Indian People’s Congress in 2014 in review

The stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog. Here’s an excerpt:

A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 2,500 times in 2014. If it were a cable car, it would take about 42 trips to carry that many people…… More?

Click here to see the complete report.

Subhash Chandra Bose – Correct the Indian history

By: Shreepal Singh

Being brilliant in many spheres of human endeavor, India as a nation has been a colossal failure in many others. One such failure is its sense of history. It is not only the absence of cleanliness and all-pervading culture of hypocrisy that have been plaguing this country; there is also a complete loss of the sense here of putting the history in correct perspectives. It is not a nationalist call for an Indo-centric academic effort; it is a call for resorting to industry to go and find out the real facts so that the history is put in right perspective for the coming generations of this country.

There are historians in this country who have spent their life-time in cultivating their brand-names by finding out things of trivial historical importance, like ‘it was a fact’ that during the Rig-Vedic period Aryans (or modern equivalent of Hindus) were not vegetarians but ate meat'; that 'it was a fact' that for a few centuries before and after the beginning of Christian era Hindus persecuted Buddhists’ in India; or, that so-called ‘upper caste Hindus’ had been ‘socially tormenting the lower caste Shudras’ for millenniums, etc. In fact, these pseudo-historians are the foot-soldiers of the imperialists’ Grand Design – the imperialists who are the modern Avatar of the yore against whom Bose had fought and their Grand Design of ‘Breaking India’.

The history relating to Subhash Chandra Bose, his ‘Azad Hind Fauz’ and the heroic battle of this army with the army of the British rulers of India has been distorted by the acts of obliteration, omission and commission. It is still happening in India, which is free now.

You just have a look at the material available on the internet that is related to the battle of INA with the British forces at Imphal and Kohima in Nagaland and you will find out how the history has been distorted. These battles have been narrated as the Japanese aggression against mainland India, where the British forces fought their “Stalingrad of the East” war against the enemy-aggressors. There is no whisper of the word INA and the sacrifices made by the Indian soldiers under the command of Netaji.

Was it indeed the Japanese aggression? Or, was it an assault on the British rulers of India under the leadership of Netaji with the assistance of Japanese? Historian Giles Mac Donough wrote a book ‘A Good German: Adam Von Trott solz’ about the real happenings in Germany under the rule of Adolph Hitler and how some people were resisting the Furer under the Nazi rule. Before writing this book, Giles made an extensive research into the subject. He met individuals who had first-hand information of the events and poured into the available records to put the history straight. How many of the Indian historians took the pains to go to Kohima in Nagaland and to Japan to get a first-hand information about this battle; looked into the Japanese military / archives records to count the heads of Indians of INA or of Japanese who had fought that battle; and call the bluff of this battle as a Japanese aggression?

By this distorted history of INA and its battle with the British forces in India, we are being ashamed of Bose and his INA.

You go to this website and see that on the “Kohima War Cemetary” reads an epithet in honor of a British soldier who laid down his life in this battle: “When you go home, tell them of us and say, For your tomorrow, we gave our today”. Did no Indian soldier of INA under the command of Bose lay down his life for the cause of India in this battle? There is no place in free India for Indians for a War Memorial of those who fought and laid down their lives in this battle.

You visit these website to find out how the history has been distorted by omitting role or reference to INA and Bose:

(1) Wikipedia

(2) This website

(3) Wikipedia

Indeed, the history of India written in the last 60 years does not commemorate the sons and daughters of this country who laid down their lives for the cause of their mother land.

A single betrayal of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose – That changed the Indian history forever

By: Shreepal Singh

There is a discrete spot, almost unknown to the general public in India, in Kohima in Nagaland. It is known as “Kohima War Cemetary”. Today, it is a beautiful  memorial amid dense jungles. It is a place where even now the bigwigs of British military authorities on important anniversary days come to pay their respects to their comrades who lay dead there.

