Religious conversions and
religion related violence against individuals and churches have been in the
news for some months in many parts of the island. Globally, such conversions have always been controversial,
and religions have been central issues in violence and wars at every level for
millennia. But in our history, except in
times of foreign invasions and colonial rule (whether South Indian or
European), such violence has been localized and short lived. Virtually all of us are descended from those
who had changed their faith, whether in the recent or distant past, for one
reason or another. Tolerance and
generosity to those of other faiths has been a cherished Sri Lankan tradition
through most of our history. Religious
conversion and diversity are not new to us; but for at least two centuries we
have not experienced sustained widespread religion-related violence.
This is not to suggest that there
had been no coercion to secure conversion during colonial times. Under both Portuguese and Dutch rule, the
state and church were closely linked.
The Dutch denied to non-converts government jobs and contracts, and the
right to register inherited property; Roman Catholics were specially targeted
for persecution, and many of them found refuge in the Kandyan provinces as, on
other occasions, persecuted Muslims.
Under the British, the state-church link weakened, and the intensity of
coercion dwindled, but the playing field for conversions remained distinctly
uneven.
People may convert for a variety
of political reasons, or in response to missionary activity, or for
socio-economic gains, or for one personal reason or another. Most conversions are linked directly or
indirectly to political factors such as a relevant regime change. Thus, the conversion of Emperor Constantine
to Christianity in the 4th century A.D. led, very quickly, to
millions of his subjects embracing his new faith. The conversion to Buddhism of Emperor Asoka
in
Sometimes there may be political
conversions in the opposite directions as a signal of revolt. Dramatic examples include the conversion of
Dr. B. Ambedkar and millions of Indian Dalits (untouchables) to Buddhism in the
middle of the last century and, across the globe, not long afterwards, of
thousands of Black Americans into Islam.
The move to convert some Jaffna Tamil “untouchables” to Buddhism was
short lived, but such conversion, signalling political revolt, are continuing
in many lands.
Missionary activity has also been
a major factor in religious conversion.
Buddhism and Christianity have long and sustained missionary
traditions. Historically, the Buddha
launched the first major missionary programme when he sent out 60 missionaries
with the directive, “Go forth and preach the Dhamma for the spiritual and
economic well being of the multitude”, with the advice to suffer persecution
without retaliation. Despite hostility, and lack of funding or backing from the
authorities, these pioneer missionaries were very successful. Five centuries later, the first band of
Christian missionaries fanned out with similar directives, under equally adverse
conditions, and with similar success. In some periods, Hinduism produced very
successful missionaries (such as Shankara Achariya of Kanchi), and so did
Islam. Particularly in the case of
Christianity, missionary activity often followed in the wake of imperial
expansion. In contrast, the spread of
Buddhism in
The other major factor referred
to was socio-economic gains, but this cannot be separated from the political
factor. Clearly, there are
socio-economic benefits in adopting the faith of the ruling class. Independent of, or supplementary to any
missionary activity, some of the early Christian converts in the European
colonies in the
The different conversion
categories, viz. political, missionary and socio-economic are neither
independent nor mutually exclusive. They
overlap and reinforce each other. It is
when political factors, missionary activity and socio-economic inducement work
in conjunction, e.g. as in
The political factor may not
always be linked to the faith of the ruler or ruling class. In a democracy, the religion of the majority
of the population may count for more than the religion of the ruler. In
The residual factor listed was
“personal reasons”. Muslim traders and
Portuguese soldiers arrived in large numbers a few centuries ago, and married
local women who then converted to the faiths of their husbands. Even today, in the case of inter-religious
marriages, such conversions occur. There
could also be other personal reasons – such as changes in religious conviction
effected without the mediation of missionaries.
But currently the scale of such conversions may be negligible.
The changes in the statistics of
the religious affiliation of the population are revealing. We note that the proportion of Buddhists,
which was 60.0% in 1901 had risen to 69.5% in 1981, and the rising trend is
continuing; of Muslims, which was 6.9 % in 1901 had risen to 7.6% in 1981, and
the rising trend is continuing; and of Christians, which was 9.8 % in 1901 had
declined to 6.9% in 1981, and the declining trend is continuing. There had been no major migratory flows in
the British period, except of Malaiyaha Tamils (mostly Hindus), and that
migration was largely circular up to the 40s and declined from the 60s on
account of “repatriation” to India. This
decline is reflected in the drop in the proportion of Hindus from 22.0% in 1931
to 15.5% in 1981. The proportion of Malaiyaha Tamils peaked to 15.4% in 1931
and fell to 5.5% in 1981. There has
been no complete census since 1981, but the partial census of 2001 does not
indicate any radical changes in the trends referred to above.
