The essence of Hinduism is its pluralism, in which tolerance is a by-product. This pluralism is expressed in a shloka made famous by Swami Vivekanand during his tour of the West at the time of the World Parliament of Religions in 1893. The shloka goes as follows: ekam sad viprah bahudda vadanti. It is translated by him in English as follows: “That which exists is One, sages call It by various names”. In short, it means that each person has a unique way towards salvation, which is best suited for him/her. To be able to do this, each person has to generate his own spiritual experience. One may take advice from gurus, friends, books, etc. But, one has to apply one’s own mind and come to a conclusion of the suitability of a path for one’s ownself, and one takes responsibility for the decision. Tolerance means that while one has chosen a path for oneself, one accepts that another may choose a different path and that eventually, both will meet at the same place in salvation. This tolerance is the reason why there has been infinitesimally small religious strife in India throughout the ages.

Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is the ONLY son of God. He is supposed to have been sent to earth to wash away the sins of the people, and so redeem them. Of course, this happens only to those who accept him as the ONLY son of God. All the others do not get the benefit, and so will be consigned to that place where one is eternally barbecued. Christianity says that it has a unique path to salvation, and all the other paths are false. While there is supposed to be some modification in these views, the acceptance is that all the other paths may at most be second best. Therefore, it is better if people accept Christianity and not take a chance. Christians believe that they have been commanded by Christ to go and convert the people of this world. This is also supposed to give them special merit when it comes to the day of final judgment. Christianity is a hierarchical religion, and the commands of the clergy are supposed to be final. It is also this clergy that is supposed to be a link between man and God through Christ. So, if a person has sinned, and wants God to forgive him/her, he/she has to go to a priest, to ask him to speak to god on his/her behalf. While there are many Christians who today do not believe in this exclusivity, the statements of the clergy leave no doubt that the clergy believes in exclusivity and the concept of saving souls.

When there are true spiritual conversions, there is no objection. This happens when the person does it on his own inquiry, and not motivated by another to make a study. For example, a person who has some emotional problems may make a change if approached by a missionary. This cannot be called a spiritual conversion. True spiritual conversion implies that a person not only understands the new religion well but also that he is well-acquainted with his present one. In this way, he will be able to understand why the religion of his forefathers does not give him the spiritual satisfaction that he will find in his new religion. At the same time, since a man or a woman is always seeking to go on a higher spiritual plane, such a change becomes an enlightened one. Such an inquiry can be done by one who is materially contented, and one who has the necessary education to make the inquiry. It was in this context that Mahatma Gandhi said to the missionaries that before converting the poor, they should first convert him. They did not pick up the challenge because they knew that the Mahatma had done sufficient study of Christianity and had found that his own dharma was adequate for his purpose.

In a pluralistic society – one that believes in multiple paths of salvation – accommodating another religion is not a problem. In this respect, Hinduism has a unique record. It was only in a Hindu land that Jews were never persecuted due to religious reasons. Similarly, the holiest place for the Parsis is in a Hindu land. The earliest Christian arrivals in India in the 4th century were what are called Syrian Christians. All of them came because of religious persecution in their land of origin. Followers of all three religions prospered not only in terms of their religion but also in social and economic terms. This happened because they accepted the civilisational norms of the Hindu society, and worked within its parameters. They did not try to convert or propagate that their system was better than the ones of their host. The tensions started when first Islam and then Christianity came here with the power of the sword, and tried to subjugate the Hindus of the land. A pluralistic society works in harmony only when all the members accept the norms of pluralism. However, when one tries to dominate another, then the problem starts. Conversion is a method of trying to dominate.

The concept of “Sarva Dharma Samabhava” is one of the many gifts that Hinduism has given to mankind. It means that Hinduism accepts that all religions are equal and that there are multiple paths to salvation. Thus, new systems always keep evolving, and this has added to the dynamism in Hinduism. Thus, perhaps at a logical level, there should not be objection to conversions. There is, in fact, no objection if the conversions take place due to spiritual reasons. However, other forms of conversions will have to be resisted. At the same time, Hindus would like to ask followers of the monotheistic religions, like Christianity and Islam, whether they believe in the concept of “Sarva Dharma Samabhava”. And, if they do, why do they go about converting? After all, the process of conversion is to save souls – that is going to heaven instead of hell. And if the follower of another religion also goes to heaven, his soul is also saved, making conversion redundant. According to our reading of what the clergy of these two religions say about themselves, they do not accept the concept of “Sarva Dharma Samabhava”, and so there is an objection to their conversion activity.

