NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
SOUTH ASIA
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

Search the Internet          Tips

Recent Interviews

'There is no groupism      in the BJP in UP' - Rajnath Singh 'We might have to take      part in politics to      fight fundamentalism' - Bishop V Devasahayam 'We will be treated as      as aliens in our own      country' - Rt Rev Dr L P Dorairaj 'The democratic basis      of the election was'      badly undermined' - I A Rehman 'We would like      Musharraf to quit' - Maulana Fazlur Rehman

With the ordinance against religious conversions creating another controversy in Tamil Nadu, Dr V Maitreyan, member of the Rajya Sabha from the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, remains one of the few accessible politicians from within the party.

Dr Maitreyan, a practising cancer specialist who was a member of the BJP before joining the AIADMK, clarifies that the ordinance is only against forcible conversions.

In an interview with Senior Special Contributor Shobha Warrier in Chennai, he also spoke out on the Cauvery river waters dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Excerpts:

The anti-conversion ordinance...

Sorry, it is anti-forcible conversion ordinance.

Why was it brought about in such haste?

It was not brought in haste. It had been in our mind for quite some time. There had been a series of forcible conversions in the state. So, if we do not take enough steps to stem the rot in the beginning itself, at some point of time, it will go beyond a stage from where it will be very difficult to control the tensions between the two religions.

What kind of tension do you fear between the two religious communities? Missionaries say they are not forcibly converting anyone to Christianity.

This bill is not against conversions. That is very clear. If I, Dr Maitreyan, want to convert to Christianity tomorrow of my own will and volition, this ordinance will not stop it. This ordinance only prevents you from tempting me to convert to another religion.

If the missionaries are sure that they are not forcing anyone to convert, they need not be bothered about this ordinance at all.

Then, why are they sceptical about the ordinance?

That's my question too. There is a motive behind their campaign. The very fact that they are objecting to the ordinance in such a manner shows that daal me kuch kaala hai [there is something fishy]. They have to answer. If the ordinance is brought into force, probably they will not be able to do things that they have been doing in the past without any hindrance.

The question that they ask is, what is wrong in giving money and education to poor people?

We will not object to anyone giving money and education to the poor, but what is objectionable is asking them to convert in return. If you are so concerned about the downtrodden, help them. When you ask them to convert to your religion in lieu of the benefits that you provide, it is clearly allurement and inducement.

If you are really interested in serving society without expecting any returns, do it. Nobody is going to prevent you.

When all minority educational institutions were forcibly closed it showed that there is an element of the 'church' in education also. Otherwise, what are educational institutions going to do with the conversion bill?

They say that like POTA [the Prevention of Terrorism Act], this bill also will be misused.

POTA has never been misused, at least in our state. When somebody says I will support the LTTE [the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam], the government cannot turn the other way. I want to ask all these people who say that POTA has been misused --- do they support the LTTE? Do they support the anti-national activities of the organisation and the support given by Vaiko and the MDMK to that?

Won't this ordinance create a rift between Hindus and Christians?

As long as the government and society remain blind to the one-sided affairs of the missionaries, their ability to convert by allurement or inducement, nobody objects. But the moment we wake up and ask them to put an end to this, you mean to say there will be a rift? They are creating the rift and they have to be responsible for that.

By this opposition to the ordinance, the leaders of minority religious institutions and certain political parties, which back them, are widening the rift between the two communities. History will not forgive them.

They say the ordinance will alienate them in their own country.

It is all their presumption. If they have confidence in themselves and in their religion, they need not be bothered about it. If anybody wants to convert out of conviction, this ordinance is not going to stop him.

Is the AIADMK getting closer to the BJP and the Hindutva forces?

Not necessarily. In fact, the concept is not a new one. In 1982-83, when the Mandekkadu communal violence occurred, the MGR government appointed the Venugopal Commission. The commission recommended this ordinance. But it took so long for us to bring in an ordinance like this.

Why now? Are you trying to please the BJP?

We decide our agenda. We don't decide on somebody else's behalf.

Is there not some truth in the fact that the caste hierarchy that is prevalent in Hindu society is one of the reasons for many to convert to Christianity?

Nobody says that there is no problem in Hindu society. There have been some weaknesses and there have been some problems. But then the solution for those problems is not conversion. The solution is for the society to reform itself. Conversion is not going to solve any problem.

Why aren't Hindu leaders who support the ordinance not trying to eradicate the caste hierarchy that exists in Hinduism?

