Savio Saldanha
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19116985
19-03-2026
In my previous reflection, Conscience at the Crossroads: Faith, Freedom, and Fear in the Shadow of Anti-Conversion Laws, dated 18-03-2026,(https://conscienceatcrossroads.blogspot.com/2026/03/conscience-at-crossroads-faith-freedom.html) , I spoke from a place of concern—about freedom, dignity, and the danger of the state entering the sacred space of conscience. I argued that faith is meaningful only when it is freely chosen and that the state lacks the competence to govern the "matters of the heart".
I
thank several people who have written to me expressing encouragement and also
their concerns. Some of you support the law, while others expressed doubts and
fears about its misuse. So today, I want to speak particularly to you all.
Because a conscience that speaks
must also learn to listen. And today, I want to listen.
Listening Before Judging
It
would be intellectually dishonest—and morally insufficient—to dismiss the
concerns of many in the Hindu community as mere “fear” or “propaganda.” Beneath
the heated debates, there are real anxieties:
- That
vulnerable communities may be exploited in the name of religion.
- That
material inducements may blur the line between service and persuasion.
- That
religious identity, deeply tied to community and heritage, may be
destabilized.
These
concerns cannot simply be brushed aside. Even though official Census data shows
that the Christian population has remained strikingly stable at approximately 2.3%
for over seventy years (1951–2011), numbers alone do not dissolve lived
perceptions. Where perception is ignored, distrust grows. And when distrust
grows the social structure fails.
The "Argumentative"
Tradition: Dialogue as Our Shared Heritage
To
address this distrust, we must look to what Nobel laureate Amartya Sen calls
the "Argumentative Indian" tradition. Our history is not
defined by a monolithic culture, but by a long-standing practice of public
reasoning and heterodoxy.
- Communitarian
Dialogue:
From the ancient Buddhist Councils to Emperor Akbar’s formal interfaith
dialogues, India has reached conclusions through collective deliberation,
not top-down decrees.
- The
Reach of Reason:
True "Indianness" involves listening to the Vitaraka (the
questioner). A social conclusion is only legitimate if it survives the
scrutiny of a diverse public forum.
The
current spectacle of "shouting matches" on social media and
television is a departure from this heritage. We must return to a model where
we argue with one another to find common ethical ground, rather than to silence
the opponent. A debate is meant to reach a mutually beneficial consensus while maintaining
the dignity of all the parties involved. This means moving away from the ad
hominem culture, which is an attempt to discredit someone's
argument by personally attacking them. Instead of discussing the argument
itself, criticism is directed toward the opponent's character, which is
irrelevant to the discussion.
Towards a Shared Ethical Ground:
The Panchsheel of Faith
To
elaborate on this segment, we must see Panchsheel not merely as a
diplomatic treaty from 1954, but as a living philosophy that bridges the gap
between different faiths. By reframing these five principles, we move from a
"legal" mindset to an "ethical" one, grounded in the shared
values of Indian philosophical traditions and Catholic social teaching.
1. Mutual Respect: The
Recognition of Shared Light
This
principle moves beyond "tolerance," which implies merely putting up
with someone. Instead, it adopts the Sikh and Upanishadic wisdom that "The
One Light is the light in all bodies". From a Catholic perspective,
this is the recognition of the imago Dei—that every person, regardless
of their creed, is a bearer of divine dignity. Mutual respect means looking at
a person of another faith and seeing a brother or sister, not a competitor nor
an enemy.
2. Non-Aggression: Rejecting the
"Spectacle" of Hate
In the modern context, aggression
is rarely just physical; it is digital and rhetorical. Non-aggression means:
- Rejecting
Coercion:
Acknowledging, as both the Catechism and the Second Vatican Council
do, that faith can never be compelled or forced.
- Silencing
Diatribes:
Consciously choosing to end the "vicious diatribes" and hate
comments that have become normalized on social media and the national
television debates.
