A religious teacher of supreme wisdom, Dayananda Saraswati is also extremely articulate, a combination that is very rare, given the stereotype of a Hindu protagonist that often raises the hackles of the ‘intellectuals’.
His superb command over the White man’s tongue is backed by phenomenal knowledge of not only the Vedas, Vedanta, Upanishads, Gita, but also the religious texts and practices of other faiths, not to speak of modern literature. In a way, he is the ideal foil for those at the other end of the ideological spectrum, viz.; Communists, atheists, JNU historians and lest I forget, ‘other miscellaneous secularists’. He is one who could be more than a match to them, word for word and in wits.
You have come out strongly against the Pope’s statements on the anti-forcible conversions laws. You have also been a campaigner against conversions, terming it as violence. Can you elaborate?
A.: Okay. What is violence? When you physically hurt me, it is violence. When you do anything that can instigate physical violence, that too is an act of violence. And if you hurt me emotionally, that again is violence. If you hurt me spiritually, that is the worst violence, rank violence. All these are there in conversion because it leads to physical violence. When you convert somebody, you have to criticise the person’s religion, his worship, his culture; all these hurt. Even when he changes, it hurts. How will he change? He has to disown his parents, and their wisdom and their culture, his ancestors, and his entire community; you are isolating him, uprooting him and all the uprooted people are emotionally unsettled.
For instance, Blacks in America are uprooted people. Even after generations, they are not emotionally settled. It will never help the persons who are uprooted from their culture. So it is great violence against culture, tradition etc.
Is the religious person, then, the core person?
A.: Yes, we find some people die for their religion because in their scripture it is told that if your religion is in danger then you will have to sacrifice your life so that you will also have a better place in paradise. The fellow begins to believe that, and he is ready to give up his life. This is indoctrination.
So for their religion’s sake, there are double standards. One who does not believe in their religion is anti-god, as if God has given only their religion for everyone to follow. If he does not follow that, he is an enemy of God, an infidel, and deserves to be killed. Though God anyway is going to destroy him, if you destroy him, God will be pleased that you have proved your faith. This is the double standard. The values are not common for all. For the followers, one set of values; for the non-followers, another set. Killing gets a sanction. That is why these are all dangerous religions. And I say all converting religions are dangerous. They have created problems. It is like somebody wanting freedom to destroy me. If I do not give this freedom, then I become a ‘fundamentalist’. But if I give them the freedom to destroy me, then I am a ‘liberal’, my religion a free religion, that’s it.
And to the Pope?
A.: Not only the Pope. The Pope said this because they have got away with it for 2,000 years in the name of ‘freedom of religion’. They have wiped out continents, cultures in various continents, religions in countries. Where are those religions and cultures that built those pyramids? Show me one fellow now as a sample. Greek and Roman monuments are there, but where are the religions? In Europe, they completely wiped out all the indigenous religions. In North America and South America, they have finished off all the native cultures. Even in Africa, it is almost finished.
Now in Asia they are planting their religion. They want to be successful; between these two people, they want to destroy all cultures in this world. Therefore, I say, enough is enough. I don’t want to ask them to give up their (the convert’s) religions now.
But their concepts, their beliefs are not acceptable to me. I give them the freedom to follow what they follow. But I want them to leave me free to follow what I believe! They cannot say evangelising is not against other religions. It is against other religions; conversions are against other religions. We don’t believe in conversion itself. We don’t accept that, we don’t do that.
Then how do you deal with this problem when it is so basic? What are the practical ways?
A.: The theologians have to change, but they will not because they have enough inbuilt programming. What we call indoctrination. There is no use even to make an attempt but we should keep talking about it to them. They just wait for a time when there is more freedom for them to do. So that time, conducive for conversion, should be kept away. The people have to be made aware and proud of their religion; that would take care of this problem in course of time. They should be able to say enough is enough.
There is the lure of money, incentives and other benefits that the naive fall for…
A.: It is not really the money that buys. What do they do? Small things, and then they try to tempt them. That gives the thumb space, they begin to enter the heart. Then they make the most unkindly cut. When the missionary tells that the fellow’s daily pooja is wrong, that his altar of prayer is not the altar, he has to alter that. That is the unkindest cut you can get. It is a stab in the heart, where this fellow, innocently, gives some space for the missionary to enter. That very place becomes a place for attack. He attacks at the heart of the person, his religious core. Therefore, the missionaries are the most violent people in the world. They have committed violence and nobody else has committed violence as they have done. They continue to do that but people do not realise this. They do seemingly good things in order to commit this violence.
