Pope John II is peeved and perturbed but obsessively persistent -- about his declared mission of harvesting umpteen souls in India. According to an Associated Press report from Vatican City published in The Times of India, Mumbai, on June 4, 2003, he told a group of visiting Indian bishops to 'courageously' proclaim the gospel in India notwithstanding --

• 'Increased activity of a few Hindu fundamentalist groups which are creating suspicion of the church and other religions'
• 'Unfortunately, in some regions the state authorities have yielded to the pressures of these extremists and have passed unjust conversion laws, prohibiting free exercise of the natural right to religious freedom'
• 'State support has been withdrawn for those in the Scheduled Castes who have chosen Christianity'
• 'People experience animosity, discrimination and even violence because of their religious or tribal affiliations.'

The above 'revelations' by His Holiness indicate Frustration with a capital F. And it is understandable because despite the colossal money and missionary effort pumped into this country since the times of St Thomas some 2,000 years ago, the Christian population of India remains below three per cent of the total. The Muslims have always preferred the Koran to the Bible and the Hindus have preferred Ganga jal to church water. That the converts in the Northeast pose a problem for our motherland is, of course, a different matter, though there too the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and its Parivar are working to ensure that the imported cross ultimately loses out to the swadeshi trishul.

Nonetheless, the Pope's arrogance in denigrating the laws, the lawmakers and the laity of this country needs to be shredded -- not only to set the record straight but also because 'cut and thrust' seems to be the only language that the Vatican understands.

For instance, we don't recall any howls of protest or hectoring on religious freedom emanating from Rome when, in 1998, an Israeli legislator Nissim Zvili, sponsored an anti-proselytising bill. Instead, the CNN web site reported on March 31 that year that the Israeli move was dropped when 'representatives of 50 Christian evangelical groups agreed to make an unprecedented joint statement promising not to carry out missionary activity in Israel.'

In that statement, the Christian groups said they agree to avoid 'activities which... alienate them (Jews) from their tradition and community.' (Page 26, Christianity in India: The Hindutva Perspective, Hindu Vivek Kendra, Mumbai, second edition, 1999, by Ashok Chowgule, President, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Maharashtra Region).

Nor does one recall Rome howling at Russia when that country passed its bill entitled 'On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations' that gave official status only to the Russian Orthodox Church, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism, and discriminated against many other faiths, including Roman Catholicism and Protestant sects (ibid, page 18).

But when it comes to benevolent, tolerant India, the Vatican shows its fangs. It has now dubbed as 'unjust' the recent anti-conversion measures of the Tamil Nadu and Gujarat governments, decried the Constitution of India provision that only Hindus can get the various benefits earmarked for the Scheduled Castes, given labels to Hindu groups, and mocked our Supreme Court's 1977 verdict that the right to propagate one's religion (guaranteed by article 25 of our Constitution) does not include the right to forcible conversion. (Stanislaus v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 908).

All this indignity on a country that permits full play to the tenets and culture of every conceivable faith. All this insult on a nation whose prime minister did not think it was demeaning to make a special call on the Pope to salve Christian sentiments after the Western world needlessly raged over the killing of missionary Graham Staines and his two sons by a fanatic who is not from a so-called 'fundamentalist' Hindu group. It is the same India that permitted John Pius II to publicly proclaim on its sacred soil his mission of harvesting millions of souls in Asia even as China shut the door on him.

Our ministry of external affairs must protest strongly at the Pope's latest outburst against the country.

The Government of India must tell the Pope unambiguously that India has always been governed by a Constitutional framework and the rule of law, and that legislation is being increasingly based on debate.

His Holiness must be reminded that India itself has never uttered a word against the various sex scandals that have plagued the church in the last few years, nor commented on the church's policies on abortion, birth control or divorces. This is because India believes in live and let live and does not poke its nose into others' affairs that do not concern it.

He must also be reminded that as per the Constitution of India, the right to propagate one's religion in this country is restricted only to the citizens of this country and not to foreigners in whatever guise they assume.

He should be also told that there is no discrimination from the state regarding its treatment of Hindus, Muslims and Christians and Jews. On the other hand, there is evidence that the church in India discriminates against Dalit Christians; in Tamil Nadu, for instance, there is evidence that there are separate pews for Dalits, a separate chalice for Holy Communion and separate burial grounds. (New Indian Express, April 14, 2003)

The Pope should be told, finally, that it is only the Hindus of this country, 'fundamentalists' included, who reiterate that there is an eternal truth but there are many ways to achieve it; that that indeed is the dharma of Bharat and Hindustan and India.

The Pope needs also to be reminded that opposition to conversions is not a phenomenon started by the so-called 'fundamentalist' Hindus. It was way back in 1954 that the Congress party (headed today by the Italian Catholic called Sonia Gandhi) who constituted the Niyogi Commission in 1954 whose report of 1956 sought the virtual end of missionary conversions in India.

Indeed, going back even further, conversions were opposed by the one who was definitely not a Hindu 'fundamentalist' -- by Mahatma Gandhi during whose lifetime several Christian missionaries tried relentlessly to convince him about the uniqueness of Christianity and the infallibility of the Bible, believing that if Gandhi was converted millions of his followers will automatically follow. But Gandhi would not budge. As he told a missionary nurse in an interview on May 11, 1935, 'If I had power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytising.' (The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 61, pages 46-47, cited on pages 145-146 in Christianity And Conversion In India, Rishi Publications Varanasi, 1999, brought out by the Indian Bibliographic Centre, Research Wing)

And why did Gandhi want to stop conversions? As he said, 'In Hindu households the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink.' (ibid)