Proselytized or hypnotized -maligning the individual?

Shimreisa Chahongnao *

What is it, a surreal or a real world, that a choice automatically becomes an outcome of a deceived and concocted agenda? Why erase the slightest possibility of an emotive free – personal decision being the cause of the action or even may be the action is tempered by the belligerent force that dissuades the actor rather than being persuaded? Should these chances of being rightfully free be victimized and made to succumb to some self aggrandized religious guardians?

This is about the allegedly marred religious conversion hypothesis that have been doing the rounds lately, mostly, venturing into the freedom of conscience and trying to invalidate it which obviously is not a healthy sign of democracy.

Nobody wish to give a hoax call to religion and sound a false alarm that their sky is falling because no one is buying it. But the bizarre question is, why should the people be 'coerced', 'allured', or 'enticed' to believe in this kind of wonderful belittling. Certainly that cannot be conversion, at the mildest; it could be compelling or hypnotizing. And that's not a fascinating dream that an individual would despise waking up from.

There are alleged instances where fulfillment of basic needs and minimum security, have been the sole basis of an allured conversion. Delving no further, it simply makes the concluding remarks about conversion shoddy. Reality needs to be in perspective, and just deriving a complete picture of conversion's misdemeanors from such prejudiced examination by completely eliminating its positive undertones would be deleterious to the society, at least to the social transformation it engenders.

In Manipur, the tribals, in its arrayed hilly areas are converts, mostly from animism, who were once head hunters, now peace seekers. Who once had a closed economy, now linking areas by hook and crook, and so on; these social transformations are inevitably traced back to their proselytized days.

And much to the amusement, those earliest missionaries' heads were spared not so because they offer anything worth materialistic in return but on the contrary out of reverence to good old omens of their (natives) forefathers. Such social transformations have been experienced in many parts of India. Undermining such accounts of conversion could be seen as oblivious to nation-building processes.

Yet some questions like, how will the illiterate know about any of the proclaimed truth if not communicated, how can the literate pass an exam without help of any sort though this world might not be a test for all, etc. stands out unfazed. Perhaps that is why an individual in the pursuit of meaning to life, truth and happiness may become a believer, a monk, a sadhu, a modern day theologian, a mere convert, or even a rock star, or a non believer for that matter. However, those are individual's decision to make and not something that may be imposed upon.

On the other hand, concomitant evils associated with religion like child marriage, discrimination of widows, gender inequality, and its politicization, et al are indeed ominous to ethos of civilization, and converted or original, it haunts everyone. More harrowingly, this is a problem related to most of the major religions in India.

There may also be uncanny situations where conversion is entangled with the stigma of poverty, discrimination, caste related issues, etc. but how can that be dubbed universal? In such instances, it is proper to surmise that the right to propagate which does not include the right to convert does not necessarily nullify the right to freedom of conscience of the converted, and this has been clearly delineated under Article 25 of our Constitution.

Indeed it was aptly remarked that "Man is not a thing, and thus not something to be used merely as a means; he must always be regarded in all his actions as an end in himself (Kant, 1785). Gandhi also noted, "I believe the Bible, the Koran, and the Zend-Avesta to be much divinely inspired as the Vedas" (Gandhi, 1921).

In the current situation, Mr. Obama, a Nobel laureate who just visited India had also cautioned to 'uphold religious freedom' (The Hindu, 28th Jan. 2015). These principles and values of tolerance and understanding towards individual liberty in spite of their differing personal believes, which are in sync with universal values are the hallmarks of secularism in India. Denigrating it with radicalism might simply make us become the subject of mockery.

It was an Indian delight when in 1893 the Parliament of World's Religions applauded Swami Vivekananda's exegesis on Hindu way of life yet could it not be suicidal of those principles if the belief and hope; mostly to which any virtuous mortal would cling on, to realize their own individual spirituality, be snatched away from their heart? Well, in case, if there is the slightest chance of being a true monk or something truly the individual immortalizes without jeopardizing peace, it would be worth safeguarding.

It's a constant reminder that the issue of probability was the fear-psychosis during the cold war commotion though the contradiction of power here might be nearly as that of David and Goliath; picturing the minority community, thus higher degree of apprehension; something like faith may be imposed upon?

Not anyone, not a soul would vouch for recurrence of the Charlie Hebdo incident, the Peshawar massacre, the boko haram's heinous crimes, etc. except for those convicts to be blamed for as their means are unjustifiable. The point being, these radical fanatics, the fundamentalists who cause it and are seeking to achieve their goal without compliance to the ethical standards of the international community are our opposing forces and not those secular ideals ('Row over omission of words', The Hindu, 28th Jan. 2015) and crusaders of individual liberty.

The Amir Khan starer PK movie could be considered a good move, not because it somehow ridiculed and offended my faith but because it is a caricature of our society. And this blueprint is affirmed when we watch Arnab Goswami's live debates; the great religious tolerance that we idealized. Was there really? Restraint or vented emotions, protected or politicized, what was communicated?

Time gives us the privilege to see the essence of such debates. The prior incident like the Godman Rambal's Satlok Ashram style of propagation, which had been charged under sedition and wedging war against government (Deccan Herald, Nov 19th, 2014) reveals the integrity of the national law and that the authorities are very much concerned of freedom and justice of their fellow citizens. Still, it's a matter of quandary that Gita as a national book, a ghar wapsi initiative, an anti-conversion bill may do to individual's right. Does it hold water to deliver justice for the public? What's equivocal in the intent is apparent in the present response from the citizens today.

These are crucial moments for the various concerned parties to speculate their actions and implant a conscientious belief system upon their younger generations where tolerance, brotherhood, pluralism, and equality may be pursued with all vigor. The state may in diligence ensure the promise of spirited freedom and individual liberty in all spheres of our lives. This may strengthen the vitality of our often quoted adage, 'unity in diversity' when it is much needed.