The conversion issue

[Robert Zydenbos]

At 21:56 19.01.99 -0500, Ashish Chandra wrote:

>Robert Zydenbos, in his last post on this topic, said that Hare
>Krishnas convert people in the US.

I did not say so. Please read carefully before criticising. I cannot be held responsible for poor reading.

><<<<
>RZ :
>The entire anti-conversion issue looks like something anti-individual,
>anti-democratic, anti-human, generated by political interests and not
>justified by any binding doctrine or any generally established practice. I
>believe that hardly anybody in the predominantly Christian West has raised
>a hue and cry about thousands and millions of people becoming Buddhists,
>Baha'is, Hindus, etc. etc. -- and this is how it should be.
>>>>>>
>This statement can only be made by one who is in total denial of the raw
>facts as they exist in India. You must have at least read the missive of
>the Sarvodaya leaders (Gandhians at that) who have written to PM Vajpayee
>on the activities of the missionaries in Dangs. I'd like to know the basis
>of such a statement(as above) if I may.

The basis is in the United Nations charter of human rights. I believe that India too is a member of that organisation.

[quote from the press]
>Fr Cedric Prakash was quite emphatic.  "Tribals are not Hindus.  They
>are animists"

According to a court ruling that was posted in this list recently, the speaker is right.

I am reminded of what B.R. Ambedkar wrote about Indian tribals in his book _Annihilation of Caste_: "Thirteen million people living in the midst of civilization are still in a savage state and are leading the life of hereditary criminals!! But the Hindus have never felt ashamed of it. This is a phenomenon which in my view is quite unparalleled."

Perhaps Ambedkar was 'anti-Indian'?

RZ