‘What about
Hinduism’s basic ‘One Truth, Many Paths’ principle?’
(Telephonic interview with Islamic scholar, Maulana Wahiduddin
Khan)
What are your views on the Prime Minister’s call for a
national debate on the issue of religious conversions?
First of all, I would like to state that this is one more case of a
non–issue being converted into an issue. Only recently, our Nobel Laureate,
Amartya Sen has said that the real issue before the nation is education.
I agree one hundred per cent with that remark and would add the creation of a
proper infrastructure to our list of top priorities.
But since the issue has been raised, what are your views on
the subject?
Firstly, I would say that given Hinduism’s centuries’–old clear
commitment on the issue, we cannot even raise this subject. From the Vedas and
Gita to Swami Vivekanand and Gandhi, Hinduism has always maintained that Truth
is only one though there are many paths that lead to it. So, before any debate
on the conversion question, let Hindus first decide whether the first commitment
of Hinduism — one truth, many paths — is right or wrong.
Secondly, the Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental
right of every citizen to profess, practice and propagate a religion of his or
her choice. Can Indian democracy give to its citizens something with one hand
and take it away with the other?
Thirdly, India is one of the nearly 200 countries of the world
that are signatories to the 50–year–old United Nations Charter on Human Rights.
Included among these rights is complete religious freedom for every individual.
Do we now propose to go back on that commitment?
We should first make our stance clear on these three points
before we can even begin to discuss the issue of conversions. Otherwise, we
would be guilty of double standards and hypocrisy, of saying one thing and doing
another.
What about the charge of forcible conversions?
I would say that it defies common sense to say that a community which is
less than three per cent of India’s population would even risk forcible
conversion of people from a religion that constitutes a majority. So, prima
facie, the charge is absolutely baseless. I might also point out that the
charge of forcible conversions earlier levelled against Muslims was equally
baseless. I can do nothing better than quote Swami Vivekanand on this: "It is
nonsense to say that Hindus were converted by the sword."
And what about the charge of monetary inducements?
Just the other day I happened to watch a programme on BBC in which one
of the persons interviewed was an adivasi from Gujarat who had converted to
Christianity. This is what he told the BBC: "When we were sick and badly needed
medical care, it is the Christians who came to our rescue. They are the ones who
cared for our education. That is why I was quite impressed by their faith and
decided to convert." Now, if this is inducement to conversion, what prevents
anyone else from going to extremely poor and badly neglected tribal areas and
impressing people with their spirit of service?