The conversion issue

[Partha Banerjee]

Bijoy Misra writes:

...>Indian press reports what it
>perceives as journalism.

But that does not mean it is necessarily good journalism. In fact, in many
instances, it's pretty bad. Lousy to be precise.

>
>The reason I write this note is to remind us that
>it's not our goal (I think) to impose our views on people.
...
>Scholars study history, culture, rituals, politics,
>but they aren't politicians.  Dogmas are left for
>the preachers, evangelists, orators, who have taken
>upon themselves the act of preaching.

To believe that "scholars" cannot be political is dogmatic too. There have
been many scholars who kept involved in political theorization and
activism. I see no problems with that. We also need to define what is
politics and what is not.

Like I said before, to play apolitical often is a ploy to keep critics and
criticism out of the way. So, playing/preaching "apolitical" often is
purposefully political.

>
>To impose one's belief on another is called conversion.
>All adult human beings have some belief of their
>mortality, sins, goodness and character.  Religious
>preachers try to change it.  Sometimes it's changed
>by political machine.

Yes, I agree. That's exactly what is happening in India and abroad in the
name of Hindutva. Imposition, appropriation, and extermination is the name
of the game.

>
>There is no known Hindu preacher across the borders of India
>until Swami Vivekananda started his ministry in NY in 1893.
>Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada followed with a different tradition
>in 1969.

Then are we saying that ancient Hindu and Buddhist kings and statespersons
never preached beyond the borders of India? Or, are we implying whatever
regions were under their preaching mission are/were all nothing but parts
of Hindu India or Bharatvarsha?


Just my two cents.

-Partha


p.s. -- In my opinion, one "scholar" publicly calling another names
(communist or anti-Indian or whatever) is not quite scholarly.