Christianity, Freedom of Choice & Democracy

OpEd in the Republica Newspaper, July 7, 2011 by Sradda Thapa

The recently published article Christianity, communism and constitution (July 5) by Achyut Wagle that provided a cyclical argument felt like a sharp slap against our faces. I do not mean our “Christian” faces, I mean the faces of Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Christians, Hindus, Communists, Secularists, Socialists, Federalists and so on that value freedom of choice and believe in democracy.

It is disappointing when someone older and hopefully wiser, an editor even, can be so vindictive and distasteful. It is demeaning to the youth in this country and those that seek to embrace (and not just tolerate) differences in beliefs and opinions when such writers pit one group of Nepalis against another.
First though, for all the accusations and attacks levied by the writer, they are not nearly as painful as the ones once orchestrated by the state. For that, I am thankful. In the late 1980s – when the police openly peered in through our windows, bugged our phones and took my father to the station multiple times. I recall waking up to find strange men all over our house – pastors (Bahun, Chhetris, Newars, Janjatis and Dalits – as categorized according to traditional Nepali people groups) who had been severely beaten for being Christians in remote Nepal.

Since so many sweeping remarks full of half-hearted arguments with no logical and physical proof from all angles were raised, one thousand words cannot sufficiently address each. However, as a Nepali-Christian I can perhaps contribute to the discussion by sharing personal thoughts and experiences related through two simple points.

One, freedom of choice and two, the democracy protected and enhanced when we can choose and respectfully converse.

I meet readers and friends today who tell me Nepal was always “tolerant” and when I tell them my story, they are surprised. No, I am not asking for your sympathy, I am asking you to consider the long way we have come in my short lifetime alone.

Though born into a Nepali-Christian family, I had to accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior - on my own - to actually be Christian. We are not automatically Christians, we must decide to be one by ourselves. We can only do this by accepting Christ as our savior. I was not a responsible member of the church until I did this and got baptized. I waited till I turned 25 to make the most important decision of my life – both in terms of my faith and the politics of the country.
We are not Christians because our parents were. We are not Hindus, even if the state says we are. We are Christians because we choose it for ourselves.
As someone who asked me about the author claiming Christians purchase Hindus’ souls I explained my baptism process; I had to declare to everyone present that I was not doing this out of coercion, for money or a job, that it was of my free will and that should the state return to its days of persecution where imprisonment and death were an option for becoming Christian, it was my personal decision.
For all the accusations that Christians bribe Hindus into the faith, it’s a Biblical truth that unless the change is inside you the outside does not count. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to go to heaven, so forced conversion isn’t an option for true Christians – those who are converting another or becoming converted.Furthermore, we are Nepali nonetheless. Being a member of a church does not make us less Nepali (or a communist, as the writer argued), just like being born into a Hindu family does not make someone a royalist (and thus, a truer Nepali patriot).

Henry David Thoreau profoundly claimed, “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterwards. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right”. As the state is sometimes, and as world history proves to us time and again, often, wrong, we as citizens must do what is right.

At the height of the Pashupati-burial site controversy, a Hindu friend explained many Hindus’ fear of losing members of their community as the widespread belief is while Hindus can convert to Christianity, non-Hindus cannot convert to Hinduism. Since she is neither a pundit nor am I a Theologian, I hope the priests and pastors will forgive our naive conversation. But I hope all of you can see the joys of fruitful discussion that is based on curiosity and respect since argument that is not aggressive but inquisitive is something to be valued.

The fear and anxiety of losing Hindu comrades was something I was able to comprehend, but the reaction to those that chose to convert and those that converted I could not.

Constantly accusing Christians of the same old unfounded points is redundant. Everyone has fantastic tales of the fanatics that attempted to lure them to the Christian faith with money and jobs, but no one can name concrete individuals or organizations. Blaming the West is also ironic – the Post-Christian Europe of today is trying to revive the religion in their own communities as the state has left it far behind. Very few European agencies – diplomatic and development – ever carry crosses. For the overtly Christian INGOs functioning in the country, heavily invested in education and health, it is only the teachings of our Holy Bible and a right to pursue. How can we dismiss organizations like Lutheran World Federation and World Vision where plenty of the staff are non-Christians? The basic requirement to be a Christian, as often touted, is not the case.

If the fear is of a diminishing Hindu population, shouldn’t the objective be to share the merits of Hinduism rather than attack that of Christianity? Indeed, what would prove far more interesting and promote more understanding is conversation and dialog - the kind where you don’t blame all Christians for the act of one, and focus on the message rather than the deliverer. Something like presuming the author’s words are not representative of all Hindus and what Hinduism is.

If you think all Muslims are terrorists, all Hindus are extremists and all Christians are conniving then you absolutely must re-evaluate your values and biases. People are people, they are individuals who must be trusted and granted the right to choose for themselves. Informed and uncorroborated decision-making is only possible when debating is encouraged.
This is true for all, especially the uneducated, so-called low-caste, villagers the author suggested the constitution decide for. If the onerous task of making rational decisions and thereby struggling to survive is a daily task, we cannot undermine their capacity and ability to question, think and act.

The constitution must protect that right - to be conversing, informed and free. The constitution also must protect one’s right to profess what one believes in for the freedom of choice. In the freedom of speech, the constitution must protect the right of every citizen to share with their neighbor about their choice.

After all, for those of us that believe in democracy, elements like discourse, dialog and debate are a must. In democracy the freedoms of a citizen are to be protected and promoted. These freedoms are formed in rights, aspired to many constitutions as the right to speech, assembly, expression, press and religion.

If you are a Nepali against these rights, then perhaps dialog is not an option for you, otherwise let me listen to you explain your values, thoughts and faith, and allow me to do the same. To express your distaste or disagreement toward it is one thing, but criminalizing preaching and proselytizing as though Christians are asking to plant bombs when really it is about sharing something we value so dearly to those that we love equally, is undemocratic.

Not all Muslims rejoiced the eve of 9/11 just as not all Hindus celebrated Hindu extremists killing Christians in Orissa in 2008. I refuse to believe everyone of every religion is the same. There are more in this country than the author – from all walks of life and of all religions – that perhaps believe in freedom of choice and democracy and seek to provide that.

This probably is the fabric of social democracy that can keep us together as a nation; not an argument that communists and Christians plotted together to make Nepal a secular republic.