|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | LIBERAL AGENDA | |||
|
January 25, 1999
ELECTIONS '98
|
'In a country where you cannot even marry of your free will, will you convert on your free will?'How Readers reacted to Vir Sanghvi's last column
Date sent: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:44:07 -0800
After reading the rhetoric from Vir, I am compelled to reply to several points raised by him. "When it comes to conversions, Hindus are even more resentful. Try arguing... Point out that most liberal democracies -- including Christian countries -- allow conversions, and you will be met with disbelief. Explain that nobody in England penalised the mullahs who converted Cat Stevens to Islam or that the US allows the Hare Krishna movement to convert Christians at will, and these examples will be dismissed as being of no consequence." The same Western democracies have strongly protested on the recent Gujarat incidents, though none of their citizens were harmed. Conversion in these countries is allowed so long as it is on a very small scale. Moreover, ISKCON or any one else can not criticise Jesus and indulge in conversion through deceit here. You cannot imagine a religious minority attacking the majority in these countries. Unlike us, they never hide Christian sentiments of the majority, in the name of secularism. "Worse still, such is the arrogance of most Hindus that we seem to actually believe that no Hindu ever converts of his own volition. The conversions, we decide, are either forcible or achieved through inducements. The reality is that there are many people at the margins of Hindu society -- dalits, tribals, lower castes and so on -- who have no reason to cling to a faith that oppresses them. But even when such persons convert, this is seen as a conspiracy by fiendish foreign missionaries." Oppression of dalits, tribals and other lower caste Hindus is definitely very unfortunate. But all the religions and societies have similar discrimination. For example, the Blacks in America and South Africa are not respected by the Whites and have their separate churches. Do Indian converts become free of oppression by conversion? If yes, why do they demand reservations by saying that they still are suffering due to casteism? May I draw your attention to the Anti-Christian attacks started in Nov 1997 by Justice Suresh. The report says Lakshubhai Kodgia told the UNI that he had embraced Christianity voluntarily after the local pastor cured his sons through the reading of the Ten Commandments. ''Now I will remain a Christian till my last breath,'' he said. Do you still want Hindus to believe that poor and innocent tribals convert on their own volition? Sir you should read the Justice Niyogi Commission report on the methods adopted by missionaries for conversion. I have nothing against Christians and attend major services in the Church. But Gandhiji and Vinoba were definitely nobler and wiser personalities than you and me. They both opposed foreign missionaries and conversion as they knew of their ulterior motives. So, Hindu resentment against missionaries and conversions are not irrational, as you suggest. The North East and the NSCN of Nagaland are testimony to this. Secularism cannot mean the neglect of majority sentiments.
Dr Sunil Kumar
Date sent: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:44:41 +0530
Vir Sanghvi has really hit upon the main points to be considered if our nation is to avoid the repetition of these senseless community clashes that flare up every now and then. A most rational and sensible article. Why, when we say ours is a secular country, does every institution in the country (including government organisations) ask a person his/her in all application forms? Does not this question actually prompt you to think of your religion? Why have reservations based on religion? Only when these anomalies are removed can we really make any progress towards being a really secular country. K Seshu Kumar
Date sent: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:09:27 -0600
Sanghvi concludes his article with three suggestions: One: Hindus must recognise that their resentments against missionaries and conversions are basically irrational. Two: Indian Christians should not be carried away into making common cause with foreign missionaries. And three: the State must act to nip the violence in the bud. As a private citizen, we must recognise that in this conversion debate we must leave to the government what is theirs and to the individual what is their right. In other words, it is essential that the Government of India maintains the law and upholds the Constitution. We must ask ourselves why it is that we only hear the Government and Law Enforcement Officers talking about "massive security" (for instance: http://mail.rediff.com/news/1999/jan/19bjp.htm). Yet, we rarely hear about those that break the law being punished for their crimes. In some cases, those that incite the commission of crimes are well known, yet they remain unprosecuted. I would, therefore, submit that of the three points raised by Sanghvi, the third is the most important. The other two are issues of conscience and individual choice. We may exhort, but we may not enforce. Matt Thundyil
Date sent: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 08:40:14 -0500
Utter bullshit.
