BJP TODAY

February 16--28, 2005 - Vol. 24, No. 4

Padmashri for Conversion

VISHAL SHARMA questions UPA government's decision to honour Gladys Staines with Padmashri, and asks: "Can service of humanity not be completely selfless to such an extent that the person being treated should be encouraged to follow his own religion rather than change to some other?"

In the duel between the "communal" Sangh Parivar and the "Maha-secular" Congress Parivar, the conferring of the Padmashree - a prestigious Indian civilian honour - on Gladys, the widow of Graham Staines, raises interesting political questions. Was Gladys not doing the good work for over two decades before her husband Graham was killed? Why were the Staines noticed only after the tragic events unfolded? Is it an attempted political punch by the "secularists" on the "communalists", by virtue of which the secularists would like the world to believe that somehow the latter was responsible for Graham's killing. Conferring the award on his widow after so many years, may then be like saying, "everyone whom you murder, we will beatify". The new breed of the "secular fundamentalists" are experts in creating a non-existent Sangh Parivar bogeyman, and then taking pride and publicity in shooting it down.

Gladys has had to bear a tragedy of such magnitude that it sends shivers down one's spine. Her husband and her two little sons were burnt alive in a crazy tribal attack. The main accused in the crime has been sentenced to death. Both Gladys and Graham had been doing great social work, but they were also missionaries. Hence a question arises, are missionaries not antithetical to Indian secularism?

I spoke to an IAS officer of the Orissa cadre who has served in a district adjoining the Staines' tribal Mayurbhanj district. He was full of praise for Gladys. He told me that Gladys is a very warm and composed person, with a lion's will. He had once gone to Gladys' place and cleaned a leper's sores. On returning home, he bathed twice. The experience had frightened him. The IAS officer then asked me, "Vishal, would you ever touch a leper, and clean his oozing sores?"

I could not answer. She gives dignity to the lepers, when the entire society is loaded against them. She gives a voice to the tribals, when no one hears them. Her organization has put up wonderful health and educational facilities for the tribals. However, the question remains, why do missionaries involved in such a wonderful service to humanity convert people? Can the service not be completely selfless to such an extent that the person being treated should be encouraged to follow his own religion rather than change to some other? Why does the Christian church not accept, "Sarva dharma sama bhava" (Equal treatment to all religions) ? In Israel, the evangelical and proselytizing groups have entered into an understanding with the Israeli government that they would not carry out any religious conversions in the Holy land. Why can we not have a similar arrangement in India?

A lot of wonderful Christian schools and colleges impart good education in India. Some Jesuit principals are rare people who have dedicated their lives to the field of education. Even, the author has learnt his 3Rs through the love and attention of Jesuits. However, there is a sad discrimination on the grounds of religion. A person belonging to the Christian faith is given priority in admissions over others. They claim the Christian educational institutions come under the category of minority educational institutions, and hence fifty percent of the seats are reserved for Christians. But aren't religion-based reservations antithetical to India's secular constitution?

In Mayurbhanj, Gladys' organization organizes weekly mass for the community. People are encouraged to voluntarily come with a fistful of grains as a weekly contribution for the services being provided. But there are so many other missionary organizations that are being funded by external sources. Obviously as there are more prosperous Christian countries in the world, Christian organizations get the most funds, then come the Islamic ones, and the last are the Hindu organizations, even though Hindus outnumber Christians and Muslims in India.

India has excellent bilateral relations with Australia. We are part of the commonwealth, and Australia has a great cricket team. But has Australia honoured even a single Indian citizen with an Australian civilian honour? Are we not too eager to confer Indian civilian honours on people holding foreign passports, overlooking hundreds of Indians who would command a higher claim for the same. The Swaminarayan organization is doing great social work. ISKCON and the Akshaya Patra organizations are distributing daily free food to thousands of poor school children all over the country, irrespective of their caste, creed or religion. They do not discriminate on religion, nor convert any child into Hinduism. The Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram is doing an equally good work in the service of the tribals it is also serving the lepers and cleaning their sores. But has the "secular" government ever honoured anyone from these organizations? The media too does not give it adequate coverage. But when it comes to non-Hindu organizations, the "secular criterion" is overlooked. It is sad that years of hardline Nehruvian secularism practised by the Congress party has brought about a weird situation in India, wherein Hindu organizations are labelled as anti-secular and non-Hindu organizations as secular even if indulging in sectarian communal activities.

Even after living in India for over twenty years has Gladys taken up Indian citizenship? If she still retains her Australian passport, it raises doubts on her attachment and belonging to India. My heart asks me not to judge people serving humanity with the scale of nationality, but the fact remains that such a scale is present and hence it becomes important that the issue be addressed. India does not permit foreign passport holders to carry out missionary activities in India. Such an activity is, thus, an infringement of the visa rules. Does Gladys Staines and many like her not come under such a requirement?

The government must come good on these questions. Sure Gladys must be honoured for her work, but so also must similar other organizations that do not get adequate media coverage, or are labelled as being "Hindu". The government must not only speak of secularism, act on it but also appear to be acting secular. It should take a strong stance on the issue of religious conversions. It cannot turn a blind eye to conversions being carried out under the noble activity of community service and genuine social work.