- Witness
over Strategy:
Prioritizing "witness"—living truthfully and serving freely—over
aggressive attempts to increase "numbers".
3. Non-Interference: Protecting
the "Inner Sanctuary"
This
is the most critical principle regarding anti-conversion laws. It demands that
the state and religious institutions respect the "inner sanctuary" of
the human conscience.
- Interiority: Recognizing that faith is a
personal orientation toward truth that belongs to the interior life, as
Mahatma Gandhi taught.
- The
Limits of Authority:
Accepting that the state lacks the competence to govern matters of the
heart. To interfere in this space is to "legislate conscience,"
which only serves to diminish it.
4. Equality: Human Dignity Beyond
Hierarchy
This
principle challenges the "Varna" divisions or any system that
suggests one group is inherently superior to another.
- Universal
Standing:
Acknowledging that no religion or nation stands "outside the horizon
of divine concern".
- Social
Justice:
Following B.R. Ambedkar’s lead, equality means the freedom to reject
structures that deny dignity. It insists that every type of discrimination
is contrary to the Creator’s intent.
5. Peaceful Coexistence: The
Reality of One Human Family
This
is the final goal: moving from a collection of suspicious groups to a single
"human family".
- Vasudhaiva
Kutumbakam:
Embracing the Hindu and Sikh ideal that the whole world is one family.
- Fratelli
Tutti:
Echoing Pope Francis’s call that fraternity is not an "optional
charity" but a demand of justice.
Reclaiming Universal Brotherhood
India
is a civilizational conversation, once characterized by the
"mechanical" kindness of strangers without asking for religion or
caste. This Universal Brotherhood is not a poetic metaphor; it is a
theological and social demand. When we choose dialogue over state-enforced
suspicion, we protect everyone:
- Hindus are protected from genuine
coercion.
- Christians
and Muslims
are protected from being viewed as "foreigners" or
"invaders".
- Individuals are protected in their
dignity to seek truth and to make choices based on their decisions.
A Word to My Christian Community:
The Path of Integrity
For
Christians in India, this is a time not for fear, but for clarity and integrity.
The Church must return to its deepest identity: as a community that witnesses
quietly and faithfully to the Gospel.
- A
call to humility and transparency
Anti-conversion
debates can tempt Christians either to become defensive or to retreat into
silence. Both responses miss the point. The Catholic tradition itself insists
that faith must always be a free response to divine grace, never compelled by
force, fear, or manipulation. If there are any practices—however rare—that blur
this line, we must name them honestly and reject them.
This
means embracing complete transparency in our ministries: being clear about who
we are, why we serve, and what we believe, without hidden agendas. It also
means being willing to listen when others express discomfort, and to ask
whether anything in our attitudes feeds suspicion.
- Service
without strategy
For
many Christians in India, everyday life is marked by small, quiet acts of
service: teaching in schools, working in hospitals, accompanying the poor, and
standing with those whom society forgets. These actions arise from a conviction
that every human being bears an inviolable dignity, not from a strategy to
“increase numbers.”
At
the same time, we must recognize how easily service can be misread as a kind of
bargaining chip—especially when anti-conversion rhetoric is strong. The call,
then, is to continue serving without resentment, without calculation, and
without turning compassion into propaganda. Our task is to “live truthfully,”
to love without conditions, and to let our works speak for itself. If we are
misunderstood, we respond not with anxiety, but with even greater patience and
openness.
- Recognizing
God beyond the Church
One
of the most important theological insights of the Second Vatican Council is
that the Spirit of God is at work beyond the visible boundaries of the
Church. Rays of truth and holiness are present in other religions, in
diverse cultures, and in the lives of people who may never call themselves
Christian.
To
take this seriously means that Christians in India must approach other
communities and persons as partners on a shared journey toward truth and
justice, learning from their wisdom and allowing ourselves to be challenged by
their witness.
