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.
This is what is called the Uniform Civil Code.
PGW, the solution I am (idealistically) putting forward would be a uniform civil code. The current system operates on differential codes… But perhaps that’s what you meant.
It’s bit more compicated than that because India has to deal with forced coversions from Christian evangelical groups who use money, food, and jobs to coerce the poor to adopt Christianity. I am pretty laissez-faire re choice of religion, but asking the Indian government not to intervene to prevent these conversions would seem negligent on the government’s part. India’s poor should not be the marketplace for other religions.
Amardeep:
Yes, you are correct.
sa, your definition of “coercion” is debatable, the easiest way for hindu groups to compete is to exhibit the same largesse toward their fellow indians that christian missionaries conventially do, not ban conversion. to me “banning conversion” is like affirmative action, it is a band-aid solution which does not address the structural root causes for why conversions to other religions occur in the first place. in places like northern thailand indigenous groups have converted to christianity in large part to align themselves with a powerful worldwide community which can protect them against the hegemony of the thai buddhist majority. conversion maybe be a rational act, or a act of circumstantial coercion, depending on how you look at it.
though i tend to agree with amardeep’s sentiment, i think it is important to note that religious liberty in the united states was shaped by the bias toward
a) natural religion (deism) among some of the founder b)a powerful radical reformation emphasis on personal and individual confession of belief
both of these strains emphasize the primacy of belief over practice, doxy (hetero or ortho) over praxy. freedom of conscience is easy to grant when that is the centrality of religion, but today in the USA you see the rise of religions where adherence to liturgy and law are becoming more prominent. orthodox judaism was marginalized precisely because reform and conservative make ritual accommodations to a gentile enviornment. islam and sikhism also demand accommodations because of the centrality of particular outward practices. in other words, religious liberty & neutrality wasn’t as hard in the american case because of the nature of american religiosity.
A uniform Civil Code is pretty much orthogonal to the issue of conversion-banning. (But if all you have is a hammer,…)
You could easily have a UCC which bans religious conversion. Or you could have a UCC that requires all religious groups to follow the laws of one religion — all Parsis must now follow Jewish family law (or, more realistically, all Indians must follow the reformed Hindu code). Then conversion would be completely irrelevant, since you could never escape the dominant religion’s law.
That’s allurement, not force. Note that the 1968 law in Madhya Pradesh banned conversion based on “force or allurement,” and worked fine for 30 years. The thing you are talking about was already illegal there.
The new law introduces a great deal of red tape for anyone who wants to convert for any reason. It is going down the wrong path. All too often it is simply an excuse for goons to attack Christians (often indigenous Indian Christians), as in this recent case (that’s an admittedly unconformed report).
I also disagree with your description of Christianity as an “other religion” in India.
Ultimately the people should choose how secular they want their society to be, just like in the United States.
US does not have majority rule for all rights. Its a republic.
I see your point, and I agree that a populist UCC could be as bad or worse than the current system. What is needed is a system that holds individual rights paramount.
P. Radhakrishnan had a great article tearing apart the logic that supports conversion bans here)(written in response to the introduction of a similar bill in Tamil Nadu in 2002). In it he makes two points relevant to the current discussion. The first is, these laws do not state who defines “force, allurement, or fraud,” which means that if the police say the local Pastor in Indore is perpetrating “allurement,” they can arrest him on no evidence.
Second, as Radhakrishnan puts it, “even if conversions are taking place, there cannot be one set of rules for Hinduism and another set for other religions.” Which seems to be patently the case here.
Gautham,
you believe in majoritarianism in both the USA & india i take it? :=)
Can you give me some concrete examples of such events taking place recently? I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be true in limited instances, but thus far I haven’t heard any specifics — just this general charge.
I agree that one should be able to convert to whatever one wants, but it should go both ways. many Hindu groups ‘reconvert’ in tribal areas, particularly in Chattisgarh, and non-Hindu orgs call it “saffronisation”. You can’t have it like dat, sorry. Also John Dayal, a Christian activist, invoked force/allurement arguments in Gujurat because he was upset the Sangh had successfully reconverted some Christians. And lets not pretend that for the very poor, there are not lots of agressive conversion attempts. I work with a group in Tamil Nadu who works with adi dravidas. One activist told me that they’ll be whatever you want them to be, until you leave, when they’ll go back to whatever they were.
Also, this is not particularly a big deal in the north (though I’m told missions have had succeess among Dalit Sikhs); in the South (and of course, the northeast), its a big deal, and in the South among SC/STs only. In Kerala, the Christian population – despite very many conversions – is actually stagnant or declining, because of the low birth rates in Christian families.
Question, can one raise money in India for a Hindu religious cause and get tax exemption? I have heard several gripe that you cannot.
Hindus also claim they’ve faced problems. The Amma mission encountered substantial problems in Kerala and the government put many obstacles in her way when she wanted to rebuild tsunami-decimated areas. The communist government in Bengal basially refused permission to a scion of the Ford family, a white Hindu, from building a multi-million dollar Vedic Village in West Bengal. In frustration, he set up in Madhya Pradesh.
I agree that one should be able to convert to whatever one wants, but it should go both ways. many Hindu groups ‘reconvert’ in tribal areas, particularly in Chattisgarh, and non-Hindu orgs call it “saffronisation”.
agreed! i have seen this sort of tendency among some muslims & christians, who object to conversionary attempts. the hindu sentiment is not qualitatively particular here, even within india. i recall in the mid-90s when john paul ii came to india and declared that the church’s mission to convert would continue in south asia, but i also knew at the same time that roman catholics in latin america were making the same arguments that hindus did against them against protestant evangelical missions.
there is the ideal, and then there is the messy reality of human lives. we have to muddle forward. but, i think “anti-conversion” laws are clearly in the wrong direction if you want to foster a liberal democratic culture.
Its a typical article looking at Indian laws with American binoculars. He does not explain the context under which those laws were passed. Christian missionaries pay money or use gifts to coerce poor people into their religion. Mainy because the more people they convert they get more funds from rich christians who want everyone to convert to chritianity. The law also says it is a person should convert on personal preference not because money was given. The author conveniently forgets to leave that part out.
Christian missionaries pay money or use gifts to coerce poor people into their religion.
the commenter should look up the definition of coercion and allurement. i once joined an korean american christian group because i was under the impression that that was the best route to sexual intercourse with several asian coeds in whom i took an interest. is that coercion or allurement???
Please, pleeeeeeeeezzz! Let’s not go here again. And in in case you didn’t get the memo, Christianity has been in India for two millenia – it’s more Indian than curry!
I agree – government should not have no place in the area of personal belief. If there is an issue with coercion, I think the courts could exercise better discretion than blanket legislation.
The government in India is too intertwined with religion and the result is that every religious group in the country feels persecuted. What India needs to do is outline a clear seperation of state and religion, instead of it’s current messy sort of secularism. Stupid bans on conversion are just a symptom of a larger problem.
I do believe in majoritarianism, because I think that’s what usually works. Of course the rights of minorities should be preserved, in both India and the U.S
So you believe in partial majoritarianism. Otherwise you cant really preserve anybody’s rights except for which the majority agreen upon.
Gautham,
we need a quantitative accounting of how common the pratcices you describe are. obviously they are not defensible, but i am skeptical that this is in any way typical.
I meant agrees upon
thats awesome. did it work? 😉
thats awesome. did it work? 😉
nope :=(
sorry 🙁
The majority of Americans support people like Bush and Cheney.
dude, does your rejection of america also mean that your impressions are automatically fact? the majority of americans do not support george bush right now, see here. as a point of fact the majority of americans did not vote for george w. bush, the (slim) majority who voted did! you make some pretty hard-core comments, be hard-core about the facts.
It’s very similar to what Tamil political parties do, in terms of buying votes and distributing aid in exchange for support.
if that’s what they have to do to live and not be malnourished, in the end of the day i say go for it! the gov. shouldn’t be banning conversions, hindus (like yourself) who care that people remain hindu should start a major humanitarian push to attain parity with christians. if people weren’t destitute, this wouldn’t be an issue.
I believe that this anticonversion legislation does not make any sense. Surely if the missionaries, as obnoxious as I find them, are using real coercion (i.e. threat of physical force) there are existing laws that can be used to protect society. As much as I would prefer that the dominant cultural ethos of India remain Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh (which makes me an “othering” bastard), freedom of religion is a basic choice. As long as the Hindu orthodoxy remains preoccupied with ritual purity and ignores basic social justice issues, people will convert in droves.
I am not sure if there is any basis behind the claim that Hindu groups are not afforded tax exemption in India, but at least here in the US groups like FOIL & ASAATA have been successful in equating any appeal to Hindu identity as “hate”.
