IGNORING ILLEGAL PROSELYTIZATION

“It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world’s progress toward peace. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man ? ”
—Mahatma Gandhi, Harijan, 30-Jan-1937

But, then, why didn’t Gandhi direct either banning of proselytization in the Indian Constitution; or incorporation of stringent norms?

Nehru turned a blind eye to illegal and rampant proselytization by the Christian missionaries, feeding on poor, innocent souls like soul vultures— this adversely affected national interests. Wrote Durga Das in ‘India from Curzon to Nehru & After’:
“The Constitution-makers swept under the carpet the important matter relating to the scheduled tribes in the Assam hills in the north-east. They adopted a formula virtually placing the region outside the pale of normal Union laws and administrative apparatus. Nehru did this on the advice of Christian missionaries. His colleagues in the top echelons let it pass, treating the matter, in the words of Azad, as ‘a Nehru fad’.”

It is worth noting that Sir Reginald Coupland (1884–1952), a historian and a professor of the Oxford University who had accompanied the Cripps Mission as an adviser in 1942, had recommended for a statutory guarantee that the work of the Christian missions in the hill tracts of Assam (Assam then included all the NE states) would continue uninterrupted. (In this context, please check the doings of Verrier Elwin in the Northeast described in the previous blunder.)

Wrote MKK Nair:
“Nehru and Patel did not agree on many issues and Patel used to point out shortcomings in Nehru’s approaches to him. Almost everyone knows that the problems of North East India began with Nehru’s policy. Patel had vehemently opposed Nehru’s plan to administer North Eastern Region under the Foreign Ministry and differentiate it from the rest of India. He explained the repercussions of such a step, but there was no one in the cabinet to oppose Nehru. When implemented, it became easy for Christian missionaries to tell local people that they were not Indians and their’s was another country because India’s Foreign Ministry dealt with it. Nehru created a new cadre, Indian Frontier Administrative Service, to administer the region but selection was like for Indian Foreign Service. However, except for one or two exceptions, everyone chosen was incompetent and did not have the required administrative calibre. Their clumsy rule and the worse control by the Foreign Ministry were causes for anti-national activities to flourish in Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur and hill areas of Assam.”

Massive conversions in the Northeast states, particularly Nagaland and Mizoram, have led to secessionist movements. Christian missionaries and a number of foreign-funded NGOs have deliberately propagated and funded the myths of Aryan-Dravidian conflicts and differences (Aryan Invasion Theory [AIT] has long since been discredited). They have been active in anti-Brahmanical and anti-Hindu propaganda. They have taken advantage of the poverty and wants of the dalits and the tribals. Why? All this helps than in conversions. It is they who have fuelled Aryan-Dravidian politics in Tamil Nadu to help them in their proselytization project. It is necessary to realise that conversions (over 99% of them are through enticements and deception, and are illegal) to Christianity or Islam are actually spiritual murders more heinous than physical murders, as they unhinge converts from their roots.

“Demography is destiny ,” said Auguste Comte. Indian partition was the net result of the changes in religious demography. But, it seems Nehru did not understand the correlation among religion, nation, partition, and divisiveness. It may be fine to be personally an atheist, or agnostic, or above religion; but it is definitely irresponsible, as a national leader, to ignore the reality of religions, particularly the latter two proselytizing, supremacist, “only true” Abrahamic religions, their effect on people and regions, and their potential for divisiveness.

Given the growing illegal conversions (over 99% of which are illegal), influx of illegal Muslim refugees, and skewed population-growth rate of Muslims and Christians; what had failed to happen even during the millennia of India’s bondage, may shockingly happen in free India—India turning into a Hindu-minority nation, and the consequent obliteration of India’s several millennia-old rich religious-cultural heritage.

There are 126 Christian-majority, and 49 Muslim-majority countries in the world, but just one Hindu-majority country—that is, India (leaving the tiny country Nepal). Is it not an Indian leader’s responsibility to ensure that at least one country remains Hindu-majority, and safe for Hindus, and to which persecuted Hindus elsewhere in the world (like in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and, sadly, even from its own state of Kashmir) could seek refuge. Isn’t it the least that Hindus, who have suffered a millennium of slavery and persecution at the hands of Muslims and Christians, must expect from the Indian leaders. People of other religions must, of course, have full freedom as equal citizens; but they can’t be allowed to dominate, illegally proselytize, and displace the Hindu majority.
Christian missionaries and their illegal proselytization has created havoc in many parts of India, and it is high time India woke up to them and took effective counter measures. Nehru dynasty never cared about India’s religious and cultural foundations and heritage, but non-Dynasty governments need to act differently.

Proselytization in India has been solely for economic reasons, and to a lesser extent on account of societal reasons. Religion or spiritualism, or ‘seeking God’, or appreciating that the religion one is converting into is “better”, has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Hence, all conversions are illegal (barring perhaps 0.01%). There is, of course, no question of the latter two Abrahamic religions, the “religion of compassion”, and the “religion of peace”, which have caused terrible and indescribable miseries to uncountable millions of locals belonging to other faiths in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, and Australia through the centuries, being superior or the only true religions. None can come even remotely near the grandness of essential Hinduism. There can, therefore, be no conversion through rational analysis and conviction.

Nehru and Nehruvians—given their myopic vision and woefully faulty grasp on history, current realities and the nature of the latter-two proselytizing Abrahamic religions—while defending or siding with “minorities” or providing them with grossly unfair constitutional advantages, failed to grasp the obvious truth that the Hindus (that include Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs) are a global minority; and given the massive well- funded, well-equipped, aggressive proselytization by the Christians and Muslims, Hindus are also a globally endangered minority, deserving effective state protection, including effective laws and implementation machinery to protect them from predatory proselytization. In fact, proselytization should have been banned in the constitution; while allowing genuine individuals to approach courts for permission for change of religion after giving satisfactory explanation.

Conversions actually got a fillip thanks to the Nehruvian policies. If you have chosen the socialist path, which benefits only the politicians and the babus, poor can never really come up. Deprived of medical facilities, free education, other necessities, and even food, they become easy targets for conversion. Had India followed free-market policies, India would have been a prosperous first-world nation, with better administration and justice, long ago; leaving little scope for illegal conversions.