Conversion in the Hindutva Context
The history of religions is a history of religious conversions and reconversions. Conversion from one religion to another has always been an issue of friction when it brings the individual in conflict with the family, neighbour and society. Today the issue of conversion has become very crucial in India because here every convert represent a vote transferred from one party to another. Church, which is called to read the signs of time and to witness Gospel in the model of incarnation, has to take seriously the challenges raised by conversion in India. This paper aims at understanding the phenomenon of conversion in the Hindutva context and searching the elements for a theology of conversion, which is adapted to the Indian context. We will begin with exposing the Hindutva perspectives on change of religion. Secondly, a few reflections regarding the social cultural legal and theological implications of conversions will be in order. We will conclude by discussing the viability of belonging in multiple ways to the Church, without necessarily becoming its visible member.
1. Preliminary Notions
Conversion: The term conversion has several connotations as it has been looked at from different angles. To some it is a change from one religion to another, to others a divine act in a person’s life, or a psychological experience, a radical change in individual behaviour or a cultural change in a community. In this paper, we understand conversion in a holistic sense: as the radical changes that happen to an individual or a group in behaviour and culture, including religious affiliation.
Hindutva: This is a name given by V. D. Savarkar (1883-1966) to denote the interpretation of Hindu dharma, that he has developed in his work: Hindutva – Who is a Hindu? Kesav Baliram Hedgewar (1889-1940), who founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1925, had a great admiration for Savarkar and accepted Savarkar’s philosophy as the ideology of the RSS. M. S. Golwalkar (1906-1973), the successor of Hedgewar, modified and structured the visions of Savarkar regarding Hindu nation and Hindu culture and the stature of Non-Hindus in India. His philosophy is mainly elaborated in his two books We or Our Natiobhood Defined and Bunch of Thoughts. The RSS, the father organization of the Hindu extreme movements today, sees that its more than fifty affiliates grow faithfully in the spirit of Hindutva. Hindutva is thus not a finished ideology. It is in the process of fabrication through the strategy of syncretism (V. Kundukulam, RSS Enthu Engottu?, pp. 91-92).
2. Hindutva perspective
Ishanand Vempeny begins his book on conversion with the following sarcastic note: ‘If when a Pakistani politician gets up in the morning the first thought that comes to his mind is of Kashmir and if when a Chinese politician gets up the first thought is of Tibet, the first thought for a member of the Sangh Parivar would be conversion’ (Conversion: National debate or Dialogue?, p. 9). This is rather true because even a moderate Swayamsevak like Vajpayee raised the question of conversion in 1999 while Sangh Parivar forces attacked Christian missions and missionaries in Gujarat. But it is worth to know why does conversion become an obsession for the Sangh Parivar. There exist different tendencies in RSS towards conversion (V. Kundukulam, RSSum Christava Sabhayum, pp. 31-40). Some are vehemently against it while some others permit it with conditions.
Conversions with conditions: a) Conversion can be allowed if the person concerned has a thorough knowledge of both the religion he has been practising and the religion, which he goes to embrace. The term “matham” (religion) means opinion in the Indian context. Formation of an opinion is mainly an intellectual activity and it has to be achieved after sufficient reflection.
b) Individual conversion can be permitted but not the mass conversion. The right to change the religion is an individual one. In case of mass conversion an individual is not capable of exercising his personal freedom.
c) Conversion due to ignorance, allurement and force are to be condemned. The Sangh complains that the missionaries manipulate the ignorance of the poor illiterates: ‘The missionaries put the statues of tribal gods into a pot full of water and those statues are drowned. Then they put the cross made out of bamboo, into the same pot. When the cross lies on the surface of water they say “Christ is more powerful than the tribal gods”. The illiterate tribals get converted to Christianity’ (Janmabhumi, 10 march 1999).
