Religious conversion and the current controversy – a Gandhian perspective

 Religious conversion and the current 

controversy – a  Gandhian perspective 

 Several friends ask me to offer a Gandhian perspective on the current  controversy over religious conversion in India. While the question is not new the issue needs to be examined in the context of the prevailing political alignment,realignment and recent developments.   What one might see all around is   as usual, Gandhi is quoted and misquoted in this context also to substantiate the position of the respective groups.

Both the supporters and opponents of conversion may well be advised to remember what Gandhi meant when he said as early as 1936 that conversion is a matter between man and his maker who alone knows His creatures’ hearts (Harijan, December 9, 1936).

Gandhi considered conversion as a revolution in one's life, while he described conversion without conviction a mere change and not conversion (Harijan : March 29, 1942).

Referring to the easy manner in which conversions are encouraged or done Gandhi asked : what is the use of crossing from one compartment to another, if it does not mean a moral rise? What is the meaning of my trying to convert to the service of God when those who are in my fold are every day denying God by their actions (Young India : May 29, 1940).

This strong condemnation of those forces which perpetrate injustice to people who as a last resort under the so-called temptation or allurement convert to other religions with whatever motifs is to be read and understood in the light of what Gandhi meant by it.

Gandhi's views on conversion are to be taken in the over-all context of his views and practice of religion  and in the emerging and existing pluralist context. 

His espousal of Sarva Dharma Samabhav(equal respect for all religions) is a very broad frame which has the infinite potential to enable all genuine seekers of truth to find their cup of joy and realize their God. He wrote, "I claim to be a man of God, humbler than the humblest man or woman. My object ever is to make Muslims better Muslims, Hindus better Hindus, Christians better Christians, Parsis better Parsis. I never invite anybody to change his or her religion (Harijan : Feb. 23, 1947)

 The real Gandhi could be seen in what he said that while he would not try to convert anybody, he would not prevent anybody either from converting to any other faith. "Cases of real, honest conversion are quite possible. If some people, for their inward satisfaction and growth change their religion' let them do so (Young India : June 27, 1927). 

While Gandhi stated categorically that he was not against conversion, he was against commercialization of conversion. "lam against the modern methods of it. Conversion now-a-days has become a matter of business like any other" (Christian Mission : p.7) .

Conversion is not the real issue. The real issue before each of us as Gandhi pointed out, is the right understanding of one's religion and other's religions and respect all of them and not to love one's alone while denigrating others'. It is a long road, no doubt, but is there anything that sustained efforts of those who care for human welfare and peace have not brought under control? The communal Frankenstein has to be tamed and unless a concerted move as desired by the Father of the Nation is made, this heartless monster will claim many more victims and all our claims of being civilized would sound hollow.

 Let us spare no efforts in propagating the essence of what Gandhi said about religion and secularism. But then secularism, like the ideal of democracy is something that has to be practiced rather than preached. Gandhi perfectly understood the significant contribution the great religions of the world have made on the hearts and minds of millions of modern reformists and champions of rationalist thinking.

It will be naive to undermine the great role religions played in sustaining the complex nature of human lives and playing a very creative role in knitting humanity to its present shape from a barbarous and fighting tribal mix. True, at times they played a big brother's attitude and played patriarchal role but then, let it be rememberd that they have been the beacon lights and lamp posts of all our progress. In these days of phenomenal achievements of science and technology which has ushered in an era of materialism, rationalism, skepticism, religions can still prove their worth by playing their historic role of providing the sheet anchor of human survival, spirit of co-existence and collective survival instincts should lead the religions forward.

 Humanity needs the soothing hands of religions than ever before. Then the big question mark is :should it be through confrontation and overt or covert attempts to highlight the supremacy of one particular religion over the other and thus subverting other religions ? If it happens as is feared by many analysts the perishing of religions would follow giving rise to irreligion and materialism. Unless the fundamental unity lying underneath human endeavors is fully tapped, life on earth, Gandhi believed, would have to face serious consequences. 

