The Fanaa controversy

24.05.06

The news item “Fanaa not to be screened in Gujarat” is disturbing. How would it not be when you consider that this is because of Aamir Khan’s position on the Narmada dam. In a democratic country we are all entitled to our opinions and its espousal. How can anyone be punished for it? It is all the more irritating because it is Bharathiya Yuva Morcha that is against Aamir Khan. Why does a Sangha connected organisation want to come out as a champion of a dam? Sangha’s political organisations should be concerned only about the politics of Sangha – working for Hindu nationalism. What has building or not building of a dam got to do with Hindu nationalism? Hindu nationalism is simply ensuring that India’s citizens are united and inspired by the ancient Indian vision of ‘ekam sat vipraha bahudha vadanti’, that is, that as a nation we have a philosophy of live and let live. Dams and such developmental works are to be left to the experts and the government has only to see to it that support or opposition to it must go by constitutional propriety and national infrastructure development interests. If the BJP government or BJP as a party is for any dam or any particular developmental activity, that's fine. But there is no need to whip frenzy on such things. For infrastructure has to be pursued in a pragmatic manner, not an emotional one. Remember, we are not to be emotional on things material. Emotion (of the refined variety, of course) has to be a matter of the spiritual realm - bakthi.

This incident proves yet again that Sangha has to take a stock-taking of its parivar organisations and ensure that they inculcate the Sangha spirit in full and display it in their chosen fields of action.

Ban-on-conversion bill

24.05.06

Ban-on-conversion bill.

Why are religious conversions sought to be banned? Is it wrong for a person to move from one religion to another? Definitely not, particularly in India where all these freedoms exist. Then what right has a government to ban conversions? No right, really. But there is another aspect. Why should anyone ask a person to change his religion? Maybe a genuine believe that he has the answer and the others are grouping in the dark. Change your religion, lead a new life and you shall be saved. Can’t these things happen under any religious dispensation? The Christians and Muslims would say no, but the Hindus would say an emphatic yes. From the Hindu point of view, the problem is not in the religion, but in the living of it. Therefore, be a preacher who would offer men the religion of his choice, but choose, this preacher would say.

Thus, the whole issue boils down to there being a culture that celebrates the various ways to God. Hindu culture is such a culture. Christianity and Islam on the other hand do not give freedom of religion as an option. They simply do not believe that any religion other than their religion is true. So there is no irony in the ban-on-conversions bill being called ‘freedom of religion bill’. What is being sought is a ban on conversions to a Christianity or rather a Churchianity (as well as Islam) which does not believe in the freedom of religions. In practice this means that all Indians still have the choice to live by the religion they prefer, because this has been the freedom guaranteed to them by virtue of India’s culture being overwhelmingly shaped by India’s Hindu traditions. But it does not encourage the seeking of converts by a Christianity or Islam that claims that all other religions are false. A quibbling over definitions, you might say. But it is a difference that makes all the difference – the difference between a throbbing multi-religious culture and a placid uni-religious culture.

We might say that the ban-on-conversion bill is to safeguard India from slipping into a Saudi Arabia type uni-religious regime.