- Integrity
over numbers
India’s
own census data shows that the proportion of Christians in the country has
remained remarkably stable over the last seventy years, with no sign of
large-scale demographic shifts. Yet public discourse often speaks as if there
were an aggressive “Christian expansion” happening across the land.
In
this context, Christians must refuse both triumphalism and victimhood. Our
credibility will never come from statistics or growth curves; it will come from
witness—how we live, how we serve, how we defend the freedom of conscience for
all. To stand for this freedom is not merely to protect “our rights”; it is to
remain faithful to the heart of the Gospel.
A Word to My Hindu Brothers and
Sisters: Moving from Suspicion to Encounter
To
my Hindu brothers and sisters, I want to speak not as an opponent, but as a
fellow citizen who loves this land and its people. I recognize that for many,
the question of religious conversion is not just about law. It touches deep
anxieties about cultural memory, civilizational continuity, and the protection
of vulnerable communities.
- Taking
concerns seriously
It
would be shallow—and disrespectful—to simply dismiss fears about “mass
conversions” or cultural erosion. In a country with a long history marked by
colonization, exploitation, and social fragmentation, any perception of
religious imbalance can feel threatening. Concerns about exploited communities
are also real. There have been moments, in different times and places, where
religion has been used to take advantage of poverty, ignorance, or social
vulnerability. These anxieties deserve to be heard carefully, not brushed aside
as mere “propaganda.”
2. 2. Weaponising
History
We
are aware of the historical wounds and acknowledge that these have not been
healed completely. Years of colonization, oppression and a bloody partition has
left permanent scars on the social fabric of this nation and has wounded the
feeling of trust which took decades to rebuild. However, we must also be
careful when this history is weaponised to turn a community of Indian citizens
into enemies. We must remember that the Nazis used the similar modus operandi
with the Jews and if history has taught us anything, we must remember how it
ended.
Hence,
whenever we are fed propaganda - by media, political, social and religious leaders
– we need to stop and reflect, ‘whom does this benefit?’ also, ‘how
long can we dwell on the past atrocities without destroying our present and
future?’ Social awakening begins from a single individual who reflects
and does what is right.
- The
danger of building on control
At
the same time, there is a danger in responding to fear with control. When a
nation begins to organize itself around the control of conscience—through
registration requirements, surveillance, or the threat of criminalization—it
takes a dangerous step. It slowly trains its citizens to live in suspicion of
one another.
India’s
own history shows that for many, especially Dalits and other marginalized
communities, changing one’s religion has sometimes been an act of protest
against entrenched injustice. When the state makes it extremely difficult to
change religion, using the fear of punishment or public shaming, it risks
locking people into the very systems they are trying to escape. In practice,
such laws can end up protecting old Varna divisions more than protecting
vulnerable persons.
- Freedom
as a moral foundation
A
healthy society is not one in which everyone stays within the community of
their birth because they are too afraid to do otherwise. It is one in which
people freely choose their spiritual path, and where that freedom is protected
even when it is uncomfortable.
Freedom
of conscience is not a Western import. It is deeply resonant with the Indian
traditions that emphasize interiority, personal responsibility, and the search
for truth. Gandhi understood religion as something fundamentally interior,
beyond the competence of the state to regulate. Ambedkar’s own act of
conversion was, among other things, a powerful statement that the human person
must be free to step away from structures that deny dignity. If we build a
system where conscience is controlled by fear, we may preserve outward
uniformity, but we will slowly erode the inner moral strength that a true
civilization requires.
A Word to Every Citizen: Choosing
to Live Together
Ultimately,
this is not only a Christian question, nor only a Hindu question. It is a civic
and human question: What kind of people do we want to become together?
and What world do we leave as inheritance for our future generations?
- Law
or trust?
Laws
are necessary. They protect us from violence, fraud, and exploitation. No
one—Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or atheist—wants a society where the weak
can be manipulated or pressured into religious acts they do not understand. But
once law begins to move from protecting the vulnerable to policing inner
convictions, something essential is at risk.
