Conversion is not a matter of faith alone
L.H. Naqvi

IF religion is the opium of the masses, India should be a country in a perpetual state of stupor. The fact of the matter is that religion in its purest form was the strength of this country. It kept us going. It helped us connect to what have become today's billion faces of Brahma. Most importantly, it kept us happy and contented.

We have, through attacking other religions, instead of practicing our own, lost our strength, and that is a pity. But all is not lost. In spite of the knocks that religion has taken, India remains the only country that actually encourages the celebration of faiths.

No other country gives equal freedom and respect to all religions as India does. Salman Rushdie was saved from being tried for blasphemy, for what he said in The Satanic Verses, because the British laws protect only the Christian faith. That is why the average Indian finds the demand for anti-conversion laws and a common civil code a bit disquieting. We have lived with each other in complete harmony for centuries, by occasionally showing excessive respect to the faiths of our neighbours. But now our neighbours, if they belong to a different faith, have become our enemies. Why?

However, since both the topics keep cropping up at the cost of the more pressing bread and shelter issues, the better option would be to encourage an informed debate. Why allow the fanatics to use them for whipping up electoral passions during the silly season that visits us after five years, and in the event of political instability even earlier?

Let me first discuss the controversy about the need for a common civil code. No one has tried to explain, while reacting to the demand, that Muslim personal laws are evolutionary and have no divine sanction. There are several schools of Islamic jurisprudence and one is free to follow any one of them or reject all of them, as Shah Bano had done by knocking at the door of the civil courts. But the civil courts instead of giving her justice under the law of the land or provisions of a common civil code got into the complex question of interpreting Muslim personal law.

A personal law is a useful mechanism for out-of-court settlement of civil disputes. Take the example of the paper token I get in place of change from the canteen. It has no legal status. It is a mutually acceptable arrangement for solving the problem of small change that is perpetually in short supply. But if I were to challenge its status I would expect the the court to direct the canteen to return the balance in legally recognised currency. The court would commit a fatal error if it were to examine the legal status of the paper token.

By all means have a comprehensive common civil code. But make sure that next time when a Shah Bano comes seeking justice do not start examining the provisions of Muslim personal law. If she had faith in it, she would not have sought relief from a civil court.

For the purpose of the larger debate on conversion let us recognise that there are two "basic religions," for they do not allow conversion. One is Hinduism and the other is Judaism. Most other religions are the product of reforms within or acts of dissent against the parent faith.

In the semitic tradition, Christianity borrowed heavily from the Jewish faith.

Jesus of Nazareth himself died a Jew, but his followers created a separate church that recognised him as the Son of God. Centuries later Islam became the only religion that was revealed to the faithful through Prophet Mohammad. It incorporated the essential elements of Judaism and Christianity. A point that may be of interest in the context of the western reading of the conflicts in the Middle East is that all the prophets of the Semite from Adam to Abraham to Noah to Moses to Christ to Mohammad were Arabs.

The story of Hinduism is much the same. Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are the off shoots of mainstream Hinduism. They are recognised as independent religions by their followers, but are treated as part of Hinduism by the Constitution!

Those looking for the lost spiritual strength of India should be invited to Qadian in Punjab where a sect of Islam was founded several centuries ago. Pakistan has declared the Ahmadiyas as non-Muslims. They, however, continue to occupy a place of respect in the country of birth of a faith that has its roots in the sands of Arabia. If this is not one more example of celebration of faiths by India, what is?

Therefore, if religious conversion is banned or unreasonable restrictions are placed on people of other faiths wanting to convert to any of the offshoot of Hinduism or Judaism, it would fly in the face of history and tradition. And don't forget the Constitution.

As of today we have two models that seek to place restrictions on religious conversion. One is the Tamil Nadu model that wants the district collector to be informed about any religious conversion in his or her area of jurisdiction. The Gujarat model, that has been cleared by Raj Bhavan after seeking the views of the Attorney General, goes a step further. It wants the district collector to screen and clear requests for conversion. Such a restriction as is contained in the Gujarat law would without doubt violate the spirit of the Constitution.

Most laws are good and they should be respected in the interest of civil society. Some laws are bad and should be defied. One such law was the ban on making salt that Mahatma Gandhi broke. The restrictions or ban on religious conversion would fail the test of legal scrutiny. It seeks to take away from us the absolute right to follow the religion of our choice without any let or hindrance from the State.

However, let me illustrate why I want sweeping religious reforms and not just cosmetic changes in the procedures of conversion. Zahiroon Bua and her family had served us for generations in our village Mustafabad. After marriage, we had difficulty finding domestic help in Shimla. Zahiroon Bua agreed to help us out. During the long train journey from Lucknow to Ambala to Kalka to Shimla she refused to have tea or even fruit we bought from the railway vendors. She had been brought up believing that a person who consumes food or drink touched by a non-Muslim ( read kafir) would go to hell.

The first thing we did on reaching home was to tell our dhoodhwala that his name was now Moharram Ali. That is when he discovered that we were Muslims! Every morning, Bua would cover her head and ask the milkman about when Eid or "Bara Rajab" (the birthday of Hazrat Ali) was due. The dhoodhwala would run as fast as he could to avoid being discovered.

What is the point I am trying to make through the tale of Zahiroon Bua? It is one thing to be born into a faith and remain ignorant. Bua did not have a crooked bone or bore ill-will towards any one. But she was a sum total of all that is not Islam. A faith that seeks to promote universal brotherhood cannot encourage untouchability. Her conduct illustrated the influence of local practices on non-native religions.

It is one thing to be born and brought up in a religion without ever being "educated" about it. I do not know about other religions, but a point no Muslim cleric ever refutes is that a person who is jaahil (a more comprehensive expression for ignorance. Unenlightened may be more appropriate because enlightenment comes through knowledge, and that in turn comes through education.) cannot be a Muslim. Maulana Kalbe Sadiq reluctantly agreed with me that by this yardstick there were, perhaps, only a few lakh and not 14 or 15 crore Muslims in India. It is this huge population of ignorant and ill-informed people trapped in a faith they know little about that is itself a problem. Give them opportunities to become enlightened and Islam in India will discover the soul that the fastest growing faith in the world has lost in the sand dunes of Arabia.

Another point I often rub in is about the flaws in the present system of conversion. A Hindu is a Hindu by birth. He does not have to be a believer or perform rituals to remain a Hindu. In Mustafabad the entire Hindu population turns up to pay respect to Imam Husain on the 10th of Moharram when tazia and alam processions are taken out to mourn the martyrdom of the Prophet's grandson and his companions in Karbala.

When the Maulvi Sahib persuades these followers of a simple of faith, that makes them respect all religions, to convert to Islam, I have a serious problem. Do not stop at just making the neo-converts recite the kalma.Educate them so that they grow up into well- informed Muslims, responsible community leaders and proud Indians. Among the essential teachings of Islam is love for the country of birth. By making them recite just the kalma the Maulvi Sahib commits the cardinal sin of making the converts shun "them" without integrating in a more meaningful way with not just "us" but "all of us, children of one creator".

Converts to any faith should be able to read the scriptures and understand the written word. They should also provide evidence of having acquired skills that could make them economically independent. My feeling is that only the Sikh clergy can meet these conditions for conversion. As a child I had once seen a very old Sikh begging in the market where the refugees from Pakistan have been given shops in Lucknow. Within no time he was surrounded by an upset group of displaced Sikhs who raised money for him to do some business and told him, "Baba, earn your bread. But please do not beg."