The Anti-Conversion Bill? Is India Still Secular?

I was reading the paper yesterday (Thats all I have been doing all day long!!) And here comes the article about His Holiness the Pope - A person or rather an Entity representing the largest religion on Earth - Christianity. His address to the Indian Ambassador - Mr. Aditya Sinha seemed to me ironic. In the softest sense he presented to the Indian Amassador that The Democratic Secular Republic of India is infringing the Freedom of Religion - One of the Fundamental Rights to our Constitution, that it is 'Unconstitutional' for the Indian Government to interfere with religious conversions and finally India has shown 'intolerance' to certain minority (read Chritianity) sections of the society. Coming from the highest priest of a religion I believe there was a lot of thought by at least a dozen intellectuals given before a speech of such intensity was delievered to a country, dictating it as to what needs to be done (In this case 'not to be' contextually). The irony lies in the fact that His Holiness the Pope judges by far religiously the most diverse nation - falling just short of accusing it of being 'unsecular' in every sense possible.
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