Conversions create social tensions. The targeted community feels that it will lose out on its culture and civilisational values. Mahatma Gandhi said, “In India, one finds that conversions bring about deep disdain for one’s old religion and its followers, i.e., one’s old friends and one’s relatives. The next change that takes place is that of dress and manners and behaviours. All that does great harm to the country.” Similarly, Babasaheb Ambedkar said that by joining Islam or Christianity, the Depressed Classes would ‘not only go out of the Hindu religion but also go out of the Hindu culture….Conversion to Islam or Christianity will denationalise the Depressed Classes.’ Swami Vivekanand has expressed himself in even stronger terms. He said that a convert from Hinduism is not only one Hindu less, but an enemy more. A non-Islamic student of Islamic theology wrote: “Islam’s aversion to the past should be viewed from the perspective of conversion. Islam aims at destroying the past completely lest it should hark the converts back to the pre-Islam days. There is always a fear of the past which threatens to jeopardise the very existence of Islam. The “fear of recantation” is more often than not dealt with violent measures. Since conversion is not without its past, Islam tries tooth and nail to expunge all the traces and remnants of the past.” This would apply equally to Christianity. All societies try and protect the collective consciousness of the past. The destruction of a culture is not only in terms of physical structures like places of worship but also the destruction of amassed wisdom. The great library of Alexandria in pre-Christian and pre-Islam Egypt was destroyed by the followers of these two systems. In South America, we see only mute monuments of what were obviously great civilisations. The Hindu civilisation is today the oldest surviving civilisation. This has been achieved at a great cost in terms of resisting those who came to destroy. It is easy to destroy, but difficult to preserve.

The objective of the social service is to get access to the people who are targeted for conversion. Once the missionaries come to close the people, and the latter become obligated to them, the ‘benefits’ of believing in Christ are explained to them. This is done not on the basis that there is any special merit in the new system, but because Christ is supposed to have told them that praying to any other god will make them go to hell. This social service is of many forms – education, medical facilities, etc. In the past, these services were concentrated in urban or rural areas. During colonial times, these services were financed mostly by the taxes that were levied on the local people. In many cases, land and facilities belonging to Hindu organisations were appropriated and given to the missionary organisations. Also, Hindu organisations were discouraged from starting social service projects. Hence, the social service was done by utilising the money of the people who are Hindus. Even today, many of the established social service activity is funded by the state. For example, all the colleges, whether run by the missionaries or the Hindus, get state aid. Many of the other projects also receive government support through grants being given to those registered as NGOs. The funds received from outside India are then used for setting up the organisation for conversions.

It is an anti-Hindu propaganda that Hindus do not undertake social service. If one looks at the post-independence period, one will see that the Hindus have come forward in substantial numbers to undertake social service. This is not only in terms of establishing educational facilities, but also health service, and other noble causes. However, such institutes are not identified as Hindu organisations – as per the practice of secularism in our country. Social service organisations like Rotary and Lions are manned by Hindus in very large numbers. During the colonial times, Hindus were restricted from undertaking charity which is an integral part of Hindu culture. Simultaneously, the colonial masters gave large assistance to the missionary institutes, both administrative and financial. The latter was from the taxes that were levied on the people of this country. Given that the prosperous section of the society was Hindu, obviously it was the Hindu money that was provided for the missionaries. In addition, land and institutes belonging to the Hindu temples were appropriated and given to the missionaries. In the post-independence period, these missionary institutes continue to receive state aid for much of their activities. In quite a few cases, because the infrastructure was built and in place, the missionary institutes were not disbanded or replaced. A Hindu sees nothing wrong in this, and rightly so. But, to call such state-funded institutes as a missionary is a misnomer. To give an example of the work done by the Rashtriay Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the field of education, the number of schools in the Vidya Bharati fold is 10,945, and 55 colleges. The total number of teachers in these schools in 74,000 and there are 17 lakh students. In addition, there are more than 2000 one-teacher schools being run in the tribal areas. Other projects of the RSS amount to 17,071, with and involvement of nearly 50,000 volunteers. The number of beneficiaries is more than 50 lakhs, of which 23% are from the rural areas, 42% in tribal and 35% poor urban. The Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, a unit promosted by the RSS to service the tribal population, runs nearly 10,000 projects, out of which half are in education and others in social-cultural areas. There are 1200 full time workers, besides thousands who devote part of their time. As part of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad itself, there are more than 1390 service projects all over the country. There are other Hindu organisations that are running education institutes, like Ramkrishna Mission, Swami Chinmayanand Mission, etc. In addition, there are Hindu philanthropists that are also doing similar work all over the country.

Here the definition of Hindutvavadi in the narrow sense, to identify those who are the supporters of the Sangh Parivar. Many Christian writers have found that the whole Hindu samaj is concerned about conversions. One saw an ‘anger’ against conversions amongst her Hindu husband and their Hindu friends, who she says are ‘educated, perceptive adults’. She also says, “They just don’t see Christians as Indians; they see us as an alien ‘other’, minions of a white, Christian world that is synonymous with spiritual and racial chauvinism.” Another writer said that his Hindu friends asked him, “Why doesn’t the Church confine itself to socially constructive functions like running hospitals and schools? Why do you have to preach your religion and make converts?” While saying this, he said, that there is a reproach in the voices of his Hindu friends. It is time that the churches hear these voices, and realise that what the Hindutvavadis are saying is nothing different from what the Hindu samaj is saying.