It was the spot where on 4th April to 22 June 1944 the British forces – mostly comprising Indian soldiers – fought their second World War’s deadliest battle with a small number of “Azad Hind Fauz” soldiers, who were fighting their adversaries with ill-equipped in firing weapons, without any support of air power, under-nourished without any supply lines from behind the front and in a terrain full of leeches and other poisonous crawling insects. Most of these ‘Azad Hind Fauz’ (Indian National Army) soldiers were erstwhile POWs (Prisoners of war) who were Indians, had fought on behalf of the British against the Japanese forces and on being defeated had surrendered to the Japanese. While being held as POW in many places in Indochina War Theater, they had been won over to the cause of ‘Mother India’ by the inspiring addresses of Subhash Chandra Bose, dearly called Netaji. This time, these Indians were fighting against the British for their mother land. In this war, they were high in spirit but low on material. The mantra – the slogan – that Netaji gave them was: ‘You give me your blood, I will give you your freedom’ (Tum mujhe khoon do, mein tumeh azadi dunga).

The British military authorities’ representatives do not come to this place on commemoration day vaingloriously to remember and pay tribute to just ‘some of their fallen comrades out of the many millions’, who had fought and sacrificed their lives in WW II. The British forces had fought many deadly battles – to the last drop of the blood – against the German, Italian and Japanese forces on many fronts. It is admitted by the British military historians that the battle their forces fought with ‘Azad Hind Fauz’ on the Indo-Burma border was the most fierce among all.The Battles of Kohima and Imphal were recently voted the “Greatest ever battles involving the British.”  It is also known as the “Stalingrad of The East.”

It is related by some of the veterans of the Netaji’s ‘Azad Hind Fauz’ that they had fought the British-Indian forces in a situation where their bullets of rifles had exhausted, there was no possibility of replenishing the ammunition, there was no food and they had to cook leeches, scorpions etc. on the make-shift ‘stone’ oven, when the British airplanes were relentlessly raining bombs on them, there was no possibility for calling the help from the Japanese Imperial Air Force. By all military accounts, the fate of ‘Azad Hind Fauz’ was sealed; it was doomed. Still, the soldiers of Netaji’s force were determined to fight; their spirit was soaring high: ‘Victory or death’. The victorious INA  had marched from Burma to Manipur and then into Kohima in Nagaland. The soldiers of INA had broken the resistance of the British forces, defeated them and entered as a victorious Indian National Army in Port Blair of Andaman and Nicobar islands. The Army opened the gates of Cellular Jail there and set all prisoners confined by the British government free. It was a piece of free India. But it was proved so free only for a moment.

Why did this particular battle in this ‘commemorative place’ in Kohima happen to be the ‘most deadly’ of all the battles that the British fought during the entire Second World War? Was this battle won by the British-Indian forces against ‘Azad Hind Fauz’ on account of their bravery – or of the superiority of their weapons? Imagine for a moment: ‘Azad Hind Fauz’ was not defeated in this battle; after conquering Andaman and Nicobar Islands, this army moved victoriously to the mainland India. It was a dreaded scenario for the British rulers of India. Had this happened, the people in the length and the breadth of India would have risen in unison to support and help this Indian National Army built and nurtured by a popular leader called Nataji. Then, what would have happened to the Indian National Congress and its leaders, who were busy negotiating with the British rulers over the fate of India? Perhaps no further imagination is necessary to visualize the consequences that this country would have undergone under a government formed with the power of ‘Azad Hind Fauz’ and under the leadership of Bose. Today India would have been a different country. Its history of the last 60 years would have been altogether a different story.

But is it not a fig of imagination only? How could Netaji’s INA win this fateful battle against the better equipped British forces? And, there was atomic bomb attack on the Japanese Imperial Forces, which forced them to surrender; what Bose and his INA could have done without the support of the Japanese under these circumstances? Indeed, the atomic assault by U.S.A. on the Japanese cities brought that country on its knees and any assistance or even support of the Japanese to ‘Azad Hind Fauz’ was after that moment out of the question. But it is also borne out by the historical records that despite the losses suffered by INA at the hands of the British at this spot and surrender of Japan, the soldiers of ‘Azad Hind Fauz’ refused to retreat back from the fighting front; Bose in the name of his authority as the Commander-in-Chief of INA had to address, persuade and direct them to retreat by saying, ‘We have not been defeated; another day will come when we will again assemble to fight’. In our imagination, the day the victorious ‘Azad Hind Fauz’ under the direct leadership of Bose would have entered mainland India, it would have been a war within India without any concern with Japan and her defeat.