Absolute opposition to conversion: Main reasons are the following. a) Conversion from one religion to another is against the very nature of religion. Religion is that which indicates the way to God. If all religions lead man to the same God why should one change his religion? Conversion is incomprehensible for religious man. (D. N. Mishra, The RSS- Myth and Reality, pp. 118-121)
b) Bharat has sufficient religions adapted to its culture and hence needs no further religions: ‘Indians are already religious. There are various religions here to take care of their needs. Even the tribals, who do not have institutionalized religions, are leading a virtuous life and in that sense they are religious. There is no need of converting them into another religion.’ (Interview done by the author with R. R. Mishra, President of Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram in Surguja, MP, January 1994).
c) Conversion creates conflicts in the society. When Christians claim superiority of their religion and earns adherents from other religions the latter feel sorry for having lost their followers. This gives rise to the conflicts among religions. To maintain peace in a multi religious country like India conversion must be forbidden (V. Kundukulam, Les mouvements nationalists hindous et leur attitudes a l’egard des Chretiens, Eglise d’Asies, June 1995, p.19). More than the above said reasons what make the Sangh Parivar turn against Christian conversion are cultural and political factors.
d) Conversion from Hinduism to Christianity creates cultural alienation or ‘deculturisation’ of the converted people. When one becomes the member of a Church, he leaves aside Hindu customs and rituals and often he commences to tarnish the Hindu gods and practices. Arun Shourie in the introduction to Harvesting Our Souls writes: ‘The conversion of even an individual causes grave disruption. His family is torn apart. Tensions erupt in the community. This is all the more so because after converting him the converts make the person do and say things that grievously offend the original community of the person. The individual is led to not just repudiate but denounce gods and rituals in which he has grown up, to do things which are forbidden in his original religion or community – for instance, to eat flesh which is prohibited’ (Harvesting Our Souls, pp. 1-2).
e) The major issue is that conversion has political consequences. In democracy number counts: number means power, number means money and number means various other desired ends. If conversion is allowed it will reduce the Hindu strength in the country. Deoras, the Sarsanghchalak of RSS (1973-1994) explains it with the example of Kerala: ‘Today there are 25 percent Christians and 20 percent Muslims in Kerala. That is why their votes become important, very important during elections. There are two major political groups – the Congress and the Communists. Both of these groups have to compromise because of these vote-banks’ (Country’s Unity a Must, p. 12). The separatism is increasing in other Christian majority states like Nagaland, Missoram, etc. and so the conversions must be stopped. In the words of Golwalkar, the one who laid ideological basis of RSS, conversion subverts loyalty. ‘Conversion of Hindus into other religions is nothing but making him succumb to divided loyalty in place of having undivided and absolute loyalty to nation. It is dangerous to the security of the nation and the country’ (Bunch of Thoughts, p. 225).
The Hindutva claims may raise the following questions in our mind. Even though knowledge has an important place in the pursuit of truth, can we restrict the discovery of truth to mere intellectual search? Man is a social being. A group of people, which was living under oppression may reflect together about their oppressed state and may take collectively a serious step in the path of religious and social liberation. If that is the case how can one forbid mass conversion? Each religion has its own doctrine, rituals, dogmas, and belief system. One religion may be more appealing to one than the other. But does it mean that one religion is superior to the other? Is it not rather right to say that a particular path is more conducive to an individual than the other? Is it Christian to insist upon conversion as a legitimate way of exercising religious freedom when it causes social tensions and inter-religious conflicts in a country? The Church, called to do her mission receiving inspiration from the mystery of incarnation, is bound by these challenges in witnessing the gospel.
3. Socio-cultural concerns
Although conversion is primarily a matter of individual’s religious life we cannot deal with it as a supernatural phenomenon because it has profound social implications. For Harijans, it has been a weapon to fight against the illegitimate oppression inflicted upon them in the name of social stratification. They use it also to improve their social status. Analysis of Meenakshipuram mass conversion, which took place in Tamil Nadu (1980), shows that the change of religion has been for more solidarity and equality. Muslim community is not a casteless community. It is also divided on the basis of economic status. But the treatment they get in Islam is much better than that they receive from Hindu community. There is no discrimination against them in the places of worship and outside (Y. Antony Raj, Social Impact of Conversion, pp. 27-32).