Any diligent critic can also  see in Gandhi that he was not trying to eliminate the religious differences alone. What he was seeking was to initiate a life-long appreciation of one another's faith and practice leading to cooperation in the moral and social spheres. It may be remembered that he never advocated uniform religious practices. He discouraged any sort of uncritical syncretism. He appreciated religious diversity for he believed that it is these diverse streams which enrich human lives. Hence he advocated maintenance of every religion's special symbols of identity. From Akbar's experience he learnt, perhaps, that what is needed was not a new religion but creation of an atmosphere which would promote respectful dialogue among the adherents of different religions     

A close look at Gandhi's understanding of religions would reveal that he was striving for a new approach to religion as opposed to the extremely narrow or even limited view of religion that what the sacred books or the prophets or seers have said are absolute and hence beyond any further interpretation or alteration or the faithful are not expected to question any of them While what he was trying to achieve could be described to be unorthodox, it had far-reaching effects in the sense that he was able to create the impression that his view of religion constituted both a vision of the absolute that guides everyone in his daily life and practical guide in our daily life. Gandhi who won admiration for his practical approach to almost everything he did could also entertain the visions of a unified approach to the vexed problem of religious understanding. An emerging and progressive society according to Gandhi should have a progressive outlook on its religions and what else could it be otter than the creation of a conducive atmosphere that ensures the development of the society which could be possible if only peace and harmony exists? 

Raking up trivial issues and fighting in the name of religious issues was not the Gandhian way. Gandhi's vision of religious amity through Sarva Dharma Sam abhav should also be viewed along with the holistic vision of life Gandhi is credited with. I am afraid, viewed separately or in isolation Gandhi's views on religion would sound a bit mystic and confusing. 

The core of all what Gandhi did both in South Africa and India  convincingly shows that the Gandhian vision of a society which is free of exploitation of all kinds would be possible if only society willingly accepts Satya and Ahimsa as the means of transformation of both the individual and society. And this would become practically impossible if attention is diverted to other issues. The running passion of many of his speeches in the last decades of his life was the gentle reminder to his countrymen that "To revile  another's religion, to make reckless statements, utter untruths, to break the heads of innocent men, to desecrate temples or mosque is a denial of God". 

Let it be remembered that no religious or social leader in contemporary times before or after Gandhi stressed the importance of people developing such a healthy view of religion as Gandhi and to him goes the credit of forcing his countrymen adopt such a vision as a mantra. Gandhi realized that the root cause of religious fanaticism and misunderstanding between the different religious groups is ignorance of other religions. Very few, and not even the heads of religious groups were found to have even basic awareness of other religions. Hence one of the areas Gandhi concentrated was the removal of the age-old feeling he himself knew prevalent among many, even very sensible persons, that the study of other religions was not approved by their religions and it was blasphemous. Gandhi advised people to study other religions sympathetically through the writings of such persons who were ardent votaries of those religions. He emphasized that such a study "of other religions besides one's own will give one a grasp of the rock-bottom unity of all religions and afford a glimpse also of the universal and absolute truth which lies beyond the dust of creeds and faiths". 

The general situation was definitely complex and people had the mistaken notion that the study of other religions would weaken their faith and such attitude was against the tenets of their religious precepts. Gandhi's insistence of equal respect of all religions drew sharp reaction from several quarters. "Gandhiji's religious approach proved a big disaster because the religious tolerance he banked upon, turned out to be nerveless and even spineless", wrote/one' critic of Gandhi. "Excessive harping by Gandhi on their fact of religious divide and on the need of religious tolerance imparted exclusive importance and relevance to religion. Gandhiji failed to appreciate that there existed a world of difference between religion in the institutionalized ritualism and spirituality and their divergent logics stand and work on very different plans The two places must be kept apart, not to be mixed up. Gandhiji muddled them up", the writer continues.

There are also critics who hold the view that Gandhi's initiative in championing the Khilafat cause proved to be counter-productive in a much as it gave the Muslims on opportunity to politicize a religious cause the beginning of a series of incidents which ultimately led to the partition of the country. An objective analysis would reveal that this view is a very narrow interpretation of a major step Gandhi took after much consideration. True, it was a controversial step, but it be remembered that it turned out to be a giant leap (and certainly not costly as some critics feel) so far as bringing the Muslim community to the main stream politics is concerned. 

