> The basic argument revolves around the clause that allows the complete > freedom to practise any religion in India. This is the one clause that is > stated as actually weighted against Hindus and I believe the logic of the
I don't agree with this logic, although I can see why a lot of people do. > > The argument is as follows. The freedom to practise any religion means > that > all religions may be practised as required. It is considered a requirement > that evangelists must "save souls" and convert people, and a similar need > to > convert to Islam is part of the free practice of Islam. No, the freedom doesn't mean all religions can be practiced as required all else. India is unusual in allowing different family laws for each religion, but aside from that, religious practice cannot breach any law (eg, a religion which requires me to murder someone every day as a basic duty cannot be practiced. Or to be more accurate, it can be practiced, but there will be consequences, like jail - in effect, its practice would violate criminal law). > > The Hindu "religion"(?) does not call for any such compulsion and under > the > circumstances the free practice of all religions in India necessarily > means > poaching on Hindus as potential converts and a gradual decrease in the Possibly, (although query how much evangelism actually happens in practice) but this doesn't mean the *Constitution* discriminates against Hindus, and at any rate, the Hindus who convert do so willingly (forced conversions and other occasional flaws in the system aside). So what? I mean, it's not the Constitution's fault that Hinduism is not an evangelical religion or that Christianity is. > > It is legal and constitutional in India for evangelists and Muslims to > demand > a constant increase in the numbers of Christians and Muslims by > conversion. What do you mean "demand"? It seems to imply that evangelists of any stripe can say that it is the Government's duty under the Constitution to provide people for them to convert, and if not, it will be a Constitutional breach. That's clearly a ridiculous interpretation. Presumably, you mean that evangelicals are free to try and convert people other religions - the Constitution in effect says that the Govt can't interfere in their practice of religion, which (according to you) means that the Govt can't interfere in their efforts to convert people of other religions. Assuming the conversion efforts don't otherwise breach any law (forcible conversions/coercion etc), what's wrong with that? > However it is "not secular" to say this out openly. It is not secular for > Hindus to complain that the constitution is skewed in this way. Saying it > makes one a "right wing Hindu fundamentalist" by many people's standards. If you mean that people who make this point (flawed as it is) get branded as fundamentalists in some sections of media/society, that may be true (and I hope you will agree with me that *some* people who make this point (not all) ARE right wing fundamentalists, although not just because they made this point). But the point itself is flawed anyway. Badri