Coming to the situation of converted Christians they feel abandoned by the Christians, by the Hindus and by the government. From the moment a Hindu becomes a member of non-Hindu religion the Hindus consider him as an outcaste. As Saldanha says, it is the horizontal dimension that creates problems. Each religious community in India has its own personal laws. Conversion leads to a change of one’s personal laws and social belongingness. The Hindu personal laws alienate thoroughly the converts from their family and society. For example, the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 section 26 affirms that the children of the converted people are excluded from their family patrimony. The convert has to choose then between the loyalty to Christ and that of the Hindu community. (J. Saldhanha, Conversion and Indian Civil Law, pp. 11-13)
The conversion brings in such a social rupture because for Hindus, religion is first and foremost a way of life rather than the adoration of a particular God. Saldanha after studying the definition of the term Hindu and the 170 court judgments in the past hundred years in India concludes that Hinduism is primarily a samaj dharma, which refers to the civil customs and to the national and social behavior pattern. Even though Hinduism maintains eclecticism in its theology and unlimited liberty for personal faith, its social codes are very rigid (J. Saldanha, Conversion Without Change of Community, Indian Missiological Review 4 (1986), pp. 247-248). Consequently, for the Hindus, the change of religion equals to change of society and it is a treacherous activity.
To avoid such a brutal social rupture Staffner thinks of a way out according to which the converts can continue to be the members of the Hindu society and at the same time of the Church. To him, it is possible because both religions are not mutually exclusive. Hinduism is primarily a Samaj dharma whereas Christianity a sadhana dharma. Christianity does not demand any special code from the part of Christians. Thus two religions are not incompatible but complementary (H. Staffner, Jesus Christ and the Hindu Community, pp. 89-90).
Staffner’s solution seems to be apparently good. But when we examine it closely it seems to be too naïve. Hinduism is tolerant, but it skeptically views those gods who question its structure. On the part of Christians, even though they respect the local cultures, they cannot be entirely faithful to Samaj dharma of Hindus, which is based on caste system. In fact to be religious and to be social are not two entirely different factors; they are intrinsically related (V. Kundukulam, Conversion and Evangelization, Indian Theological Studies 38, 2nd June 2001, p. 207)
4. Legal Implications
Since Independence, many attempts were made to curtail the right to convert which was enshrined in the Constitution. In 1954, a Member of Parliament introduced into the Lok Sabha the “Indian Converts Bill” but an overwhelming majority rejected it. Later, two important anti-conversion bills were enacted: Orissa Freedom of Religion Act (1967) and the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam (1968). According to these bills, “No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion. The terms like force, fraud and allurement are defined with the following meaning. Force shall include a show of force or a threat of injury of any kind including threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication. Fraud shall include misrepresentation or any other fraudulent contrivance. Inducement shall include the offer of any gift or gratification, either in cash or in kind, and the grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise (S 2/b-d) (M.P. Raju, Religious Conversion: Legal Implications, pp. 89-91)
On 17 January 1977, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court upheld laws of Orissa and Madhya Pradesh and denied that article 25 grants fundamental right to convert persons to one’s own religion. According to this judgment the article grants the right to transmit or spread one’s religion by a deposition of its tenets. It guarantees the freedom of conscience to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion. What is freedom for one is freedom for the other, in equal measure and there can, therefore, be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion. Later the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act was passed in 1978.
Shri O.P. Tyagi introduced in the Parliament a private Bill, “Freedom of Religion” on 22 December 1978 preventing Christian conversions for the whole of India by use of force, inducement or fraud. According to this Bill, the penalty for converting a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is imprisonment to the extent of two years and a fine up to five thousand rupees. Any charitable act done in the perseverance or benefiting members of any other religious community resulting in a change of religion could be construed as coming within the ambit of this Bill. Under this bill the responsibility for any conversion will be fixed on the one who performs the ceremony by which a person is converted. The clause requiring registration of conversion with the District Magistrate will expose converts to harassment. (M.P. Raju, Religious Conversion: Legal Implications, p. 52-61)
It is true that the fundamental right to propagate religion is subject to public order and morality. Nobody has the right to convert a person to another religion without his free will. But everybody knows that conversion is the necessary concomitant of an effective preaching. How to strike a balance between the freedom of A to convince B of his views and the freedom of B not to be influenced by A in the pursuit of truth? Can a democratic government rule out the possible change of a person from one political party to another due to the propaganda of the former?
