British Envoy in Nepal Sparks Storm of
Conversion Controversy
July 5th, 2015
Ritu Raj
Subedi Lankaweb
British ambassador to Nepal Andrew Sparkes has
sparked a storm of controversies. In his open letter to the
Constituent Assembly members, he egged them on for ensuring the
right to conversion in the new statute. His comment came at a time
when a considerable size of Nepali population is smouldering
against the decision to turn the Hindu nation into a secular state
in 2006 and when the Himalayan nation has been struggling to have a
new constitution. The first CA collapsed without delivering the
statute and the second one is seemingly heading for the similar
fate. The major parties are sharply divided and are unable to forge
consensus on the thorny issues of the statute. Anybody can
experience Nepal’s precarious political dilemma. And at this
sensitive phase of transition, British envoy just threw a stone
into the troubled waters only to raise the eyebrows of
many.
Controversial Remark
Although his embassy regretted his
controversial remark, it riled the masses that have kept mum until
recently over the growing interventionist acts of the foreign
players on the Nepalese soil. When Nepal was declared a secular
state, a section of people had registered their silent opposition
to the move. They had a plausible argument- secularism was
introduced without due and democratic procedure and without
consulting over 80 per cent Hindu population of the country. That
Nepal was made secular state at the behest of the foreign elements
has been their central line of logic, and the major parties have
failed to furnish their credible answers to them. They have been
demanding a referendum to settle the dispute. At a time when the
parties could not justify that their decision to usher Nepal into
secular state was transparent and based on popular mandate,
Sparkes’ statement only gave credence to a polemic that Nepal’s
secular and federal journey was taking place under a diabolic
design of the foreign power centres.
Since Nepal became secular, hundreds of
thousands of ‘innocent people’ reportedly converted to the
Christian followers through ‘monetary inducements.’ That Nepal has
become a fertile ground for the conversion of sweeping scale has
been justified by none other than a Christian organisation.
According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, Nepal
is the fastest Christianity growing country in the world. In its
report published in 2013, the Centre said that Nepal topped the
list of 20 countries that have the highest percentage of
Christianity Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR). Nepal
registered 10.93 per cent Christian AAGR followed by China, United
Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Centre predicts that the
Christian population in Nepal will double within six and a half
years. In 1970, the number of Christian followers here stood at 0.1
per cent and it will reach 3.8 per cent in 2020, it states. It is
estimated that the Christian followers are around 2 per cent. It is
interesting to note that net Christian conversion rate was 8.74 per
cent against 2.19 per cent population growth rate in Nepal. It said
that the primary growth factor in Asia is massive conversion.
“China, Nepal, Cambodia and Mongolia have high conversation rates
among their indigenous people. The majority of becoming
Christians comes from non-religious, Buddhist and Hindu
backgrounds,” the Centre said.
Under his ‘Look East Policy,’ the Pope of
Vatican had reportedly vowed to bring 100 million people in Asia to
the fold of Christianity by 2025. Is Sparkes’s tendentious plea for
inserting the right to conversion provision in the new statute the
part of Pope’s pledge? This mission cannot be met just placing a
Bible or Christian literature in the hand of its prospective
followers. It is not that the people must be bribed to make them
tergiversate. The number of people, who change their faith
voluntarily or after gaining enlightenment from other religions,
may not be higher. Until certain enticements and inducements
are offered to the people, a large scale of conversion is not
possible. As the above report disclosed, the rate of conversion is
high among the indigenous people. There cannot be any suitable
constituency than the ethnic, Dalit and impoverished hinterland for
the religious hawks to prey on. There has long been perceived doubt
that some Western nations are funding for the conversions in a
clandestine manner and the report has corroborate this misgiving.
The critics of conversion have argued that the ethnic movement and
the conversion drive in Nepal have become two facets of the same
coin because the funding for the two campaigns comes from the same
sources. It is claimed that the Nepal Transition to Peace
Fund that is backed by some Nordic and Western European
nations are promoting ethnic/indigenous cause and Christianity in
Nepal simultaneously.
Secularism simply means that the state
detaches itself from any religious affairs. It is beyond doubt that
religious freedom is a prerequisite for a healthy democratic and
multicultural society. But, it is a gross mistake to use secularism
as a license for conversion. Here is a sheer irony – many of the
western nations are not secular but their diplomats here lecture us
to be secular to the extent that the mission of the Vatican can be
easily achieved. Envoy Sparkes and his country, the UK, is a
glaring example. The UK that has 59 per cent of Christian
population does not have a written constitution but its political
tradition strongly suggests that it is not a secular nation. The
Queen is the head of the Church of England. She, as per the
recommendation of the Prime Minister, appoints 15 representatives
of the Church of England to the House of Lords.
Mind Your Own Business
There is another classic example to show how
anti-secular the UK is. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
was Catholic but when he became the Prime Minister, he converted
himself to Protestant because he did not want to come into conflict
with the Protestant Queen. He was a Protestant throughout his PM
tenure. One month before he was to leave office, he visited the
Pope in Rome, narrated his story and sought suggestion from him, “I
want to be Catholic again. Could I be?” “Yes, you can adopt your
previous faith,” the master of the Vatican had given the nod. Tony
became Catholic again. This religious saga of Britain’s once famed
Prime Minister speaks volumes that every nation has its own
cultural value and system that guides the politics and entire
society. When the Prime Minister of his own nation had to go
through the rigmarole of religion to serve his office in the
Downing Street, How did envoy Sparkes gather moral authority to
remind us about the UN Charter on religious right and preach
us to do this or that in the new constitution? It would be
wise if our foreign diplomats minded their own business and let our
transitional politics take its own course.