In the context of religion, this question must be rephrased as ‘Should we stop conversions?’ The plain answer would be that we should not, provided the conversions are genuine and the person concerned has changed his or her religion out of the conviction that it offers a better personal spiritual path. Any conversion should be based on a deep understanding of not only the new religion, but also of the one the person was born into. While speaking in America almost a century ago, Swami Vivekananda had clearly stated that he did not want Christians to become Hindus but to be better Christians. In India, much is made of the constitutional provision of freedom to propagate one’s religion. However, this comes with a rider, namely, subject to maintenance of law and order. It is in this context that the issue of religious conversions must be seen.
In 1936, Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar said, “By joining Islam or Christianity, the Depressed Classes would not only go out of the Hindu religion, but also go out of the Hindu culture. Conversion will denationalise the Depressed Classes.” Gandhiji had also expressed similar sentiments. He had urged the missionaries to concentrate on their social service activity, and stop the process of conversions. He had coined the phrase ‘rice converts’ to define those who had adopted Christianity on the inducement of the social service done by the missionaries. Even a cursory reading of any Christian literature makes it clear that social service is not an end in itself, but is a means to lure people into adopting Christianity. People of all religions get upset when their members adopt a different faith. In 1839, when two Parsis converted from Zoroastrianism to Christianity, the community tried to woo them back with monetary incentives and threats of violence. In Islamic countries, missionary activity is thoroughly discouraged and severely restricted. In Israel, a bill to ban conversions was dropped only when the various churches gave a written undertaking that they would not indulge in proselytisation. The Church of England was displeased when Prince Charles claimed that the monarch must be the defender of all faiths. Today the monarch is expected to defend only the Anglicans and not even other Christian sects, let alone the non-Christian ones. Many Anglicans expressed concern when reports suggested that the present Prime Minister of the UK was thinking of becoming a Catholic. The Catholic Church too returns the compliment in kind. When the Pope visited South America in October 1992, he said that he had to take care of the sheep who had been put in his care and protect them from the “rapacious wolves” of the Protestant missionaries. He is also unhappy when Catholics look towards Hinduism or Buddhism as an alternative, even though this change may be due to a genuine intellectual gravitation. He has asked his flock to consider their own spiritual heritage and ask themselves if it should be set aside lightly. When it comes to asking members of other faiths to adopt Catholicism, however, such soul-searching becomes superfluous!
In attempting to convert people to another religion, particularly where force or inducement is used, there is a need to make the converts repudiate their past. Otherwise, there is apostasy. In a letter dated January 27, 1545, Francis Xavier wrote, “When all are baptised I order all the temples of their false gods to be destroyed and all the idols to be broken in pieces. I can give you no idea of the joy I feel in seeing this done, witnessing the destruction of the idols by the very people who but lately adored them.” Given the upheaval that it creates, it is no wonder that Gandhiji said, “If I had power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all conversions.” There is a serious need to look at the issue of proselytisation on a holistic basis.