Inter-faith Dialogue in Mumbai – June 12 & 13

I post here three write-ups on the Inter-faith Dialogue between Hindu and Catholic leaders held in Mumbai on June 12 & 13

i) A report by Babu Thomas in the “The Christian Post” datelined Sunday, 14 June 2009: “Hindus and Catholics Inter-faith Dialogue in Mumbai Amidst Anti-Christian Violence”

ii) Journalist & Communications Professional Alwyn Fernandes’ article dated 15 June 2009: “Was it an inter-faith dialogue or a confrontation?” – sent to me on email by Ruth D’Souza:

iii) A Report by Radha Rajan on the same event from the June 28 Issue of the “Organizer”: sent to me on email from Paris by Rev Balthazar Castelino: the Superior Generale of the MEP (Mission Estrangers de Paris)

There are some critical issues raised in these write-up that need attention

(Also, the views expressed herein are solely those of the individual authors concernned - posted here only for purposes of generating debate and discussion with a view to arrive some level of understanding between the two communities for mutual respect and learning to live with one another in the community...)

i) From The Christian Post:

Hindus and Catholics Inter-faith Dialogue Held in Mumbai Amidst Anti-Christian Violence

By Babu Thomas, Christian Today Reporter, Sunday, Jun. 14 2009

Religious conversion and Orissa violence remained the central argument at an inter-faith dialogue between Hindu and Catholic leaders of India in Mumbai on 12-13 June as the leaders try to find common ground for a peaceful co-existence.

Among noted personalities from the Hindu faith were Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Jayendra Saraswati, and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Mumbai Archbishop Cardinal Oswald Gracias, and Cardinal Jean Louis P Tauran, the Pope’s representative from the Vatican, represented the Catholics.

The two-day meet at Mumbai's Shanmukhananda Hall was organised in the wake of recent violence on Christians and the still-paralyzing consequences of the Kandhamal carnage.

The Hindu pontiff, Jayendra Saraswati, pointed 'conversion' as the chief reason for the growing violence on minorities. He sought an assurance from the Catholic Church to halt such activities, which the latter has refuted and blamed on Protestants.

"Although conversion is a personal choice, I want to endorse that there will be no forced conversions. It has no meaning, and is considered invalid. The Catholic Church is totally against forced conversions. The Vatican documents are clear about that," media quoted Cardinal Gracias saying.

At a press conference, religious leaders from both the sides condemned the violence on Christians and even agreed to jointly associate in social work and charity.

A press statement released by Sankaracharya urged churches and Christian groups to use charity funds for social causes like health and education. The Hindu seer apart from conversions also disapproved foreign funds used for running educational and charity projects.

Furthermore, he also objected to the visit of U.S Commission on Religious Freedom to India. "We will not allow external interference in our internal affairs," he commented.

A senior BJP member and adviser to Mr. LK Advani, Sudheendra Kulkarni, was also present at the meeting. Such events will "pave way for greater understanding," he said.

The Vatican representative Cardinal Tauran expressed much hope in the inter-faith meeting, which he said, will have a positive outcome.

"India is a cradle of many religions. I am also very impressed that Indians are open minded and tolerant with positive values," he praised.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090614/hindus-and-catholics-inter-faith-dialogue-held-in-mumbai-amidst-anti-christian-violence/index.html

ii) Journalist & Communications Professional Alwyn Fernandes’ article dated 15 June 2009: “Was it an inter-faith dialogue or a confrontation?” – sent to me on email by Ruth D’Souza:

Was the Bombay meeting between some Hindu leaders an inter-faith dialogue or a confrontation? And was Jayendra Saraswati, a man who is still facing a murder charge (pending in a Pondicherry court since 2005) the right man to dialogue with for such a meeting, given his controversial background (he has been accused of being a politician in religious garb)?

From all accounts in the Mumbai media and from the website of hte Kanchi Mutt it seems to have been more a confrontation (http://www.kanchiforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2535) than a dialogue! And we seem to have fallen into the same trap as Biishop Aloysius Paul of Mangalore who merrily told NDTV with a smile on his face on Day One of the attacks of Christian churches in Mangalore last September - "I don't know why they are attacking us when it is the Pentecostals who are converting people?" This later led to Home Minister Acharya saying, "Your bishop is complaining that the Pentecostals are troubling him also." So he was doing us a favour by beating them up! If some of our people got beaten up, it was a case of what the Americans call "collateral damage"!

From what one reads in the papers here, from Jayendra Saraswati's statements to the media and from what is on the Kanchi Mutt's website, it seems the Kanchi "seer" or "Pontiff" as he is variously called, was aggressive and did not give an inch.

One also wonders why a dialogue in the presence of so high ranking a Vatican dignitary like Cardinal Tauran was only with some representatives of the Hindu community when India has followers of six major religions and a Minister for Minority Affairs?

Why were lay people excluded from such an important meeting, if indeed it was important? Aren't lay people, who in fact interact more with their brothers and sisters from other communities, not involved in a dialogue with those of other faiths? How is that that one sees only names of bishops involved in the "dialogue"? Even scholar-priests have been excluded. And if the discussion focused on Kandhamal and Orissa, who were the reprsentatives from there? Why were they excluded? Why were priests like Cedric Prakash and others actively involved in working with people of other faiths in civil society groups for the human rights (of which religion is one) of people of all faiths not present at the meeting?

In the final analysis, what matters is the outcome from such meetings, not the output (which we are seeing in the media now). What is the outcome from this meeting?
From calls and mails I got today, it is apparent that people are asking questions. And in today's world it is only fair that their qustions be answered if we seek their help and understading to take the process forward. Even if our bishops decide to be secretive and not speak to people from the community, the Kanchi group has already laid out its terms for carrying the "dialogue" forward in December on its website.

Some questions that are being asked:

What was the preparation made for this meeting? What kind of preparations? Who were involved? Because for any real outcome from these meetings, there has to be a lot of preparatory work off stage. And outcome or results are slow and long in coming. Was there any preparatory work in this case or was everyone rushed into it because Cardinal Tauran, was coming? We didn't hear about any of thsi before? Why/why not?
Was the timing right? At a time when the entire edifice of aggressive Hindutva built up over 25 years (from the time of "Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain') is beginning to crack up and crumble before our eyes, when the man who mocked secular-minded people for many years as "pseudo-secularists" and got away with it is now being dubbed a pseudo by his own followers, was this a right meeting at the wrong time? Would it not have been wiser to wait a few weeks?
There is also an issue of propriety -- propriety in associating with a man accused of mudering a temple official in the temple premises. Jayendra Saraswati and his "junior pontiff" Vijayendra were both accused, along with 22 others, of murdering the temple manager who had spoken out against him and accused him of financial wrongdoing. Jayendra Saraswati has admitted his was greatly disturbed by the allegations, though he denied being involved in the murder. He was refused bail by the TN High Court and twice by the Supreme Court. He was granted bail only on the third appeal before the Supreme Court in January 2005 and the case is now pending in a Pondicherry court. He has not been acquitted of the murder charge. Why then are we associating with him publicly, a man who is desperately seeking acceptance by civil society? True, innocent until proven guilty but then so are so many MPs and politicians who are facing murder cases, some of whom have been elected to Parliament. If civil society says that these men should be shunned, shouldn't Jayendra Saraswati also be shunned till he is acquitted of all charges? Would the bishops share a platform with Narendra Modi tomorrow? He at least has not been formally charged in a court with a heinous crime like murder?
Let us also not forget that Jayalalitha brought forth anti-conversion legislation at Jayendra Saraswati's instance. They were pretty thick till the murder charge tumbled out. So it is not as if he is the victim of false charges by a hostile government. Quite the contrary.
As for the outcome, it is worthwhile to visit the Kanchi mutt's website:
"The Catholics denied that they are involved in conversion and it was only the Protestants who do the same. So His Holiness Jayendra Saraswati asked them to bring the Protestants for the next meeting, scheduled for December." - Did we, for lack of adequate preparation, end up falling into the same trap as the Biishop Aloysius Paul of Mangalore who told NDTV on Day One of the attacks of Christian churches in Mangalore - I don't know why they are attacking us when it is the Pentecostals who are converting people? This later led to the Karnataka Home Minister Acharya saying, "Your bishop is complaining that the Pentecostals are troubling him also." So he was doing us a favour by beating them up!

Did we fall into the same trap and really blame the Protestants?

I could be wrong, but judging from media reports and from what is on the Kanchi mutt's website, it seems we were on the defensive. I hope I am wrong!

Allwyn Fernandes

iii) A Report by Radha Rajan on the same event from the June 28 Issue of the “Organizer”: sent to me on email from Paris by Rev Balthazar Castelino: the Superior Generale of the MEP (Mission Estrengers de Paris)

June 28, 2009

Verbatim
This is what Kanchi Shankaracharya spoke at the inter-faith dialogue
By Radha Rajan

In 1999, Pope John Paul-II had stated that the mission of the Vatican was to plant the Cross in Asia in the third millennium to facilitate the Christianising of the world, which alone would cause the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Pope must tell us the rationale for the First Coming of Jesus Christ when there was no Christianity or the Church to undertake the mission to Christianise the world.