We again put the question: “Why did this particular battle in this ‘commemorative place’ in Kohima happen to be the ‘most deadly’ of all the battles that the British fought during the entire Second World War?” It was so because the British rulers had been given an information in advance of the planned attack on them by INA of Netaji and the British forces had sufficiently prepared for the anticipated assault on them. In the art of war the elements of surprise, deception, information, strategy based on information etc. are more lethal than weapons in deciding the outcome of a war. Bose had lost this crucial battle (that sealed the fate of this country) because he had been betrayed by one of his confidante.

This modern ‘Jaichand’ was the person who had helped Bose in Kabul (Afghanistan) after his escape from India by arranging his stay in Kabul and his onward journey to the Soviet Union. The name of this person was Bhagat Ram Talwar.

Bhagat Ram Talwar was a prominent member of an organization called ‘Kriti Kishan’ and this Kriti Kishan was a front organization of Communist Party of India. Bhagat Ram Talwar was based in Kabul and had a house there where he arranged the stay of Bose. Being a prominent member of an organization of Communist Party of India,  Bhagat Ram Talwar was in regular communication with the ambassador of Soviet Union to Afghanistan stationed in Kabul. It was Bhagat Ram Talwar who had arranged a visa for Bose in a fictitious name and had arranged for the Bose’s entry into Soviet Union through an Afghanistan-Russian land-route border (once inside Russia, Bose had safely taken an airplane for further journey). It was only because of Bhagat Ram Talwar’s link with the Soviet ambassador that Bose’s arrival in Russia was within the knowledge of Joseph Stalin and Bose was enabled to put his idea / proposal to fight the British in India with the help of Soviet Union (of course, this proposal of Bose was not accepted by Stalin and he was allowed to go to Germany for his cause).

But Bhagat Ram Talwar was a very cunning and treacherous person. He was regularly getting money from the Soviet ambassador for providing information to him, which work is called espionage. Once he knew the utility of his work, he cultivated links with the German representative in Kabul and started getting money from him as well. As if this was not enough, he volunteered his services to the British representative based in Kabul. Now he was master of the trade and triple-agent / counter agent of three great powers of the world. The British intelligence officials in London allotted this Bhagat Ram Talwar a code name ‘Silver’. Today information technology has made it possible for people to have access to the information that was out of the bound previously. This ‘Silver’ or Bhagat Ram Talwar had installed transmitting machines in his house that directly linked him to the officials of Adolph Hitler in Berlin. He was such a willy person that while getting money from all the three great powers of the world, none of them was aware of his counter intelligence. He raked money from all the three and befooled all of them.

Historical Dictionary of British Intelligence by Nigel West at page 542 states about Bhagat Ram Talwar thus, “Silver. The D Division codename for Bhagat Ram Talwar, a 32-year-old Hindu and committed member of Kirti Kishan, the Communist Party of India (CPI), whose brother had been hanged in 1931 for assassinating a British official before World War II. In January 1941, Ram had played a role in the escape of the notorious Indian nationalist, Subhash Chandra Bose, from his house arrest in Calcutta to Afghanistan and then to Germany, but as his loy-(ality?…..)”

As Bhagat Ram Talwar had created a great impression on Bose by his ability to enable him (Bose) to communicate with Stalin, he enjoyed his complete trust and confidence. Bose considered Bhagat Ram Talwar his own man helping the cause of India. During World War II the whole world was in the churning and uncertain of the future, and many great political leaders fumbled in their assessments and moves. Bose had visualized the rising of India against the British power here as and when his INA entered the country as a victorious force. Towards this vision Bose had been regularly addressing the Indian people on radio from Berlin. He was in need of collaborators back at home for that moment and, wherever possible, he kept his contacts abreast of the latest development that were taking place on his side. It was to inculcate in them hope for the future, to make them prepared for the critical moment whenever it arrives and to seek their cooperation. The decision to attack the British forces in India in the North-East from Burma was a solemn, crucial and critical act on the part of Bose. It is a common sense, it is a guess, it is logical that on the part of the leader of INA not only the greatest planning and preparation for the planned offensive must gone into to guarantee its success, but also the information of the coming tide (attack) must have been shared with the collaborators (like Bhagat Ram Talwar) with the hope of a helping hand against their common enemy. The needle of suspicion stops at Bhagat Ram Talwar. It requires further research to pin him down to the crime of treachery against his mother land.

A poet has brilliantly penned a Urdu couplet that reflects the agony of India: “Sometimes a wrong is done by one individual in a fleeting moment; but its punishment is inflicted on generations to come for centuries.”

