’(Telephonic interview with Islamic scholar, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan)

What are your views on the Prime Minister’s call for a national debate on the issue of religious conversions?
First of all, I would like to state that this is one more case of a non–issue being converted into an issue. Only recently, our Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen has said that the real issue before the nation is education. I agree one hundred per cent with that remark and would add the creation of a proper infrastructure to our list of top priorities.

But since the issue has been raised, what are your views on the subject?
Firstly, I would say that given Hinduism’s centuries’–old clear commitment on the issue, we cannot even raise this subject. From the Vedas and Gita to Swami Vivekanand and Gandhi, Hinduism has always maintained that Truth is only one though there are many paths that lead to it. So, before any debate on the conversion question, let Hindus first decide whether the first commitment of Hinduism — one truth, many paths — is right or wrong.

Secondly, the Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right of every citizen to profess, practice and propagate a religion of his or her choice. Can Indian democracy give to its citizens something with one hand and take it away with the other?

Thirdly, India is one of the nearly 200 countries of the world that are signatories to the 50–year–old United Nations Charter on Human Rights. Included among these rights is complete religious freedom for every individual. Do we now propose to go back on that commitment?

We should first make our stance clear on these three points before we can even begin to discuss the issue of conversions. Otherwise, we would be guilty of double standards and hypocrisy, of saying one thing and doing another.

What about the charge of forcible conversions?
I would say that it defies common sense to say that a community which is less than three per cent of India’s population would even risk forcible conversion of people from a religion that constitutes a majority. So, prima facie, the charge is absolutely baseless. I might also point out that the charge of forcible conversions earlier levelled against Muslims was equally baseless. I can do nothing better than quote Swami Vivekanand on this: "It is nonsense to say that Hindus were converted by the sword."

And what about the charge of monetary inducements?
Just the other day I happened to watch a programme on BBC in which one of the persons interviewed was an adivasi from Gujarat who had converted to Christianity. This is what he told the BBC: "When we were sick and badly needed medical care, it is the Christians who came to our rescue. They are the ones who cared for our education. That is why I was quite impressed by their faith and decided to convert." Now, if this is inducement to conversion, what prevents anyone else from going to extremely poor and badly neglected tribal areas and impressing people with their spirit of service?