The increase in the proportion of
Christians up to the 1911 census is not surprising; conversions from Buddhism
and Hinduism were only to be expected in the colonial period. What is significant is the subsequent
continuing decline in the proportion of Christians, which is now about two
thirds of what it was a century earlier.
In an earlier period, the emigration of Burghers may have been a minor
contributory factor in this decline, but there is no evidence that there were
disproportionately more Christians among the emigrants from the other
communities in this period. What is
causing the decline now? The likely
explanation is that many Christians are reconverting to their ancestral faith,
mostly into Buddhism, which is emerging with increasing dominance as the
leading faith of the population of
If Christianity is declining in
aggregate terms, why is there so much concern about relatively small numbers of
conversions to Christianity? It could be
that in particular localities even small numbers of highly visible new
conversions and the erection of new churches may be seen as threatening by the
local Buddhist / Hindu population. From
their perspective, neither the decline in Christian population elsewhere, nor
the fact that most of the conversions are from other (older) Christian denominations
into new ones, is of any consequence; what offends is the public rejection of
their old faith by the new converts, coupled with the intrusion of an
unfamiliar aggressive Christian feature into the religious profile of their
neighbourhood. A feature of some of
these conversions that is obnoxious to many of all faiths is the attribution of
the economic gains of these converts to divine grace and favour in reward for
accepting conversion; in a few cases there is an even more repulsive feature –
the desecration by the convert of
symbols of the former faith.
In the colonial period the
eruption of such conversions was more severe and spread across in the island,
but the reaction was muted. Why is it
that today the small numbers of conversions in a few scattered localities is
blowing up into a national crisis? The
explanation may be that some among the non-Christian population, particularly
among Buddhists, spurred by the accumulated resentment of the inequitable
advantages previously enjoyed by Christian individuals and institutions (some
of which, especially relating to access to foreign funds, are continuing), may
consider that now, with the political and social balance tilted in their
favour, the tables could and need to be turned to compensate for past handicaps
and humiliations. Many Buddhists may
also feel more empowered to react aggressively.
Two strands of the reaction have
emerged. The immediate demand to
legislate against Christian evangelical activity. The other is to clip the wings of those
Christian institutions that yet enjoy social prestige and influence through the
provision of quality education and training and socio-economic development and
welfare services. There are many,
including those of all faiths, who empathise with this reaction, but fear the
consequences of precipitate legislation and other unilateral action, and
consider that any legislation and other state intervention is best decided on
after consultation among the leadership of Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and
Christian communities. The relations
between these leaders has always been cordial, and a consensus solution should
be possible even in this controversial field.
There is a perception among many
Buddhists and Hindus, and some Muslims and Christians too, that there is
currently considerable “unethical” religious conversions into some Christian
sects, often involving substantial material inducements, and sometimes
accompanied by acts desecrating objects sacred to non-Christians, and that the
authorities concerned have acted neither to check such “unethical” conversions
nor to prosecute those responsible.
Similarly, there is much alarm among many Christians and others that
there is considerable violence directed against Christian individuals and
institutions, and that the authorities concerned have acted neither to check
such violence nor to prosecute those responsible. Whether or not these perceptions and fears
are justified or exaggerated, it is necessary to immediately and effectively
address them collectively.
It is therefore proposed that an
inter-religious team of eminent persons held in high regard by the leaders and
others of their own as well as other faiths be commissioned by religious
leaders/civil society/state authorities to:
1) Formulate guidelines and codes of conduct
in respect of:
i)
religious conversions
ii)
socio-economic development and welfare activities of
religious bodies, and the need for inter-religious cooperation in such
activities so as to avoid the identification of any particular religion with
the benefits disbursed, with particular regard to any disparity in access to
foreign funding
iii) religious
activities, speeches and publications that may offend or spread prejudice
against those of other faiths
iv)
religion related violence and incitement to violence
2) Recommend
the structure and powers of an inter-religious body that could monitor,
entertain complaints and intervene in consultation with state authorities and
religious bodies in respect of i), ii), iii) & iv) above.
3) Recommend
if any legislation is necessary in respect of the above and, if so, the scope
of such legislation.
Brig. Ranjan de Silva
Dr. Asoka de Zoysa
Dr. H.S. Hasbullah
Mr. M.C.M. Iqbal
Mr. Stanley Jayaweera
Prof. W.D. Lakshman
Mr. Kethesh Loganathan
Prof. M.A. Nuhuman
Mr. W. Sterling Perera
Prof. K. Sivathamby
Dr. Selvy Thiruchandran
Dr. Devanesan Nesiah (Convener)