There is no doubt of the facts that the British rulers of India had been informed in advance of the planned offensive by INA; that on getting this information the British had prepared themselves to fight a tough battle (so tough that they had never encountered during the entire WW II); and that INA was forced to retreat back from India (after liberating Andaman and Nicobar Islands) only because of this betrayal.


Subhash Chandra Bose – After the airplane crash (?)

By: Shreepal Singh

There was an article on Subhash Chandra Bose some time ago on this site, which contained information on the subject. Now some more information has been added to the original article:

The new technology – Information Technology – has made it possible for common men to share information that come their way. Here is the new information in the following video “Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in Faizabad“. After viewing this video and additionally taking these news (made available recently by newspapers) into account, the only question before this country remains: How did Subhash Chandra Bose spend his remaining life after he escaped alive by creating a false airplane-crash smokescreen? The news recently published in newspapers was:

  1. In reply to the Right To Information application of an RTI activist Subhash Aggarwal demanding to provide him information of the contents of “Three Confidential Files on Subhash Chandra Bose” maintained by the Government of India, the Government refused to provide the requested information on the ground that “making the requested information public would affect the Indian relations with foreign powers adversely.”
  2. The report of “Justice Mukherji Inquiry Commission on Subhash Chandra Bose” has concluded, after going into the most minute details of the evidence available in India, Japan, Formosa and Russia, that Bose did not die in the touted airplane crash on August 19, 1945.

The only questions that now remain to be answered by the concerned authorities – Indian and foreign – are as under:

  1.  By all accounts, Bose was kept in custody by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union after he entered into that country after creating a smoke screen of airplane crash to avoid detection by the British Government. Bose opposed Adolph Hitler’s plan to invade Soviet Union by saying to the Führer that “It is an aggression on Soviet Union.” This information is on historical records (Refer to the chapter on Bose in the book “A good German by Giles MacDonough; also see reviews of this book by many knowledgeable and eminent historians, which all are available on the net). It is also on historical record that Bose after escaping from the British confinement in India via Kabul (Afghanistan) had first landed in the Soviet Union. During his short stay / stopover of a few hours in the Soviet Union, Bose had been able to put before the Soviet leader Stalin his idea/proposal to fight the British power in India with the support of the Soviet Union. Stalin did not approve the idea (may be, considering Bose not sufficiently equipped to take on the task; or, for strategic reasons – in an ongoing WW II – did not consider it fit to antagonize the British). Stalin not only allowed Bose to fly out of the Soviet Union, he permitted the refueling of his plane to fly out to Berlin (Germany). This was only for these cordial overtures between Stalin and Bose during the initial phase of the World War that when he had to escape from the British forces and enter the Soviet Union Bose was not killed by Stalin. He was allowed to live. The question ‘how Bose should be treated’ must have a great dilemma to Stalin. On the one hand, Stalin knew that Bose was a very popular political leader in India (it is on record that Stalin directed his ambassador to Afghanistan – in 1949, much after the alleged airplane crash – to gather the intelligence about the state of Bose’s popularity among Indian people and the ambassador sent his report to Stalin informing that Bose is greatly popular leader among Indians; that he would certainly replace (Jawahar Lal) Nehru in the Indian Government; that in view of the his popularity, Nehru had to induct in his Government Bose’s kinsman as a Government Minister); that Bose was a sworn enemy of the British – the British whom Stalin also considered in his heart of hearts an enemy but was apparently obliged to treat them (British) as friends of the Soviet Union as being a part of the Allied Forces; that by allowing Bose to go to India, the Soviet Union would be antagonizing not only the British – who were after the blood of Bose – but also the Indian leaders who were ruling. On the other hand, to Stalin Bose was a person who was on the side of Adolph Hitler and was an out right enemy. Bose was an enemy to Stalin because of the circumstances and Stalin knew it very well, and for that reason alone he must have had a soft corner for him and so did not kill him.