The caste hierarchy has been there for thousands of years, and it is not possible to eradicate it in a matter of 10 or 15 years. Hindu seers have been trying to do that. You yourself will admit that it is not as bad as what it was 10 years ago or so.

Christian missionaries went inside the jungles of Arunachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. They worked for tribals there and converted them; till then, nobody, no Hindu organisation, tried to help them...

When the country was united and focussing its attention on independence, these people started doing this. If somebody is weak and needs attention, you help them, we are not bothered. Why do they want that man to be converted for them to give assistance to him?

Now, let me ask you about the Cauvery waters dispute. Whenever the rain gods fail, the battle between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for sharing the Cauvery river waters revives. How long can this continue?

In the last five years, every time the problem arose, it would go to a high pitch, and as usual, Karnataka would not release water. It would continue till the rains started. Then, they would release water. After that, the government would keep quiet about it.

But this time our government has decided not to keep quiet. We have been pursuing the matter with the court. The Supreme Court has come out very strongly against the Karnataka government for contempt of court. The court will soon come out with a verdict.

We have also filed another writ petition in the Supreme Court. Because Karnataka has not released water to Tamil Nadu, we have suffered great damage, and so the Karnataka government should compensate for the damage. Regardless of whether rains come, these court proceedings will continue.

Has the fight between the two states not taken an ugly turn?

That's because of the Karnataka government. Once the Supreme Court gave the order, once the Cauvery River Water Authority, after hearing both sides, asked the Karnataka government to release water, they should have followed it. Now that they have not followed it, they will face the consequences.

What do you see as a permanent solution to the problem?

The better solution for it would have been if the Vajpayee government had accepted the Gujral doctrine. When the Gujral government was in power, a draft proposal was prepared and circulated to both state governments. The Tamil Nadu government accepted the proposal in toto. As usual, the Karnataka government did not accept it. They delayed it. By then, the Gujral government fell.

In that doctrine, it was mentioned that if there was no consensus, the majority opinion would prevail. Despite the order, if any state government did not release water, the central government could take over the dams at the irrigation areas and directly monitor and act.

It also mentioned the freezing of irrigational land expansion. In 1997, Karnataka had something like 11 lakh hectares of irrigational land and because the doctrine was not implemented, now, they have 18 lakh hectares. Naturally, you need more water.

At the 1998 all-party meeting in Tamil Nadu, it was unanimously decided to implement the Gujral doctrine. But then chief minister Karunanidhi went to Delhi and we do not know what happened there. He backtracked and accepted the Vajpayee proposal. At that time itself, Madam [Jayalalithaa] said the Cauvery River Water Authority formulated by the prime minister was a toothless wonder.

At that time, people thought we were saying that because of political motives. Now, three years down the line, what has the Cauvery River Water Authority achieved? The prime minister's order has not been obeyed by a state government, and the central government is a mute witness. This is what a toothless wonder is!

When a state government refuses to listen either to the central government or the judiciary, what can be done?

The central government should call for an all-party meeting at the national level and evolve methods. Tomorrow, other state governments also will defy the central government and there will be no law of the land.

My charge is that because the central government has no stake in Tamil Nadu, they are sitting quiet, whereas they have a stake in Karnataka. That's why they have always been partial to Karnataka.

Hasn't this become an ugly fight between two neighbours?

Please ask this question to [Karnataka Chief Minister] S M Krishna. Please ask this question to the Karnataka Cabinet. They are the root cause for the two neighbouring states fighting like this.

We are not the initiators of the fight. We are at the receiving end. It is they who are initiating it. So they have to be answerable for this. We are the affected party, and it is easy for us to start a mass movement here, but we have maintained our dignity.

Will other politicians and other states take Mr Krishna's defiance of the Supreme Court as an example, and begin defying the judiciary?

I feel the Supreme Court should not stop on a token punishment for the Karnataka government. The Karnataka Cabinet has wilfully violated the order of the Supreme Court. If they give a token punishment, it will only make Krishna and the Congress party martyrs. What the Supreme Court should do is ban the entire Karnataka Cabinet --- which disobeyed its order --- from contesting elections for six years. If something of this sort happens, let's see which state government will defy a court order.

They know that even if they violate the Supreme Court order, in one month's time or six months' time, they can come back with a three-fourth majority. Krishna does these things with that hope.

Now the great Sonia Gandhi gives directions to Krishna to obey the Supreme Court order. When does this happen? When the contempt of court [application] comes up in the court. Why didn't she ask him to do so two months earlier? And she is going to be your future prime ministerial candidate!

Image: Rahil Shaikh

The Rediff Interviews