Date sent: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:57:16 -0500 (GMT)
It seems Vir Sanghvi feels that conversions by Christians are OK. I hope he writes a similar article supporting the VHP reconversion drive. Besides this I have a few questions which I hope Sanghvi would answer: 1. Is it right to convert people by force? The Constitution does not give anyone the right to do so. 2. Is it correct to convert the sick and poor by providing them with medicine asking them to have it taking Christ's name and then saying that they have been cured because they took Christ's name? Of course they are not told that it is medicine. If this is not fraud then what is? 3. Does enrolling in a school run by the church mean that innocent children have to give in writing that we are sinners and Christ is our saviour (This did happen in Gujarat). 4. Why is that conversions are taking place in tribal areas and not in cities? Is it not true that literate people are more likely to appreciate the teachings of the GREAT SAVIOUR than the mostly illiterate tribals? I hope that Sanghvi answers these simple questions put forward by a COMMUNAL Hindu. If he does not I would be sorry to say that he is a SECULAR ( read pseudo-secular ) person.
Date sent: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:53:22 -0500
I generally consider myself to be secular but there are some points I still don't understand and agree with in Vir Sanghvi's column. 1. One measure of the resentment was available when dalit Christians asked for reservations. Almost to a man the Hindu society jumped up and blew a raspberry in their direction. "Now that you've converted, why should you get the benefits we give our dalits?" was the refrain. When the hapless Christian pointed out that there was caste prejudice within the Christian community, the Hindu delight was palpable: "Serves you right! Serves you right! And you thought you'd be better off! Ha!" What's wrong with the above statement? I can't see any. 2. This is why Kalyan Singh touched a chord in the heart of many a parents when he asked whether Muslims who objected to Vande Mataram would now withdraw their children from Catholic schools as well. Doesn't Kalyan have a point? If people object to Vande Mataram & allow studying in Christian schools, doesn't it imply hypocrisy? The point is, after reading the column, I felt that Sanghvi would at least present some statistics that Hinduus who convert do of their own violation & not due to the things alleged. And he barely covers this & puts only one sane point that I can see: given below... 3. The reality is that there are many people at the margins of Hindu society -- dalits, tribals, lower castes and so on -- who have no reason to cling to a faith that oppresses them. 4. One: Hindus must recognise that their resentments against missionaries and conversions are basically irrational. Two: Indian Christians should not be carried away into making common cause with foreign missionaries. And three: the State must act to nip the violence in the bud. One: Mr Sanghvi, you don't have a point, nor the ideal grounds for a good argument, in this case. I'm forced to say this in spite of the fact that I generally like your columns. Two: You could prove your theory by disproving other allegations, that the majority are not converted by the means alleged! Three: Violence should certainly be curbed by all means and the poor should not be affected by the section of wrong-doers. But that doesn't mean that the wrong-doers should be left free as well... Swami
Date sent: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:02:48 -0800
Sanghvi doesn't know what he is talking about. He says "we Hindus are so arrogant that we do not think a Hindu ever converts of his own free will". Free will? In a country where one cannot even marry of his own free will, will anyone CONVERT on his free will? These are not individual conversions that the Hindus complain about at all. These are organised mass conversions, usually (if not always) carried out under pressure/promise of reward of some kind. And then he says that Hindus converting doesn't meet with acceptance amongst other Hindus. Tell me which religion does allow conversion. In Islam, it is punishable by death. In Christianity, they do not even allow for the existence of any other form of belief, let alone convert to it. Vinay Deolalikar
Date sent: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 20:32:25 -0800 (PST)
Sanghvi says "Hindus must recognise that their resentments against missionaries and conversions are basically irrational"?? I thought Sanghvi made a pretty good case about it being pretty rational! What were all those sentences beginning with "We resent" & "Hindus resent"?? And what about all those "personal experiences"?? These experiences are in no way limited to Sanghvi & have been (& are being!) experienced by every non-Christian who has studied in a Jesuit-run school. My question to the "secular" Sanghvi is -- Why haven't you suggested the obvious? - to pass a law making it illegal to preach or promote a religion in *any* school! Isn't that the secular path? Even a predominantly Christian country like the USA has this law where the school cannot force any religion down the throats of the students. This by no way prevents a student from praying by himself/herself or with other kids of the same bent of mind. But it doesn't force anyone to pray either! Instead of that Sanghvi proclaims that Hindus should accept that their fears (of which he himself has given very detailed examples) are IRRATIONAL!! Duh!