What is the effect of missionary activity on national security?
A.: Look at the northeast. I wonder if I can go and talk there, in my own country. They ask if I am from India! This is what the missionaries have done. Those people are made to feel they are non-Indians, this is very unfortunate. It is a major problem for national integrity and not good for our tradition. In fact, Hindu religion has to be saved for the sake of humanity, because Christians don’t believe Muslims will go to heaven and Muslims don’t believe that Christians will go anywhere. They are fighting each other in trying to reach heaven or paradise. Both believe that the other is not going there, so they will fight forever.
The only person who says paradise is not up there, but here, is the Hindu. The Hindu is the only one who makes sense. He has a methodology to teach; it is not just a belief. There, it is only beliefs, many of which cannot be proved and several of which are wrong and foolish. See, a belief is above reason.
The inequalities that have cropped up in our society are used as a handle against Hinduism?
A.: Even they have their own inequalities. They have their own problems that are endless but that is not a sanction for us to have problems. We should try and solve them, but still, all these are our problems. Suppose, when two brothers are fighting over a property, a third fellow comes and says, since you two are fighting let me occupy the property – that cannot be allowed. You remain an encroacher. You can help us, but you cannot become a beneficiary of our fight.
Indian Christians and Indian Muslims are converted from Hinduism, without themselves knowing what they are getting into. But once converted, they are told that their brethren and forefathers are devil worshippers! This is what I say is dangerous. As Indians, they have a right to know their religions, their people, their culture and their forms. If they know, there will be no problems but they are purposely kept away. The clergy is responsible for that, Islamic and Christian clergy are responsible for that.
But Christianity lays much store by charity works …?
A.: It is because these missionaries are using some of these perverted methods for conversion work. And you also think that, this is the role of religion? The role of religion is to make you human, that’s all.
They should do humanitarian work, like the way we do. We have charities all over the world. Look at Salem or Coimbatore, how many hospitals are there? Almost all of them are run by Hindu charities. And what do they do? They don’t convert; they just run the charities. There is no priest or nun there, for there is no conversion programme and therefore the charities remain charities.
But to run charities for some other purpose is the most uncharitable thing to do. You see, they feed the cows before slaughter to fatten them. Similarly, they perform humanitarian acts with hidden motives for conversion. Love with ulterior motives is not love. If you really love people, just give it, forget about it, keep your sacred religion in your heart.
But if they want to know or even reconvert, will the Hindu ‘clergy’ allow that…
A.: In India, there is no clergy. Here all are Hindus until they call themselves differently, because when I allow every form of worship, then where is the problem? We deem you another Hindu, it is only you who are saying I am this and that. There is no reconversion. They come back like a prodigal son. We do not even need to baptise. We have to ask him to give up beef, that is all.
The US government appears to have a different view on the religious freedom here…?
A.: The US government had appointed a Commission on International Religious Freedom. This Commission gets information from all countries and submits a periodical report. According to their report, India is among the Countries of Particular Concern (CPC). They cite the anti-conversion Bills of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, and some Gujarat incidents as the basis for this. I question this matrix of theirs.
What’s your logic?
A.: What is it that you call ‘religious freedom’? Is it freedom to evangelise and convert with impunity? If they can evangelise to destroy me, that is called religious freedom. But if I question their activities, it is infringement. Therefore, I am appealing to the Government of India to appoint a Commission on religious freedom, to issue guidelines and submit reports dispassionately.
But even the minorities in India often complain about lack of religious freedom?
A.: We should examine the privileges of minorities. Nowhere in the world do minorities enjoy such privileges. Christians run teacher-training colleges; they get government aid, and appointments are controlled by management alone. Meanwhile, the majority faces reverse discrimination. Temple money is in government hands. We fight for equal rights. Whatever privileges minorities have, we want them too.
But for that to happen we may have to become real minorities…?
A.: If I am in the majority, I cannot open my mouth for anything, even dental surgery. Minorities enjoy many privileges, including government support. That is why I say reverse discrimination exists in this country. It is blasphemy to say there is no religious freedom in India. The only place where there is religious freedom in the world is India.
[Swami Dayananda Saraswati shared his candid views on the raging conversion debate with Shri T. R. Jawahar, Editor, News Today, an evening daily published from Chennai. Some excerpts are published here. For the full text of the interview, log on to: http://www.newstodaynet.com/swami.htm]