The course of Indian nationalism underwent a meaningful and serious change with a considerable section of the Muslim population from the earlier sulking attitude and who were nursing frustration on several counts, joined the freedom movement under Gandhi. / Partition of the country cannot be taken as the touchstone of the efficacy of the Gandhian concept of equal respect for all religions and also the crusade of Gandhi to ensure justice and equal opportunity to the Muslims in a free India : in effect Gandhi was the bridge through which the minority communities walked to the main-stream life. 

The occasional religious conflicts and the communal violence the country has witnessed since independence have to be viewed from the totality of the socio, cultural and religious matrix of the various communities.

Who can deny the fact that all communities that constitute the Indian Republic have been experiencing tremendous problems of adjustments particularly after independence and with the spread of the new ideal of secularism, science and also against the emerging national and international scenario. No group, much less the Indian experiment which had to face a very unsympathetic West which has been aiding and abetting the designs of a theocratic Pakistan which had moved closer to the West as a dependable military ally, could remain as an island. 

It is one of the ironies of the modern times that the Western democracies and secular governments chose to strengthen a theocratic Pakistan as a part of the cold-war strategies. The twin ideals, namely secularism and non-alignment which India adopted and championed did not find many supporters among the powerful blocks of countries in the fifties and sixties. A secular democratic India had to struggle and struggle to establish her credentials against theocratic and every often military dictatorship in Pakistan. 

Gandhi's finest hour was perhaps when his spirit persuaded his followers to retain independent India as secular state and it may be remembered that with leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru secularism was an article of faith and not a mere political slogan. The manner in which India was fashioned by Nehru as a true, progressive secular state won the nation international appreciation. This is not to overstate the fact that everything was well with everybody and all religionists and all sections lived happily ever after. The pluralistic linguistic, religious and ethnic fabric with all their varied hues are the real strength of the Indian Republic and at least in this aspect Gandhi's influence was very much in evidence. The mosaic of secularism has gradually become the brick and mortar of the Indian State.

However painful and unfortunate the demolition of the Babari Masjid be, the  restraint displayed by the nation and the courageous manner in which it  withstood the trauma unmistakably revealed the strength of Indian secularism. We should be able to make learn lessons from   what self-seeking political leaders and religious heads claim to profess. In a sense, both these categories are twin dangers who masquerade as our saviors. 

An analysis of the post-Ayodhya developments shows that barring the spontaneous outcry and violence that followed the demolition of the mosque the fact that hostilities did not create such unmanageable situation as the prophets of doom perhaps expected shows the strength of conviction of the vast majority of the people of India that secularism is not only their goal but it has got itself ingrained in the very life of the Indians. It has to be admitted that the communal venom has spread to almost all layers and several long-term and short-term policies are to be evolved and implemented both at the national and local levels in order to stem the rising tide of communal frenzy which has unfortunately blinded a considerable section of our country's population. 

The problem should not be looked at from the angle of majority or minority rights and privileges but one of national importance. First and foremost an awareness has to grow that communalism is a cancerous growth, a devil who might be friendly today but who will definitely ask for our soul tomorrow. 

 And it will be a serious mistake to believe that Gandhi favoured a blending of all religions into a uniformity of faith and a uniform practice. What he was striving for was religious harmony through his life and the efficacy of the inter-religious dialogue. What Arnold Toynbee said acquires importance in this context: 

"At this supremely dangerous moment in human history, the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian way — emperor Ashoka's and Mahatma Gandhi's testimony to the harmony of all religions. Here we have an attitude and spirit that can make it possible for the human race to grow into a single family and, in the Atomic Age this is the only alternative destroying ourselves'.

 Let me  close these observations by citing a poem by the Persian Poet -Philosopher Hafiz :

I

Have

Learned

So much from God

 That I can no longer

 Call Myself

A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,

A Buddhist, a Jew.

The Truth has shared so much of Itself

With me

That I can no longer call myself

 A man , a woman, an angel,

Or even pure Soul.

Love has Befriended Hafiz so completely

 It has turned to ash

And freed

Me

Of every concept and image

 My mind has ever known.