Dr.Sen, Sir, may I continue to differ?

That was the winter of 1999, my second year in Santiniketan. A year ago Dr. Amartya Sen had
been awarded the Nobel Prize and yearlong there had been much discussion at his almer mater,
Patho Bhawbon, regarding Dr.Sen. One morning, my query about the brisk activity at the school
premises was answered by a twinkling smile and the reply, ‘Nothing much, we’re arranging a
reception for one of our ex-student’s who was awarded the Nobel Prize.’ I was also informed that
the Nobel Laureate would be giving a public lecture at the University Auditorium.

Dr. Sen arrived amongst much furor and on the day of his lecture the auditorium was packed with
students, visitors from Bolepure, the town nearby, and of course the media. He captivated his
audience with the ease and simplicity with which he presented his ideas. His subject was the
scientific methodology of investigation and his focus was on a few necessary steps essential for
any rational and impartial enquiry. These steps that he elaborated on, with illuminating
examples, were firstly a clear articulation of the goals of one’s enquiry followed by a mapping out
of the means of investigation and lastly, on reaching the conclusion of the query, Dr. Sen,
emphatically stressed the need to step back and look at other views on the same issue. Dr.
Sen’s simple articulation of the concepts couldn’t but be universally acceptable for any area of
investigation.

That was also the year India had witnessed the heinous murder of the Australian Christian
missionary, Graham Staines, and his two minor sons, in Orissa. On the other hand, there had
been, too, a number of highly publicized en masse ‘reconversion’ of tribal Christians into the folds
of ‘hinduism’ by a few ultra-orthodox hindu organizations. These incidents were then generating
much concern and discussions. I believe, with these in mind, Dr. Sen, illustrated his last step of
inquiry, that is to say the need to consult other standpoints, with a discussion on the need for
religious liberalism and tolerance. Besides discussing the dangers of strident and exclusive
norms in religious practices, while implicitly referring to the incident in Orissa, Dr. Sen illustrated
his point with the example of the great Mughal Emperor Akbar who had promulgated the
controversial but eclectic religion ‘Din-E-Illahi’. The Emperor, Dr. Sen informed his rapt audience,
had even taken to vegetarianism given the benefits accrued from such a diet after going through
the pros and cons of such a step. Dr. Sen, again emphasized that embracing other views, if
found to be superior to one’s own, couldn’t but be beneficial in the long term.

As I walked home that star-lit chilly night, a gnawing unease kept biting at my conscience. During
my time in Santiniketan I had had the great fortune of being a part of a Santhal community
nearabouts. At their village I had listened to quite a few lively debates, within the group of young
Santhal activists working in that community, on proselytization and its effects. In fact, I had
witnessed their recent endeavor to prevent one of their fold from converting to Christianity.
While, there was also much resentment against the ‘reconversions’ being intiated by ultra-hindu
factions, their grudge against conversion was primarily due to the employment of social and
economic coercion to bring about a change of heart among the tribal poor.

I wrote a small note to Dr. Sen. While accepting the validity of his three-point methodology for
scientific enquiry; but I also voiced my contention regarding the analogy he had provided. Was a
fair discourse on ideas possible between two parties in unequal positions of power? Akbar after
all, I said, was an Emperor and he had the liberty of taking a decision in favour of change but only
after acquainting himself with views from all sides of the ring. Conversion of poverty stricken
tribals couldn’t be accepted on just the ground that they were much too ill informed about the
consequences of their decision and were unacquainted with other points of view.

I had merely intended to raise a point of concern to Dr. Sen. The fact that Dr.Sen then invited me
to discuss the issue points not just to his great desire to initiate public debates on matters of
concern but also to the greatness of this innovative thinker who would be willing to engage in a
discussion with even an insignificant contender.
With much trepidation I enter the portals of Dr. Sen’s home. There was a family dinner going on.
In spite of that, Dr. Sen made it a point to sit down and discuss the point that I had tried to make.
‘So, what would you suggest as a solution?’ Reader, do remember that this was Dr.Amartya Sen
and I was merely a puny but concerned citizen. What ensued was a conversation in which Dr.
Sen stressed on the dangers of State intervention in such sensitive matters. A State imposed
ban on conversion, he explained, would lead to the other extreme of preventing the populace
from coming across other views on religion. I left feeling quite humble but without my unease
having been appeased.

I still remain stridently opposed to conversion, especially institutionalized proselytization be it in

Madrassahs, Christian missionary schools or the Hindu vidyapiths. There can be no justification
in conjoining secular and scientific education with religious teachings. The constitution
guarantees the right of each of its citizen, especially the young, to an environment conducive to
the enhancement of their innate capacities. Education is a universal right. To allow institutions
to coerce students into specific religious folds by enticing them with the offer of ‘free’ education,
and for that matter other socio-economic benefits like healthcare, is tantamount to denying them
the right of 'free' religious choice. It is definitely the State that must ensure that each and every
educational institution abstains from even a hint of proselytization.

My own education at a school run by Catholic missionaries stands witness to the fact that
religious organizations can simultaneously run secular educational institutions. To this day I
remain indebted to the Sisters of Holy Cross in Dhaka for imbuing in us, their students, the
deepest regard for universal values devoid of any divisive strains. To their credit never once
were we, in all our years of schooling, subject to even a hint of religious advocacy.

Unfortunately, the scenario within the marginalized communities of tribal folk and the poverty
stricken, below-poverty level populace, is quite different and certainly not as innocuous as we
would hope. There education and healthcare is being used as an enticement to conversion.
And, almost all the religious missions are culpable to this charge. If charity is an inseparable part
of missionary activities, it should not be marked with sectarian and divisive politics. Why for
instance cannot a Maddrassah educate Christian or Hindu students? It doesn’t say much for any
institution whose generosity of heart is restricted to only those within its own congregation.
However, here most to be blamed is the State which remains blind to such activities.

Efforts at conversion have been part and parcel of the entire history of civilization. And, as Dr.
Sen, so eloquently, advised us that wintry night, a liberal perusal of other ways of thinking cannot
but be to our benefit. But the choice must be ours to make and to make freely without
compulsion from any source.

As I travel along the roads of Malappuram District in Kerala, an area in India which has in recent
years been enriched by the earnings of its labour force in the Gulf states and which today reflects
the consequent Islamic influences, I see the innumerable Madrassahs along the way and watch
the young children therein clothed in alien middle-eastern garbs. Would they, I wonder, ever
have the freedom to take a step back from the beliefs being instilled in them and look objectively
at other ways of thought? In fact, by advocating a free hand to the proselytizing activities of
missionaries weren't we all complicit in advancing a way of thinking that would in the long run
subject the convertees, specially the young, to just the sectarian and insular standpoints that
Dr.Sen was speaking against?

Today, I sincerely believe that the State has a major role to play. Not by banning conversion but
by taking steps against any sort of institutionalized proselytization or even advocacy.