  2. By all accounts it seems reasonable that Bose was kept in confinement by Stalin (may be somewhere in Siberia), weighing all along how to deal with him. The questions before Stalin must have been: How the release of Bose would affect the Soviet Union’s relations with post-independence India and the post-war Britain. As the conduct of Stalin as a dictator exhibited in the Soviet occupation of Berlin (till he lived) and in his dealings with the Western powers after WW II would show, he (Stalin) was little wary of the British, if at all. However, it is also on record that free India was under an obligation to the British to hand-over Bose to them if ever he was found alive. To the British, Bose was a war criminal and, if captured, he was to be tried for the offence (as other accused belonging to the Azad Hind Fauz were tried by them). It is also known to everyone that India got freedom by negotiation under a Transfer of Power instrument (India Independence Act passed by the British Parliament). Was Stalin under pressure from India not to release him and create a problem for India (any attempt to hand over Bose to the British would have put India on fire)?

  3. Now the official reason for refusing to give the requested information (of the ‘three confidential files’ on Bose to Subhash Aggarwal RTI activist) is that revealing their contents to public would adversely impact India’s relations with foreign powers. One can very well guess that these foreign powers could not be other than the Britain and the present day Russia. If it is found that Bose was kept in prison in the Soviet Union, it cannot be blamed on that country for many reasons. Firstly, Russian dictator did not kill Bose in the first case; it was very natural of that country to kill its enemy who sided with Hitler. India would reconcile with the then existing circumstances and would rather appreciate the gesture of not out rightly killing its leader (and, later on sending Bose to India as the video “Bose in Faizabad” shows). Of course, the relations with Britain may be strained on revealing the facts buried in the three secret files.

  4. After viewing the video, perusing the Justice Mukherji Commission Report and analyzing the reason of refusal by the government, the logical events seem like this: (1) There was some understanding among the states of Soviet Union, India and, may be, Britain that Bose would be allowed to live his remaining life In India but incognito (without revealing his identity). Bose must have been under solemn oath not to ever reveal his real identity. In these unfortunate circumstances, he would have lived in Faizabad in U. P. This arrangement would have certainly saved the face of Indian government; respect of the Soviet Union; and, perhaps, boiling down of the rage of Britain.

Intolerance of New York Times editorial in its piece “Indian Religious Intolerance”

By: Shreepal Singh

New York Times has published an editorial on December 25, 2014 captioned “Religious intolerance in India”. Jettisoning its well-publicized neutrality on international events, it writes that hope is in danger of crumbling that Prime Minister Narendra Modi would rein in that divisive agenda of his militant Hindu-nationalist supporters. Without going into the root cause of the phenomenon of religious conversions currently going in India, the editorial takes note of the fact that during the last days of the just concluded Indian Parliament’s session the legislature was unable to deal with important legislative business. It emphasized the fact that this inability of Parliament to transact business was because of repeated adjournments and an uproar over attempt by Hindu groups to convert Christians and Muslims. The newspaper states, as if passing a final verdict in the whole affairs “The issue has come to a head following a ‘homecoming’ campaign by the Rashtriya Swamsevak Sangh and the Vishwas Hindu Parishad – groups dedicated to transforming India’s secular democracy into a Hindu state – to ‘reconvert’ Christians and Muslims to Hinduism.”

The editorial very conveniently chooses not to go into the issue of Indian citizens’ constitutional right to freely ‘propagate’ their religions – the real issue impinging on the question of religious ‘conversion’ or ‘re-conversion.’ By steering clear of this issue, the newspaper in a clever maneuver has absolved itself of the responsibility to answer such unpalatable questions: Is religious conversion prohibited by law in India? If the religious conversion is not prohibited in the first place, is it prohibited in subsequent or second attempts by citizens (termed‘re-conversion’ by the editorial)?

In the place of examining such questions as a responsible newspaper of an international repute, New York Times finds fault with Narendra Modi over his silence on this Indian religious quagmire of a very long standing. Does NYT expects Narendra Modi to ‘prohibit’ Hindus to convert Christians and Muslims to Hinduism and ‘permit’ Christians and Muslims to convert Hindus to their religions? If Narendra Modi ever does such a thing, will it be justified on his part in the eye of NYT?

The paper does not go into the justification or need or legality of the moves of those individuals who have been spending their life time in converting Indian citizens from one religion into another religion in an organized manner (we intentionally omit the names of religions involved in the exercise and if you name the religions, you name the culprit). Instead, the editorial raises the boggy of “groups dedicated to transforming India’s secular democracy into a Hindu state by “reconverting” Christians and Muslims to Hinduism.”  Perhaps one can justifiably equally put a question to the editors of New York Times: “Are the groups that are ‘converting’  Hindus to Christianity or Islam not dedicated to transforming India’s secular democracy into a Christian or Muslim state?”  Yes, Hindus are in majority in India and Christians and Muslims are in minority here but all citizens in this country are living peacefully under a democratic rule of law. All citizens have equal rights and freedom to ‘propagate’ their religions. May be in the eye of NYT, the Christian democracy or the Islamic democracy is the ‘secular democracy’ and the Hindu democracy is ‘not the secular democracy’.

