The Anti-Conversion Bill? Is India Still Secular?
Well this really made me think and I guess all of you too. I am not as good an orator as the Pope and nor am I a judge of his or for that matter any personality. So I contrained myself at thinking about 'Are we secular enough?' But then I realized that the Pope knew more about the Indian fundamental rights that me being an Indian. So well I defintely had to read through my Fundamental Rights before I write anything. Reading through the provisions that our intellictual Constituent Assembly had put forth, I was amazed at their fore thought, their insight and their innate ability to predict the future problems facing the 21st century India and to share my suprise here's an excerpt from Article (21) of our Constitution:
" This Article guarantees that every person in India shall have the freedom of conscience and shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to the restrictions that may be imposed by the State on the following grounds, namely:-
(1) Public order, morality and health;
(2) Other provisions of the Constitution;
(3) Regulation of non-religious activity associated with religious practise;
(4) Social welfare and reform;
(5) Throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes of Hindus."
So well maybe someone in the Pope's intellectual committee over-looked this fact. 'Unconstituional' as the word used needs to be redefined for those who never read the Constitution of India then. As the provisions say an 'elected' Indian Government both the federal and the State can and must intervene for the social good of the society that it has been elected to govern, not doing so will defintely be 'Unconstitutional'.
Going back to the 'intolerance' that India has supposedly showed towards 'other' religions. The facinating thing of this comment is how ocme we never hear the Pope addressing the Palestinians about being 'Intolerant' towards the Jews? while India has a Muslim population supposedly a minority that is higher than the population of some of our so called Muslim neighbors and still gets accused of being 'Intolerant'. But maybe the Vatican is vocal when it concerns their religion alone. It was hard for me to find the right defination or the context in which 'the' word was used. Did the legislature pass laws curbing building new churches? or has it passed laws that there shouldn't be any more masses held on Sundays? Or were they forced to change their beliefs or leave India if they couldn't?....None I suppose are true. Going back to the Indian history India has absorbed every religion that came to its shores and it takes pride at being so rich in diversity of religions that it holds. Does this peaceful co-existance of religions native (Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism to name a few) and acquired (Muslim from the Moguls that Invaded India, Christianity from the British that ruled India and many others) by any means show 'Intolerance'? I was at my wit's end to find where was India 'Intolerant' to other religions when it has assimilated all religions as its own, the question of 'other' never comes up. I am not a diplomat and subtleness is not a quality I fancy, so what I deduced from the Vatican's perspective was their uneasiness of the 'Anti-Conversion bills' being passed by states in India - Notably Rajesthan, Chattisgarh, Orrisa and Gujarat. I would rather ask the Vatican if it has atleast some guidelines to let people convert to their religion? I am not taking a stand here against religious conversions but I defintely am against conversions motivated by greed and the Bill as presented by the States address this issue, I am perplexed why is the Vatican feeling unconfortable about it. If it believes that the perpetuation of its religion is not lured by human materialistic revenousness then its concern on religious independence seems unrealistic.
Maybe the Vatican could do with some introspection before commenting on National Policies of secular nations? Finally India's silence on the subject while percieved by many as an acknowledgement of its wrong doing, I believe it stems from the deep respect for a religious head even if they are wrong - And that shows honor and the ultimate religion that India follows - 'Humanity with Humility'.
To Err is but Human, to forgive is Divine
posted by Just Another Thought @ 10:15 PM
2 Comments:
Hi Musing
Thanks for your insights. I assume you know me while your identity is just an intellectual fantasy if I may say, for me. But well people are forgotten not their words I guess.
Anyways coming back to your point..Why shouldn't Christianity have its way when its uplifting the poor, the down trodden and the tribals?
Economically maybe you are right how Moral is it? and that I believe is a question of personal judgement. If immorality is the basis of religious perpetuation does the society have a moral responsibility to curb such an activity?
Well think about it - prostitution is immoral in many countries including India (remember its contextual again) but well its helping so many girls earn their living - (Its an abstract simile but then its serves our purpose).. So in that case Society shouldn't be doing anything against it. But then social responsibility is an inherent part of a society ...and the tribal man is also a social being. And most of us back a social curbing of such a quality being spread in our society. Anyways my point is if we see things objectively then we shouldn't be passing many laws but a subjective thinking and an overall impact is what we need to think about in cases of 'the grey areas' of a social life we need to take a stand with morality and the 'black and white' objectivity loses its shine.
If the business of the missionary is conversions on money then lets designate them as corporate companies, subject them to the same laws as corporates have, but then if they address that their existance is for the upliftment and welfare of the poor then let them stick to that mandate. My blog though was not about morality since thats a fine line that I percieve am inept to write about. My blog concerned itself with was the Vatican right about its comments.
As a new blogger I greatly appreciate your help in letting me know about the intricacies of commenting options. I look forward to more blogging and more round the coin conversations with you.
Dear Sachin
Good i have seen a good contrsted statement from you. Only i can see in this entire talk haves and have nots in the world poor and rich. Wherever the cream is there the peoiple will bent upon sliding that side. However, the real value for the human being respect the other religion but not criticise the other religions. The religion which the human being practice is not bought from any where and it is an inherant quality of methods of living in and practicing the systymes by virtue of family belief. Therefore itis not to discard anybodys system of living which is within the leagal compliance.
Post a Comment
<< Home