I think that the growing resistance from the part of the Hindus to conversion is to be understood against the background in which article 25 of the Constitution was formulated. In fact, many members in the Constituent Assembly had opposed the right to convert while finalizing the article in 1949. At the end they conceded as a bargain to the minority communities for their not insisting upon separate electorates. There was no genuine conviction concerning this aspect of religious freedom. How long Christians will go on defending the right to convert if the Supreme Court and the general will of the Hindus stand against it?
5. Theological Perceptions
Until the Second Vatican Council, the conversion centered mission work was virulent among missionaries because they thought that mission was incomplete without conversion. But the new trends in ecclesiology and missiology changed their views on conversion.
Lumen Gentium describes Church not as a societal entity on par with other societal structures like the state, but as the mystery of God’s presence in the world, like a sacrament, sign, and instrument of God among people. In this perspective Church is not the Kingdom of God. She is on earth the seed and beginning of that Kingdom (LG 5), She can be a credible sacrament only when she displays to the world the glimmer of God’s reign – reconciliation, peace and new life.
There happened change also in missiology. The Council considered mission not as secondary to the being of Church. It is no more a fringe activity of a established Church. The medium is the message. What we are and what we do is equally important as what we say. As Christ is a missionary of God, Church is community of missionary people. When she becomes the salt, light, servant and yeast of the world and when she pilgrims like a church with others rather than the church for others, she becomes really missionary. (D. Bosch, Transforming Mission, pp. 372-377)
Until the Council, Jesus’ missionary mandate to the disciples (Mt 28, 19-20) was explained as the foundation of mission. But Ad Gentes presented the mission of God as the basis of mission. The Church has its origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The mission of the Church flows from the love of God the Father (AG 2). As God the Father sent the Son and the Spirit, the triune God sends the Church into the world. The primary purpose of the mission can therefore not simply saving souls through baptism but witnessing God’s love in the world. Mission is divinization of the society. Consequently missionaries took distance from the evangelizing works solely aimed at the expansion of the Church. Incarnation became the model of mission. The preaching ceased to be one-way traffic. As Jesus got incarnated in the cultural patterns of humanity, they began to assimilate whatever is good from the life of the addressee before presenting to them the Gospel.
So far we were looking at the issue of conversion in India from different angles. If we take seriously the arguments of Gandhi and those of Sangh Parivar, the socio-political repercussions of conversion, and the changing perceptions in ecclesiology and missiology, I think, we cannot escape envisaging new ways of being the Church in India. I don’t mean here to discuss different forms of missionary activities namely inculturation, dialogue, liberation of dalits, women empowerment, developmental programmes, etc. We must rather capture the golden opportunity the non-baptized believers of Jesus offer us to renew the Church. We must reflect on how to incorporate the Christ-lovers into the visible Church so as to give an external expression to their mysterious bond with the invisible Church. Several forums of national stature have taken up this question in the past. We will have an over-view of their suggestions.
6. Different modes of Conversion
Follow Christ without baptism: A few Indian thinkers like Ram Mohan Roy pondered over the possibility of a conversion without baptism. They refused to become the members of the Church because they saw the Church’s doctrinal systems as distortions of the Gospel. They want to accept Christ and his teaching without ceasing to be Hindus or not undergoing baptism, which is a trans-community movement. (J. Mattam, ‘Indian Attempts towards a Solution to the Problems of Conversion’, Mission and Conversion, A Reappraisal, pp. 110-116)
Accept Baptism without socio-cultural change: Another group of people were ready to accept baptism but not to entail a break from their original culture and community. For example K.C. Sen and Brahmabandha Upadhyaya received baptism but were highly critical of the organized Church and of its foreignness. Most of them held that Hinduism is a Samaj dharma, which is open to various sadhana dharma. Therefore the converted can be Christian by faith and Hindu by culture.