It is intolerance of NYT on the religious conversions in India. Indeed!

“Ghar Wapsi” or re-conversion to Hinduism from Christianity and Islam

By: Shreepal Singh, Advocate Supreme Court

Today a debate on the campaign called “Ghar Wapsi – or, Returning back to one’s own religious fold” undertaken by the Hindu organizations is raging in electronic, print and social media in India. There is stalemate in the Upper House (Rajya Sabha) of Parliament on the subject. Almost all the opposition political parties – who have majority in this House – are united in opposing the “Ghar Wapsi” campaign.

These parties may be united in their opposition to the Hindu move either because their political space in India today is being usurped by the leap and bounds of the popularity of Narendra Modi or they genuinely are worried about the religious onslaught of the Hindu organizations over the religious rights of the minority communities of this country.

If their opposition to the Hindu move is emanating from the first reason – their sense of political insecurity – we are not concerned with it in this article. However, we give them the benefit of doubt and assume that these political parties – and their supporters – are actuated in their vehement opposition by their genuine concerns only for the legitimate rights of the minority communities.

India is governed by the rule of law and Constitution of this country is the fundamental law of the land. All the issues of religious conversions – conversion from majority Hindu religion to the minorities’ religions of Christianity or Islam or “Ghar Wapsi” that is, re-conversion to the Hindu religious fold of those who had in the past been converted to Christianity or Islam – have to be examined in the light of Indian Constitution alone.

Of course, one can examine this important issue in the light of the experience one has recently gained in the current world affairs (like the plight of Yazidis or Kurds in Iraq etc.) or in the light of history of this country (after all, all activities being undertaken today by different interest-groups is essentially nothing but the history in the making). There may be many other perspectives to examine this issue of conversion and reconversion but we intend to limit our consideration in this article to the constitutional law of this country.

This subject is dealt with in Article 25 (1) of the Indian Constitution. The right provided in Article 25 (1) of Constitution is a fundamental right, which is guaranteed to Indian citizens. This Article states, “Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part (Part III – containing fundamental rights of citizens), all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion”.

The right to freedom of conscience is plain enough and does not admit any dispute in India. You have to just look around you in the neighborhood of India to realize how fortunate we Indians are in possessing this right to freedom of conscience. One may have faith in any God of his or her choice or even his or her faith in No-God. There are many countries in the world where you either do not have this right to choose your God or you are severally discriminated against if you choose a God other than the official one.

Then, Article 25 (1) further talks of the citizen’s right to freely profess, practice and propagate his or her religion. Also on the issue of the citizen’s right to profess and practice his or her own religion, there is no controversy. The current controversy revolves around the meaning and scope of the citizen’s “right to propagate” his or her religion. How do you propagate your religion? You may do so by dissemination the knowledge or awareness of the tenets or principles of your religion.

But this is not the only means to propagate one’s own religion. There may be so many others so-called “immoral” means to propagate one’s religion (like, threat, inducement, cheating, creating fear of heavenly punishment etc.). Can the “propagation” of a religion be accomplished by “conversion” of another person to one’s own religion, whether by moral or immoral means? The Indian Constitution is egalitarian in body and spirit and it does not countenance the “purpose” of propagation being, even remotely, to secure “conversion”.

In fact, Indian Constitution though does guarantees a citizen the right to propagate religion, it does not encourage such exercise by placing this genre of rights certain restrictions on them in the beginning of this Article. The spirit of Constitution in this respect has been authoritatively expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of M. P. (1977) 1 SCC 677.

There the court said (and it is a long quote from the Indian Supreme Court), “What the Article 25 (1) of the Constitution grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one`s religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has to be remembered that Article 25 (1) guarantees “freedom of conscience” to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion, and that, in turn postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one’s own religion because if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, that would impinge on the “freedom of conscience” guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike.

