Dr Brainerd Prince
I have just watched the movie The Least of These based on the murder of the Australian missionary, Graham Staines and his two young sons by radicalised Hindus. The three of them were burnt alive even as they slept in their station wagon in Manoharpur, Orrisa. The then president of India, K.R. Narayanan, did not mince words in condemning the act and called it ‘a monumental aberration of time-tested tolerance and harmony. The killings belong to the world’s inventory of black deeds.’ The then prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee too condemned the ‘ghastly attack’ while calling for swift action to catch the killers.
My aim here however is not to retell either the Graham Staines story or the movie’s version of it. Neither am I going to offer a review of the movie. What I am interested in however is to learn from the movie and its version of the story, insights on conversion.
The word ‘conversion’ at its core has the dynamic idea of ‘change’ from one ‘form’ or ‘figure’ to another. Mathematically put, A changes to become B. At the level of ideas, this is a common human phenomenon that all humans experience in their everyday life. All of us, in light of the new information we receive or the experiences we have, change our thoughts, feelings and even actions. We are constantly becoming something different.
But conversion, particularly in the religious sense,has the notion of a change of allegiance and identity. In the religious sense, the term conversion is used when a person from religion A changes his allegiance and faith to religion B. Some of the problem with religious conversion comes from the fact that it entails some sense of the term ‘turned’ as there is a change in one’s allegiance and love from one’s religious tradition to another.
Let’s explore a bit more on why religious conversion is such a sensitive issue. Although the freedom of religion is part of every citizen’s personal fundamental rights, religious freedom is never a personal affair. For most adherents of religion, their conscious or unconscious choice of religion is the ‘religion of their fathers’ or family religion. I am always part of a family or community in practicing my religion. Therefore, leaving or converting from one’s religion is often seen as being turned from one’s own family and community. In other words, even if one converted purely due to one’s own choice it would still evoke the wrath of the family and community as they feel betrayed. There is a sense of loss and a deep sadness in the religious goodbyes. Conversion is seen as betrayal, as a turning away from one’s religion, family and community and accepting another religion with a different network of relationships. This leaving of one and the cleaving to another is a reality that conversion entails, which is at the heart of problem of religious conversion.
The problem is compounded and the stakes are exponentially raised if religion B actively solicits the followers of religion A to convert to Religion B. Religion B is immediately seen as an enemy and a threat. The feeling of betrayal is intensified due to the changed demographics brought about by conversion. It is a mourning of the loss of resources and capital – economic, social and human. And if conversion was a result of another religion’s schema of active proselytization then it is even considered as ‘theft’ and ‘robbery’.
Now imagine, if Religion B uses unfair and illegal means such as coercion or inducement to promote its proselytization activities. Then would it not attract the anger of Religion A as well as the long arm of the law? It is this form of conversion that has been termed as illegal and as criminal activity.
Graham Staines was accused of such criminal activities and hence initially his murder was portrayed as rightful retribution by those angered and hurt by his conversion activities. Even the Supreme Court in its ruling said ‘In the case on hand, though Graham Staines and his two minor sons were burnt to death while they were sleeping inside a station wagon at Manoharpur, the intention was to teach a lesson to Graham Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity.’ Although these statements were later expunged from the ruling, the perception that Staines only got what he deserved continued to justify his murder in the public’s imagination.
Through its investigative journalistic approach, the movie proved beyond all doubts that Staines was not into conversion, leave alone coercive conversion of any kind. It seeks to set the record straight by showing that there is not a shred of evidence to support the false claims against Staines. This comes across most clearly through the character of Sundar, who was Graham’s first leprosy patient, and worked with Graham, but even after 30 years had not converted to Christianity. I would claim that this is the biggest achievement of the movie for the public at large.
But our goal here is to mine for insights that we can learn about conversion from this movie. I want to share three insights on conversion that I picked up even as I watched the movie:
First, that the conversion charge can be brought upon any work done in an interreligious context. Although the law states that charitable work must be done amongst all people irrespective of caste, creed or religion, when people of one religion work amongst people of another religion, they open themselves to the charge of conversion. The character of Sundar and his relationship with Staines can serve as a prototype relationship between those who serve and its recipients. While Sundar had a reason not to convert, someone else in Sundar’s place might choose to convert. Then, those who serve will be implicated, even if it is no fault of their own. How do we get out of this dilemma? How do we avoid genuine misunderstandings? I can only see one way forward. One must do precisely the opposite of what the pastor baptizing the young woman did in the movie. The pastor had not only not done his legal homework of getting the affidavit document ready prior to the baptism, but also commits the fatal mistake of not engaging with the girl’s father and community before baptizing her. If conversion is a communal affair as it affects the family and community then the community must be taken into confidence and all objections answered before one gets involved in the conversion rituals. This shows genuine care for the person converting, as her family and community are respected and taken into confidence.
Secondly, even if all the rules are followed and someone converts by the book, it will still have consequences. The converted person has left his religion and in so doing has distanced himself from his family and community who are adherents of the religion which he has left. This leaving is mourned, thus evoking an emotional response of sadness and anger. We see this when the father of the converted girl in the movie confronts his daughter and dangerously threatens her with the lighted torch in his hands. What is the insight to be learned here? One must not only be empathetic to the mourning of the family and community of the one converted, but also make sure that the mourning is minimized. This can be done when the adherents of the religion to which the person converts, ensure that the converted one, even if she is overcome with zeal for her new-found-religion, continues to maintain close relationship with her family and community after conversion. It will be easier for the converted to break all ties and bonds and start a new life, but staying within the old network of relationships and negotiating the new relationships would be the cross every convert needs to bear.
Finally, true conversion is the conversion of the heart particularly of a heart that has a healthy scepticism. The real convert in the movie were neither the lepers nor the poor people amongst whom Staines worked. The real convert is Manav Banerjee, the journalist who sceptically pursues the agenda to expose the coercive practices of Staines. Towards the end of the movie we find him on his knees before Gladys Staines seeking forgiveness for the role he might have played in the atrocities that happened to her family. It is at that moment that one gets to see a glimpse of a converted heart. Then comes the explicit display of the converted self even as he goes against the dominant sentiments of his community, against his employer, and against the Newspaper that hired him, thus jeopardizing his job, by exposing them in his final scathing article with the Times of India.
This was a stand of truth and a stand of power, power to stand for one’s convictions and beliefs. This is the kind of conversion that Staines would have approved, a kind of conversion that made not just his work but also death meaningful. Of course, both Manav, his wife and their baby suffered negative consequences, but it was not from his family or community. His wife was with him in this decision. It was only the miscreants and criminals who were against him. But the people of India and her legal system know very well what to do with miscreants and criminals. Justice will truly prevail.