Fellowship of baptized and unbaptized believers: N. V. Tilak, the well-known poet, a follower of the Bhakti tradition, scholar and convert from the Chitpavan Brahmin community attempted to introduce the idea of God’s Darbar. God’s darbar was like a brotherhood assembly for baptized and unbaptised believers in Christ to come together to enjoy the fellowship of one another as disciples of Christ. (B.S. Thavare, ‘Trends in the theology of conversion in India’, Conversion in a Pluralistic Context, pp. 57-58)
Augustine Kanjamala considering the current socio-political, cultural and religious situation proposes an alternative model of mission with the following focuses: a) Proclaiming as well as working for the realization of the Kingdom of God is the goal of evangelization; b) mission is also aimed at the conversion of the heart of the missionary according to the values of Jesus; c) The influence of the mission of the Church in India must exceed the numerical strength. By providing a Christian vision of life, world and society, the Christian mission will continue to influence the rest of the Indian society. (A. Kanjamala, New Evangelization 2000 and India, pp. 399-400)
According to Amaladoss it is wise to leave the manner of responding to the word of God to the person called. On account of the cultural, political and social reasons the conversion of all may not involve a call to membership in the Church-community. God’s call may be heard through a variety of mediations. It is unfortunate that the mystery of conversion is reduced in popular speech to the sociological sphere of changing allegiance between religions. Today its focus becomes not turning to God but joining a particular group with exclusive claims. God’s call to conversion is multi-faceted. God calls everyone to be converted to the Kingdom, that is to say, to respond to God’s offer of love and life by building up a community of freedom, fellowship and justice. But God calls someone to be witnesses in deed and some others in word. Both are trying to realize God’s plan for the world in Jesus. Yet, for Amaladoss, the second vocation is at the service of the first (M. Amaladoss, ‘The Kingdom, Mission and Conversion’, Mission and Conversion, A Reappraisal, pp. 43-47).
Samartha invites us to review the pertinence of the term mission itself. To him, the word mission perhaps should be avoided. This is not to hide in any way the genuine Christian intention, but to remove a term that has become a threat to others and a hindrance to open relationships. Witness is a better term. Witnessing to the Lordship of Christ cannot be a mere verbal proclamation to the world at large. It has to be concrete and particular in the living context of relationships. It is not just a statement to be accepted, but also a confession to be made at the end, not the beginning of an experience (S. Samartha, The Lordship of Jesus Christ and Religious Pluralism, p. 34).
We may not agree with all the above-mentioned modes of conversion. But they all point to the fact that the non-Christians may belong to Christ and His Church in multiple ways. It is important for any convert to be part of the Church, where they can be exposed to Christian teaching, love and growth in the body of Christ. But at the same time Church must be sensitive to their agony.
7. The agony of Christ-lovers
I would like to call your attention to the Christ–lovers, who follow Jesus in words and deeds and like to join the Church but postpone baptism to a later period for various social reasons. There are hundreds of them in several dioceses of the country. Many of them live in between two religions. They belong neither to their own religious community nor to the visible Church. They accept the dogmas of the Catholic faith. They lead an authentically Christian life. Their faith is genuine. What they lack is an explicit manifestation of their faith by the reception of baptism.
The main problem faced by the non-baptized Hindu followers of Christ is social ostracism. As soon as they abandon Hindu customs and follow Christian faith there occurs a break with their relatives and with the caste group to which they belong. Listen to the testimony given by a convert, 45 years old Padmavati, an house-wife belonging to Ezhava caste at Wadakanchery, near Thrissur: “Hindus do not allow us to draw water from their wells. They even forbid us to walk through their land. The greatest difficulty is with the funeral. They don’t allow cremation at home. They fear that the ghost of the dead will trouble them since necessary rituals were not performed for the burial. We don’t get support also from the Christians. Priests neither come to our house for funeral ceremonies nor permit us to bury the dead in Christian cemeteries. Once we tried to bury some one near to our house without doing any rituals. Then the Hindus blocked the funeral. The RSS leaders came to the house, removed the statues of Christ, restored the Hindu ones and made the burial according to Hindu custom. Thus that family refused Jesus for the sake of burial”.
Should not the Church take some urgent steps to keep these believers in Christ and not to lose them? In the early Church what the apostles denounced was the idol worship (Acts 14). These believers have rejected the Hindu gods. They adore Jesus as the son of God. They participate actively in the Church activities including liturgical celebrations. Once a week they fast and help the needy. They have an ardent faith in Eucharist. Listen to Saraswati: “When the Christians return after the communion and take back their seats I sit close to them and pray that the power of Jesus emanating in their body also pass through mine. I sit among them like the lady suffering from hemorrhages who wants to get cured touching the cloak of Jesus (Mt 9, 20-22)”. What Archbishop L.T. Picachy said in the Synod of Bishops in 1974 is worth mentioning here: “The incentive for the renewal may come from the people outside the institutional Church, many of them are a source of edification to us: it can happen that we are called through them to turn to God more than they through us” (Indian Missiological Review, 1 (1979), p. 31).
