Gandhi, Conversion, and the Equality of Religions: More Experiments with Truth

Claerhout, Sarah

doi:10.1163/15685276-12341304

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, several members also used a different conceptual vocabulary that cannot be attributed to late colonial interreligious polemics or the discourse about "Tolerance." In fact, as we have shown elsewhere, the conflicts about conversion in India show recurring concerns, patterns, and clusters of ideas that have surfaced again and again from the early modern period to contemporary disputes (Claerhout andDe Roover 2005, 2008).…”

Section: Historiographical Accountsmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Another phenomenon of vital importance is one which we will not consider in any depth here, but which we have examined elsewhere: these widely shared clusters of background ideas concerning tradition gave shape to how Indians adopted the English language from the colonial period onwards and how they use its relevant vocabulary such as 'religion', 'conversion', 'propagation', 'freedom', and the 'right to religious freedom' (Claerhout 2014;De Roover et al 2011). Inevitably, English-language terminology is mapped onto the natural language usage of the Indian vernaculars and their relevant vocabulary.…”

Section: A Culture Constituted By Traditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Religious Freedom and the Limits of Propagation: Conversion in the Constituent Assembly of India

Claerhout

Roover

2019

Religions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In discussions about religious freedom in India, the country’s conflict regarding conversion plays a central role. The Constitution’s freedom of religion clause, Article 25, grants the right “freely to profess, practise and propagate religion,” but this has generated a dispute about the meaning of the right ‘to propagate’ and its relation to the freedom to convert. The recognition of this right is said to be the result of a key debate in the Constituent Assembly of India. To find out which ideas and arguments gave shape to this debate and the resulting religious freedom clause, we turn to the Assembly’s deliberations and come to a surprising conclusion: indeed, there was disagreement about conversion among the Assembly members, but this never took the form of a debate. Instead, there was a disconnect between the member’s concerns, objections, and comments concerning the draft article on the one hand, and the Assembly’s decision about the religious freedom clause on the other. If a key ‘debate’ took this form, what then could the ongoing dispute concerning conversion in India be about? We first examine some recent historiographical accounts of the Indian conflicts about conversion and proselytization. Then we develop a hypothesis that aims to make sense of this enduring conflict by identifying a blindness at its core: people reasoning against the background of Indian traditions see ‘propagation of religion’ as the human dissemination of tradition; this is incompatible with a religious conception where conversion and propagation of faith are seen in terms of God’s intervention. These two ways of seeing ‘propagation’ generate two conflicting experiences of the Indian dispute about religious freedom and conversion.

show abstract

Section: Historiographical Accountsmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: A Culture Constituted By Traditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Religious Freedom and the Limits of Propagation: Conversion in the Constituent Assembly of India

Claerhout

Roover

2019

Religions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Religious freedom and cultural asymmetry: Some pitfalls of secularism

Roover

2019

Sikh Formations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both in post-Independence India and in contemporary Europe, the problems caused by state interference in religion and tradition are most visible in legal disputes and court decisions. In recent years, the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court of India, and lower-level courts in both parts of the world have had to decide on several major cases: from disputes concerning the wearing of the burqa and hijab in public spaces, through questions about the incompatibility between the right to religious freedom and the fixing of crucifixes on the walls of state school classrooms, to conflicts about government control of the management and practices of temples.Europe, India, and the Limits of Secularism (2015) addresses the theme of legal disputes concerning secularism and religious freedom only tangentially: it briefly looks at claims made by Indian judges about 'Hinduism' and examines one European case, that of Lautsi v. Italy, in some detail. Still, it is not a coincidence that two contributors to this colloquium point to relevant court decisions and note how certain issues at the heart of my book play out in the domain of law. Prakash Shah discusses a British case that involved the question whether the wearing of the Kara (a type of steel bracelet) is a requirement of the Sikh religion, a practice of exceptional importance to the claimant's religion, or neither. Rajalakshmi Nadadur Kannan mentions the important Sabarimala case. Here, the Supreme Court of India decided about the 'constitutionality' of a traditional practice in the temple of the deity Ayyappa in Sabarimala, a major pilgrimage center located in the South-Indian state of Kerala. The practice stipulates that women between 10 and 50 are not allowed to enter the temple. In his decision of 28

show abstract

Religious Conversion and Emancipation of Untouchables: Gandhi’s View, Ambedkar’s Action and Beyond

Sonowal

2023

Contemporary Voice of Dalit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dr B.R. Ambedkar led the mass conversion of the Mahar population from Hinduism to Navayana Buddhism in the year 1956, aiming at the emancipation of the Mahar community, who were treated as untouchables. Dr Ambedkar believed that since untouchability was a part of Hindu tradition, Mahars could not be freed from it until they remained within the Hindu tradition. Contrarily, M.K. Gandhi maintained religious conversion as the purification and change of heart and attaining a higher level of spirituality. Every great religion has the capability for reform within it. He believed that a change of heart being within own religious tradition might eradicate social evils like untouchability, and for that, one should not change his religion. The article thus discusses the various perspectives of religious conversions and analyses the views of these two great thinkers of modern India, situating the Mahar conversion as the primary focus. Based on secondary literature sources, the author tries to situate the views of Gandhi and Ambedkar in the broader discourse on religious conversion and show that the Mahar conversion had a socio-political necessity and Gandhi’s views and appeal for eradication of untouchability did not have a practical value given the socio-religious context in India.

show abstract

Gandhi, Conversion, and the Equality of Religions: More Experiments with Truth

Cited by 4 publications

References 15 publications

Religious Freedom and the Limits of Propagation: Conversion in the Constituent Assembly of India

Religious Freedom and the Limits of Propagation: Conversion in the Constituent Assembly of India

Religious freedom and cultural asymmetry: Some pitfalls of secularism

Religious Conversion and Emancipation of Untouchables: Gandhi’s View, Ambedkar’s Action and Beyond

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About