(We have it on excellent authority of Kanchi Shankaracharya that the inter-faith dialogue did not go as planned by the Vatican. We are told that no one except the religious leaders themselves and one or two persons to assist them in the dialogue were permitted in the hall. Pujya Periava spoke as is characteristic of him, in the softest tone possible, with the unfading smile never slipping from his face, in chaste Hindi. However, it is obvious from the statement, which he released to the press and media after the dialogue, that the soft tone and chaste Hindi surprised the gathering. It is a good thing for Hindus that this time we had a man who knows his dharma, and more importantly, understands evil, and who spoke for Hinduism. Following are the points that Pujya Periava made at the inter-faith dialogue.)

1. Exactly one month ago to the date, the Pope went to Jerusalem where Jesus was born, for a similar dialogue that the Vatican had undertaken with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. At the end of that meeting when the Pope and Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzer jointly addressed the press and media, the Chief Rabbi thanked the Pope for assuring the Chief Rabbinate that the Catholic Church would desist and cease from all missionary and conversion activities among the Jews. This is construed as endorsed and agreed by the Pope since he was present at the press meet. We need a similar commitment from the Church for Hindus.

2. After such inter-faith meetings, the points agreed have to be faithfully abided. Otherwise, there will be no point in holding such meetings. Unless the Church reassures Hindus that it will not conduct itself in a manner that wounds Hindu sensibilities and follows up on those assurances, such inter-faith meetings, no matter how frequently they are held, will be futile and not serve any meaningful cause.

3. In 1999, Pope John Paul-II had stated that the mission of the Vatican was to plant the Cross in Asia in the third millennium to facilitate the Christianising of the world, which alone would cause the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Pope must tell us the rationale for the First Coming of Jesus Christ when there was no Christianity or the Church to undertake the mission to Christianise the world.

4. We see the USCIRF (US Commission on International Religious Freedom) as an intrusive mechanism of a foreign government to interfere in the internal affairs of this country. The USCIRF, which has been permitted to visit this country to hold meetings with our people to ascertain religious freedom in our country, must no longer be permitted to enter this country on this intrusive mission. We will not allow external interference into our internal affairs.

5. We know that very large amounts of money come into this country for churches and Christian groups, ostensibly for charitable work. These funds should be used only for social causes like health, education, etc, and should not be used for religious conversion. During these dialogues, it should be agreed that the funds should be distributed to all organisations who do charitable work, irrespective of the organisations’ religious faith. A common pool should be created and a committee formed to distribute and monitor the usage of these funds.

6. It has become easy for the missionaries to convert Hindus. All Hindu organisations and associations should work together to educate Hindus and eradicate the conversion activity.

7. Hindu dharma is by nature diverse and so all different panths and sampradayas co-exist on this bhumi without seeking to destroy the others. Hindu dharma has nurtured and supported all faiths and religions because that is the way of dharma. We expect that religions which have come to this bhumi from other lands will respect this vital characteristic of Hindu dharma and not do anything to subvert or disturb the sense of nationhood of this country. Hindu dharma and the Hindu people welcome Christians and Muslims, Parsis and Jews to make this land their home. We expect from these religions that they will not seek to destroy our faith, our religion and wound our religious sensibilities. We encourage all religions to live with mutual respect and harmony in a shared sense of nationalism which should bind us all as one nation. Nationalism should come first.

8. We are aware of the propaganda that they [the church] will cure diseases and ailments if the individual converts to their faith. This is illegal as per the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act 1954 and we call upon the Indian government to take action under the provision of law.

9. Most of the countries in the world (USA, UK, Japan, Middle-East nations, Pakistan, Sri Lanka etc.), adopt national resolutions and statements of intent proclaimed by their governments and their tallest religious bodies, affirming their determination to protect and defend the culture and the religion from which their cultures derive. In India alone we pass resolutions which officially and legally promote an irreligious and unspiritual creed called secularism. Secularism is an administrative quality; it cannot be the soul of this nation. The soul of this nation is religious and spiritual. We call upon our government and other important religious bodies to recognise this truth and affirm their commitment to protect the soul of this nation.

10. The Buddhist Mahasangh and the joint committee of Buddhist organisations have declared their intention to get the Sri Lankan government to pilot and pass a national anti-conversion bill and make it law. We welcome this move and strongly endorse this measure.

11. The Church in India must stop forthwith the use of Hindu religious words, phrases and symbols like Veda, Agama, rishi, ashram, Om and other such in what is referred to as ‘inculturation’ tactics, but which are only intended to deceive the vulnerable sections of our people who are the intended targets for religious conversion. This is also insulting to and wounding the religious sensitivities of Hindus. Similarly, it has been brought to our notice that some churches are scripting a new Bible for the new converts by usurping sections of our sacred Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas and incorporating them into the Bible. This must stop immediately and all such Bibles must be withdrawn from circulation. We urge the Indian government to look into the issue and do the needful.