A
democracy worthy of the name depends on a certain amount of mutual trust: trust
that our neighbor is more than their religious label, trust that the state will
not intrude into the most intimate spaces of our conscience. When suspicion and
surveillance become normal, we may still have elections and courts, but the
moral atmosphere of freedom begins to thin.
2. Role of Government
In
India's democracy, the government's role mirrors that of a service provider.
Citizens pay taxes, expecting essentials like education, healthcare, food
security, housing, jobs, and infrastructure in return.
This
mandate aligns with the Constitution, which enshrines political
non-interference and freedom of religion as core rights under Articles 25-28.
The state has no business dictating personal choices—be it diet, attire,
marriage, or faith—each a fundamental liberty no law or mob vigilantism
(evoking authoritarian echoes like the SS) can override. The elected government
exists to serve its people not dictate its propaganda, and definitely not to ‘divide
and rule’.
3. The conversion of conscience
The
real “conversion” our country needs right now is not from one religion to
another. It is a conversion of conscience—from fear to responsibility, from
suspicion to encounter, from indifference to costly solidarity. This means
learning to see the “One Light” refracted in many forms—in different religions,
languages, and cultures—without feeling threatened by that diversity. It calls
us to build spaces where people can speak honestly about their faith, their
doubts, and their hurts, without fear of legal consequences or social revenge.
Conclusion: Choosing to Live
Together
We
stand at a quiet but decisive crossroads. One path leads toward a society where
conscience is free, where dignity of choice is respected, and where the state
recognizes limits to its authority. The other path leads toward routine
suspicion, slow erosion of liberty, and a future in which our children may
think twice before speaking openly about what they believe.
The
choice before us is not abstract. It will be made in our conversations, our
votes, our religious communities, and our willingness to stand up for the
freedom of those with whom we disagree. To choose wisely is to embrace a
“costly solidarity”—to refuse the comfort of retreating into our own religious
or social enclaves.
We
can continue walk on this dangerous road of self-destruction or we can stop,
reflect and dialogue as communities as our ancestors did – from Buddha to
Ashoka and from Ashoka to Akbar. We must bring back the forgotten art of
argumentation, of dialogue and learn from each other and from our past
mistakes. We must accept what is good and reject vehemently the destructive policies,
agendas, propagandas of hatred and suspicion.
In
the spirit of this shared responsibility, I end with a prayer that belongs to
India’s ancient wisdom and yet resonates with every conscience that longs for
peace:
Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah — May all be happy.
Sarve Santu Niramayah — May all be free from illness.
Sarve Bhadrani Pashyantu — May all see what is auspicious.
Ma Kashchid Dukha Bhag Bhavet — May none suffer.
May
this not remain only a Sanskrit verse we quote, but a moral horizon we choose
together.
References:
Primary Sources
- Sen,
A. (2005). The argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian history,
culture and identity. Allen Lane (Penguin).
Demographic Data
- Census
of India. (1951–2011). Religion data (Tables on Christian
population percentages: ~2.3% stable from 1951–2011). Office of the
Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India. Retrieved from https://censusindia.gov.in
- Pew
Research Center. (2021, September 21). The religious composition
of India.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/09/21/religious-composition-of-india/
Catholic Teachings
- Catholic
Church. (1994). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd
ed., para. 1738–1743 on freedom of conscience). Libreria Editrice
Vaticana. https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
- Second
Vatican Council. (1965, December 7). Dignitatis humanae:
Declaration on religious freedom. Promulgated by Pope Paul VI. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
Indian Thinkers
- Gandhi,
M. (1958–1994). The collected works of Mahatma Gandhi (Vols.
1–100). Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India. (Relevant: Discussions on interior faith and limits
of state authority.) https://www.gandhiheritageportal.org
- Ambedkar,
B. R. (1936). Annihilation of caste. (Undelivered speech;
self-published). Bombay: Bharat Bhushan Press. (Later editions: Columbia
University Press, 2014.)
https://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_caste.html
No comments:
Post a Comment