well written! ________________________________ From: Goanet-News <goanet-news-boun...@lists.goanet.org> on behalf of Goanet Reader <goanetreader.goa...@gmail.com> Sent: 11 June 2022 3:22 To: goa...@goanet.org <goa...@goanet.org> Subject: [Goanet-News] 'Forced' conversions... and all that jazz (FN)
Frederick Noronha When the history of intolerance-filled (or religious supremacist) politics gets to be written, a special chapter would be needed for the misuse of language. Words and terms which we are familiar with have been warped, changed and distorted, so as to give credence to a brand of politics which is actually unjustifiable. If you don't like the concept of secularism, just call it 'pseudo-secularism' and simply discredit it. On the other hand, if you wish to justify discrimination, lambast "minority appeasement". In the "conversions" debate, some conversions are more equal, because they are simply "re-conversions". So, the list goes on. The other day, the online space was debating "conversions" in Goa, and the controversies raked up by the State (and some obviously ruling-party supporters) over this. In particular, there was this televised debate, involving five participants. Among these were a priest, a lawyer, a BJP politician, and a couple others. By the end of the discussion, the conclusion almost everyone seemed ready to accept was that conversions are fine, but forced conversions are not. Sounds logical, right? Who in their right mind can even justify any form of "forced" conversions? But if we thought this made sense, we probably need to delve a little deeper into the debate. Well, read on.... Starting in 1967, various States have passed "Freedom of Religion" laws. First came Orissa in 1967, followed by MP in 1968, and Arunahcal in 1978. Then, after a lull, Chhattisgarh passed its own laws in 2000 and 2006, Gujarat in 2003, Madhya Pradesh in 2006, Himachal in 2007, and Rajashtan in 2008. But seeing the issue in terms of "forced conversions" misses the largest elephant in the room. The BJP spokesperson at the televised discussion, as one could expect, focussed on "forced conversions". It is interesting to see how this concept is treated by the laws of different States in the country. Under the definition of various laws, the concept of "forced" conversions is definitely controversial. (Surprising though it may seem, at least one such law was passed even by a Congress government in Himachal Pradesh in 2007. Every party has its communal side. Maybe some are just less consistently communal, or cather to a wider range of sectarianism over a longer period.) Back to the definition of "forced conversions". What does this really mean? For instance, in some States where the law was passed, "forced conversions" would include: (i) misrepresentation, undue influence, and a change of religion brought on by marriage. Supposing I believe that a Heaven exists outside our world, and I go around preaching thus. Or I run an efficient English-medium school and offer admission to someone... couldn't these be covered (under the Himachal Pradesh law) and seen as cause for "forced conversions"? Under some laws' definitions, it also says that (ii) conversion is prohibited when undertaken by "force, fraud, inducement and allurement". What do these terms mean? Has anyone asked? "Divine displeasure" has been treated as force. So what if you believe about "divine displeasure" against someone practising bigamy, for instance. Or for suggesting "divine displeasure" against those committing "mortal sins". Anyone's promotion of the existence of Paradise could be treated (if the authorities so chose) as fraud; after all the geographical address of the same is still to be determined, someone might argue. If you offer someone treatment in a hospital that you run (and your beliefs push you towards doing social work, though someone else might see these motives as entirely suspect), would that not be treated as a form of inducement and allurement? It is also true that most of these cases are impossible to be proven in the court of law. After some time, the accused might get acquitted. But then, that's the entire point. By having such laws on the statute book, we are ensuring that everyone would be afraid to practise what they believe in, in the first place itself. Then, check this out: The term “force” is defined in all the Acts more or less as “a threat of injury of any kind including the threat of divine displeasure or social ex-communication.” Keep in mind that monotheistic religions believe in the existence of one true god. This does not make them less tolerant, or necessarily mean that polytheistic religions are more tolerant, as the former BJP leader Advaniji has suggested on a number of occasions. Any preaching of one's own religion could be treated as a form of "divine displeasure". Then too, what does "inducement" refer to? In some of the State acts it means "the offer of any gratification, either in cash or in kind and shall also include the grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise”. Besides, “allurement” also gets more explicit and has been defined as “offer of any temptation in the form of -- (i) any gift or gratification either in cash or kind; (ii) grant of any material benefit, either monetary or otherwise” in some States' acts. In Uttarakhand, "allurement means and includes the offer of any temptation in the form of gift or gratification or material benefit, either in cash or kind or employment, free education in reputed school run by any religious body, easy money, better lifestyle, divine pleasure or otherwise.[xvii]" Oh wow! Forced conversions indeed.... this covers an entire gamut of entirely legit human activity. In the debate, someone suggested the possible use of Magic Remedies Act, to curb some such problems. This is where our "secularists" fail us, not appreciating the potential of misuse of such laws. As Raghav Pandey has argued in The Hinduz: "For instance, going to a temple, a mosque, or a church can be termed superstitious because there is no scientific data to support the fact that such a practice yields any good." This gets worse in times when the State itself gets sectarianised, if not outright communalised. Likewise to promote a belief in prayers, to ask people to believe in certain theological concepts (which others don't believe in, say the existence of Hell, or Virgin Birth) could also be easily termed "superstitious practices". So much was left unsaid and undebated. In fact, this is not a new discussion. People of our generation might remember similar discussions from the 1970s. The then Jana Sangh got into power, through the otherwise-interesting Janata Party experiment, in the post-Emergency phase. Behind such thinking, there is a particular brand of politics. There is another aspect to the entire debate. The Catholic Church in places like Goa might presently be feeling unaffected, as the first action (even before any law has been passed) has been against one of the smaller sects, with which the Church itself has had its problems. But, just because an issue doesn't affect it at the present, that is no reason to ignore its long-term potential for misuse against many. Many issues to discuss here. But let's also not lose fact of the reality that such controversies can effectively turn the attention away from an acutely ailing economy, and years of bad governance. ### *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Join a discussion on Goa-related issues by posting your comments on this or other issues via email to goa...@goanet.org See archives at http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/ *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-