09-21-2006, 12:42 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Indic faiths </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
<b>Beyond the realm of conversion</b>
The brouhaha in a section of the media, reflecting both the Congress's inability to rise above partisan politics as well as the ignorance that has come to dominate much of today's instant journalism, over Tuesday's amendments to the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act is entirely uncalled for. The Act was framed in 2003 with the explicit purpose of preventing religious conversions through fraud, deceit and inducement, as is done by individuals and organisations who have neither respect nor regard for faiths other than that which they propagate by violating both the letter and the spirit of the freedom of religion guaranteed by our Constitution. Only the naive and those who are complicit partners in the devious ploy to harvest souls by using the most despicable means will refuse to concede that vulnerable sections of our society are falling victim to the trickery resorted to by evangelists of various hues. That, however, does not minimise the social fallout of such conversions; apart from fragmenting traditional societies rooted in Indic faiths, they also fuel violence that we can do without. Hence, adopting a law that makes it mandatory for district authorities to be informed before individuals abandon their faith to embrace another makes eminent sense. Not only does it help monitor the activities of unscrupulous peddlers of faith, it also ensures there is no abridgement of freedom of religion as defined by our Constitution. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi had this in mind when his Government adopted the Freedom of Religion Act in 2003. What it had not envisaged was the tricky area of defining religious conversions when it comes to Indic faiths. For instance, if a Hindu embraces Sikhism, does that amount to conversion? Or, if a Hindu decides to become a follower of Buddha, revered as the ninth avatar of Vishnu, would he or she have to inform the authorities? To become a Jain, must a Hindu seek the state's approval?
Tuesday's amendments are meant to address these and related questions. They are premised on the logic that Indic faiths form a joint family where the identity of individual members remains intact. A Brahmo Samaji may argue that he or she is not a Hindu, which is as correct as a Jain or a Sikh or, for that matter, a Buddhist, claiming a distinctive religious identity. But none of them can argue with any conviction that their faith does not flow from Hinduism, or that they are not covered by the same family and personal laws. There are families where the eldest son is a Sikh and his siblings are Hindus. Similarly, there are families where individual members are Buddhists while the others remain Hindus. A vast number of Jains remain opposed to the idea of followers of Jainism being listed as a minority community because they believe it alienates them from the fountainhead of their faith. The ease with which Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists inter-marry bears testimony to the belief that these diverse faiths are united by their Indic origin. Even if they inter-change their faith, which they invariably do voluntarily, they are not affected in a manner as profound as embracing Christianity or Islam. Hence, it makes no sense to bring them under the purview of a law against conversions through fraud, deceit and inducement. Reading diabolical meanings into the amendments is tantamount to flaunting ignorance if not wilfully adding a sinister twist where none exists.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pioneer Edit Desk
<b>Beyond the realm of conversion</b>
The brouhaha in a section of the media, reflecting both the Congress's inability to rise above partisan politics as well as the ignorance that has come to dominate much of today's instant journalism, over Tuesday's amendments to the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act is entirely uncalled for. The Act was framed in 2003 with the explicit purpose of preventing religious conversions through fraud, deceit and inducement, as is done by individuals and organisations who have neither respect nor regard for faiths other than that which they propagate by violating both the letter and the spirit of the freedom of religion guaranteed by our Constitution. Only the naive and those who are complicit partners in the devious ploy to harvest souls by using the most despicable means will refuse to concede that vulnerable sections of our society are falling victim to the trickery resorted to by evangelists of various hues. That, however, does not minimise the social fallout of such conversions; apart from fragmenting traditional societies rooted in Indic faiths, they also fuel violence that we can do without. Hence, adopting a law that makes it mandatory for district authorities to be informed before individuals abandon their faith to embrace another makes eminent sense. Not only does it help monitor the activities of unscrupulous peddlers of faith, it also ensures there is no abridgement of freedom of religion as defined by our Constitution. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi had this in mind when his Government adopted the Freedom of Religion Act in 2003. What it had not envisaged was the tricky area of defining religious conversions when it comes to Indic faiths. For instance, if a Hindu embraces Sikhism, does that amount to conversion? Or, if a Hindu decides to become a follower of Buddha, revered as the ninth avatar of Vishnu, would he or she have to inform the authorities? To become a Jain, must a Hindu seek the state's approval?
Tuesday's amendments are meant to address these and related questions. They are premised on the logic that Indic faiths form a joint family where the identity of individual members remains intact. A Brahmo Samaji may argue that he or she is not a Hindu, which is as correct as a Jain or a Sikh or, for that matter, a Buddhist, claiming a distinctive religious identity. But none of them can argue with any conviction that their faith does not flow from Hinduism, or that they are not covered by the same family and personal laws. There are families where the eldest son is a Sikh and his siblings are Hindus. Similarly, there are families where individual members are Buddhists while the others remain Hindus. A vast number of Jains remain opposed to the idea of followers of Jainism being listed as a minority community because they believe it alienates them from the fountainhead of their faith. The ease with which Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists inter-marry bears testimony to the belief that these diverse faiths are united by their Indic origin. Even if they inter-change their faith, which they invariably do voluntarily, they are not affected in a manner as profound as embracing Christianity or Islam. Hence, it makes no sense to bring them under the purview of a law against conversions through fraud, deceit and inducement. Reading diabolical meanings into the amendments is tantamount to flaunting ignorance if not wilfully adding a sinister twist where none exists.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->