It will always be the case that there will be people who are inspired by Christ and would anonymously follow him, without becoming part of the Church. Can a missionary be content with such a situation? Does the Church fulfill her missionary duty by simply introducing non-Christians into the values of the Kingdom? St. Paul leaves the harvest to the time that God has preplanned. ‘I planted, Apolos watered but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything but only God who gives the growth’ (1 Cor 3, 6-7).
Redemptoris missio says in no: 10 ‘Even though the social and cultural contexts do not permit these believers to enter into the Church, the grace of Christ is made accessible to them in a mysterious way through the Church’. Dialogue and Proclamation, no. 76 says: ‘In those situations where, for political or other reasons, the proclamation is practically impossible the Church already accomplishes her mission not only by her presence and witness but also by her activities and commitment for the human integral development and dialogue’. Dominus Iesus endorses such a possibility: “For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation (DI 20). For the Indian Christians, who live amidst other believers, to be religious means to be inter-religious. Church has to become a community of communities cutting across all castes, races, religions and languages in India.
The mass conversions have fanned communal flame in India. In this context, missions centered on conversion would be a counter-witness to the Gospel. Before hastily making use of any means and methods that suits us for our way of evangelization, we must understand the context of people and the situations they are in. Conversion without membership of the Church may be difficult for those who wish to serve as true Christians in this world. At the same time it is necessary for the missionaries to respect the mysterious ways in which Christ keeps non-Christians tied to the mystery of the Church. Our life style should become a fifth gospel exhibiting the values and fruits of the Spirit. As we draw strength from the four gospels, let those who want to be genuinely converted be drawn by our lives as Christians. In conclusion, let us remember the words of Snyder: “Kingdom people seek first the Kingdom of God and its justice; church people often put church work above concerns of justice, mercy and truth. Church people think about how to get people into the Church; Kingdom people think about how to get the Church into the world. Church people worry that the world might change the church; Kingdom people work to see the church change the world” (H. Snyder, Liberating the Church, p. 378).
St. Joseph Pontifical Seminary December 2007
Documents of the Second Vatican Council
Dialogue and Proclamation
Anderson Gerald H. & Stransky Thomas F. (eds.), Christ’s Lordship and Religious Pluralism, New York: Orbis, 1981.
Antony Raj Y., Social Impact of Conversion, Delhi: ISPCK, 2001.
Bosch D., Transforming Mission, New York: Orbis, 1991.
Deoras B.D., Country’s Unity A Must, New Delhi: Suruchi Prakashan, 1985.
Golwalkar M.S., Bunch of Thoughts, Bangalore: Jagarana Prakashan, 1980.
Kavunkal J. & F. Krangkhuma (eds.), Bible and Mission In India Today, Bombay: St Pauls, 1993.
Krickwin C. Marak & Plamthodathil S. Jacob (eds.), Conversion in a Pluralistic Context, Delhi: ISPCK, 2000.
Kundukulam V., RSS Enthu Engottu? (Malayalam), Ernakulam: St. Pauls, 1998.
Kundukulam V., RSSum Chraistava Sabhayum (Malayalam), Alwaye: S.H. League, 2000.
Mattam J. & Kim S. (eds.), Mission and Conversion A Reappraisal, Mumbai: St. Pauls, 1996.
Mishra D.N., The RSS – Myth and Reality, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1980.
Raju M. P., Religious Conversion: Legal Implications, Delhi: Media House, 1999.
Saldhanha J., Conversion and Indian Civil Law, Bangalore: TPI, 1981.
Shourie A., Harvesting our Souls, New Delhi: ASA, 2000.
Snyder H., Liberating the Church, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983.
Staffner H., Jesus Christ and the Hindu Community, Gujarat: GSP, 1988.
Vempeny I, Conversion: National Debate or Dialogue? Gujarat: GSP, 1999.
Categories: Theology of Religion