages of Bharat than with modern day preachers.
Another point why many Hindu groups are not found making their way into tribal areas to “preach” their brand of Hinduism is because maybe they respect the right of various tribal people to practice the customs/cultures/religions of their choice. The religious group I belong to is strictly vegetarian. Many tribals still utilize animal sacrifice. We realise it would be very hard for them to give up this practice so we leave them alone. Of course, they can participate in whatever aspect of our religion they deem suitable to them, we welcome that. And we expose them to our chanting by chanting in their areas and they appreciate that. But there is no compulsion for anyone to give up their long cherished habits and customs until and unless they are ready and willing. We are not aiming to change a person’s entire belief system and corresponding culture in one lifetime. We realize that self-actualization is a journey of perhaps many lifetimes and so there is no hurry.
Another point – these missions offer food and shelter in the beginning, but how can masses of poor people support themselves and thrive on handouts? They can’t. They need skills and regular jobs. Hindu groups are also giving out free kitchri. Although I’m no fan of ISKCON, they have a “food for life” program that feeds literally hundreds of thousands in India daily. Other hindu groups are doing more but they get less publicity in western media, maybe even in Indian media.
Beige Sage,
I am willing to bet that 99% of Hindu organizations are anti-untouchability (I am sure there are some fools left, every culture has fools), the Gaudiya Vaishnavas are of course notable in this regard, and I commend their charitable efforts.
In the cities, some organizations would even take pride in welcoming Dalit members to show how “progressive” they are (yes that is patronizing). There are matha (monastery heads) who have appointed Dalit successors. I even believe the Ramkrishna Mission had one a while back. “Live and let live” is an old Hindu way, yes. But I am afraid it will not work in the new geopolitical environment, where “faith” has a price. Hindus must mobilize, we need a liberation theology type movement to reconnect with the poor, one that just not blasts Abrahamics for this or that, but does some serious introspection and MOVES on it.
How does “untouchability” actually play out in India? I’ve lived there for over ten years and cannot figure out how such a thing can even exist in a place where you get on a bus, train, tempo, or any other form of public transportation and HAVE to touch just about everyone in order just to ride on it, it’s so crowded.
I guess it would apply only in uncrowded places.
Where I live, one of the “lowest” castes are the bhangis, the toilet cleaners. They come into the homes of people who are not willing to clean their own toilets and do the job for them. They also clean the sewers in the streets. Now, these people are pig eaters in a town where the majority of people are strict vegetarian Hindus or pork-shunning Muslims.
As a strict vegetarian myself, I would not want to hang around their houses when they are roasting and eating pigs. Most of the Hindus and Muslims in the town feel the same way. Are they considered “untouchables” just because us non-pork-eaters do not want to break bread with them?
At the same time, they are free to partake of the cuisine of their choice, whereas in Pakistan they would not be able to.
That is why I found it odd that a Pakistani was saying to me, “you live in a place that is so unjust that some people are considered ‘untouchable'”. I was like, “um, in Pakistan can pork eaters be free to openly roast and eat pigs?” He was like, “hell no!”. I’m like, “well, in India they are free enough to do that, but Muslims like yourself will not touch them”.
See the irony?
(Not intended to offend any Muslims on this site. I have Muslims in my own family, so please forgive me. I was just making a point.)
Whatever Happened to the Hindu Left?
Here’s an interesting article for all, written by the only woman I know who identifies as Hindu AND Christian 🙂
I guess it would apply only in uncrowded places.
Yeah in the hinterland mainly. In the cities you can pretty much be whoever you want to be, which is why Ambedkar said “head to the cities.”
The area I reside in is pretty orthodox though. Maybe it is there but I’m just not seeing it.
There is a custom where priests who are on their way to mandir to perform puja will not touch ANYBODY, not even anybody’s shadow. It’s coz they have just thoroughly bathed and cleansed themselves for Vigraha seva and they don’t want to chance getting dirty (impure) again otherwise they will have to go back and bathe again.
The area I reside in is pretty orthodox though. Maybe it is there but I’m just not seeing it.
There is a custom where priests who are on their way to mandir to perform puja will not touch ANYBODY, not even anybody’s shadow. It’s coz they have just thoroughly bathed and cleansed themselves for Vigraha seva and they don’t want to chance getting dirty (impure) again otherwise they will have to go back and bathe again.
I think thats fine, that applies to everyone. Its singling a group out for things like that which is contemptible.
I think the important thing for people to know is that Hinduism has it’s own cures for these things and one does not have to run to an Abrahamic religion in order to be relieved of discrimination.
Many of the same complaints that Hindus in India have regarding non-Hindu religions’ preaching, converting and recruiting methods, have been made in the West regarding Hindu sects’ preaching, converting and recruiting methods of previously Abrahamic religion based youth.
In ISKCON (hare krishnas), everyone is out there “preaching”, including Indians, quite aggressively. All around the world.
It’s a Western idea, that you have to “conquer” or “Save” somone so they believe the same thing as yourself.
which is exactly why that white king ashoka sent out missionaries to the ends of the earth and buddhism became the first transcivilizational religion! it is the demon souls of the white devils.
Then you need to do some research on Gaudiya Math, the tradition from whence ISKCON sprang. Gaudiya Math itself sprang from the Gaudiya Sampradaya.
It has it’s claim as a “vedic religion” due to it’s referencing of the Veda and Vedic supplementary texts like the upanishads, although there is a heavy tantrik influence there too, and reference to various Tantras.
It is true though that ISKCON did take on a very heavy kind of “cultish” vibe in it’s transplation (is that a word) from the East to West.
I would never recommend ISKCON as anything more than a very basic doorway into the greater world of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
The major reason why ISKCON is such a proselytizing religion is because it’s founder, Prahbupada, a home-grown Bengali, emphasized assertive outreach over contemplation/meditation. He wanted the knowledge spread as fast as possible, as far as possible, all around the world.