Friday, June 09, 2006

Burning of Missionaries

Death sentence for murdering the Australian missionaries? Death sentence for killing invading foreign soldiers? If defending national sovereignty is sacrosanct, then why not defending religious sovereignty? Isn’t there a law that says that killing in self-defence is not murder?

Many would say that defending the nation is appropriate but defending religion likewise is amiss because religions ought to ever be in a flux, with people being free to seek refuge in whichever religion they fancy whenever they want. Religious conversions, therefore, say such people, is the order of a free society.

I ask, is not religious conversion based on the premise that one religion is better than another? It might be that individuals might prefer this or that religion. But the culture should be an acceptance of all religions being valid, each in its own way. Therefore mankind should celebrate its various religions, not propogating one religion to the denigration of all others.

28.01.05

Padma Shree for Gladys Stains. For conversions? I think such an award should have been given to Dara Singh, the symbol of opposition to conversions. Conversion is born out of the belief that one’s religion is the only true religion. This is not Hindu thinking. All religions are so many different ways to the same goal. And then again they talk about secularism? According to them it has two definitions – sarvadharma samabhava and separation of state and religion. On both these counts only Hinduism passes muster. In fact secularism is an uniquely Hindu vision. And to think that Nehru has been getting the credit for secularism!

No comments: