New Delhi: The recent violence in Orissa and Karnataka over the issue of religious conversion has been hogging the headlines for the past few weeks. Organisations like the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad have been blaming Christian missionaries for luring tribals into converting to Christianity.
They are also being blamed for the recent attacks on churches and Christians in the two states. Now a few political parties and organisations are demanding that organisations like Bajrang Dal should be banned.
IBNLive.com organised a chat with CNN-IBN's National Bureau Chief Bhupendra Chaubey on the topic: Should fundamentalist organisations be banned? Reproduced below is the chat transcript.
Shajahan: In a democratic country like India everyone is free to practice their own religion. Conversion is happening in all the religion and that's not a crime under Indian law. So why such a hue and cry for conversion?
Bhupendra Chaubey: The debate is on forceful conversions. Anything where one gets forced should not be acceptable
Puneet Madaan: Banning and designating as terrorist entity is a different thing; banning means that they will not be able to operate on grounds, and any one working with them will be considered working on some illegal grounds. Whereas designating them terrorist entity is only words. Now my question goes, does government really meant to ban them or just tag them. My question comes like this, because the difference I had noticed over two terrorist group like LTTE/Let (both share the same resource base for money as well as weapon) yet where LTTE is banned since execution of Rajiv Gandhi, the LeT is only designated as terror entity, which means anyone operating with LTTE can be booked over working on illegal charges, whereas anyone working, or even operating with LeT and providing them financial assistance will only be booked if it can be proved that his contribution is used in some attack. Now which stand they are considering for Bajrang Dal, especially when such dual tone is viewed for years on government, handling of such international terror entities.
Bhupendra Chaubey: The government has always been accused of adopting double standards. One reason why we have reached the stage that we have reached is exactly this. In my view both the LET and the BD are equally culpable for criminal offences
T Mervyn: Bhupendra what is the difference between Bajrang Dal and SIMI. Both are killing common people who are innocent?
Bhupendra Chaubey: So ban both. But the problem is that the moment you say that, there is an entire different gamut of emotions and politicking that gets involved. So unlikely whether the government will be bold enough to ban the Bajrang Dal.
Mohit: Hi Bhupedra. I am also a Hindu but I feel ashamed of organizations like Bajrang Dal. Does raping a nun and parading her makes the Bajrang Dal a patriotic Hindu organisation? What further evidence UPA requires for banning the organisation?
Bhupendra Chaubey: I am with you on this one Mohit. I hope and in fact m sure that majority of the Hindus feel that way. No one has the right to practice violence, no matter what the provocation. And what has been seen in Kandhamal is nothing short of shamefulness.
Lakshminarasimman Venkatramanan: The state failed to protect the majority here. Its a fashion to talk negative about Hindus, Hindu gods and get away, we have CMs (Karunanidhi) who constantly pain Hindus. Don’t you think Hindus feel cheated; no one raises their voice against people who talk about Hindus. The other community is a chunk of vote bank; Bhupendra don’t you think you and the media have been not good in keeping up with Hindu sentiments; don’t you think this was the reason militant Hinduism is on the raise. Hindus by and large are mild and believe in karma.. I am not here saying what these people did was right but who is responsible?
PAGE_BREAK
Bhupendra Chaubey: Its the state that is responsible. What is bad is bad, what is wrong is wrong. One can’t say that my wrong is worse than the other persons wrong.
Karthik.BS: Sir, Oh what basis do you think that an organisation should be called a terrorist outfit? And abiding this criterion is Bajrang Dal a terrorist organisation? Are there specific rules in the constitution for such actions?
Bhupendra Chaubey: That’s the dilemma before the UPA government Kartik. If SIMI is a terrorist group because it produces Islamic fundamentalists, then by that logic the Bajrang Dal should also be banned as it admits to being a Hindu fundamentalist organisation. My point is reduce the fundamentalism, in fact eliminate it. All right, feel strongly for your own religion, but at the same time also think of the other person’s religion
Noor: Don’t you think banning Bajrang Dal is committing hara-kiri by UPA? By banning it will its popularity increases or decreases?
Bhupendra Chaubey: The UPA needs to have solid evidence before it thinks of banning Bajrang Dal. Don’t think they have it as yet. Right now, it is simply testing the political waters. If it gets banned, be ready for agitations and more violence across the country.
Jitendra: Don't you think its a nonsensical question? If you ban a name the same people can take another name. Look SIMI is banned but its activities are continuing, in fact, intensified. Another point is some kind of assertiveness is required to protect this country from Christian zealots whose only occupation is to convert.
Bhupendra Chaubey: Your response is equally nonsensical. Extremism and violence must be condoned in all possible ways
Girish: Please tell me where is the voice of majority heard in India. It’s not heard in Bengal (for other reasons), Orissa and also Karnataka. Similar to minority committee, should the majority also form a committee. I agree protests should not be violent, but these bloody politicians do not consider the case unless something negative happens.
Bhupendra Chaubey: Then you will enter jungle raaj Girish, where an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth principle shall prevail. Not the right remedy for a mature democracy.
Hema: when the Christians are attacked in Orissa, the entire Christian world including US start chest thumping. When Hindus are attacked in Malaysia, Bangladesh and Pakistan who defends them? Not the "secular" Congress or "secular" media. Why can't Manmohan Singh talk to Malaysian PM ask him to protect Hindus? It is only the RSS/VHP/BD who defend Hindus. Ban or no ban, we will still support BD.
Bhupendra Chaubey: I think Hema, you should take the view that fundamentalism of any kind should not be encouraged.
Prithviraj: Does President of India has to seal the ban order?
Bhupendra Chaubey: Yes, all Cabinet decisions are ultimately signed by the President.
PAGE_BREAK
Ravindra: If Bajrang Dal is banned there will more violence in the country. What do you think?
Bhupendra Chaubey: Possibly. But if the government does that, it will run the risk of greater abuses from the saffron combine. With terrorism, inflation everything going against the UPA, don’t think that the UPA will ban it in the first place
Sandeep James Lewis: Has Bajrang Dal or any of its allies along with BJP been able to show evidence that conversion has happened in Mangalore. Then why attack churches? They have attacked just because they wanted to create terror like Bin Laden. That too on the nuns who never leave their convents.
Bhupendra Chaubey: Well information coming out from the state government indicates that conversions do take place. Let us first accept that. But even if that is happening, that can’t be an excuse for targetting churches.
Vishnu Saxena: Why Missionaries don’t target poor Muslims?
Bhupendra Chaubey: Look at what’s happened in Assam yesterday. Bodo militants targetting Muslims. In areas where missionaries and evangelical organisations are active, it’s only the conversion of SC and STs that gets highlighted. I am sure that poor Muslims get targetted too. But the process of a Hindu converting is much easier than a Muslim
Jibin: Most of this VHP and BJP people are from upper cast. They will not allow a SC or ST person inside their house. They want these tribals to be slaves and should not come to the main stream. These Christians are giving education and teaching the fundamental rights to them. So if these people comes to know their rights they can not again rule them for ever.. This is the simple reason they are attacking the Christian. If any VHP or BJP leader goes to any SC ST person hut and ready to accept them then this will not happen. Real meaning of conversion means converting a person into a social animal. Here so many people are getting converted into Sai Baba, but no one is killing them?
Bhupendra Chaubey: You have made a good observation Jibin. Dalits convert to Christianity largely because they are offered a good life and where they don’t face discrimination. But is giving someone an incentive to convert ones religion illegal? Well there in lies the debate
Vkrum: My question is what are the challenges the Governmentt of India is facing in posting a super solid ban on organisations involved in disturbing peace in this country?
Bhupendra Chaubey: Politics Vkrum. If the government goes ahead and bans the Bajrang Dal, the BJP and all other sangh parivar outfits will be on the streets demanding a ban on most minority organisations. There will be a tremendous pressure on the UPA government then. It’s essentially a political challenge. Also they have to back it up with facts and evidence against their involvement. If the government does that, there will be a problem of polarisation of one community against the other. Not good news for the UPA
Sudeep Marik: What should be the "politically/ethically correct" reason to ban any organization, and does the Bajrang Dal qualify to be banned in the present scenario and circumstances in India?
Bhupendra Chaubey: Well I would say that on the basis of evidence that’s official so far, I don’t think that the Bajrang Dal can be or should be banned. From Nanded to Kanpur, there have been instances of some Bajrang Dal activists being rounded up. But why are we not getting information about them in the public domain. If the Dal is found involved in any terror activity, then without doubt, they should be banned immediately
PAGE_BREAK
Ananth: Dear Sir , we all know that conversions have really took place in exchange of money, isn't it wrong and why not the government punish the people who push for these conversions and why are they after the VHP and Bajrang Dals?
Bhupendra Chaubey: Ananth, conversions and terrorism are two different things. You can’t use one as a justification for the other. If there are conversions happening on the ground, no one has the right to resort to threats or terror just because one opposes it. Mahatma Gandhi was also opposed to religious conversions, but he never espoused terror or violence
Nisapati: Why UPA allies are putting pressure on UPA Government to ban Bajrang Dal? When Maoists have been killing hundreds of people in Orissa, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh, and the UPA allies have raised nothing against it. Is all of them are playing vote bank politics?
Bhupendra Chaubey: Absolutely Nisapati, its nothing else but vote bank politics because the same people like Pawar , Lalu , Mulayam who were opposed to a ban on SIMI are the ones demanding one on Bajrang Dal. War on terror cannot be communalised; it has to be fought without any divisions
Anuj: My question is why are we all trying to equate SIMI and Bajrang Dal. One is a terrorist org and banned for the same. Other has no history of terrorist activities if we go by the definition of terrorism by the law of the land. Haven’t we gone too far? Isn’t it just poor/dirty politics for vote bank which can backfire for the so called 'secular parties'?
Bhupendra Chaubey:Terrorism in India or the world over has been associated with Islamic fundamentalism. Perhaps the very definition of a terror strike or a terrorist now needs to be redefined. For instance, there is a perception that the Mehrauli blasts in Delhi were the handiwork of the Bajrang Dal. Now if you compare that to say a SIMI planned strike anywhere else, where is the difference?
Sundar: Why should Bajrang Dal be compared to SIMI, their name is coming up only because of violence in Karnataka and Kandhamal. The issue of conversion is simmering in Tamil Nadu also and go knows when this will also explode. You can see churches sprouting at a lot of places. Bajrang Dal should not be banned.
Bhupendra Chaubey: Bajrang Dal's name has cropped up in the 2002 massacre in Gujarat too. Religious conversions is just one thing. But the question to be posed is that if several UPA ministers like Lalu and Mulayam were bitterly opposed to a ban on SIMI, then why they are so upfront in their demand for a ban on Bajrang Dal. This is more of a political demand rather than one based on facts. I am afraid that it will be dealt with too at a political level rather than looking at it as one which is based on ground facts
PAGE_BREAK
Parmod: Can you equate mob violence and terror?
Bhupendra Chaubey: Important point. But if a mob gathers together with a fundamental aim of creating disturbance then it should be called terror. Why just think of terror in terms of someone planting bombs?
Ravindra: Bajrang Dal is a voice of Hindus. Why Center wants to ban a Hindu organisation?
Bhupendra Chaubey: On what basis do you say that the Bajrang Dal is the voice of Hindus. It certainly is not the voice of a majority of Hindus. I don’t think Hindus subscribe to the kind of militancy that the Bajrang Dal stands for.
Anuj Handa: They will again regroup with a different name. What difference does banning Make? Their work should either be closely monitored or fought politically or people financing these should be tried under law.
Bhupendra Chaubey: So what are you saying? Don’t ban any group? Point is when you ban some organisation, you are taking a call that all activities of that group are not acceptable. In that sense a group like the Bajrang Sal should be banned.
Sandeep James Lewis: Is Bajrang Sal given special permission by BJP to carry out the attacks? Is there any evidence for conversions in Mangalore?
Bhupendra Chaubey: Religious conversions are as old as the subject of conversions itself. The Bajrang Dal was started in 1984 as a group to provide protection to the sadhus and sants participating in the Ram Jaanaki Yatra. Over the years, it became famous or infamous for being the militant wing of the sangh parivar. Officially it has no permission from the BJP, but the BJP does often turn a blind eye to the unlawful activities of the Dal
Navin: Don’t you think the UPA Government is again trying to appease the minority communities by planning to ban VHP/Bajrang Dal? These organisations were never found to be working anti India while as others SIMI and Maoists are caught everyday in anti India propaganda.
Bhupendra Chaubey: Its a tough question. Point is that the UPA was quite muted when it came to the question of dealing with the support of a ban on Simi. It’s almost as if the BJP's demand for a ban on SIMI is being fought with the UPA's demand for a ban on Bajrang Dal. Terrorism is terrorism. A victim is a victim. Extremism of any kind has no place in a mature democracy.
Comments
0 comment