Better late than never

“Better late than never.” Justifying the adage, the top notch of the Bharatiya Janata Party and prime ministerial candidate L K Advani eventually broke his silence over the communal violence against Christians whether in Orissa or Karnataka.

Since the eruption of violence, perhaps he was thinking to speak at the right time and at the right place. God knows whether it was the right time or not, but certainly it was the right place as he said: “since I am in Orissa, I would like to say a few things about the recent unfortunate happenings in the state.”

Was he waiting for his visit to riot-hit Orissa to open his mouth? Agreed, since he was in Orissa it was mandatory for him to speak on the matter. But, isn't it too late? Shouldn’t he have needed to speak much earlier, at least when vandalism of churches and violence against minority communities (here, Christians) reached from East to South in Karnataka? As a top BJP leader, was he not required to condemn violence much earlier?

Few days ago, another BJP leader and national spokesperson Rajnath Singh condemned such kind of violence saying, 'BJP do not support any kind of violence.'

It is to be noted here that such statements have been issued only after the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) conveying that the Sangh don’t approve such kind of violent campaign. It is, however, needless to mention here that RSS might have come with this statement, especially, when all around protest has started gaining momentum seeking ban on Bajrang Dal.

For long, till RSS denial of supporting violence against Christian communities, no BJP top leader condemned or even regretted the attacks on churches.

Advani came with a well-thought balanced statements from both sides (pro and against communal violence) that can be read as: “The killing of Swami Laxmanananda, a widely revered Hindu leader, and three others was a provocative and highly condemnable incident. The culprits behind this crime must be nabbed and punished. Also, the motive behind the crime also needs to be established.”

“At the same time, the violent reaction to this incident, resulting in attacks on churches and the killing of many innocent Christians, is also condemnable. The guilty should not be spared. Such incidents must not be repeated, either in Orissa or anywhere else in the country.”

The pro-violence against Christians justifying their acts, which can not be described as a rational argument, said that the recent attacks on churches in Orissa and Karnataka was a response to an attempt at forcible conversion of the community that is majority in India.

If there were recent reports of forcible conversion being carried out by Christian missionaries at several places, the things could be sorted out through administrative measures under the ambit of Constitution. Advani, too, said any move against conversion must not become a campaign against any community.

At last, circumstances forced Advani to give up unidirectional thinking on 'terrorism' and take up the 'unity and integrity' of India that could be at stake, if these unruly activists, who think Hindu religion can only be saved by vandalising churches or any other religious places, are not restrained in perpetuity.

The time is though ripe for a free and frank democratic debate on the issue of religious conversions, with a view to develop a firm national consensus against proselytisation using methods of coercion or inducements or by vilifying any faith.

However, a campaign against conversions cannot and must not become a campaign against any community. There can be no justification for violence or vandalism in the name of religion.