“It has to be appreciated that the freedom of religion enshrined in Article 25 (1) is not guaranteed in respect of one religion only, but covers all religions alike, and it can be properly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with the like freedom of persons following the other religions. What is freedom of one, is freedom for the other, in the equal measure, and there can therefore be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion.”

Propagation of religion by converting persons of other religions to one’s own religion is nothing but an open competition, much like a business competition in a market economy, to secure an end that is ulterior to the purpose of any faith. In the matter of business, the issue at stake is only money. Money is important in life but here nothing is at the stake. In the matter of religious competition, the life itself may be at the stake (would any hypocrite deny this eventuality when the plight of minorities like Yazidis alluded to above is seen?).

In the modern world, religious conversions are almost always aimed at bigger, mundane and this-worldly goals than mere cultivating the souls to sow and reap the conscience by “propagating” one’s religious tenets. It is the hard reality of our materialist world. There are very few cases in the world today where individuals change their religious conviction on their own and in those cases also the credit goes to their own inquisitiveness, study and efforts and not to any “propagating teacher”.

Let us take a digression for a moment. After all, what is the objective – this-worldly objective – for people to undertake the exercise of conversion of individuals from another religion to their own religion? The root cause for this activity lies deep down in the human biology. Self-preservation is one of the basic instincts of humans and they act in fulfillment of this instinct not only in the form of individual behavior to guarantee their physical survival but also in the form of collective or social behavior.

Humans seek their security in common interest-groups, like family, tribe, caste, nation, religious group or anything – even an idea – that binds them together as a group and provides an extra element of force – a powerful force – in ensuring their physical safety and security. This collective behavior is the evolved form of the evolutionary mechanism – struggle for survival and the survival of the fittest – and is very natural.

Why does the humans’ self-preservation-instinct manifest in their tendency to seek security in a common-interest-group and to try to strengthen such group’s power by increasing its numerical superiority? In all living beings – including human beings – there is a sort of inbuilt biological inertia. This inertia is expressed in their way of life and this particular way of life opposes any change in their life-style. However, this biological inertia – tendency to stick to one’s own way of life – is pitted against another element of Nature – the element of change. Life is surrounded by natural environment that is always changing (and surrounding natural environment includes rival common-interest-groups like religious communities also). This environment forces life to change itself and adapt to the newer circumstances. The force of a single individual to resist the change being thus thrust upon him gets reinforced – as if a wave reinforced by harmonic synchronization – when he finds him in the presence of a large similar group. In the face of the evolutionary demand of change, people find themselves at ease in the company of a similar group. It is an evolutionary mechanism.

Expansion of a similar group – and religious community is a similar group – by propagation of a tenet that binds them together is a natural evolutionary phenomenon. It is not proper to judge the behavior of certain people to undertake religious conversion of others to their own religion on the moral ground. There is no right or wrong in such issues.

If in the past some Hindus were converted to Christianity or Islam or if they are being re-converted from Islam / Christianity to Hinduism today (termed Ghar Wapsi), it is all natural behavior. One who succeeds, gets more secured and ultimately survives. Now let us come to our subject.

The Hindu organizations’ “Ghar Wapsi” campaign is “conversion” in the legal sense, as is the case when Hindus are “converted” to the religions of Christianity or Islam.

The opponents of “Ghar Wapsi” campaign have ensnared themselves in a paradoxical situation. It is the classic case of logical dilemma. They are being weighed at the moral-scale by the people at large. These opponents may not admit, but the fact remains that it is only because of such hypocrisy of these political leaders that they have massively lost the ground to Narendra Modi.

If these opponents succeed in their demand, “Stop the conversion”, they end up stopping conversion of Hindus to Christianity or Islam; if they succeed in their demand “Christians / Muslims’ right to convert Hindus to their religious fold”, they end up supporting Ghar Wapsi.


Opposition of Ghar Vapasi is Illogical

By: Parmanand Pandey, Advocate Supreme Court (General Secretary IPC)

 The Rajya Sabha, the elder house of the Indian Parliament, has not been transacting any business for the last many days. It is adjourned after almost sitting of half an hour and the adjectives like, pandemonium uproarious and noisy scenes etc. have become common to describe the situation in the Upper House. The members representing the political parties in the State Assemblies constitute the Rajya Sabha, which is also known as the Council of States. Hence, on the strength of a political party in the Assemblies of the states decide its representation in the Rajya Sabha. As on today the opposition parties i.e. the Congress, the Samajwadi, RJD, JD(U), TMC, BSP, DMK, AIDMK, BJD etc. have more numbers than the treasury benches consisting of the Bhartiya Janata Party and its allies.

