A sign of inflated ego

A READER, Mr. Alexander Samuel, in a letter to TheHindu, informs us: ``Some eminent Christians, including Sister Nirmala, now put forth the claim that a person's right to convert of his sweet will at no cost be curbed'' (September 12). Then commenting on this, he says: ``Well, there is nothing wrong with that. But one person's right to propagate...''

The problem is neither ``the right to propagate'' nor the ``propagation'' of one's religious faith but the how or, more importantly, the means employed to propagate one's religion. Otherwise, propagation per se is no evil. On the contrary, it can be beneficial, in that a healthy dialogue - mutual exchange of ideas, beliefs, etc - is indispensable for a complete and integral growth of one's being. It is precisely for this reason that the great French essayist, Michel de Montaigne, said: Il faut se frotter avec les gens - one must rub oneself against people (in order to enlarge the horizon of one's vision).

But the problem, or rather the danger, of a ``Constitutional right to propagate one's religion'' can easily be misconstrued - and thereby misused - by people, particularly by the leaders of Semitic creeds which have amply proved for about 1600 years to be exclusive and militant faiths. Which is why conversion or proselytisation through force, subtle persuasion or gross and abject allurement of money has become synonymous with these faiths or religions.

And if the leaders of the Semitic faiths are aggressive while propagating their faith, it is because their religions encourage and endorse such a militant posture. Take, for example, Christianity. If we go by the Bible (The New Testament - French version), Christ, it is stated, said: Celui qui ne suit pas mon chemin est un voleur - He who does not follow my path is a thief. Also, is it not believed that Jesus Christ said, before his spirit left his body: ``Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all always even to the end of the age?''

Difficult to ascertain

Whether or not Christ actually made such statements as the above ones is difficult to know or ascertain, for Christ never wrote whatever he preached to his disciples. It is his disciples who ascribed such utterings to Jesus Christ. Anyway, Christ being descibed as the ``Apostle of Love'' par excellence, who preached love, thought love, breathed love, dreamt love and asked people to love one another as they loved their own selves, could never have meant that propagation of his teachings should be imposed, superimposed or forcibly or subtly thrust on people who were unaware of his message of love. For imposition, force or thrust in this respect is not only contrary to the conception of love but animalistic - contrary to the basic principles of any religion worth the name, and even contrary to the norms of any civilised way of living.

However, it is these utterings which have, I presume, instigated, driven, incited, urged, impelled or compelled or inspired the church leaders, and Christians in general, to understand that the more Christians there are in the world, the better, safer and merrier it will be! Yet, come to think of it, the authors of the two World Wars (during one of which atom bombs were dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan) were no ``pagans'' nor ``heathens'' nor ``infidels'' but the champions of Jesus Christ!

Feeling of insecurity

(On the other hand, all idea, desire, impulsion, compulsion, drive or impassion to propagate one's religion with the intention to convert or proselytise is, I believe, a syndrome of the feeling of insecurity. It is like the situation of a creature which feels safer and merrier when the number of members it belongs to is big. (Said one of the greatest sage-scholars of our age: ``The great are strongest when they stand alone.'') Also, may I add, all desire to convert or proselytise is a sure sign (read proof) of inflated ego, the very element - and the most dangerous and vicious one - in human beings which all religions worth the name enjoin upon us to subdue, chasten, ennoble, heighten, sublimate or transcend. What exactly is this psychology of ``inflated ego?'' It is the illusory feeling - nay, pathology - that whatever I like, I do, I believe in, whichever religion, community, nation or race I belong to, is the best.

To all rationalists the world over, this sort of ego-centric mindset or attitude can only appear as the height of conceit, vanity or, worse, fanaticism and, alas, no ``bliss of ignorance'' at any rate but a malaise therefrom! We know only too well where ``the doctrine of superiority,'' when pushed too far, can lead humanity to: the holocaust witnessed during the Second World War. One hopes that two such wars are more than enough to deter people from nursing any such dangerous doctorine - whether it be of ``superiority of race,'' or whatever.)

Due to the above-mentioned statements ascribed to Christ, church leaders, as well as many a Christian, will never admit that Christ would/could/might have made completely different statements in a completely different context from the one he lived in, which apparently seems to have been a comparatively crude one - a situation where the state of the human consciousness was ``an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,'' as also stoning to death as punishment to a woman having committed adultery.

In a context where the tradition of a long, sustained and highly developed religio-philosophico-spiritual culture and civilisation such as, for instance, India was at least 3000 years before the advent of the Christ, had the ``Son of God'' then lived there, in all likelihood he would/could not have made such statements as the ones mentioned above. Nor such an enlightened soul as he was would have been arrested and imprisoned, much less crucified! For right from the inception of their history, people of the Indian subcontinent had the sure, nay ingrained, conviction - call it insight, vision, attitude, inkling or belief or whatever - that there are many ways to God and that none of them is the one and the only way to Him. Which is why no religion, sprung from the subcontinent, is dogmatic or intolerant of other faiths.

They all have had respect for people and believed in their absolute right to believe in creeds other than those they believed in. Also, religions in the subcontinent have never been tired of reminding their faithfuls that there is but one God (Ishwara) known by various names and worshipped by men in various ways, and hence respect for and tolerance towards all creeds.

An analogy

To speak in an analogy: The fruit is contained in the flower, just as the flower is in the bud. Once the bud blooms into a flower, does the bud desire the flower to be the bud or the flower wish to be the bud again? Likewise, once the flower turns into a fruit, does the fruit want to be the flower or the flower demand the fruit to turn into the flower again? All of them - the bud, the flower, the fruit - are in essence one and the same entity: matter. All of them have their utility, their beauty, their raison d'etre and their right to exist. Hence the need, urge, impulsion or compulsion to convert the one into the other or vice versa does not arise, not to say it is preposterous, if not barbarous.

If the bud transforms itself into a flower, the flower into the fruit, there is no exterior element or agent trying - through imposition (force), loud propaganda, subtle persuasion or abject allurement of money - to transform the one into the other. The transformation is uncoersive - a smooth natural process. There is neither cause for ``conversion'' nor ``proselytisation'' there through whatever foul means. In the same way, if an individual wants to convert of his/her sweet will, from his/her religion to any other, then neither the leaders of the religion he/she belongs to should object to the individual's desire to change his/her religion, nor those leaders whose religion the individual desires to embrace should have any objection to it. For this kind of change in the mind of an individual can be likened to the ``natural process'' we have spoken of above.

BIBHAS JYOTI MUTSUDDI

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Understanding money laundering
Next     : Know Your English