In the severe poverty stricken districts of India – there is fine line between coercion and allurement. If food, shelter and education is conditional based on your religion and that too in a dire poor tribal district, then my friends technically you can say this is “allurement” but its awfully close to coercion. If you google on india and churches – you can read what the “mission” is. Basically western money is being used to get converts so the mission financiers can expand the # of their co-relisionists. Its no different than Saudi Arabian funding for mosques and madrassas across much of africa and asia except in this case a state is directly involved. People decry giving money to Hindu groups from US/UK but that is piddle when it comes to money spent from US/UK/Australia/Europe on “civilizing” us brown folks.
What explains that fact that most conversions happen in poor/tribal districts of Orissa, Chattisgarh, AP, Bihar and much of India? The middle class kids going to Catholics schools in much of urban India almost never convert!!!
Allurement!! Ha!!
Paging Spoorlam!
The politics of conversion works in strange ways in India. A couple of days ago, a renowned Dalit activist and poet and the evil RSS reconciled:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1945000.cms
NEW DELHI: Ideological chalk and cheese shared dais when firebrand Dalit poet Namdeo Dhasal and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief K Sudarshan came together at a book release function in the Capital on Wednesday.
The internationally renowned poet and Dalit leader is the founder president of Maharashtra’s Dalit Panthers that has traditionally been at odds with the RSS. The Dalit Panther has for long looked upon the RSS as representing the Brahmanical order. Ironically, Dhasal released a RSS book on Dalit pain at the function.
Dhasal, an outspoken literary figure and the first recipient of the Sahitya Akademi Lifetime Achievement Award, said he was initially reluctant to share the dais with the RSS chief as “Leftist friends would pounce upon me with abuses and accusations that I have shifted camp, but I don’t care, because I have only one mission — to strengthen national unity and social integrity. This can’t be achieved if we remain divided in thousands of castes and sub- castes and keep pouring venom against each other. Neither can politics help eradicate castes, which rather thrive on casteist divisions.”
He had high hopes, he said, from the RSS, which should get into action to remove the concept of untouchability and castiesm from the country. “Mere speeches and books won’t help. The work that RSS outfits like Samarasta Manch are doing in Maharashtra has to be further strengthened,” he said.
The fact Hinduism lacks formal structure is part of the reason these efforts are behind
many evangelical groups are decentralized and informal. islam also lacks a formal structure per se. it is mitigating, but no excuse.
The fact Hinduism lacks formal structure is part of the reason these efforts are behind, but another example is the Tirupati authority, which in between the large-scale corruption charges, funds a university, several schools, feeds countless poor every day and does an immense amount for the surrounding area. Hindus are doing things; it’s just not noticed by the Western media.
good for hindus. they need to do more. i read hinduism today, hindus have not attained parity with christians & muslims. part of this is because they don’t have middle class christians in the USA backing them, or gulf oil, but part of it is that hindu identity is shall we say, “segmented” 8=)
my own preference is that india remain hindu, i revile the abrahamic god, but if it feeds people, well, to that i can not say anything. the answer is not legislation, it is genuine consciousness raising and transformation of hinduism into a religion which transcends jati.
Sometimes beliefs change and evolve – that’s just something that a few people here are going to have to deal with. This happens both ways – Hindu to Christian and/or Christian to Hindu. Really doesn’t matter to me which way it goes as long as your free to make the decision without the threat of coercion.
What does matter is this ridiculous canard that all conversions to Christianity in India are secured through financial or other kinds of allurement. If this is what you think, and if you think that the social work that missionaries do are motivated purely by this, then I have neither the time nor the energy to deal with that kind of ignorance. A good number of my family members are missionaries. For all of their efforts, they’ve greatly contributed to literacy and health in the areas they have worked in. In return, they’ve established very modest Churches with a handful of members each – most of whom had a deeply personal experience of physical or emotional healing.
Btw, you want to talk about coercion? What exactly do you think the Shiv Sena or Bajrang Dal are into – I don’t think that they’re looking to have you over for a potluck when they come knocking on your front door!
my own preference is that india remain hindu,
Dude, lets not get alarmist here 🙂 Both sides have reason to exaggerate the state of affairs. but having worked in India for long periods, the ground picture tells a different story.
RTA – Unfortunately the masses in India do not have the money to “allure” their fellow humns either within their own country or outside. Not as yet anyway. Where as an average joe in the US can contribute $25-$50 to the cause, probably an average Indian (Hindu if you would like) can only contribute more like 1-5 cents. And an avergae Indian is too busy trying to raise their standard of living to worry about going to heaven by helping convert fellow human beings. So unfortunately Indians cannot compete with their richer friends across the planet when it comes to matters of conversion.
