Why Organised Religious Conversion Activities Leave Us All As Losers

A case of violence and murders related to religious conversions in Kerala, proves three points: that most conversions are the result of circumstances and not a genuine change of heart or theological conviction; two, it is pointless to ban conversions, for they can happen without anyone knowing it. And three, despite its spiritual and other-worldly dimension, religion is as much about numbers and power as politics.

The Kerala case, as reported in The Indian Express, involves the conversion of one Anil Kumar to Islam, following which he renamed himself Faisal. Anil Kumar (Faisal) was murdered, allegedly by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh workers, some 10 months ago. His wife and three children converted after him, and after his murder, his mother converted in defiance. More recently his father Krishnan Nair too converted, as did Faisal’s two sisters, a brother-in-law and their five children. One of the killers accused in the murder of Anil Kumar (or Faisal) was killed, allegedly at the behest of some Muslim groups, and one more has been the target of multiple attacks on his lives.

What all this mindless violence proves is that conversions are a mug’s game. And also that there can be few genuine conversions based on a complete understanding of the theology and practices of another religion. It is possible that Anil Kumar’s initial conversion was a personal choice, but we can’t be sure, since this happened in Saudi Arabia, where he worked as a chauffeur; the subsequent conversions of his wife and children may not have been driven by theology either; in a patriarchy, women often have no choice but to accept what their husbands choose. As for the children, their decisions were made for them by their parents. Faisal’s mother’s conversion was a statement of defiance; it may have had little to do with belief in Islam; the conversions of the rest could be driven by the need for protection from future violence.

Three tentative conclusions can be drawn from this example.

First, as we noted above, few conversions are genuine. Genuine conversions are often partial, and happen through the adoption of the best practices and ideas of another religion, not by a study of one religion’s beliefs and dogmas. Most persons offering to convert may not do so because they believe in the basic tenets of that faith. They convert for reasons of social pressure, the demands of patriarchy, the need to maintain harmony in the family, the need for large physical protection in society, or, often simply for pecuniary gain or advantage. Sometimes they convert to defy another human they dislike. Or if they are in distress – as was the case with musician A R Rahman, whose mother converted when her husband’s death left her destitute. When entire tribes convert, it is not because they have suddenly bought into the new dogma or theology of the religion they are converting to, but because there may be safety in numbers.

Some conversions, like Faisal’s mother’s or Dr B R Ambedkar’s, were acts of deliberate defiance over an injustice. While Ambedkar chose Buddhism after deeply studying other religions and their scriptures, it is difficult to believe that the thousands of Dalits or other individuals now converting to Buddhism truly believe in what the Buddha stood for: the Buddha did not set out to start a new form of dogma. His effort was to evolve a new ethics, free from dogma and even the need for a god. He wanted his sangha to accept suffering as a reality, and prepare the mind to be able to handle all eventualities with equanimity. But today Buddhism has become a religion, seeking converts the way any other religion does.

Similarly, are even Christians Christians? Sure, many have converted to Christianity, including millions in India, but which Christian truly believes in Christ’s teachings beyond a few generalities? Which Christian nation has ever believed in the Sermon on the Mount, or in turning the other cheek? When a score of Islamist radicals hijacked four planes to crash into various buildings in America, Uncle Sam ransacked two countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) and set in motion a process of devastating many other countries that were not headed towards radicalism: Syria and Libya, among them.

In a sense, Mahatma Gandhi took the Sermon on the Mount as his guiding principle, but he never relinquished the thought that he was a devout Hindu. He was a partial convert, and this was one genuine conversion. True conversion happens in stages, through learning and personal experience; it means never giving up what you have to adopt something that may not be you. An abrupt conversion to another religion, from name change to cultural practices, is about cleaving the individual from his past, severing his heart from its roots. It is violence.

The point is this: genuine conversion does not happen when an individual or a group has an epiphany, but when two religions interact, and both adopt what they think are attractive features of the other, without abandoning their own basic religion. For Jagannathan to turn the other cheek, he only has to act that way when slapped. He does not need to abandon going to a temple or following a guru he likes and become John. To abandon caste-based practices, he does not have to become Jehangir either. He can abandon it all by himself, simply be changing his attitude to it.

True conversion thus is about learning from another, not a wholesale abandonment of what you already are.

Second, all organised religions are a mix of cultural belief systems and dogma, some good ethical thoughts, big marketing hype, and money power. Some add to this mix by threatening damnation and even proposing real violence. Barring violence and coercion, attempts to ban conversions will not work. For, if a conversion is banned legally, it will happen covertly, since this adds an element of excitement to the process of conversion. In China, the ban on official religion has made Christianity the fastest growing religion there. The ban on religious conversions in some states has not prevented conversions to Christianity or Islam; many converts may simply choose not to report their religious affiliations for fear of losing quota benefits.

So, banning is of no use, and only increases corruption and debasement of the law enforcement machinery. The only things that can be banned are large-scale funding from various external and illegal sources.

But those who argue about freedom of religion, here is the other reality: when some religious groups fear losing numbers through conversions, the only option is to become more like their rivals. This means religions like Hinduism and Judaism will need to become converting religions to maintain their numbers. Or they can shrink, and become niche religions like Parsis. Whichever option they choose – they lose. If they choose to become converting religions, they become more like Christianity and Islam, as has already happened in the case of Sikhism. If they choose to remain what they are, and focus on merely reforming themselves from within, they will surely shrink. It is a lose-lose situation. If you gain numbers, you have become a different religion from what you were originally.

It is a difficult choice to make.

The “secularists” have got it wrong. They rail against Hindutva, which is an attempt at radicalising and/or uniting Hindus under a larger umbrella, without understanding that this is a reaction to conversion and the threat of dwindling numbers. Ghar wapsi is one response to this threat, and so is the demand for a Ram Mandir. Hindutva is an attempt to pay back expansionary religions in their own coin. Is it any surprise that resistance to Abrahamic religions is growing, but this resistance involves Abrahamising Hinduism in some way?

Third, religions conversions are essentially a numbers game. Just as you need numbers to win an election, you need numbers to project religious power. In this sense, religion is no different from politics. It is about power. Christianity separates spiritual power from temporal power, Islam combines the two. But ultimately power is what they seek. Hinduism is somewhere in the grey zone, where it seeks to ignore or deny the existence of a power drive in humans.

Conversions are a dangerous game, but it takes wisdom for those playing this game to stop playing it. In the end, even if the world becomes fully Christian or Muslim, everyone loses. The existence of European Christianity did not prevent two world wars. Nor has the existence of over 50 Islamic states created a feeling of oneness among the followers of Allah. Hindutva will not make India one nation either.

Conversions induced by the need for numbers only creates permanent fissures in society. The only conversion worth seeking is the one that happens through natural osmosis: when an individual learns from another, by adopting the good he or she sees in the other. Total conversions are essentially a total fraud on the idea of true spirituality.