Write Comment     |     E-Mail To a Friend     |     Facebook     |     Twitter     |     Print

The SC Judgement Raises Many Questions. Community Needs to Introspect - The CSF
 

The CSF salutes those hundreds who have stood by it in condemning the critical remarks by the SC judges, who on whatever counts had to finally expunge the same. A big GOD BLESS to those who raised the issue for without them this limited success would not be possible. We respect the opinions of those who have accepted/appreciated the SC Revision, however basing our reasoning on the feedback we received, we believe, the expunging of SC remarks in the Staines murder case is "too little too late". The judgement has already given an insight into the thinking of those in the judiciary concerned. However, the judgement has also raised a number of other queries, such as -
 

1) Is not the cold blooded murder of one who worked for 30 years for lepers/outcastes and his two minor children the rarest of rare cases. If his wife and daughter were present, they too would have been lynched. Would it then have become worthy of death sentence? Death penalty is the law of the land, which is why the CBI went in for an SC appeal.
 

2) Martyr Staines and his children, Timothy and Philip (aged 6 & 10 years) were prevented from escaping by a mob of around 50 Hindutva radicals, who shouted "Bajrang Dal & Dara Singh Zindabad" and roasted them alive. Yet the SC convicts only 2 persons and acquits a dozen other suspects, despite the CBI going in appeal.
 

3) The judgement implies it is understandable & one can get away with a lighter sentence, if one kills ("to teach a lesson") Christians, believing they are converting, even though there is no evidence to this effect. Since when has conversion become a crime in the country, where freedom of religion is a constitutional right, which the hon’ble justices ought to have known.
 

4) The judgement will give impetus and be used as a precedent to justify the "Freedom or Anti-Conversion" Acts and Bills in many states, besides emboldening religious fundamentalists and moral policing. In Orissa itself, where Staines served selflessly and Karnataka, there are many cases of religious violence, where the victims will have a setback due to the judgement.
 

5) The judgement, like that of the Allahbad-Lucknow bench ruling in the Ayodhya case will been seen as mouthing & giving credence to the propaganda and canards spread by Hindutva extremists. In the case of the Ayodhya judgement, the Muslims have gone in appeal. What are Christians expected to do? There must be a serious debate on the issue and remedial measures taken promptly.
 

6) Why did the judges not make note of the fact that there was no evidence of conversion in case of Staines, inspite of it being clearly mentioned by the Wadhwa Commission and probes like the one carried out by Swami Agnivesh? Are the judges not aware that there is not a single proved case of conversion by fraud or force? The official census figures itself show a decline in the Christian population.
 

7) Is the "crime" of converting to another religion punishable with death or is it a licence to kill (007) officially sanctioned? Are we empowering a communal mob to do what it pleases, including murder? The Indian Justice Delivery System is such that even an Afzal Guru takes years to hang and in the case of Staines, its been more than a decade to arrive at such a judgement. A few more years & the accused will be free!
 

8) It is understandable that we as Christians forgive the criminals and do not wish their life be taken. But what about the rule of law and if such feelings or turning the other cheek are taken advantage of, Christians will be sitting ducks. In 1995, Samunder Singh murdered Sister Rani Maria near Indore, MP. Hence, if the CBI believes it had/has a strong case, should’nt it go in for an appeal before a larger bench? Are extra-constitutional authorities empowered to deliver justice on behalf of the state?
 

9) Why are Christians repeated stereotyped on the conversion issue and profiled as such? Why are we expected to give repeated proof and made to speak of our loyalty to the nation, when we have never proved to be otherwise.  It is not a coincidence that the murder of Graham Staines took place less than a month after Swami Aseemanand organised a huge rally in Gujarat’s Dangs district on Christmas Day in 1998, adjacent to the place where Christians were gathering to celebrate. The attacks on Christians that followed lasted 12 days. Probe Swami Assemanand a little more and surely he will divulge all the plans of the Sangh Parivar to terrorise the Christian community.
 

10) Is the judiciary too now communalised? Is there any real difference between the those who have given the judgement and those behind bars. It would almost seem each sympathizes with the other?!!
 

Finally, as pointed out earlier, it is important to note at least the Catholic Church’s stand: “In spreading religious faith, everyone ought, at all times, to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonourable or unworthy, especially when dealing with the poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one’s own right and a violation of the rights of others” (Declaration on Religious Freedom: No. 4. Vatican: 1965).
 

Supreme Court Expunges Remarks, but the Bad Taste Remains
 

The Supreme Court of India today withdrew its comments about religious conversion amid rights groups and Christian leaders expressing concern over such comments. On Jan. 21, while delivering judgment on the murder of missionary Graham Staines, it said the missioner was killed because he was engaged in religious conversion. The court Suo Motto repelled those wordings that were “unconstitutional,” said lawyer Sister Mary Scaria who practices in the Supreme Court. The repelled paragraph of the judgment says Staines and his two minor sons were burnt to death while they were sleeping inside a station wagon at Manoharpur, Orisa state, with an “intention to teach a lesson to Graham Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity. All these aspects have been correctly appreciated by the High Court and modified the sentence of death into life imprisonment with which we concur.”
 

The comment had sparked expression of dismay and concern across India. The court has “in effect de-legitimized” the constitutional right to propagate one’s religion, said Mahendra Parida, an activist in Orissa. The court made the remarks while upholding the life sentence given to the killers of the Australian Evangelical missioner in Orissa in 1999. The prosecution had sought the death sentence for Ravindrapal Singh who led a mob that torched Staines and his two young sons. Indian laws allow the death penalty only for the “rarest of the rare” cases and the Supreme Court agreed with the defense that Singh committed the crime to teach the missioner a lesson for indulging in conversion among tribal people.
 

Parida, a Hindu lawyer working among tribal people in Orissa, says the court stand “is disturbing and dangerous” and would embolden Hindu radicals who spread the misconception that Christians use social service as a façade to convert the poor. Kedar Mishra, a journalist in Orissa, says the court’s remarks contradicted the constitution that allows a person to profess, practice and propagate one’s religion. Shubhankar Ghosh, who looks after the works started by Staines, terms conversion as “a misnomer” since a federal commission that probed the Australian’s murder could find no evidence of conversion.
 

Bishop Thomas Thiruthalil of Balesore says the conversion charge is “a well-planned misinformation and excuse for dastard and diabolic attacks on Christians.” The diocese covers the tribal village where Staines was killed. Bishop Sarat Chandra Nayak of Berhampur quoted media reports indicating Hindu radicals’ plan to create “thousands” of Singhs to counter conversion in Orissa. Reverend Pradeep Das, who has worked with Staines for a decade, denied
the Australian had indulged in conversion. “It is quite painful to hear such remarks,” he said.