Date sent: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:06:06 -0700
Read your article with great interest. You tried to bring a balance in your article. I am a devout Christian and hence I can say this that conversion by any kind of force is wrong. Because if God had to force men to do thing whatever he wanted them to do then he could have created robots. But no, He gave us a free will and choice so that we could exercise it. But on the other hand man has choice to change his opinion. Regarding school prayers, you have to abide by the school rules. Nobody I know has ever tried to convert a child by force in schools. The example that you gave about "Our father who art in heaven ...." looks blown out of proportion. Parents have a bigger responsibility. Although you cannot expect Christian schools to teach other prayers. Recently I attended a function at a Christian school and their program started with Saraswati Vandana. Not to say that it surprised me. May the people of free India understand that freedom was received after coming closer to each other. If we want to rise on the world map then we have to forget about religion when it comes to nation. Party leaders please think about those who are really down trodden, needy, hungry, orphaned. They need someone. If we are not going to listen to them then someone else will. Vivek Chaudhary
Date sent: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:22:41 -0500
Is this article another flower faithfully placed at your Madam Italian's feet!? Suresh
Date sent: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:32:29 -0500
Go on Vir Sanghvi, the column in good and certainly has real stuff in it. It is 100% true that most of the Christian organisations try to rub their religion on even non-Hindus. Why should we allow this in a country where we all are supposed to be secular? Let's take for example, a Hindu tries to convert a person. There would have been such a large hue and cry. One day I was travelling in a train and one guy in a white dress came to me and asked me to repeat a couple of sentences after him. I did repeat them and after sometime he told me that I am baptised and that my name is --- and I am now a Christian! I got so angry that I wanted to hit him. After all who is he to tell me which god I should pray??? Srikanth
Date sent: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:23:44 -0600
I just want to know who is Mr Sanghvi? He is the only writer who can write as shamelessly and as pointlessly as Mani Shanker Aiyar. Rediff is doing a good job by providing shelter to these kind of otherwise unemployed and discarded journalists. Keep it up, dear Rediff! Venkata Ramana
Date sent: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:56:34 -0500
Mr Sanghvi, Every debate must by definition have two sides, and although the attacks against the Christians have evoked mixed sentiments among most Hindus, more outrage than condemnation, the case against the Christian missionaries, against conversion, I believe, has almost universal Hindu contempt, and you are probably trying to set the equation right by your arguments, the lone ranger, the lone Christian hero (and psst, did you know he's a Hindu, such courage...)...even earn some viewership-eye-ball-count along the way. Your arguments, for the most part, are shallow and baseless. The point about Christian schools are right, the English had a vastly superior system of education, and the missionary-run schools arguably offer the best education in the country. But schools are for education, when schools become vehicles for conversion and brainwash, action should be taken. But the argument that a parent, if he ever sends his kid to a Christian school, has lost his right to complain, I'm sorry, is pure bullshit. The parent sends his child to receive better education, not a religion, and when the line is crossed, it is the school authorities who are at fault. Most convents, till very recently did not have to pay land tax, and were in the status of minority institutions, even those in Ooty and Missourie. The tax-payer's rupee supports these institutions. Vivek Viswanathan
Date sent: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:13:11 PST
Really, a silly article! Please don't spend your valuable space by publishing such pieces of trash. Babu
Date sent: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 22:10:15 -0000
Quite right, Mr Sanghvi... well said. If conversions are being described as forced because poor tribals are being bribed by a promise of a good education and higher social status then the parallel must be seen in the US. In the US, Eastern religions are being propagated with ever more vigour. The difference is that one, the targets are generally the more affluent, Hollywood types and second the bribe is a promise of a more spiritually uplifting lifestyle. Buddhism (if I may call it Indian) is becoming increasingly popular to many disgruntled Christians who feel their religion has not given them enough. |
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
|