In response to How do you explain the destruction of Buddhism by Pravin Sabnis

Muslims, not Hindus destroyed Buddhism

Sandip Heble

The spread of Buddhism, the large number of monasteries and other Buddhist places is largely due to the tolerance of the Hindus. Majority of Buddhas followers were Hindus themselves and many Hindus even today revere Buddha.

The actual decline of Buddhism was largely due to the conquest of India by the Mohammedans and not due to the intolerance of the Hindu Kings.

The Buddhist vihars, universities, monasteries as well as idols of Buddha were all demolished by the Muslim invaders, armed with their own "holy scriptures" that sanctioned all their actions. Buddhist monks were massacred by the invaders which ultimately led to the fall of Buddhism in India. Buddhism had also spread to many parts outside India such as Afghanistan and it is largely due to the intolerance of Islam that the religion of Buddhism perished.

The intolerance of Islam is evident even today when the Statues of Buddha were demolished very recently by the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan without much protests from the other Islamic countries.

The other theory you propound( that Hindu kings wiped out Buddhism) gives further credence to my own posts on "religious conversions". Lessons in History need to be learnt and religions should not be allowed to compete with one other with some using their vast resources to wipe out others.

What we need is mutual tolerance and respect for one another, regardless of the religion one prescribes to.

In this regard, the Dalai Lama has written: "There are many areas of common ground on which we can have harmony - helping, respecting, and understanding each other - in a common effort to serve humankind. The aim of human society must be the compassionate betterment of human beings…….I am interested not in converting other people to Buddhism but in how we Buddhists can contribute to human society, according to our own ideas."

I therefore say, "conversion activities" of the Christian missionaries or any other group/ organisation of any other religion should be banned . Conversions should be by ones' own conviction and anyone trying to convert someone else by use of force, fraud or allurement needs to be severely punished.

The facts you state about Staines exemplary work cannot be doubted. However, the associates of Staines himself told the Wadhwa Commission (appointed to inquire his death) that Staines used to conduct "Bible classes" at "Jungle Camps".  Staines and his wife Gladys, regularly filed dispatches for a journal in Australia, Tidings. After reviewing the evidence, the Wadhwa Commission, therefore, concluded:

"Besides his involvement with Leprosy House, Staines was also involved in missionary work. The missionary work of Staines has come to light from the various dispatches sent by him to Australia, which are published in the newsletter, 'Tidings'. Staines also attended baptism ceremonies and was involved in active propagation of his religion apart from his social work. It is also clear that conversions were taking place in jungle camps. The missionary work of Staines obviously included organizing and conducting jungle camps, translating the Bible in tribal languages, preaching the Bible to the tribals."

The Justice Wadhwa Commission further said that there was no involvement of the Sangh Parivar in the murder.

I would say that the right to live is the greatest fundamental right and the fanatics responsible for murdering Staines along with his sons have therefore committed the most inhuman of crimes and need to be punished severely for the same. Staines was indeed a great humanitarian having served lots of leprosy patients and it is therefore a pity that his commendable work was resented simply due to the "conversion agenda" of the Church

It is pertinent to note what Mahatma Gandhi had said about missionary social service: "How very nice it would be if the missionaries rendered humanitarian service without the ulterior aim of conversion. I hold that proselytizing under the cloak of humanitarian work is, to say the least, unhealthy. It is most certainly resented by the people here. Religion after all is a deeply personal matter, it touches the heart."

There should be no justification for attacks on humanity by Laden, Dara or any terrorist who uses the cloak of religion just as there should be no justification of propagation of "terrorising religious doctrines".

It is therefore imperative for the State to ban all conversion activities, for such activities are largely responsible for creating fissures in the hitherto harmonious relationships existing between Hindus and the Christians.
 

Sandip Heble
July 15, 2002

*courtesy Navhind Times, Goa, India: Cybervoices*

Read reply to this post by Dr. Samir Kelekar

return to discussion on  this topic

Back to View from the Beach