Forced conversion didn’t work on me, although my Mom is STILL trying. It’s the real mission impossible.
newbie,
if there are two options
a) mildly destitute and christian b) more destitute and hindu
i think an individual should have the choice to select a or b. in an ideal world humanity would come without strings attached, but this is not an ideal world. a full stomach and health come before a religious faith in my materialistic worldview.
I’m with Razib on all counts. UCC, not a ban is the answer. Also, full stomach first!
Brown people don’t like White Gods.
On the issue of missionary coercion/allurement: I think there needs to be a distinction here between things that are bad (missionaries withholding aid to poor people unless they convert, the KKK spreading their evil thoughts, etc.) and things the government should ban. It’s not the government’s role to ban everything that is bad. Just like the KKK has a right to spread their evil thoughts through free speech, the missionaries ought to have the right to give food/clothing/shelter to whomever they choose.
umang – are you a studeent at sipa, columbia u?
newbie,
if there are two options
a) mildly destitute and christian b) more destitute and hindu
i think an individual should have the choice to select a or b. in an ideal world humanity would come without strings attached, but this is not an ideal world. a full stomach and health come before a religious faith in my materialistic worldview.
exactly. except the destitute guy should choose for himself. Not be chosen for him.
Also: While the missionaries should have the right to spend their money on whomever they please, however they please — they should not get tax exempt status (in the US or India).
tarang: nope, I’m a government contractor in DC.
If I were to give the option to a single black mom from Harlem:
a. Stay Christian and poor b. Convert to my faith, get a job, healthcare and daycare.
In the materialistic world she should choose b, and no law should prevent her from doing so.
except the destitute guy should choose for himself. Not be chosen for him.
what is that supposed to mean? you are saying that xtian missionaries are stuffing rice down hungry men’s throats and throwing baptismal water on them without their consent?
look, if you want a law that bans conversions because you think people are born what they are, and they should stay what they are, and know their place in the universe, that’s fine. say it. don’t redefine words like “choice” and “coercion” in such a loose fashion so as it render it meaningless. do children have a “choice” in what religion they follow? are they being “coerced” by their parents? perhaps muslims and christians in india are tired of not being given the “choice” to opt out of the hindu soaked zeitgeist of pop culture. how come bollywood is so hindu normative? why do muslim actors have to play hindu characters? sounds like “coercion” to me because they are forced to play hindu characters else they won’t get parts.
trivializing? for sure. but the way you use a word like “coercion” trivializes the unfortunate detestable non-choices that the destitute have to make. the answer is not to force christian missionaries to not offer their goods, it is for hindus to ramp up their goodie giving!
horrible that a man has to choose between a life and christianity? oh yeah, that sucks. but i am not confident that if the christian missionaries weren’t there “coercing” them that some individuals would get the medical care needed.
Re # 7 Amardeep
If you’re starving to death and somebody says you can convert, eat, and live, or you can not convert, not eat, and then you and your child will suffer/starve, that amounts to force. It is force every bit as much as threatening bodily injury or death. Only those that have never been hungry fail to see the difference.
If you’re starving to death and somebody says you can convert, eat, and live, or you can not convert, not eat, and then you and your child will suffer/starve, that amounts to force. It is force every bit as much as threatening bodily injury or death.
here’s a proposal: any ban on conversions stipulates that the gov. has to offer “matching” goods & services.
razib the atheist said
“the commenter should look up the definition of coercion and allurement. i once joined an korean american christian group because i was under the impression that that was the best route to sexual intercourse with several asian coeds in whom i took an interest. is that coercion or allurement??? “
That is just plain awesome.
That is just plain awesome.
many people become born again xtians to get with chicks. jesus washes all sins, oh yeah 8>)
Well yes i vote for stomach too. But its not just stomach they are filling. Along with it comes economic and cultural exploitation. I would rather the govt. fill the stomachs of the people who need it. In recent history of mankind often the missinary preceded the colonizer. Sometime the colonizer brought missionaries with them. Though not directly, there is imperialistic tone to evangilism.
In America and elsewhere, govts. have banned discrimation based on number of factors (gender, religion, race etc.) in employment, housing, education etc. Why can’t the Indian govt. say to charities that you are free to preach or distribute largesse but you cannot make the religion of the receipent a factor in distributing the goodies.
I too hope that Indian society becomes more equal in all respects and these laws can be done with as faith is a fundamental personal decision.
Wow!! I wonder what part America this author (from the WSJ column) lives in! I have seen that attitude more as a rare exception rather than the norm as the author seems to make it out to be.