'Convert me if you can', challenged
Mahathma Gandhi, when confronted by a missionary who was quite incensed by the
great man's strident opposition to conversions. And missionaries being what they
are, they must have certainly tried. But we all know that Mohandas Gandhi did
not become Malcolm Gandhi and remained a Hindu till death with 'Hey Ram' on his
lips because he was very firm in his spiritual convictions besides being well
aware of missionary machinations. The provocation for the Mahatma,
who knew the Bible inside out, to throw the gauntlet at the Missionary was
simply this: the relentless targetting of the tribals and harijans by the
evangelists. Gandhi was convinced that this was pure exploitation of an
oppressed people and had nothing to do with real spirituality. So to expose the
utter immorality of their acts as well as the hollowness of their 'truth', he
invited the missionary to first convince and convert him before preying upon
hapless and desperate people who have neither the means nor the mind to verify
the claims of evangelists.
Now,
imagine a typical filmy scenario that is also rooted in reality. A destitute
woman approaches a man for succour. Her poverty and privation has even prepared
her to place her chastity on the altar. She might also have been emboldened so
by a wayward, often drunkard, husband and hungry children. The woman therefore
has her reasons and since she has decided to cross the threshold, the merit of
her act is irrelevant any more; the focus is rather on the man. Now what would a
man when confronted by such a woman do? Obviously, whatever he does, will tell
on his character, irrespective of the fact that the situation was not his
making. He can either turn wolf and grab the opportunity as well as the woman or
tell her to keep her chastity intact and still help her out, to the extent he
can. The former is commonplace and condemnable, while the latter is true charity
and reflects character. Even a man of lesser morals would still turn her away
because he will know that the woman's soul would not accompany her body to bed.
In short, it would require a truly depraved bent of mind to exploit the woman's
penury and frustration. And it constitutes rape, of both body and soul.
It would be difficult not to draw a parallel between the above and conversions
of the oppressed. Religion is an intensely personal matter and is as sacrosanct
as chastity. For someone to change his religion of birth requires enormous
mental effort and thorough overhaul of conscience and this cannot happen in a
jiffy. It calls for intense contemplation which cannot be achieved on an empty
stomach or with creditors knocking at the doors. And again, how can this
solitary pursuit happen on a mass scale? But in India we see the spectacle of
people willing to shed their religion of birth in droves aided by an equally
eager faith waiting to gobble them up. And the reasons touted by those
threatening to convert as well as the ones itching for the communion are social
oppression and economic deprivation: the same factors that propelled the woman
alluded to above to shed her inhibitions. By their own admission, the
conversions are not prompted by any play of conscience or pursuit of
spirituality, but owing to frustration and anger, genuine though they may be. In
fact a leader of a Dalit outfit even says that he believes in no religion but
would still want to convert just to express his anger!
It is not just the poor and those at the lower rungs of society who are targets.
Any one who is weak owing to whatever reason is a potential convert.The
predators are always on the lookout - scouting in the streets, waiting outside
temples, stalking stable households, perching on hillocks, scanning the
hospitals and even fanning out in funerals - for that isolated soul in
torment which is deemed ripe for the picking. The infirm and the dying are
'saved' from their sin by being made to move their lips just to utter 'Christ'
before breathing their last. Even corpses are not spared with many getting
buried instead of being cremated after a pliable relative, often an errant son,
is compensated adequately for the 'funeral expenses'. And he too gets 'saved' in
the process. Indeed, emotional blackmail and psychological pressure are potent
weapons in the evangelical armoury.
Now, why this ugly haste and frantic fanaticism? Does it not betray an empty
vessel? Otherwise, what sort of a true religion is it that casts a blind eye to
real conscience change and instead acknowledges mere cosmetic makeovers and
seeks to accommodate an emotional crowd wading in on empty stomachs and broken
hearts? What kind of grouping would that be that exploits the deprivation of the
masses to pander to its own depravity? What character or credibility could be
attached to these soul-hunters who make it their wont to encourage and enlist
renegades, deserters, defectors and desperadoes as well as entice and engulf the
gullible to their fold without regard to motives or morals? Will true men of
morals succumb even if these are proffered on a platter? But our evangelists
commit these with impunity, without remorse but with zeal instead! Well, such
acts are worse than the rape of a destitute woman. It is spiritual mass
rape - inflicted upon a depressed class by those whose own
consciences had been conveniently despatched for a sabbatical! It is perversity
without peers.
The Constitution's sanction for religious freedom comes with the caveat of
morality. For those who claim that morality is a grey area and subjective, it
would suffice to say that so are the terms 'secularism' and 'tolerance'. But
really, morality is a very powerful and unambiguous concept if only one has
one's conscience intact. Helping the poor and the weak who come to them is real
charity which is moral and therefore constitutional. But making them walk to the
nearest church to thank the 'saviour' amounts to crossing the moral threshold
rendering the same unconstitutional. Thus, by no stretch of imagination could
exploitation of the anger and hunger of a class of people be deemed moral. There
is another danger lurking. Today, it is just switching faiths, but tomorrow it
may be a case of changing national loyalties, with anger and hunger remaining
the culprits. If we accept the rationale today, can we later contest the outcome
which could be disastrous and even too late? It is therefore imperative that the
gauntlet is thrown back at the offenders. But for starters, religious
conversions of the kind that are now rampant will have to be stopped on the
count that they are immoral. And this can be achieved constitutionally. Doubting
'Thomases' are advised to check notes with the Father, I mean, the Father of the
Nation. After all, he was a very tolerant and secular man and we know what he
felt. And we also know that he had read the Book and still did not feel impelled
to change his name from Mohandas to Malco...No, let's leave it at that!
|