 The purpose of this piece is neither to deal with the constitution of the Rajya Sabha nor to tell about the conduct of the Hon’ble members. Its aim, nonetheless is limited to discuss on what issue the Rajya Sabha is not being allowed to run. The only issue is the conversion of a group of Muslims to Hinduism in Agra. It is being termed as ‘Ghar Vapasi’ by those who have converted the Muslims to Hinduism and those who are opposed to it, they say that it is an attack on the secular fabric of the country. 

It may not be out of place to mention here that when the Anti-Conversion Bill was to be introduced by the previous NDA Government of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the entire opposition was outraged against the Bill. It was then being said that the Anti Conversion Bill was against the spirit of the Constitution, which gave freedom to every citizen to follow the religion of his or her choice. Many Christian organisations in India and abroad had vehemently protested against the move of the then government to introduce the bill.

Now the opposition is crying foul about the conversion of a small number of Muslims in Agra. The allegation of the opposition parties is that the conversion has been carried out because of the inducement of providing Adhar Cards to those who converted to Hinduism. However,only a week after the Agra incident, five Hindus got converted into Christianity in Bihar and it was not taken any notice either by any political party or even by the media. However, this is the time when spade should be called spade. Let it be asked that how large number of tribal, scheduled castes people have been converted to Christianity into last 200 years, except by the inducement of providing facilities like; education, and health etc. Let it also be noted here that the late Nobel Laureate Mother Teresa was a Christian missionary working and she did a commendable job in the service of lepers in the ‘city of joy’, the expression which is sarcastically used for Kolkota. She opened ‘Nirmal Hridayas’ in many cities of India. But how come not even one person who obtained the service of MotherTeresa’s ‘Missionaries of Charity’ has not got converted to Christianity? A person who went to Nirmal Hriday as a Hindu has not come back with his or her original religion. Almost everybody got converted to Christianity. So how can it be said that the Christian Missionaries did not offer the inducements? 

No doubt, Christian Missionaries have opened good schools and hospitals all over the country. They never openly ask the Hindus/ Muslims of relatively well off backgrounds to convert to Christianity but those who are economically vulnerable they are offered all sorts of inducements and facilities to  get them converted to Christianity. This is an open and glaring fact. People become Christians not because their hearts have changed by knowing about the religion but it is the greed that played the main role. The fact is the person, who embraces to Christianity does not know about the religion or the Bible. So how can it be the case of the change of heart? Christian missionaries, it must be said , are the past masters in hoodwinking the gullible and poor people and luring them to their own religion. Therefore, our Parliamentarians, and that too, the members of the Rajya Sabha or either naive or knave or amalgam of both, who have been disrupting the proceedings of the House for no plausible reasons.

History bears ample testimony to the fact that the people in India  have embraced to Islam because of the fear of saving their lives or properties and  Christianity spread its wings across the country by sheer dint of money, which the missionaries have aplenty and they been liberally using for the expansion their religion.Thus ,it is clear that in India proselytisation or religious conversions have taken either by force ,fraud, allurements or inducements.Now if some zealous persons from among Hindus are trying to tell and convince the other religionists that they or their forebears were led to garden path for converting to Islam or Christianity and they should again come back to Hinduism- why should there be so much hullabaloo?One fails to understand if Hindus are converted to other religion, it is a non issue and if it is other way round then all hell break loose. This double standard and hypocrisy is now clearly seen through.

Hindus have been largely divided on the caste lines. It has proved dangerous for the very existence of this religion, which otherwise is high evolved in metaphysics, learning and devotion. Tolerance and self-criticism have been the hallmarks of Hinduism but they have also proved detrimental for the sound survival of this religion.

      Unfortunately, Bhartiya Janata Party, which got overwhelming support from Hindus in  the fond hope that it would provide level playing Hindus ia also pandering to the appeasement policy. Why is it feeling shy of vociferously advocating the Uniform Civil Code for the betterment of Muslim women in the matters of divorce, property inheritance, equality and monogamy? It is hoped that it will rise to the occasion and would not be blackmailed by the pseudo-secularist or by falling in their trap. 

Previous Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: