Faith and Conversion

One of the most controversial issues plauging the world today is the so called 'Clash of Civilizations' or the notions about supposed superiority of one's own faith and the inferiority of others. I use the word FAITH instead of RELIGION because one can't be religious without having unstinted faith in it. Max Mulleur states that one should have religion to have a religion.

This phenomenon is unique in its own way as far as India is concerned because the majority of the population is HINDU and this loosely held religion (some Hindus treat it a faith and not merely a religion) is neither bound by a strict code of conduct nor straightjacketed nor needs any particular practices to be called a HINDU unlike some other religions/faiths which have a strict code of conduct, allegience to a particular book and prolesterizing as a duty. Though in recent times, some new cults like Hare Krishna etc have sprung up admitting a non-born into Hindu fold, basically one has to be born a Hindu and cannot be converted to Hinduism. This could be due to the fact that early Hindus were neither geographical conquerers nor were there any religious exhortions to wipe out other faiths on the premise that Hinduism is the only way to salvation and every soul needs to be salvaged which legacy still Hinduism carries. Also despite the varied ways that this religion is practiced there is no insistence in timings, attendance at a particular place, haranguing by the priestly class nor any congregation. One can practice Hinduism within his abode, by visiting a temple at any time without the help of another individual. One can be a Hindu without being religious, the only condition being not converting to any other faith.

One other reason why people of other religions/faiths cannot be really converted to Hinduism or accepted into Hindu fold is the all prevailing Caste factor. With the rigid Varna Ashrma Dharma embedded in the mindset, it will be a contradiction to be a Hindu without belonging to any Caste.

In the above context, the strife we see in some pockets of India between Hinduism and other faiths, as far as conversions are concerned, can be said to be defensive on the part of Hindus and offensive on the part of religions trying to proselytize as a sacred duty enjoined upon them, Ghar Vapasi or re-converting to original faith organised by certain political/religious groups being the exceptions more for political purposes than religious.

Indian constitution does give the right to propogation of one's own religion. But should this be treated as licence?
Kindly ponder over the following:-

a) The religious strife/violence already faced by our country (for no fault of Indians), due to happenings elsewhere e.g. the holy Prophet's caricatures in some obscure european country, visit of President Bush to India, attacks on mosques in middle east, etc.

b) It may be politically correct to quote the constitutional rights, but ethically or morally, is it right to distribute pamphlets exhorting conversions amongst devotees taking a holy dip at Sangam in the early hours of Kartika Poornima?

c) Is it necessary or obligatory to try to build church on Tirumala Hills despite the freedom enshrined in the constitution.

d)Is it correct on the part of Pope to exhort 'Harvest of Souls' when in India and then lament desertion of Catholics to other denominations and try to save his herd?

Ponder...