Jaithirth ‘Jerry’ Rao is a retired entrepreneur who lives in Lonavala. He has published three books: ‘Notes from an Indian Conservative’, ‘The Indian Conservative’, and ‘Economist Gandhi’.
What if Bharat simply amended its Constitution to prohibit organised religious conversion? Not a debate about democracy or dictatorship — but a straightforward assertion of a civilisation’s right to preserve itself culturally, spiritually, and linguistically from alien, externally-driven projects.
Abrahamic religions spread historically through war, military conquest, missionary indoctrination, and ideological pressure. In doing so, they committed cultural genocide across entire regions that were living perfectly coherent lives on their own terms. That is historical record, not prejudice.
Hindus have no equivalent history of conversion ‘in the western sense’. Ramakrishna Mission and Arya Samaj are not conversion machines — they are reform and consolidation movements, and their very existence is a deterrent to predatory proselytization, not a mirror of it.
Had this been addressed cleanly at the founding in 1947, much of the reactive identity politics we see today may never have taken root. The illiberal responses we now witness are downstream consequences of a wound that was never treated.
Many countries restrict proselytization without being considered uncivilised. Bharat has every right — and arguably the responsibility — to do the same. The real question to Bharat’s citizens is: how long will you wait?
To be fair to history, Muslim, then Mughal, rule did not make India an Islamic country. Nor will the slightly higher rates of reproduction for Muslims, as compared to Hindus, in India in future.
What if Bharat simply amended its Constitution to prohibit organised religious conversion? Not a debate about democracy or dictatorship — but a straightforward assertion of a civilisation’s right to preserve itself culturally, spiritually, and linguistically from alien, externally-driven projects.
Abrahamic religions spread historically through war, military conquest, missionary indoctrination, and ideological pressure. In doing so, they committed cultural genocide across entire regions that were living perfectly coherent lives on their own terms. That is historical record, not prejudice.
Hindus have no equivalent history of conversion ‘in the western sense’. Ramakrishna Mission and Arya Samaj are not conversion machines — they are reform and consolidation movements, and their very existence is a deterrent to predatory proselytization, not a mirror of it.
Had this been addressed cleanly at the founding in 1947, much of the reactive identity politics we see today may never have taken root. The illiberal responses we now witness are downstream consequences of a wound that was never treated.
Many countries restrict proselytization without being considered uncivilised. Bharat has every right — and arguably the responsibility — to do the same. The real question to Bharat’s citizens is: how long will you wait?
Wait for the next census. You might get a shock.
To be fair to history, Muslim, then Mughal, rule did not make India an Islamic country. Nor will the slightly higher rates of reproduction for Muslims, as compared to Hindus, in India in future.