Chapter-I

Introduction
 Chapter - I

Introduction

This research is an empirical study of a mass religious conversion with a

victimological perspective. In 1981, 180 families belonging to Meenakshipuram

village relieved themselves from the Hindu fold and embraced Islam (Khan, 1983).

This religious conversion created a huge impact at the national level. This event

prompted a number of Hindu organizations and political parties to visit the village to

understand the factors associated with such mass religious conversion of dalits from

Hinduism to Islam in that village.

Meenakshipuram is a hamlet of the Thenpothai Panchayat, formerly Tenkasi

taluk of Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu. Around 300 families belonging to Pallar1

caste, also known as Devendrakula Vellalar live in Meenakshipuram. On 19th

February 1981 majority of the people in Meenakshipuram converted to Islam. The

waves of this mass conversion not only had an effect on cultural sphere but also on

the political sphere, which made the opposition party’s leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee

and then Central Minister Yogendra Makwana to visit the village. Hindu

organizations like Vishwa Hindu Parishad2 and Arya Samaj3 expressed their fear of an

Arab conspiracy behind this mass conversion. Because of this, the conversion drew

national level attention. Particularly the Hindu organizations propagandised that this

1
Pallar is one of the scheduled castes in Tamil Nadu. They also called Kudumban and
Deventhirakulathan.
2
The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) is an Indian right-wing Hindu nationalist organization based
on the ideology of Hindutva.
3
Arya Samaj (Society of Aryans) is a Hindu religious sect in India. It is a vigorous reform
movement of modern Hinduism, founded in 1875 by Dayananda Sarasvati, whose aim was to re-
establish the Vedas, the earliest Hindu scriptures, as revealed truth.

1
is an effort of Islamic nations to annihilate Hindutva, Hinduism and Hindustan. That

is, these organizations had created an impression that the dalits had fallen prey to the

foreign conspiracy for material benefits. Immediately they plunged into action and

launched intensive propagated to stop the spreading of such religious conversions any

further. These Hindu outfits promised them that they will ensure the needed help and

basic amenities through the central government and state government provided they

reconvert to Hinduism.

The dalit youth inspired by the thoughts of Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Periyar

E.V. Ramasamy created socio-political and cultural awareness among the people of

Meenakshipuram. This enabled them in holding their stance and ignoring the proposal

of reconversion. Meanwhile two religions, two religious communities and two

worship sites were formed in the same village. The same village was called by two

names, that is, Meenakshipuram by the Hindus and Rahmat Nagar by the Muslims.

After 37 years of the mass conversion that shook the entire nation, this

research tries to look into the present status of the converts, the impact of conversion

on their socio-economic, political and cultural status. The study tries to analyze the

causal factors of conversion and the impact of conversion on social, economic and

cultural aspects. It also tries to find out whether the propaganda made by the Hindu

organizations like Vishwa Hindu Parishad, RSS and Hindu Munnani are true or not.

The effects of the mass conversion on prolonged caste discriminations and

atrocities in Meenakshipuram and the surrounding areas have also been dealt with in

this study. The study tries to analyse whether there is any impact or change in their

relationship after the religious conversion despite the fact that they are blood relatives.

2
 At this juncture, a number of questions arise such as a) what were the factors

which prompted the people to go in for conversion? b) Can’t people survive without

religion? c) Why, when and how originated the following of religion, practice of

worshipping and religious culture? In order to find answers to these questions, it is

essential to understand the philosophies of religion, and the relation between the

people and religion.

Religious conversion is not new and it has been happening from time to time.

But in the case of Meenakshipuram, why did it give rise to social and political

tensions because of this religious conversion? In such a situation the state has to play

a crucial role. In this background the things to be taken into account are the

relationship between the religion and state, the position of state on religion and the

role of religion and state on the people.

With this background, this research tries to analyze the phenomenon of mass

conversion at Meenakshipuram, the issues faced by the people prior to conversion and

after conversion.

1.1. Religion

In the field of social sciences many scholars have tried to define religion. The

vast literature on religion shows that it is very difficult to define religion because it is

growing, dynamic, elemental, personal and broad in scope. Religion is something

which cannot be defined without experiencing it. This is true but, nevertheless, the

word ‘religion’ means something and it is better to know what it means. Any

discipline which binds us all together in a wholesome way is religion (Mohapatra and

Mohapatra, 1993). “It is not mere belief but behaviour; not mere conviction but

3
conduct; not mere faith but functioning. In religion, the whole of a human being’s

personality is involved” (Mohapatra, 1990).

The French sociologist and a scholar commonly cited as the principal architect

of modern social science Emile Durkheim described it with the ethereal statement that

it consists of “things that surpass the limits of our knowledge”. He went on to

elaborate: Religion is “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred

things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite

into one single moral community, called a church, all those who adhere to them”

(Durkheim, 1915). Some people associate religion with places of worship

(a synagogue or church), others with a practice (confession or meditation), and still

others with a concept that guides their daily lives (like dharma or sin). All of these

people can agree that religion is a system of beliefs, values, and practices concerning

what a person holds sacred or considers being spiritually significant.

The word Religion originated from the Latin religio (respect for what is

sacred) and religare (to bind, in the sense of an obligation). It describes various

systems of belief and practice concerning what people determine to be sacred or

spiritual (Durkheim, 1915). Throughout history, and in societies across the world,

leaders have used religious narratives, symbols, and traditions in an attempt to give

more meaning to life and understand the universe. Some form of religion is found in

every known culture, and it is usually practised in a public way by a group. The

practice of religion can include feasts and festivals, God or gods, marriage and funeral

services, music and art, meditation or initiation, sacrifice or service, and other aspects

of culture.

4
1.2. Definitions of Religion

Many scholars, reformists and leaders have explained religion in different

ways. Here we list some important definitions by eminent scholars in the fields of

sociology, anthropology and philosophy.

Tylor (1871) an English anthropologist and the founder of cultural

anthropology identified the earliest form of religious belief as Animism, a belief in

spiritual beings, arrived at, he assumed, by primitive attempts to explain the

difference between the living body and the corpse and the separation of soul and body

in dreams.

Durkheim, a French sociologist, defines religion as "A religion is a unified

system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart

and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community

called a Church, all those who adhere to them." In addition, he explains religion is

"the self-validation of a society by means of myth and ritual" (Durkheim, 1915).

Frazer, a Scottish social anthropologist explains "By religion, then, I

understand a propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed

to direct and control the course of nature and of human life" (Frazer, 1966).

Tillich, German American philosopher and theologian explains Religion is “the

state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other

concerns as preliminary and a concern that in itself provides the answer to the

question of the meaning of our existence" (Tillich, 1989).

5
 Geertz, an American anthropologist defines as "Religion is a system of

symbols which acts to establish powerful, persuasive, and long lasting moods and

motivations.... by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing

these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem

uniquely realistic" (Geertz, 1973).

Kosambi (2007) considered religion to be an epiphenomenon of material life,

a set of beliefs and practices that depended on the means and relations of production

at a given point in time and space for its precise expression.

1.3. Philosophy of Religion

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

“Philosophy of religion is the philosophical examination of the central

themes and concepts involved in religious traditions. It tries to discuss

all the main areas of philosophy like metaphysics, epistemology, logic,

ethics and value theory, the philosophy of language, philosophy of

science, law, sociology, politics, history, and so on.”

Philosophy of religion also includes an investigation into the religious

significance and its relation to the historical events (e.g. the Holocaust) and the way in

which the cosmos is understood in a particular cultural and historical context

(e.g. laws of nature, the emergence of conscious life, man’s relation with nature, and

so on).

Mostly, in the west whenever philosophers tried to explain the philosophy of

religion it ended with the explanation of different versions of theism. For instance

6
“the ancient western philosophy of religion wrestled with the credibility of

monotheism and polytheism in opposition to scepticism and very primitive

naturalistic schemes.” For example, Plato, who lived during the polytheistic Greek

religious context wherein different gods were assigned different duties and

assignments within the pantheon of gods, was of the idealistic view that the idea of

God is singularly good in itself; it is to be preferred to the pantheon of gods that was

portrayed in the Greek poetic and mythical tradition, according to which the gods

were considered to be imperfect, limited in their orientation towards action and

subject to vice and ignorance. The emergence and development of Judaism,

Christianity, and Islam, often in dialogue with the Greek philosophical tradition,

secured the centrality of theism for philosophical enquiry and human action during

medieval times; but the relevance of a philosophical exploration of theism, which was

the dominant mode of perception at that point of history, was not limited only to those

who belonged to such religious traditions and cultures. While theism has generally

flourished in religious traditions amid religious practices, one may be a theist without

adopting any religion. The elements of theism in the philosophical enquiry have its

relevance for secular humanism, as religion was considered to be a way of living, not

dissociated from the ordinary routines of life (Taliaferro and Marty, 2018).

1.4. Nature and Scope of Religion

The popular notion of religion centres round the supernatural being and its

powers. The benevolence and the assurance of God in human destiny and the destiny

of the cosmos are revealed in this approach. This approach does not spring from any

internal experience of humans but from the incomprehensible nature of the manifold

manifestations of external reality. Even this approach has to recognize that man's

7
religion is conditioned to a large extent by man's interest in his own destiny

(Alexander, 2007).

Further Alexander points out the human interest in the elucidation of theistic

beliefs. According to the psychoanalysts and humanist thinkers with existentialist

sympathies, man’s experiences with God give us more information about the man

who projects the image of god in a particular sense than about God, as the notion of

God is the projected image of man himself. Though the religious people would be

reluctant to agree with this proposition, still the facts emphasized by the psychological

explanations are undeniable that man's concerns for his own destiny are the prime

motive behind man's search for god (Alexander, 2007).

1.5. Theories of Religion

Among the many theories on religion, some of them are as follows:

1. Individualist (psychological)
2. Essentialist (metaphysical)
3. Evolutionary (historical)
4. Functional (pragmatic and social)
5. Structuralist (sociological)

1.5.1 Individualist (Psychological)

According to the psychological studies of religion by James and Freud

(Myers, 1990) religion is a by-product of the interaction of the conscious mind with

the subconscious and the unconscious. Sigmund Freud, who tried to map the

individual religious experiences on the patterns of Enlightenment considered them to

be a kind of “neurosis” and as a deeply unconscious impulse of the submerged fears

8
and anxieties of the humans. Freud lays out this psychoanalytic study of religion

in Future of an Illusion. In it, he opines that the civilizational functions and the human

needs have to get rid of the “neurotic illusion” of religion to bring the humanity to the

greater levels of psychological health. Freud’s other important works on religion

include Civilization and Its Discontents (2005), Moses and Monotheism (2016),

and Totem and Taboo.

James (1985) took a much more sympathetic view of religious experiences.

James focused on the primacy of the psychological role of “religious experience” in

the minds of believers and converts. He underscored the role of subconscious ego as

the mediator between empirical consciousness and its relation with experiences of

other worldliness. Being a representative of pragmatism, he explained how individual

seeks salvation through his experiences of communion with divine forces.

1.5.2 Essentialist (Metaphysical)

The key thinkers of essentialist notions of religion are Jung, Campbell, Eliade

and Smart. According to substantive and essentialist definitions, there are certain

basic features which are common to all religious systems, such as sacred, which

cannot be found in non-religious systems. Particularly, the notion of the “sacred” was

studied by Rudolf Otto through his phenomenological approach with a concept that he

called “the numinous”. This study was further extended by Eliade (1959), who

emphasized that though the notion of sacred is difficult to be defined, it is within the

“Nature of Religion” itself. Daniel C. Maguire, Professor of Ethics in the Theology

Department of Marquette University, defines the matter in his book Sacred Choices:

9
 “Religion is the response to the sacred. So what is the sacred? The sacred is

the superlative of precious. It is the word we use for that which is utterly and

mysteriously precious in our experience. Since there is no one who finds

nothing sacred, religion is all over the place”.

1.5.3 Evolutionary (Historical)

Evolutionary theories of religion view religions as an adaptation and/or as a

by-product. Evolution theory which was so influential in the sociological and

anthropological studies of religion viewed religion as having an adaptive value to the

needs of the survival of Pleistocene humans. Tylor (2013), who propounded the

animistic origins of religion, defined religion as a belief in supernatural beings which

are considered to be animated even after death. According to Tylor, animistic beliefs

grew out of attempts to explain the supposed contradictions between life and death,

the belief in soul and the spirit and the body and soul. Primitive people thought that

soul might have an independent existence without body in their appraisal of dreams,

according to Tylor. As an extension of their appraisal of dreams, the primitives

explained life after death too, Tylor opined. Though Tylor’s theory has no empirical

evidence to prove it, he assumed this phenomenon to be universal irrespective of

variances in cultures. Tylor even extended his arguments to fit them to the modern

beliefs in spirits as survivals of the primitive religious beliefs.

Geertz (2017) treats religion as a vital component of cultural symbolism and

meanings. He argues that religion and tradition evoke powerful moods or feelings that

help to explain human existence by giving it an ultimate meaning by way of

perceiving the routine reality as “more real”. In this sense, the religious sphere raises

10
the routine everyday life of humans as having a special status above and beyond

regular life. He saw religion and culture as systems which emphasize the mutual

reinforcement between the worldview and the ethos.

Marx declared religion as the “opium of the people” which helps people as a

sedative to forget their sufferings temporarily. As an ideology, religion reifies

oppression to make people accept it as real while postponing rewards and happiness

to the afterlife. It prohibits social change by making people passive in the face of

oppression, justifying the inequalities of power and wealth. Although it is commonly

assumed that Marx saw no place for religion in the social functions, Marx held that

religion served as a sanctuary, as the heart of the heartless masses and as the soul of

the soulless world, shielding the people temporarily from the harshness of everyday

life and oppression. Still, he predicted that religion can be overthrown by

overthrowing the oppressive socio-economic conditions and by establishing

communist society.

1.5.4 Functional (Pragmatic and Social)

Weber, Levy-Bruhl, Durkheim, Brown, Malinowski, Evans-Pritchard and

Parsons are the key thinkers of functional theories. The functional theory of religion

focuses on the various dimensions of the relationships between religion and other

social institutions. It describes the functions of religions in a particular society both

synchronically and diachronically. For example, Durkheim holds the view that

religions shape the values of social institutions. Conversely, functional theorists also

hold the notion that practical circumstances of a society condition the religious views

about life. Functional theorists also have emphasized how religion affects other

institutions, including the formation of hierarchical order in society as well as legal,

11
political, economic, educational, and cultural aspects of a society. In case of world

religions, functional theorists have focused on how religions shaped the notions of

development and civilizational values by means of looking at aspects of reality as

good and evil.

Structural functionalism explains how religion functions within a particular

social structure. According to this theory, religion is a formidable force of social

cohesion and integration by way reaffirming the solidarity of fellow human beings.

In the view of functionalists, rituals express spiritual and moral attitudes of adherents

of a religion and help to maximize the solidarity of individuals within the group.

According to functionalism, a religious ritual or practice is not observed only for

spiritual reasons, but also to express their solidarity with the adherents of religion who

have similar beliefs. Further, religious rituals and practices help to serve, maintain and

recreate the tenets of religion. For example, Christian ritualistic practice of the

Eucharist meal (Communion) serves to remind its believers the significance of

salvation and at the same time it maintains the solidarity among the believers as a

Church.

Durkheim (1995) also understood the role of religion in the identity formation

of an individual. For Durkheim a man is double in the sense that he/she is social while

being an individual at the same time. He made a strong case through his sociological

analysis that religion helps the individual to transcend their individuality to identify

himself/herself as a part of a larger group; this is in spite of the fact that every

individual appropriates the values in different degrees. According to him, religions

evoke a collective consciousness (common beliefs and practices of a society that

make a sense of solidarity among its adherents) in spite of the individuation of such a

collective consciousness within an individual in the group.

12
 Another interesting discussion from the functionalist perspective is about the

role of emotion within religion. According to this perspective, the manifestation and

control of emotion enables religious believers to feel a sense of belongingness among

them, which in turn helps to consolidate cohesiveness of the group and reinforces

beliefs and norms among members of the group. Religion persists through rituals that

evoke such excitation and emotions.

1.5.5 Structuralist (Sociological)

Levi-Strauss, Douglas, Leach, Spiro, Berger and Geertz are the key thinkers of

this theory. “Religion is best understood as interactive and reflecting other structures

within society”. Levi Strauss used the structuralist methods for the study of social

anthropology. Structuralism which is an offshoot of structural linguistics developed

by Saussure rejects phenomenology and existentialism. Levi Strauss used structuralist

method for analysis of cultural systems (kinship, myths), giving importance to the

relations of elements within the structure. Instead of historical description about the

origins of myths like Eliade, Levi-Strauss discusses myth as relating to how people

think and function within a cultural system. Instead of understanding totems as

identity markers of a particular society as in the case of Durkheimian analysis,

Levi-Strauss understands totems as differentiating factor between communities.

According to him, totems have no innate meaning, but have symbolic meaning within

a community. Myths and totems do not refer anything sacred, but they have relational

identity in an underlying framework which structures people’s thoughts and

experience. Leaving the historical and comparative approach in studying myths,

Levi Strauss (1966) observed that elements of a myth become meaningful and

comprehensible when related to other elements.

13
 The mythmaker, according to him, is a bricoleur. The mythmaker uses

elements, relating or differentiating the elements, within a culture or group to

structure the meaning, which are available within the structure rather than looking for

details. These elements have no special meaning in themselves, but rather gain

meaning in relation to other elements within the structure of the myth.

Binary oppositions and dichotomies, according to Levi Strauss (1967),

describe a cultural system, like east-west, peak-valley, land-sea, etc. It is by relations

of association and differentiation that people try to understand and gain meaning of

the world, he opined. Such relations reveal how people attribute a sense of meaning to

their reality. Myths are always in a state of transformation while retaining their basic

structure, as in the case of structural linguistic analysis. In this way, myths are

considered to be revealing of the mental framework of the people as well as the

structure of their world.

1.6 World Religions

There are so many religions around the world. People adhere to one or the

other religion, despite the fact of widespread atheism too. The following are some of

the religions that are more popular among the people in different parts of the world:

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Mormonism, Paganism,

Shintoism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. In the following section,

some of the religions practised in India are discussed.

14
1.7 Religions in India

India is a land of multicultural, multi-religious, multi-linguistic nation. The

major religions of India are Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam,

Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Judaism.

1.7.1 Hinduism

Hinduism is also known as “Sanatan Dharma” or the religion without origin or

originator. If the Indus valley civilization (3rd–2nd millennium BCE) is taken to be

the earliest source of Hinduism, then it is the oldest religion in the world and it is the

dominant religion in India and Nepal. Hinduism is world’s third` largest religion after

Christianity and Islam. In India Hindus form around 84 per cent of the total

population. In the early 21st century, Hinduism had nearly one billion adherents

worldwide. It originated in the Indian subcontinent and it comprises various systems

of philosophy, beliefs and practices. Hence, it is referred as the syncretic religion too.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Hinduism as “the dominant religion of India

that emphasizes dharma with its resulting ritual and social observances and often

mystical contemplation and ascetic practices.” The name Hinduism is relatively new,

having been coined by British writers in the first decades of the 19thcentury, Hinduism

is the oldest living religion on Earth. It has many sacred texts written in Sanskrit and

other regional languages. Though Hinduism is not a scripture based religion, its

sacred texts, apart from the visual and performing arts, serve as the carrier of the

beliefs and practices in the modern period (Dowling, 2006).

1.7.2 Buddhism

Buddhism is one of the major religions in the world. The philosophy of

Buddhism is based on the teachings of Lord Buddha (563 and 483 BC). Though

15
Buddhism originated in India, it spread throughout Central Asia, Southeast Asia, as

well as East Asian countries. The world Buddhist population is calculated to be

approximately 448 million. The census of India estimates that Buddhist population in

India is 8 million. Ancient Buddhist scriptures and doctrines were developed in

several closely related literary languages of ancient India, especially in Pali and

Sanskrit (Harvey, 2012).

1.7.3 Jainism

The origin of Jainism is traced to Vardhamana Mahavira (599-527 BCE),

though there were a series of Thirthangaras preceding him. In India Jains form less

than one per cent of the Indian population. For centuries, Jains remain as mercantile

community. Gujarat and Rajasthan have the highest concentration of Jain population

in India. Jainism teaches a path to spiritual enlightenment through the observance of

ahimsa which means nonviolence to all living creatures.

Along with Hinduism and Buddhism, Jainism is one of the three most ancient

Indian religious traditions. Though it shares some of its notions with Hinduism and

Buddhism, because of cultural contacts and a shared linguistic background, Jainism

should be regarded as an independent religion rather than considering a sect within

either Hinduism or Buddhism.

Though Jainism is confined largely to India, migrations during the modern

period enabled it to spread to different parts of the world. Though there is no accurate

statistics about the spread of Jainism to different parts of the world, it is estimated that

there are more than four million Jains in the world today (Latthe, 1905; Shah, 2002).

16
1.7.4 Sikhism

Sikhs are about 2 per cent of Indian population. Sikhism is considered to be a

younger religion when compared to other institutionalized religions. Sikhism derives

its meaning from the word ‘Sikh’ which means disciple and so it is considered as the

religion of discipleship. It gives importance to both worldly and spiritual life and so it

is called as ‘Miri-Piri’ religion. It is the uniqueness of Sikhism.

The founder of Sikh faith is Guru Nanak who lived between 1469 CE and

1539 CE. It emerged in the Punjab region of the Indian subcontinent. Guru Nanak was

followed by nine other Gurus and Guru Granth Sahib, the scripture of Sikh faith, is

considered as the ‘Living Guru’, after the death of the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind

Singh. The Sikhs call their faith as Gurmat, which means “the Way of the Guru” in

Punjabi language. In the early 21st century, there were nearly 25 million

Sikhs worldwide, the great majority of them living in the Indian state of Punjab

(Nesbitt, 2016; Sidhu, 1973; Mansukhani, 1993).

1.7.5 Islam

Islam is one of the prominent religions of India. The population of Muslims in

India is 12 per cent of India's population. Though Islam was introduced in India much

earlier, it began to spread widely in the 8th century CE after the conquest of the

province of Sindh. Islam was founded by the Prophet Muhammad in Arab during the

7th century CE. Though Prophet Muhammad preached the tenets of Islam to a small

group of followers, it spread rapidly to different parts of the world. The Arabic

term Islam means “surrender” or “peace”, which highlights the basic feature of Islam;

the believer is expected to surrender to the will of Allah (God). The monotheism of

17
Islam attributes to God as the creator, sustainer, and restorer of the world. Its sacred

scripture, the Quran is considered to be the revelation of Allah through his messenger,

Prophet Muhammad. In Islam, Prophet Muhammad is considered to be the last one

among the series of prophets, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Solomon

and Jesus who are common figures within Semitic religions (Denny, 2015;

Hamidullah, 1980).

1.7.6 Christianity

Christianity is one of the prominent religions of India, though it originated in

the region of Palestine. Christianity was founded by Jesus in the 1st Century C.E and it

stems from the life and teachings of Jesus. Census of India says that at present there

are about 25 million Christians in India. It is interesting to note that the Christian

population in India is more than the entire population of Australia and New Zealand

or total population of a number of countries in Europe. There are many divisions

among the followers of Christianity. The major divisions are Roman Catholicism,

Protestantism and Pentecostalism, in addition to the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy

(Ratzinger, 2004; Weaver & Brakke, 2008).

1.7.7 Zoroastrianism

Though the number of Zoroastrians is very minimal within the Indian

population, Zoroastrianism is considered to be one of the important religions of India

due to the impact and contribution of Zoroastrians to Indian culture and socio-

economic fabric. Zoroastrians, who are otherwise called as Parsis, inhabit

Maharashtra (particularly Mumbai) and Gujarat. Their population, according to 2001

census, is about 70000 in India.

18
 The Iranian prophet and religious reformer Zarathustra (6th century BCE),

who is widely known by the Greek form of his name, Zoroaster, is regarded as the

founder of this religion. Zoroastrianism observes monotheism and it gives importance

to the dual nature of reality through the notions of good and evil. It is said to have

influenced other major religions of the world, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

(Ling, 1969).

1.7.8 Judaism

Judaism is one of the oldest monotheistic religions and was founded over 3500

years ago in the Middle East. Jews believe that God appointed the Jews to be his

chosen people in order to set an example of holiness and ethical behaviour to the

world (Dimont, 2004).

1.8 Thinkers’ Views on Religion

Though many thinkers have expressed their views on religion, in this study the

views of Karl Max, Vivekananda, Gandhi, Periyar E.V. Ramasamy and Ambedkar

have been dealt with briefly.

1.8.1 Karl Marx

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a great philosopher, political theorist, sociologist

of the 19th century. Marx considered religion as a part of humans pragmatic

understanding (or learning) of the world. Religion provided explanations on the

universal matters, that otherwise cannot be understood by human knowledge.

It constructed an imaginary world in human thought alternating the real one. Marx

believed the need for religion will fade way as humans begin to understand the real

world with scientific temper. As the society is divided into classes, ruling class deploy

the religious organizations and dogmas as a tool to cover their dominance.

19
 Marx says “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a

heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”

(Marx, 2000). According Ritzer & Stepnisky (2017), Marx is of the view that with

religion people are barred from a realistic understanding of society. Marx opined that

by providing people with rational and dialectical understanding of nature, instead of

hardened atheism, scientific temper will fade out religion (Ritzer & Stepnisky, 2017).

1.8.2 Vivekananda

Vivekananda is a pioneer among Hindu reformers. He was a key figure in

introducing philosophies of vedanta and yoga to the western world. According to

Vivekananda the fundamental nature of religion is shared in common across all the

nations of the world. Seema (2015) in her doctoral thesis looks into religion in

Vivekananda’s view. Religion is the language of the soul. Though nations across the

globe differ linguistically, culturally and socially this fundamental nature of religion is

shared in common. He wanted the followers of a religion to be in brotherhood with

co-religionists.

To him a man should realize the divine to attain divinity and believe in

spiritual realization and Vivekananda emphasized that divinity can be achieved

through yoga and it is the way to real knowledge.

Vivekananda explains religion in four dimensions (Seema, 2015),

A religion must be a matter of the soul of man.

A religion must facilitate efflorescence of humanism.

20
 A religion is a spirit both evolutionary and revolutionary calls for truly

educated mind caring for knowledge crystallized in education; it must

be radical in approach making one sincere to serve the self-ascent and

self-excellence.

A religion must be solemnized with the spirit of altruism.

1.8.3 Gandhi

Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and

freedom across the world. According to Gandhi, all religions aimed at the same

goal - that is truth. Gandhi believed religion makes up the most vital aspect of life.

Gandhi had a very much pragmatic view towards religion. To him religion is a matter

of life and death, religion accompanies beyond one’s grave. In Gandhi’s own words

religion can be described as “Religion is a mighty tree that absorbs its sap from that

moral height of those who prefer that religion” and “Life without religion is life

without principle, a life without principle is like a ship without a rudder” He believed

that man cannot live without dharma or religion, as it is the sustaining force which

provides us with the principle of brotherhood (Gandhi, 1986).

Gandhi is of the firm opinion that “God is certainly one; He is Omnipresent,

Omniscient, Omnipotent and a great democrat, since He gives us freedom to choose

between good and evil” (Gandhi, & Prabhu, 1962). And only religion can help man in

reaching the ultimate goal of life and cross over the sufferings of life. To him Religion

is a principle of unification and God harmonization and service to man is the service

to God only. By religion he meant self-realisation. The true religion of men is to

serve humanity. He wrote in the Young India “Realization of God is impossible

without complete renunciation of the sexual desire” (Gandhi, 1926).

21
 In his autobiography Gandhi writes “To see the universal and all-pervading

Spirit of Truth face to face one must be able to love the meanest of creation as

oneself. That is why my devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics; and

I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say

that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means”

(Gandhi, 1948).

1.8.4 Periyar

Periyar E.V. Ramasamy was a social revolutionary of the 20th century from

Tamil Nadu in South India. From the perspective of Periyar “Religion is a regulatory

discipline, any follower of a religion, even if he is very intelligent, should abide by

that discipline. Apart from that he doesn’t have other use from it.” Whatever ideas

inherently obtained or inculcated in the name of religion viz., God, heaven, hell,

religious order, religious headship everything were attained only by his involvement

in religious discipline. He adds that all these are imaginary, not natural and cannot be

sensed. In view of that one with religious character or feelings is only a believer and

not a rationalist. To him matters pertaining to God or religion are seedless fruit and

lifeless body eventually ends in nothingness.

Periyar explains God as a concept created by human.

“Man has created the concept of God, with the attribute of (not only)

having created everything and also conducting all the activities of the

world. That is to say, whether you do good or bad, you are not the master

of it, but you are so ordained to do so. This is what theists or believers

tell people as God’s attributes!”

22
 The God, religion and people who created them in the past, and the people

who were above ordinary human qualities had said, “Help the poor; you will be

rewarded with heaven.” The sastras and vedas originating from them also said the

same thing. But ordinary scientific intelligence of modern science states:

“Why should there be poor people in the world? Such poverty should not have been

created. Yet, whatever be the reasons for the existence of poor people in the past,

whosoever created such conditions, there should not be poor people amongst

humanity now.” What reply could be given by any one, any divine person to this

approach? Therefore, God, religion, divine personages, whatever and however they

may be, in order that they are to be protected, must remain humble in order to be

safely protected at all (Sen, 2003).

Only by having no feeling of God, humanism, the propensity to treat equally

all people, honesty, courage to appreciate good things from the bad ones, the capacity

to do public service treating everyone alike would be there.

1.8.5 Ambedkar

Ambedkar was a revolutionary politician and social reformer of India, who

wrote the constitution of India. Ambedkar finds the definition of Tilak meaningful

and agreeable "That which knits the people together is religion." Accepting religion as

a principle, he further explains it as the rules established for the maintenance of

society. Very specifically he tells religion is for man and not man for religion.

Ambedkar resolutely says welfare and progress of an individual is the real aim of

religion and expresses his displeasure towards religion not recognising the individual.

In this background he argues Hinduism has no equality in principle. While

rejecting Hinduism he states that Hindu society denies the place for individual, it is

23
constituted on the class concept, and it doesn’t teach its followers how to behave and

show humanity with co-religionists. He strongly refutes that a religion can’t

exclusively allot education, wealth for some classes; while forbidding other classes

from knowledge and imposing duty to bear arms. That is not religion but a

punishment, a mockery of humans, he says. He advocated for a religion aiming at a

society that ensures everyone the arms, wealth and knowledge (Ambedkar, 1968).

Ambedkar denies that religion is beyond Nature. But Ambedkar views religion

as a tool in keeping the human life’s joyful and painful events alive. Averring that

rituals, rites, worship, customs are the primary role of the religions Ambedkar tells

that protection of life is the essence of religion (Chatterjee, 2005).

It is said that religion includes factors such as soul, inner self, theism, form

and a God beyond the universe. Ambedkar ignores the above inclusions of religion

and turns the main inclusions into social related ones. Considering the patterns of

social change as the essence of the religion Ambedkar considers birth, death, marriage

and life protection as the prime factors of religion. Also Ambedkar rejects the concept

the God being the prime factor of theism and religion. He tells that concept of God is

now playing the role played by the witchcraft and conjuring in the olden days.

Ambedkar pushes theism to second place in explaining religion. Though he

didn’t say that the relation between an individual and religion is dangerous, he is of

the view that it is bad. Ambedkar does not accept the idea of religion unravelling the

instinct of an individual; he states that religion like language is a social thing, because

both religion and language are essential for social life. Without both of these men

can’t participate in social life.

24
 Ambedkar endorses the view of Professor L. Wood that, “Law and order are

not enough for social stability. On the other hand upon everything death penalty

serves as a powerful tool to control the society.” Religion has a defined social

perspective and social activities. It aims at proving a concept. While embracing a

religion a person should raise a question how effectively religion has already achieved

its aims (Ambedkar, 1987).

1.9 Religious Conversion

Conversion refers to a striking and really sudden change in an individual’s

view of life. Conversion may involve changes in beliefs, group identification or

personality characteristics. It leads to the re-organization and reorientation of an

individual’s intellectual and emotional outlook. It also affects spatio-temporal

orientations of an individual’s life. Conversion may occur in an individual’s political,

economic, social or philosophical views, although in traditional general usage, it

refers most often to religious belief.

The process of changing religious affiliation and identity is called as religious

conversion. In general religious conversion is explained by two different

understandings that conversion is either done or happens to individuals. Conventional

account of conversion by sociologists is that of a course met out by an individual who

is weakened by existing internal or external forces and then chooses to adopt a

different cult with commitment to practice.

Religious conversion has become a sensitive and even an explosive issue.

Though conversion is nothing new to Indian society and is deeply rooted in the past, it

creates social, political and cultural transformational issues. The invasion by Islamic

25
armies resulted in changes in Indian social structure. Christianity came to India

immediately after the followers of Jesus visited the coastal areas of South India,

particularly Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Even today we can see 1500 year old churches in

this part of India. It is an evidence of the existence of Christianity in India for

centuries.

Conversion is the subject of extensive literature and has attracted the interest

of researchers working in a number of academic disciplines including history,

theology, sociology, psychology and anthropology. There is little consensus on how

to define conversion, except for the notion of change. The sociologist Heinrich (1977)

writes of “a change of the heart” inscribed in “a process of changing a sense of root

reality” as well as “a conscious shift in one’s sense of grounding.”

1.10 Mass Conversion

Mass conversion is the change of religious identity from one religion to

another by a section of a society or residents of a particular region. In the medieval

Europe conversion to Christianity happened en masse. Bishop Remigius baptized

Clovis I the King of Franks. In effect of this, 3000 Frankish people converted to

Christianity along with their King. Ambedkar stated that similar kind of mass

conversions also happened among the Russians, Germans, and Dutch following their

Kings’ baptism. In the history of Europe religious conversions didn’t take place from

the bottom of the social pyramid but from the top.

When Christianity spread into India few individual conversions happened here

and there. In the period of Portuguese invasion of India, Paravas of east coast of

Tamil Nadu were fighting with Kerala Muslims for their sea rights. To win the fight

26
and protect their rights on the sea, the Paravas approached the Portuguese authorities

at Cochin. The Portuguese agreed to help in favour of the Paravas and in return asked

them to embrace Christianity. And the Paravas converted to Christianity en masse.

Meanwhile Robert de Nobile, a Jesuit priest based at Madurai was intensively

working on individual conversions. After his transfer to Tiruchirapalli, a saint of

Paraiyar caste from a village near Salem met Robert de Nobile. He engaged in

philosophical dialogue with him and embraced Christianity. Along with the saint 700

of his followers too converted to Christianity (Rajanayagam, 1972).

Be it the conversions in Europe or India mass conversions had happened due

to the livelihood reasons. Similarly it can be observed that mass conversions had

followed with baptisms of the top of the pyramid like King, leader and Saint.

1.11 Reconversion

Reconversion is coming back to the earlier religion from the converted

religion. Reconversion can be of the individual or mass reconversion. With reference

to India and Hinduism reconversion efforts have been taken by the Hindu reformers

since 19th century. Arya Samaj was among the major movements to reconvert the

converted Christians and Muslims.

The first well-organised and widely-known attempt at reconversion to

Hinduism was made roughly between 1880 and 1930 by the Hindu nationalist

movement the Arya Samaj (Society of Nobles), founded by Swami Dayananda

Saraswati in 1875 and centered in Punjab. These developments involved complex

negotiations with Western ideologies and a restructuring of indigenous traditions,

which became the framework for the idea of a ‘Hindu renaissance’, ‘revival’,

‘neo-Hinduism’ or ‘semitised Hinduism’.

27
 Thirunavukarasar4 of 6th century is a typical example for the reconversion by a

historical and emeritus personality. Dharmasenan of Samanam5 converted to Saivam6

and changed his name as Thirunavukarasar and went on to become the first Kuravar,

the Saiva priest in Tamil. Later on he converted to Samanam and again he reconverted

to Saivam.

In 2nd century St. Thomas converted people of Malabar Coast to Christianity.

The converts later named themselves as Syrian Catholic Christians. They didn’t abide

by the Pope of Rome. They followed Syrian bishop. Portuguese who came in

15th century forced the Syrian Catholics to accept the Pope of Rome. When the people

refused they were forced to reconvert to Roman Catholic at gunpoint. This is an

example of reconversion coerced by the ruler (Gilson, 2013).

1.12 Anti-Conversion Law

After India became independent the role of political factor in conversion

underwent a change. If previously the Islamic and colonial powers could overtly and

covertly help conversion to either Islam or Christianity, the secular Indian government

defined its role more neutrally. The legislative history relating to the issue of

conversion in India underscores the point that the authorities concerned were never

favourably disposed towards conversion. While British India had no anti-conversion

laws, many Princely States enacted anti-conversion legislation: the Raigarh State

4
Thirunavukkarasar was a seventh-century Saiva Tamil poet-saint and one of the most prominent
of the 63 Nayanars. He was an older contemporary of Thirugnanasambanthar.
5
Samanam is Tamil Word for Jainism.
6
Shaivism is one of the major traditions within Hinduism that reveres Shiva as the Supreme Being
or its metaphysical concept of Brahman. The followers of Shaivism are called "Shaivites" or
"Saivites".

28
Conversion Act 1936, the Patna Freedom of Religion Act of 1942, the Sarguja State

Apostasy Act 1945 and the Udaipur State Anti-Conversion Act 1946. Similar laws

were enacted in Bikaner, Jodhpur, Kalahandi and Kota and many more were

specifically against conversion to Christianity. In the post-independence era,

Parliament took up for consideration in 1954 the Indian Conversion (Regulation and

Registration) Bill and later in 1960 the Backward Communities (Religious Protection)

Bill, both of which had to be dropped for lack of support. The proposed Freedom of

Religion Bill of 1979 was opposed by the Minorities Commission due to the Bill's

evident bias (Anant, 2002).

However, in 1967-68, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh enacted local laws called

the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act 1967 and the Madhya Pradesh Dharma

Swatantraya Adhiniyam 1968. In similar lines, the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of

Religion Act, 1978 was enacted to provide for prohibition of conversion from one

religious faith to any other by use of force or inducement or by fraudulent means and

for matters connected therewith. The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Forcible Conversion

of Religion Ordinance was promulgated by the Governor on October 5, 2002 and

subsequently adopted by the State Assembly. Later on the same ordinance was

withdrawn considering the public dissent of Tamil Nadu.

1.13 Meenakshipuram Conversion – A Brief History

Thirty seven years ago in February 1981, Meenakshipuram a village in

Tenkasi Taluk of Tirunelveli district with a population of 200 families grabbed the

attention of the whole country with an en masse conversion of 180 families to Islam

religion (Kalam, 1990; Khan, 1982). All the 200 families belonged to the Hindu

29
Pallar community, which comes under the scheduled caste. This moving out of the

Hindu fold by untouchables through mass religious conversion created ripples across

the nation. It also kindled a big debate on religious conversion. In a single day all the

coverts’ God, names, rituals, rites and customs changed. A mosque too was built in

Meenakshipuram with the help of Isha-ad-ul Islam Sabai, Tirunelveli. Many from

Hindu sanatan organizations including RSS visited Meenakshipuram. Several leaders

of political parties including Atal Bihari Vajpaee, Member of Parliament and a leader

of BJP; Yogendra Makwana, the then Home Minister of India and a Congress party

leader, L. Ilayaperumal, the then President of Tamil Nadu Congress Committee

visited the people of Meenakshipuram and enquired about the reasons for the religious

conversion.

1.13.1 Meenakshipuram Village

Meenakshipuram is a hamlet of Thenpothai Panchayat in Tenkasi Taluk of

Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu. It is about 16 kilo meters from Tenkasi town and

about one kilometer from Thenpothai. Further, it is at a distance of about half a

kilometer from the main road. The other important village nearer to this hamlet is

Panpoli, also called Pumbli (Kalam, 1984 & Khan, 1982).

Meenakshipuram has 180 converts and Scheduled Caste families and

25 Maravar7 families. The houses of the Maravars are located at the beginning of the

village and after their houses, the houses of the converts and the Scheduled Castes are

located (Khan, 1982).

7
Maravar is a Tamil community of the state of Tamil Nadu, southern India, and are one of the
three branches of the Mukkulathor confederacy or league of caste.

30
 There are two groups of dalits8 in Meenakshipuram: the Pallars and

the Chakkiliyars. Together, they constitute 221 households - 211 Pallars, and

10 Chakkiliyars. The Maravars, who are caste Hindus, have 23 households. There are

an additional 10 households of other castes. That makes a total of 254 households.

The population of Meenakshipuram is 1,025. The average size of a household is

4.035. Going by the census figures quoted above, there is nothing to suggest that

Meenakshipuram is either unique or typical in any way. It is just like any of those

hundreds of hamlets in southern Tamil Nadu. Even the layout of settlement pattern

does not make Meenakshipuram distinct in any way, except for the fact that the

houses of Pallars are built exactly the same way as those of Maravars, which are tiled

houses. The Maravar settlement is at the entrance to the hamlet. The houses of the

Pallars are about 150 meters away. The Chakkiliyars, however, stay close to the

Maravar settlement. By all accounts it appears to be a sleepy hamlet, or to be more

accurate, it was a sleepy hamlet till that fateful day in February 1981.

1.13.2 Early Conversions

Mass conversion from Hinduism to other religion was not a new phenomenon.

Mass conversion became popular in Tirunelveli district by 1841 through the Christian

missionaries. In 1849 there were around 40,000 people who converted in Tirunelveli

district alone. During 1945-46 around 4000 people converted to Islam religion at

Therkupatti village in Tirunelveli district. Between the years of 1960 to 1984 around

8,230 conversions to Islam religion had taken place in Tirunelveli district

(Kalam, 1984). Particularly in Meenakshipuram around 1940s, Ramaiah and some

8
Members of the group formerly known as untouchables in India: a term used by Mohandas K.
Gandhi.

31
other Pallars had converted to Christianity. An Ex-service man, Ramaiah changed his

Hindu name into Christian one viz., Rajaiah. He was an enthusiastic practitioner of

Christianity till 1981. Later he converted to Islam and became Ibrahim. He was the

first Muthavalli (Trustee of the Mosque) of the Mosque in Meenakshipuram

(Kalam, 1990). Within the churches too Ramaiah experienced caste discrimination.

He and other Pallar Christians could not mix with other caste Christians. Even after

the conversion into Christianity, the Pallar tag did not leave him and other Pallar

Christians. Therefore, he and other Pallar Christians decided to convert along with

other Hindu Pallars to Islam in February 1981. Few years before 1981 around

15 families near Meenakshipuram village were converted to Islamic religion

(Khan, 1982).

1.13.3 Socio-economic Factors of Conversion - Social Discrimination

Rajendran, a dalit was humiliated by a Maravar by beating him up with

slippers as he was sitting in a cycle shop. Usually in Meenakshipuram and nearby

villages the untouchables were not allowed to wear shoes, ride cycle, while they pass

through the Maravar settlement. Even while travelling in the buses there were

separate segregated seats for dalits. And they were denied access to water in public

ponds and wells. A particular incident narrated by the villagers during the field work

was that in the year 1980 Meenakshipuram had two dalit members in the village

panchayat. They were denied drinking water in the panchayat meetings. The services

of barber and washer men were not allowed to the dalit. The untouchability practised

was as vicious as it was practised in routine even at temples and schools

(Wright, 1982; Desai, 1991; Irby, 2005; Noorani, 2011). There was separate drinking

32
cup for dalit members at Panchayat meetings, segregated seats on the bus, prohibition

on transit through higher caste areas, etc. (Wright, 1982).

The educated dalits youths were not allowed to enter temples, hotels and other

places of public importance. They were looked down upon in the offices. They were

addressed in singular. Contemptuous words were used against them. This irritated the

youths. They could see how a few dalits who got converted to Islam one decade ago

were leading a peaceful life with dignity, and commanding respect in society.

The same Maravars had no courage to insult them after conversion to Islam.

They were respected in the offices where they worked. Their women were respected.

They had more freedom and status. As against this, the dalits were practically isolated

from the domain of Hindu society. They had no regard for Hindu gods and temples

with which they had no ties. They were frustrated. The history of conversions was

also known to them. Hence they had prepared themselves for a change Khan (1982).

Mujahid (1983) stated that violence against the Untouchables were reactions of caste

Hindus to perceived assertiveness of the Untouchables.

1.13.4 Education and Employment Opportunities

When more data about Meenakshipuram is considered, it clearly shows how

unusual it is in comparison to the other hamlets/villages in the vicinity. Levels of

educational attainment and achievement in the sphere of employment are particularly

high. The educational attainment of the dalits of Meenakshipuram was strikingly

good.

From the census reports, we see a clear picture of the rising literacy rate

among dalits in Tamil Nadu. In Tirunelveli district, their literacy level was quite high

33
- 26 per cent of the dalits were literate. The all-India literacy rate (for all sections of

the population) was 29.5 per cent (1971 census). As we have seen from table. 1.1

Meenakshipuram was way ahead when it came to educational attainment

(Kalam, 1984). Khan, (1982) reported that above 70% of the Meenakshipuram dalits

were educated.

Dalits of Meenakshipuram can boast of 6 graduates, 1 post graduate, 2 doctors

(1 in London and the other in Madras) and 1 engineer as for the corresponding figures

of caste Hindus, there were 5 graduates and 1 post graduate (Desai, 1991).

Table 1.1.
Educational Attainment and Employment of Dalits in Meenakshipuram

Educational Attainment Occupation/Profession No. of people

Professional Courses
Doctor 1
MD

MBBS Doctor 3

BE Engineer 1

B.Sc. (Agri.) Dist. Agri. Officer 1

PUC/Teacher Training Secondary Grade 7

Non-Professional Courses
Asst. Supt. of Police 1
B.A, I.P.S

M.A Unemployed 2

B.A, B.Sc. Unemployed 7

PUC, B.A, B.Sc. Clerks 10

34
 The dalits of Meenakshipuram had better education and government

employment opportunities as seen above. They were also better in their economic

status in comparison with the dalits of other places and the Caste Hindus of

Meenakshipuram.

1.13.5 Land Disputes

The pattern of land ownership and of education in the village is noteworthy.

300 dalit families of Meenakshipuram owned 29 acres of land in Thenpothai

panchayat, of which Meenakshipuram village is a hamlet, they also formed the

majority in the village.

Those Meenakshipuram dalits who owned little or no land were registered

cultivating tenants of the Thiruvavaduthurai Mutt (temple) land in Mekkarai. The

Mutt lands provided a major source of income for the dalits of Meenakshipuram and

also for dalits of the neighbouring villages. In contrast to the pattern which often

prevails in the district the Meenakshipuram dalits do not work in lands belonging to

the dominant local caste group, the Maravars. In fact the Maravars’ own holdings are

small, and some of them, like the dalits, are tenants of the temple. It was the Mutt

lands where conflict between the two groups arose. It must be clearly and

categorically pointed out that the tension was not generated to any serious extent

between the dalits and Maravars in Meenakshipuram proper. The Pallars live a little

distance away from the Maravars. A majority of the houses of the Pallars have tiled

roofs and are electrified. It would be difficult to distinguish between the houses of

Pallars and those of Maravars where they are located in the same place. This is a

significant pointer to the economic status of the Pallars as in many areas the dalits live

in what are called cheri (settlement of dalits) which are somewhat remote from the

35
settlement of caste Hindus which is more or less centrally located. The Chakkiliyars,

who have just ten households, live very near to, and in the same settlement as; the

Maravars. But their houses are thatched ones, and they have no electricity.

The cultivating tenants of Mutt lands, including both dalits of

Meenakshipuram and Maravars decided to form a co-operative society to safeguard

their interests. Accordingly, the Mekkarai Agricultural Society (Vivasaya Sangam)

was established on 16 August 1969. The important positions in the above society like

the president, vice president and secretary were occupied by the caste Hindus

(Maravar) and only unimportant positions such as Assistant Secretary was given to a

Pallar, who is a dalit. Except for the Assistant Secretary, who was a dalit and all the

others were Maravars. The formation of this society did not bring any succor to the

dalits. Their interests, instead of being taken care of, suffered a further jolt. There was

a split, and the dalits formed a society of their own. Here too, one Maravar managed

to become the Vice-President. But this society could not function for a variety of

reasons, the most significant being lack of funds, lack of political support and

complicity between the police and the Maravars. This hindered the work of the

society as there was unjustified interference using force and terrorising tactics. There

were innumerable incidents of dalits being beaten up and the police turning a blind

eye and refusing to lodge complaints. There was some relief for the dalits from this

oppression when the president and vice president of the society, namely Gopal Thevar

and Muthu Pandian Thevar were arrested during the Emergency.

A case lodged by Velachamy which was pending for quite some time was

taken up, and Muthu Pandian Thevar was convicted and sentenced to two years for

having assaulted Velachamy. But when they were released from jail they struck back

36
with a vengeance and renewed zeal; incidents of assault on and oppression of dalits

increased by leaps and bounds. The complicity and connivance of the police were

marked in all these cases; when they were not active aggressors, they were passive

spectators.

1.13.6 Immediate Cause of Conversion (Precipitating factor) - Police Atrocities

The Meenakshipuram conversions have to be examined with reference to one

significant social situation which has an important link to the conversion movement.

Thangaraj was an young dalit known for his militant abilities. He stood for

self-respect for his people. He was totally frustrated with Maravars who were

exploiting the dalits in all possible areas. He organized his people. The Maravars were

unhappy and irritated. He fell in love with a Maravar girl of neighbouring village.

One day he eloped with the girl with the intention of marrying her. It is reported that

his people in Meenakshipuram were not happy with his proposed marriage. This was

obviously because of the strained relationship that they had with the Maravars. They

had a fear that this marriage would bring havoc on them and therefore, they did not

approve of it. Thangaraj went to Ponnani, Malabar district of Kerala along with the

girl and embraced Islam and married her (Khan, 1982). He changed his name as

Yusuf and he settled in Mekkarai with his wife.

Mekkarai is a village situated 5 kilometres from Meenakshipuram.

Thiruvavaduthurai Aatheenam9 owned farm lands in Mekkarai, where Pallars of

Meenakshipuram cultivated the lands as tenants. Yusuf too was one among those

tenants. He was familiar with one Alexander, who was the manager of Gemini Estate

9
Thiruvavaduthurai Atheenam is a Saivite mutt based in the town of Thiruvavaduthurai in
Kuthalam taluk of Nagapattinam District, Tamil Nadu, India.

37
owned by Nicolas. Later, the estate was sold to Radhakrishna Reddy. After taking

possession of the estate Radhakrishna Reddy asked Alexander to vacate the estate and

posted two security guards namely Subbaiah and Rama, who belonged to Maravar

caste of the Parvathiyapuram village. After this an enmity developed between Reddy

and Alexander. Alexander, Yusuf and others from Mekkarai wanted to retain their

position. No amicable settlement could be arrived amongst them. Amidst this

situation those security guards were murdered. Kalam, (1984) says in his words that,

“in December 1980, the highly publicised double Murder took place. The bodies of

two Maravars were recovered from the Hanuman River. The highly charged situation

in Meenakshipuram took a turn for the worse. Police registered a case, and out of the

11 persons named, 6 were dalits”. Police filed a murder case on 11 persons including

Thangaraj (Yusuf) and his two relatives namely, Nagaiah, Murugaiah and Edward

Rajan (a lawyer), and Alexander in the above said double murder. Yusuf was taken

into custody by the local police. In search of other accused, police oppression

increased in Meenakshipuram. It is said that one man was kept in the lock-up for

34 days and a woman for 5 days. The police brutality that followed was just too much

for the Pallars. The police would pick up dalits at the behest of Gopal Thevar and

Muthu Pandian Thevar and indulge in barbaric activities. Thangaraj tried his best to

prove his innocence, but he could not. He was kept in the lock-up and beaten daily.

None could go to the rescue of Thangaraj. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and

the Collector belonged to Scheduled Castes, but they were kept ignorant of this

situation (Khan, 1982).These atrocities went on till February 1981.

The Scheduled Castes had been subjected to all types of social discrimination.

They were not allowed to enter temples. Hotels were either barred or even if allowed,

38
to the Scheduled Castes, there was discrimination. Scheduled Caste women were ill-

treated. They were exploited in many ways, including exploitation of sexual nature.

The Scheduled Caste youths had decided, eight to ten years ago, to face this challenge

and if inevitable, change their religion. But the elderly persons did not agree. They

were more bound to respect social practices and customs. And therefore, the younger

generation was disappointed. Another problem was that all the families in

Meenakshipuram were interrelated and therefore, the youths decided that if at all there

was a conversion, all should do so simultaneously. This was a very important

requirement and took time to educate the people (Khan, 1982).

It was reported that Umar Sheriff (earlier Durai Raj) of Meenakshipuram

approached Muslim leaders regarding the ill-treatment meted out to dalits and

expressed the desire to embrace Islam along with some others. He had been

approaching them for the last four years. He gave three petitions during the last four

years and the latest one was given in January 1981. It was reported that the South

Indian Isha-ad-ul Islam Sabai had helped the mass conversion during 1945-46 at

Therkupatti (Noorani, 2011). Subsequently, dalit, Issaki, a conductor, was assaulted

by a drunken Maravar travelling in his bus and addressed by his caste name:

“You Dalits are also talking to me thus!” (Desai, 1991).

After the double murder of the Maravar security guards, Maravar Police

Inspector had decided to stop the dalit movement for mobilization in

Meenakshipuram. There were number of atrocities against the dalits who suffered

untold miseries. The people had to face these hardships day and night. Even women

were not spared by the Police. Dalit males were tortured. The dalits told the Joint

Director of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes that social discrimination as well

39
as police harassment made them convert. In the murder case in which 2 Maravars

were killed, 6 of the arrested were dalits. Apart from these 6, 10 other dalits were

taken into police custody and tortured; these included a 10 year old boy Raman

(now Abdul Kareem) who became partially deaf due to this torture (Desai, 1991).

There were a number of atrocities against and untold miseries of the dalits of

Meenakshipuram. The people had to face these hardships day and night. Even

women were not spared by the police. Many individuals were tortured (Irby, 2005).

There had been a history of dalit assertiveness, of Maravars' oppressive

treatment, and of conflict in which the police supported the Maravars. The murder of

two Maravars in December 1980 (two months before the conversion) brought a new

wave of police torture and harassment for the dalits of the village. This situation

caused the dalits to adopt a collective strategy. Their exposure to Islam was mainly

through social contact with the Muslims of the area, who had been a political power in

this electoral constituency for at least forty years. This conversion came as a

collective decision of the converts, albeit in three instalments (Mujahid, 1989).

1.13.7 Conversion Plan

On 19 February 1981, 220 families from Meenakshipuram village were ready

to convert to Islam religion. But only 200 families filled in applications for the

conversion. Out of these 200 families, 20 families withdrew their applications and the

actual converts were only 180 families (Khan, 1982). The Commission for Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes of Government of India claims that “180 Hindu dalit

families had changed their faith into Islam religion” (letter no. TN/3/7/SCTC/81-Gen

dated 29April 1981). Now and then the conversion of Hindus to Islam had happened

40
in this region. Mostly this happened due to the marriage and wish of the individual.

This is evident from the conversion of an individual named Sekar from

Meenakshipuram to Islam, who name changed to Saiful, two years prior to mass

conversion. Subsequently, a youngster from Vadakarai village near Meenakshipuram

converted to Islam religion on his personal wish. None of his family members

converted.

The youths who were educated and employed in Government service took the

lead. They convinced most of the people that they had to leave Hinduism

(Khan, 1982). Hence they held a meeting on 9th February 1981 and took a decision to

embrace Islam which was the only course to get away from the denigrating word

‘Pallar’ and could subjected to social discrimination, ill treatment and harassment.

They went to Tirunelveli and approached Muslim leaders to allow them to embrace

Islam. They had also reported to the Director of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes that their elders were thinking of converting to Islam for the last twenty years.

They had been having this idea time and again. Since there was no support and

unanimity three times earlier, they did not convert. This was the fourth time when a

good number of them came forward to get converted. It was their belief that at least

their children and grandchildren would not be called ‘Pallar’ and would not be

subjected to ill-treatment and harassment.

1.13.8 Meeting with the Muslim Leaders

On 17 May 1981, the following Muslim leaders met the Director of Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli district, at

the circuit house, Courtallam, and gave the details of conversion of dalits of

Meenakshipuram to Islam.

41
 1. Shri. A.K. Rafaya, ex-Member of Parliament and President, South Indian
Isha-ad-ul Islam Sabai, Tirunelveli

2. Shri. Hazib Mohammad Musthabin Sahib

3. Shri. Jamal Mohammed Sahib, retired Divisional Revenue Officer

4. Shri S.M. Mohaideen Sahib, retired Divisional Revenue Officer

South Indian Isha-ad-ul Islam Sabai was formed in 1944 and was registered in

1954. The main functions of the Sabai were social and religious. It was reported that

Umar Shariff (earlier Shri Dorai Raj) of Meenakshipuram approached them to report

about the ill-treatment meted out to dalits and expressed the desire to embrace Islam

along with some others. He had been approaching them for the last four years.

He gave three petitions during the last four years and the latest one was given in

January 1981. It was reported that the society had helped the mass conversion during

1945-46 at Therkupatti (Noorani, 2011).

According to the dalit youths, the most important reason which went against

Christianity is that the dalit who became Christians did not achieve what they wanted.

The social stigma of untouchability or social discrimination was still practised. There

was a strong feeling of superiority and inferiority between those Christians converted

from the higher caste-Hindus and those Christians from the lower caste Hindus.

The fact that some of the converted Christians also signalled for conversion to

Islam strengthened the arguments, hopes and aspirations. Under these circumstances,

the Scheduled Caste youths decided to embrace Islam. Yusuf (Thangaraj), Umar

Shariff (Durai Raj), Raja Sharif (Rajendran), Kaja Mohiuddin (Kandasamy) were few

educated dalit youths who volunteered to take up the responsibility of mass

42
conversion. Their next problem was to find out organizations, if any, which would

help them in conversion. They finally found out that the South India Isha-ad-ul Islam

Sabai at Tirunelveli was conducting conversions. The leaders approached the

organizers of the Sabai and tried to convince them about their urge for conversion.

Initially, the organizers did not encourage them. But after sometime, they agreed to

undertake the responsibility (Khan, 1982).

On February 19th a function was organised with all pomp and show at

Meenakshipuram. About 4,000 Muslims from the neighbouring

Tenkasi, Kadyanallur, Vadakari, Vavanagaram and other places

participated in the conversion ceremony with their families.

Shahul Hameed, MLA (elected member of the Legislative Assembly)

Kadayanallur, took an active part in the conversion ceremony.

The entire village wore a festive look. The Salath (Prayer) started with

Fazar (sunrise prayer) followed by ZuharAzar and Maquarib at 1 p.m.,

4-30 p.m., and 6-40 p.m. respectively with the entire congregation

reciting the Kalima. Most of the dalits were seen tonsured, and some

sported well-groomed beards. After they repeated the Kalima and

prayed to Allah by kneeling down towards the west, the stage was set

for their marriages anew [sic] according to Islamic rites. The Muslim

women who had come to attend the function went into the houses of

the dalits and brought the women to the ground. All of them were

bathed and dressed in the best clothes and their heads covered in

Islamic style. With the Moulvi reciting from the Koran, the marriages

43
 were reviewed and signature obtained from everyone who turned to

Islam.

This was followed by a feast. The converts were promised a mosque, Arabic

school, burial ground and so on. On March 4, Abdul Samad, MP, laid the foundation

stone for a mosque (Irby, 2005).

At the ceremony and subsequent communal feast the new converts were

joined by Muslims from neighbouring villages, mullahs from Madras, and several

Muslim politicians including Shahul Hameed, M.L.A., Abdul Samad, M.P.

(Muslim League) and Bakir Maraikayar, the Speaker of the Lower House of

Sri Lanka’s Parliament, all of which seems to suggest that a considerable amount of

planning had been done in preparation for this event (Wright, 1982).

The converts told the Director that they had been thinking of converting to

Islam since the last 20 years, but it never worked out due to lack of unanimity. This

was the fourth time they had decided to do so, so that at least their children would not

be called Pallar and ill-treated. They felt no help could be expected from Pallars who

have made it good. So they approached the Muslim religious leaders in Tirunelveli.

The Director’s report concludes by saying that both the converted and non- converted

dalits stressed that it was the dalits who approached the Muslim leaders first; hence

any question of allurement or the involvement of foreign money, is impossible to

answer (Desai, 1991).

1.13.9 Change of Names

After the conversion people renamed Meenakshipuram as Rahmat Nagar.

All the converts had changed their names. A few names had been published in the

44
gazette also. Eight converts in the government service had sent their applications for

change of name to the Director of Printing and Stationery for publishing in the

gazette. But unfortunately only one name got published (Khan, 1982). All the

converts sent their applications for change of names to the gazette office, but they

couldn’t get it published in the gazette. The reason might be pressure from

government side to not publish the names in gazette.

1.13.10 Construction of Mosque

Immediately after the conversion, a temporary mosque was set up with a size

of 10 feetx30 feet area of thatched roof in Meenakshipuram. But it was alleged that

later the thatched roof mosque was torched by RSS cadres. Therefore, they

constructed a mosque with asbestos sheet. Later it was developed into a permanent

building. Now there are three mosques for worship for the converted Muslims, one in

Meenakshipuram and two in Mekkarai.

1.13.11 Reconversion

After the conversion the caste Hindus started an association called

“Suthuvattara Hindu Samuthaya Valarchi Manram” (Neighbourhood Hindu

Development Society for Equality) at Panpoli. Its main objective was to find out the

reason for conversion and to protect the minority Hindus in Meenakshipuram village.

Ramachandra Thevar was the President and S. Subramanian, a Scheduled Caste

person, was the Vice-President of the association. S. Subramanian stated that he was

compelled by the caste Hindus to accept the Vice-Presidentship. Even after being the

Vice-President of the association, he couldn’t enter into the barber shop. Khan (1986),

45
states that, there were about 7 cases of reconversions. Reconversions had taken place

within a short period after conversions. But Kalam (1990) in his study claims that,

“The media highlighted what it dubbed as 'reconversions' in

Meenakshipuram. But the fact of the case is that out of 200 families

that had agreed to get converted only 180 actually did so on

19th February 1981. 20 families backed out. On 7th March 18

individuals, belonging to 4 families got converted. Data obtained by

me shows that there is no question of 'reconversions' in

Meenakshipuram as those 20 families never converted to Islam in the

first place. It is not clear whether the four families that got converted

on the 7th of March 1981 were from the 20 that backed out in the first

instance. My inquiries also show that the reason for the 20 families

backing out were mainly two: first, some of them had fixed up the

marriages of their sons/daughters with Pallars of neighbouring villages

and backed out at the last moment as they did not want to take a risk by

getting converted as the other party involved in the marriage may not

take conversion kindly. The second reason was, they somehow had a

fear that if they get converted they might lose the tenancy right that

they hold on the Mutt land. Therefore, they thought it prudent to wait

and watch further development.”

During the field work people stated that there was no reconversions at all. The Hindu

organizations stated that 20 people who had given their names later refused to

convert.

46
1.13.12 Conversion and Media

The Meenakshipuram religious conversion was first brought out in writing on

4th April, 1981 in the Urdu daily Rahnuma-e-Deccan, published from Hyderabad. But

the news was brought to the mainstream world by the Sunday Standard, the Sunday

issue of Indian Express, on 12th April, 1981. The first phase of the conversion didn’t

get much attention from the media. From the month of May onwards news on

Meenakshipuram conversion was continuously getting published in the newspapers.

All the English newspapers like, The Hindu, Indian Express, Deccan Herald and even

the Indian language newspapers widely covered the issue. Kalam (1990) in his

research article, questions the ethics of the media reporting and its authenticity.

Ibrahim, a convert from Meenakshipuram, told the author that, “half of them

[reporters] have not reported what we had told them, here in Rahmat Nagar and other

half has written reports without ever having visited Rahmat Nagar.”

1.13.13 The Politics of Post-Conversion

Though the religious conversion happened on 19th of Feb, 1981 it came to

light only with the news carried by Indian Express on 12th April of 1981. Following

this Meenakshipuram occupied the headlines of newspapers and magazines. Thus,

Meenakshipuram village became the talk of religious organizations and political

parties. After the conversion several representatives of Hindu organizations, political

parties, representatives of Union and State governments visited Meenakshipuram and

met the people. They enquired about the religious conversion and expressed their

views based on their political positions. Hindu organizations campaigned that the

cause for religious conversion was not untouchability or caste, but it was induced by

the foreign money. Representatives of Union government after their enquiry informed

47
that untouchability and police atrocities were the main reasons for the religious

conversion.

R.M.Veerappan, the then Minister of Tamil Nadu for Hindu Endowment and

Charity spoke on the Meenakshipuram religious conversion in the State Assembly as

follows:

“We do not worry for the religious conversion of Hindus to Islam in a

village in Tirunelveli district. But the reason for the religious conversion

makes us worried. Every individual has the right to choose his religion as

per his faith and wish. It is saddening that the people had lost faith in the

religion so far they had followed as it failed to support and protect them.”

(“Centre to probe ‘mass conversion’ of Harijans”, 1981).

The next day on 15.05.1981, Indian Union Muslim League held its State Executive

Committee meeting at Coimbatore in which A.K. Abdul Samad, MLA “welcomed the

conversion of about 1000 Hindus of the depressed community to Islam at

Meenakshipuram in Tirunelveli district, and said that under the constitution a citizen

had every right to follow the religion of his choice. It is wrong on the part of some

persons to create a problem out of this after remaining silent for long without taking

any interest in the welfare of those people” (“Proscribe IX Std. social studies text:

IUML”, 1981).

1.13.14 Reaction of Union Government

As representatives of the Indian government Yogendra Makwana, the then

Union Home Minister of State and M.P. Subramaniam, the then President of Tamil

48
Nadu Congress Committee visited Meenakshipuram. They probed the religious

conversion and submitted their report to the government of India. After visiting

Meenakshipuram Yogendra Makwana warned about the casteist act of Additional

Inspector General of Tamil Nadu Police, belonged to Thevar caste. At the time of

religious conversion the district Collector of Tirunelveli and the Assistant

Superintendent of Police were from Scheduled Caste (Khan, 1982). Arumugam, the

Joint Director of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Commission, visited

Meenakshipuram on 16th and 17th of May, 1981 and conducted an investigation.

Arumugam met the converts, non- convert dalits and caste Hindus independently and

collectively. He also had joint-sittings and probed the reasons for the religious

conversion. Due to untouchability and discrimination practised by the caste Hindus,

the dalits of Meenakshipuram had decided to convert even four years prior to this

conversion. But there was no consensus arrived at that point of time. People of

Meenakshipuram briefed Arumugam, about the injustice and atrocities done to them.

When Arumugam met the press persons he explained the findings of his report on

Meenakshipuram conversion.

Three years before the conversion, a barber shop was opened near

Meenakshipuram. Maravar caste people had imposed a restriction that dalits should

not cut their hair in that barber shop and dalits were denied drinking water in the

village panchayat board meeting. When asked about all these allegations the caste

Hindus responded that these were only minor things. Dalits had lived amidst all these

routine untouchable tyranny. Only the adding up of police harassment on all their

sufferings forced and precipitated them to convert to Islam. A police officer’s

harassment of many innocent dalits during the investigation of the death of two

49
persons of Maravar community brought the situation to a bottle neck. Refusing to bear

all these any more, dalits as a way to protect themselves embraced Islam religion.

Therefore, this is not at all a forced conversion. Moreover, Meenakshipuram dalits

were economically better than the Maravar caste. Maravars could not digest the better

position of dalits and imposed obstacles and hardships in various ways. Majority of

the Meenakshipuram dalits were agricultural labourers. They worked on the Mekkarai

lands owned by Thiruvavaduthurai Aatheenam. They had to cross through Panpoli

village to reach Mekkarai covering a 5 kilometre distance. While they crossed

Panpoli, the Maravar caste people cause troubles for them. Dalits were not allowed

into the tea shops located around there. A native of Meenakshipuram had been

working in a ‘Local Fund Audit’ at Srivilliputtur. Not able to tolerate the caste

atrocities in the office he approached the South India Isha-ad-ul Islam Sabai in

Tirunelveli and requested for a mass conversion.

When the Union Minister Yogendra Makwana met the media persons at

Chennai on June 23rd of 1981, he told that he had planned to visit Meenakshipuram in

person to know the facts behind the religious conversion. He said it was the

fundamental right of any individual citizen to embrace any religion of his choice, but

it couldn’t be done by lure or money or coercion. What he wanted to find out was

whether the dalits were converted by lure of money or coercion. What was very clear

was that the dalits had been treated very badly, humiliated and attacked, and their

property was looted and burnt. He also stated that from newspaper reports it was

obvious that out of humiliation and anger they had converted themselves to Islam.

Conversion of dalits to other religions was not a new phenomenon in this

country, he pointed out. In the past they had become Christians and Buddhists.

50
But there was a view that the status of the converts was not very different from what it

was earlier, and they were subjected to the same ill-treatment. Perhaps, they might

have thought of embracing Islam in the hope of betterment (“Union Minister to visit

Meenakshipuram”, 1981). Makwana felt that it was the Hindu society that had created

this situation. The Hindu religious leaders must, therefore, learn from history.

That was what he had written to the Sankaracharyas some time ago. Was ill-treatment

of dalits peculiar phenomenon in Tamil Nadu? Makwana replied that be it Tamil

Nadu, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh or Punjab the dalits were humiliated and ill-treated

everywhere.

Makwana went to Meenakshipuram and met the converted people.

He inquired with them in closed doors for about two hours about the reasons for

conversion. At Meenakshipuram he addressed the press. Makwana said the

Chief Minister (M.G.Ramachandran) “who is a film actor and played the role of a

savior of the poor and the downtrodden, has totally failed to protect dalits here.

The Chief Minister’s speech in the assembly had aggravated the developments in

Meenakshipuram. Conversion to Islam was due to the atrocities perpetrated on dalits

by caste Hindus. They have suffered coercion, suppression, humiliation, insults and

what not at the hands of Hindus, he said (“Makwana blames T.Nadu Govt.”, 1981).

Nowhere in India, had such a mass conversion to Islam happened because of such

caste atrocities on dalits. State government should take stern actions and ensure that

nothing of this sort would happen in future. Dalits should be treated as equals in the

society. If the ill-treatment against dalits continues, it will lead to social clash and may

flare up across the nation” (“Religious heads must find solution”, 1981). He also

stated that Government needs to take steps ensuring the emancipation of the dalits.

51
Investigation should be conducted on police violence on dalits. Action under

Protection of Civil Rights Act needs to be initiated against the officers who didn’t do

their lawful duty.

In between Makwana visited Uthirakosamangai, a village in Ramanathapuram

district to enquire about the communal clash between dalits and caste Hindus.

Makwana speaking to newsmen said that he would be submitting a report to the

Union Government on the scenario in the two districts. In response to the

Chief Minister’s statement in the Assembly Makwana said “It looked as if the police

were emboldened by the Chief Minister’s statement in the Assembly immediately

after the incident in Tirunelveli. No political party was involved also urge that the

Chief Minister to reveal which political parties induced the clashes” (“Treat Harijans

as equals - Makwana”, 1981). Makawana also stated that, dalits converted to Islam

only because of the violence of Caste Hindus. But conversion is not a solution to the

problems and oppressions faced by the dalits. Hindu religious leaders are sleeping and

not attending to the issues of the dalits. Those who had converted to Islam in

Meenakshipuram told him that after conversion they were happy and their social

status had gone up said Makwana. The allegations that foreign money had played a

role in conversion in Meenakshipuram are a matter for investigation.

The investigation has started. The Government always keeps a watch over the money

that flows in and out of the country (“Makwana blames Tamil Nadu Govt.”, 1981).

Criticizing the changing of dalit’s name to Adi-Dravidas by the Tamil Nadu

Government he said the Government had no rights to change the name of a

community. He, however, said if people from a community sought such a change the

Government should then consider it.

52
 About the Meenakshipuram conversion Congress leader Jagjivan Ram said,

“If the Hindus do not accept the dalits as Hindus, what is the point in their staying

within the fold of that religion; dalits who embraced Islam at Meenakshipuram village

had been left with no other option.” He also stated that the only way to remove the

casteism was framing legislation for inter-caste marriages and holding all marriages

within the same caste “illegal” (“Legislation on inter caste marriages urged”, 1981).

1.13.15 Conflict between Makwana and Government of Tamil Nadu

Union Home Minister Yogendra Makwana, while speaking about the

Meenakshipuram conversion commented on Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandran.

In that statement he said that, “Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandran had the moral

responsibility to resign as he had publicly stated that he would quit office, if the

Union Government appointed a commission to go into the spirit scandal.”

The General Secretary of the All India Anna DMK, P.U. Shanmugam expressed

surprise at the Union Minister of the State for Home, Makwana’s statement and

condemned it saying that M. G. Ramachandran had not spoken anywhere in that

strain. He wanted to know whether it was proper on the part of Union Minister to

comment on the statements that were not made. P.U. Shanmugam pointed out what he

described as a contribution in Makwana’s views on the conversion of dalits into

Muslims at Meenakshipuram village in Tirunelveli district. He said while Makwana

told the newsmen that the conversion was due to harassment by caste Hindus, he had

later told a public meeting that it was due to harassment by the AIADMK

Government since they did not vote for the party in the last election [Seventh

Assembly election]. He wondered which of these statements was correct

(“Makwana’s statement questioned”, 1981). Visiting Thirumalai temple in Panpoli

53
village near Meenakshipuram, the Tamil Nadu Information Minister,

R.M. Veerappan, said that if any Minister wanted to make political capital out of the

problems of dalits which had remained unresolved for several generations, “with due

respects to his position, I pray God should give him good sense”. It was most

unfortunate that the problems of dalits had not been solved even after 34 years of

freedom. It was due to the failure of the people of their own community to help their

brethren. “Educated and emancipated people not only among dalits but backward and

most backward classes do not do their duty to their own brethren but function in a

selfish way” (“Makwana view biased, says Veerappan”, 1981).

The AIADMK General Secretary P.U. Shanmugam expressed regret that the

Union Minister, Yogendra Makwana, had made assertions on the recent communal

clashes near Ramanathapuram “based on wrong information.” He said it would have

been better if Makwana had got a correct picture before discussing the matter with the

Chief Minister or other Ministers or high officials before expressing his opinions to

the press. The people affected by the unexpected clashes, he said, did not belong to

any particular community. Makwana, who had blamed the police for inaction had also

stated that the police had arrested persons from both sides. Immediately on receiving

information about the clashes, the Chief Minister cancelled his scheduled trip to

Malaysia and visited the families hit by the communal riots and consoled the victims.

Only after that the Chief Minister made a statement in the Tamil Nadu Assembly

about the situation in Ramanathapuram. There was no incident in the area after his

visit and it was wrong on the part of Makwana to say that the situation worsened after

the Chief Ministers’ speech in the Assembly. Shanmugam added that there was no

connection between the religious conversions in Meenakshipuram and the communal

clashes in Ramanathapuram.

54
 The Chief Minister did not at all speak supporting the conversions. He stressed

that it was not in consonance with the country’s federal set up that a responsible

Union Minister who ought to have elicited information from the State Government,

State Ministers and officials about any happening in a State, should have himself gone

to the spot and made enquiries and on that basis cast aspersions on the State

Government (“View based on wrong information”, 1981). In the clash that happened

in April at Ramanathapuram five people were killed. Knowing this Chief Minister

M.G. Ramachandran cancelled his scheduled visit to Kuala Lampur to attend the

Telugu Conference and went to Ramanathapuram and organized an all-party meeting

(Kannan, 2017).

The issue got more severe with Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandran

condemning Makwana. In a public meeting at Vellore on 17th August 1981

M.G. Ramachandran stated that foreign money had a role in the mass conversions at

Meenakshipuram. He also opined that if someone embraced any religion out of

conviction that is not a problem but if conversions were made by compulsion or

threats or for monetary benefits they should be prevented at any cost

(“MGR sees foreign money”, 1981). But after ten days when the adjournment motions

were moved by the opposition party members in Tamil Nadu Assembly the then

Finance Minister Nedunchezhian denied the role of foreign money in the conversion

(“Conversions: Govt. can act only when there is coercion”, 1981).

The President of Tamil Nadu Congress Committee M. P. Sundaram came out

strongly against M.G. Ramachandran for his criticism of Makwana, and said the

remarks of M.G. Ramachandran were unwarranted. Justifying the views of Makwana

on the reason for circumstances leading to the mass conversion of dalits in

55
Meenakshipuram, he said he had also toured with Makwana for two days and could

say that the ill-treatment of dalits had led to these incidents. The immediate cause was

police excesses committed on dalits, he alleged (“CM’s remarks against Makwana

deplored”, 1981).

1.13.16 State Government’s Action

T.M. Arumugam the then Collector of Tirunelveli district visited

Meenakshipuram village and met the villagers. Speaking to the pressmen he stated

that, “steps had been taken to provide all amenities in Meenakshipuram village for the

uplift of dalits, explaining that 30% of the total population of 36 lakhs in the district

was dalits. He pointed out that last year a sum of Rs.44.74 lakhs had been spent for

the education of dalits while another sum of Rs. 11.50 lakhs had been spent on health,

housing and other social schemes. Expenses incurred for land acquisition was

Rs.1.01 lakhs in 1969. But last year it rose to Rs. 4.61 lakhs.

Following this H.M. Pandey, Collector of Ramanathapuram, said that for the

uplift of dalits in his district a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs had been allotted. It was proposed

to bring atleast 150 dalit families above the poverty line in each Block that year.

The Collector said that there were a few isolated cases of conversions but no case of

compulsion had been reported. After the 1954 communal clashes in certain pockets,

the district was free from communal disharmony.

T. Ramasamy, MLA of Ramanathapuram said that there might be stray

incidents of harassment but it did not mean that the entire Caste Hindu community

was harassing dalits. To substantiate the harmony prevailing among these two

communities, he pointed out how a dalits candidate Balraj supported by the AIADMK

56
won the Corporation election in a ward in Madurai defeating Thennarasu of the DMK

who was a Caste Hindu (“Why the Mass conversion?”, 1981).

In response to this conversion, Tamil Nadu distributed welfare schemes to the

people of Meenakshipuram village. On 20th July 1981 the Tirunelveli district collector

Nirmal Singh with heads of all departments distributed around 115 family cards.

A fair price shop was sanctioned.

1.13.17 Reaction of Hindu Organizations

A team formed by Sarva Deshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, supreme body of the

Arya Samaj with six top leaders of the Sabha – Ram Gopal Shal wale (President),

O.P. Tyagi (General Secretary), Prithvi Singh, Vandemataram Ramachandra Rao,

B.Krishnalal and T. Narayan visited Meenakshipuram on 17.05.1981 and investigated

on the religious conversion to Islam. Briefing the press, the team said that in

Meenakshipuram good relationships prevailed between the Caste Hindus and the

dalits and they could see them mingle freely in a spirit of camaraderie. Speaking on

the religious conversion they told “nearly 6,000 Muslims from nearby places in

Tamil Nadu and Kerala and also a few non-Indian Muslims arrived at

Meenakshipuram and coerced most of the 600 dalits in the village into embracing

Islam. After the mass conversion, there was a feast for 7000 persons and each convert

was paid Rs.500. From what it gathered in the village, the committee was sure that

money for the “anti-Hindu activities” had come from certain foreign countries trying

to use the so-called minorities in India to create an atmosphere favourable to them.”

Asked why Meenakshipuram was chosen for the mass-conversion, they said the

atmosphere there at the time was congenial for the act. Despite cordiality between

57
caste Hindus and dalits, the latter were entertaining the fear that responsibility for

certain criminal offences reported earlier would be fixed on them. Muslim leaders

took advantage of the situation and accomplished their objective by promising

support, and in some cases using force, they said. The team was happy to note that

some of the converts had returned to the Hindu fold when they realised that assistance

would be forthcoming in case force was again used to make change in their faith.

It expected more reconversions in the near future. The team members alleged that the

Regional Director of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes deputed by the Union

Government to go into the incident was conducting his enquiry not from

Meenakshipuram but from a nearby village, Panpoli. “We do not understand why he

did not personally go to Meenakshipuram to ascertain the facts and why he preferred

to meet only those who came to him at Panpoli”. Representatives of this team would

meet the Prime Minister and the Home Minister shortly and apprise them of their

findings. They would request the Union Government to take immediate steps to check

the flow of foreign money into India which, according to them, was being used for

purposes like forced conversion and creating disunity in the country (“Foreign money

behind mass conversion: panel finding”, 1981).

Tirunelveli based ‘Hindu Samuthaya Valarchi Manram’ (Hindu Development

Society for Equality) made representations to the Prime Minister on the religious

conversion of Meenakshipuram. A delegation of Hindu SamuthayaValarchi Manram

led by its President, Ramachandra Thevar and Secretary, Anantharamakrishnan,

presented the Prime Minister a memorandum demanding judicial enquiry into the

mass conversions into Islam. Anantharamakrishnan speaking to the press said that the

Prime Minister heard patiently their demands and later they met the Home minister

58
Zail Singh. Vandemataram Ramachandra Rao, senior Vice-President, International

Aryan League, who was also present at the press conference, said it was not a case of

Hindu-Muslim quarrel but one of “convert move on the part of some international

conspirators to exploit the religious fanaticism among Muslims to destabilize the

political set up of India”. More than Rs.6000 was spent in a single day to convert

about 600 persons belonging to 100 families on 19.02.1981. The heads of each family

was paid Rs.500 as inducement money, Anantaramakrishnan said. Criticizing the

report of Arumugam, Joint Director, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,

Anantaramakrishnan rejected that “it was harassment by caste Hindus that had driven

the dalits into the Muslim fold” and alleged that Arumugam didn’t even bother to go

to Meenakshipuram for an enquiry. He denied that the caste Hindus and dalits were at

loggerheads and added, for the last 20 years there were no complaints in the area

(“Conversion to Islam: Plea to PM for probe”, 1981).

Following the religious conversion of Meenakshipuram, Arya Samaj, RSS,

Hindu Munnani, and Vishwa Hindu Parishad, jointly started an association named

‘Hindu Unity Centre’. Dharmapuram Aatheenam, Madurai Aatheenam and Kanchi

Kamakoti Peetam extended their support to the new association. In a press meet called

by the Hindu Unity Centre, V. Rengasamy Thevar, State President of RSS,

S. Vethantham, State Secretary of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, M. Ramasamy, President,

Temple Protection Committee, Ramagopalan, General Secretary of Hindu Munnani,

Narayanan, Arya Samaj, Chennai jointly called for action against communal clash and

religious conversions in Tamil Nadu. They also stated that the religious conversions

in Meenakshipuram of Tirunelveli district and Muthupettai of Ramanathapuram

district were hasty decisions taken due to the caste issues prevailing there. They

59
informed about the Hindu Solidarity Conference and the Padayathra (March by large

number of people in support or in protest of something) planned at Meenakshipuram

in July. Leaders of various Hindu religious organizations such as Madurai Atheenam,

Dharmapuram Atheenam, Udupi Pejawar Swamy will be participating in those events,

they said. We will organize Paatha Yaathra from July 17 to 26 in Ramanathapuram

districts (regions of religious conversion) and will create a harmony among all the

Hindus. They also informed that ‘Mahasuthiviratham’ (ritual purification fasting) with

ritual songs and special pujas in all the temples in Ramanathapuram on July 7 were

planned. Following this a press news stating Shri Visveswara Theertha Swamy of

Udupi Pejawar Mutt will visit the Meenakshipuram on July 15th and 16th and

distribute the welfare help (“Pejawar Swami to tour Meenakshipuram”, 1981).

Religious conversions have become a hot debate Shri Jayendra Saraswathi

Swami of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam said in an interview. He added that in recent

times a tendency for religious conversions had been noticed in Tamil Nadu which is

dangerous to the integration of the nation. Already proselytization in Assam had

caused great harm and its spreading should be curbed. In a clear statement he told

“If one wanted to change his faith, it was meaningless because there was only one

God, whatever one’s religion”. In Hinduism there is no caste discrimination or any

discrimination between the rich and the poor and the high and the low, he said.

He opined that political parties should be vigilant in checking the people’s tendency

to change from one religion to another (“Kanchi Acharya cautions against”,

The Hindu, 04.07.1981).

In another interview Shri Jayendra Swamy informed his proposal of various

steps to ensure that dalits of Meenakshipuram are not ostracized from the mainstream

60
society. A well for drinking water will be dug in Meenakshipuram. Entrusting the

running of tea shops to socially broad minded people who won’t prevent dalits from

entering the shops. But this won’t happen all of a sudden. As of now, should bring

down the tension prevailing in the village. Illegal liquor, money, politics were

among the several reasons for the religious conversion of Meenakshipuram

(“Kamakoti peetam plan for Harijans in Meenakshipuram”, 1981).

Shri Arunagiri Gnanasambandha Desiga Paramachariya Swamigal who was

the Madathipathi of the Madurai Aathenam, the mutt that was believed as founded by

Thirugnanasambanthar, expressed in a statement that Hindu Mutts and the

Government should sit and jointly discuss together to stop the conversion of Hindus

to Islam (“Conversions: mutt heads-Govt. talks suggested”, 1981).

1.13.18 Hindu Solidarity Conference

As announced earlier a two day Hindu Solidarity Conference was held at

Meenakshipuram on 15 and 16 July 1981. The first day of the conference was held in

Panpoli, the nearby village of Meenakshipuram. The second day of the conference

was conducted at Kaliamman temple in Meenakshipuram. In this conference an

American Swami Tantra Devan, Vandemataram Ramachandran, Arya Samaj leader

from Hyderabad, Shri Anbukarasu Swamigal of Thanjavur, R.B.V.S. Manian of

Vivekananda Kendram from Madras, Shri Arunagiri Gnanasambandha Desikar

Swamigal of Madurai Atheenam, Shri Ramadas, Swami Shri Viswesva Theertha of

Pejawar Mutt participated. In the press meet the Udupi Pejawar Swamiji said that “the

heads of all the Hindu religious institutions were considering a proposal to create a

common forum to work for the welfare of dalits wherever they had problems.” He

61
also suggested enacting a legislation to ban conversion through coercion and

inducement. When the reporters asked the question about the attitude of Hindu

leaders towards the eradication of untouchability, he said that in the beginning there

was hesitancy but later everyone was convinced that the untouchability should be

removed. The Swamiji advised that the concessions which are available to dalits

should not be given to those who left the Hindu religion (“Arya Sama ready to fight

for Harijan’s cause”, 1981). But the American Swami Tantra Devan opined that the

communal reservation for Government jobs and education perpetuated the caste

system, so he suggested scrapping the reservation policy. In this conference the

religious heads from various parts of India conducted a grand Yagna. For this Yagna

an elevated stage was constructed in a land purchased by Arya Samaj. After this

conference Swami Shri Viswesva Theertha of Pejawar Mutt, met the press at

Bangalore, in which he appealed to the newspapers to stop the practice of talking in

terms of caste Hindus and dalits.

The dalits demanded status in society. The discrimination of dalits was being

exploited by others to convert them to other religion. Then the Swamiji pleaded with

the Karnataka government for not extending the benefits and concessions given to

Scheduled Castes to dalits who embrace other religions. He also complained that in

Meenakshipuram some persons were involved in counterfeiting currency notes and

murders. He also said that during his visit at Meenakshipuram he could not meet

converts as they were not allowed to meet him. He claimed that 50 were reconverted

to Hinduism and the total number of converts was 352 (“Hindus asked to end caste

discrimination”, 1981).

62
1.13.19 Intervention of Other Organizations

The then opposition leader of Tamil Nadu Assembly M.Karunanidhi opined

that it was not a new one that the oppressed people were converted to Islam due to

inequality in their religion (“No conversions by compulsion - Karunanidhi”,

1981).The leader of Republican Party of India S.Balakrishnan personally visited

Meenakshipuram and interviewed the people. In the press meet at Madurai on 28th

May 1981, he said that, as Tirunelveli dalits had also converted in the districts of

Madurai and Ramanathapuram. He categorically dismissed the allegation of the role

of foreign agencies and local Muslims in the conversion. The main reason of the

conversion was that the dalits were neglected and deprived of equal opportunities.

The dalits decided to embrace Islam because the members of that faith enjoyed

protection as a minority community. So far 286 families in Madurai, 132 families in

Tirunelveli (including 120 families in Meenakshipuram), 20 families in

Ramanathapuram embraced Islam (“Harijan conversion in more areas”, 1981).

1.13.20 Present Social and Economic Conditions of the Converted Muslims

Prior to the religious conversion, dominant caste people used to call them by

their names without respect, irrespective of the age. But after the religious conversion

they started calling “Bhai” and with relationship. In Tirunelveli district, Thevar caste

people used to call Muslims as ‘Mama’, Asaris (Carpenters and gold smiths) used to

them call as ‘Chithappa’ (uncle) and dalits used to call them ‘Thatha’ (grandfather).

Now they all call us in a similar way. On deciding to convert to Islam a debate rose

about which division of Islam to choose. First they chose Ravuthar, but later they

chose Lebbai, considering the fact that Lebbai get backward community reservations.

63
Though they came under BC (Backward Classes10) category, only a very few converts

got government employments. They didn’t even get benefits loan schemes from the

government. The only benefit the converted Muslims got was milch cows.

1.13.21 Marriage Relationship

Since 1981 traditional Muslims gave their girls as brides to the

Meenakshipuram converted Muslims. Vadakarai is densely populated with Muslims.

Muslims of Vadakarai have got many of their daughters and sisters married to

Meenakshipuram converted Muslims. In 1983 itself, Raja Sheriff, a tuition teacher

from Mekkarai, married a girl from a traditional Muslim family from Mekkarai.

Likewise converted Muslim girls too got married to traditional Muslim grooms.

However, taking brides’ from Meenakshipuram did not happen as much as that of

taking grooms from converted Muslims. The reason behind this was said to be

economic factors. There is a notable difference in the economic status between

traditional Muslims and newly converted Muslims. However, there was no caste

based discrimination. Most believe that by embracing Islam their identity has changed

and perceptions of others have changed too.

1.13.22 Worship of Converted Muslims

Ashrat (Imam) who conducts the ritual worship in the mosque is a traditional

Muslim. Prayers are conducted five times a day in these mosques. As most of the

people are into agricultural work, they couldn’t participate in prayers five times a day.

But they follow fasting for Ramzan. In the Madarasas, Arabic classes were conducted

in mosques in the evening. The first generation of the converted Muslims did not
10
The members of caste or community who are recommended for special help in education and
employment.

64
know Arabi. So their children found it difficult to pronounce Arabic said Moulikaleel

Rahman, the Imam of Mekkarai mosques. Children’s arrival was high in Mekkarai

mosques than that of Meenakshipuram. Raja Sheriff of Mekkarai said that few from

Meenakshipuram learnt at Madarassas and became ‘Moulis’ (Interview: Raja Sheriff,

Age 65, Mekkarai, 12.07.2017).

1.13.23 Occupation

Primary occupation of the Meenakshipuram people was agriculture. They had

agricultural lands around Meenakshipuram. Moreover, they cultivated in farm lands

owned by Thiruvavaduthurai Atheenam as tenants. In 200 acres of fertile agricultural

land, Pallars cultivate around 90% of the lands as tenants. Their houses located in

Mekkarai too were in the lands of Thiruvavaduthurai Atheenam. After the religious

conversion, few schemes were introduced to the people through the department of

Hindu Endowment and Charity. Hindu organizations had arrived at Meenakshipuram

and had donated tile roofs and thatched houses. Some fearing the threat of subjugating

their tenantship owned by Thiruvavaduthurai Atheenam reconverted to Hindu

religion. Because of this few are Hindus and majority of the village remain as

Muslims today.

1.13.24 Parliament Debate on Meenakshipuram Conversion

On 13th August 1991, in the debate proceeded in the Parliament of India,

Ram Vilas Paswan, and Member of Parliament elected from Hajipur Lok Sabha

constituency of Bihar put forth the following:

“We passed the Prevention of Untouchability Act, originally it was

Untouchability Act, but later on it was amended to become Civil Rights Protection

65
Act. Everybody is aware that the practice of Untouchability is still prevalent in

90 per cent of villages in most of the States. But if you happen to go through the

Report, you will find that not a single person has so far been convicted under the Civil

Rights Protection Act. The poor man is not convinced that he would get justice from

the court. Mrs. Chandra Shekhar is not present here. The issue of religious

conversions cropped up in the House the other day. Whenever any religious

conversion takes place in the country, some honourable friends think that foreign

money is working behind such conversions. As Members of a committee of

parliament we visited Meenakshipuram to examine and report upon the cases of

religious conversions there. The committee comprised Shri. Suraj Bhan of the BJP,

Maragatham Chandrasekhar of the Congress and the representatives of the CPI and

CPI (M). We interviewed a doctor. When asked about his name, he told that his name

was Yunus. Then we asked him as to what was his earlier name. Subbaiah, he replied.

When asked as to why he took recourse to religious conversion, he told us that

if we wanted to know the reason, take that man, a dalit to that tea shop and get him a

cup of tea. We went along to the tea shop and Madam Chandrasekhar told the tea

shop owner in Tamil to serve us a cup of tea each as also to that man who was a dalit.

He served us tea, but not to the dalit. When Madam Chandrasekhar asked as to why

not he served tea to him, he asked whether he had come with his pot. When the dalit

replied in the negative, the shop owner told that he could not serve tea to him because

if he did and the people knew that he had served tea to a person belonging to

scheduled caste, my shop would be set on fire. Now he wondered how the tea would

be taken. The response was that once the tea became cold, it could be gulped down

like water. When we returned from there, Yunus told me when those people were not

66
prepared to give a cup of tea to a scheduled caste person, what right had they got to

ask about his religion?

Today, if we convert from Hinduism to Islam, nobody would ask us about our

caste, if we convert into Christianity and change our name to Paul, nobody will ask us

about our caste and if tomorrow, we change our religion and name to Sardar Avtar

Singh, nobody will dare to ask us about our caste. We are asked this question, because

we were born in the Hindu society which is based on caste system. Mr. Speaker, Sir,

today our struggle is not only for bread, clothing and shelter but for respect and

honour also. There is a basic difference between the pre-independence generation and

the post-independence one. The former silently suffered the atrocities, while the latter

wants to lead a respectful and honourable life.” (“Proceedings of parliament”, Lok

Sabha, 13th August 1991).

1.13.25. Legislative Assembly debate on Meenakshipuram Conversion

The issue of Meenakshipuram mass conversion was debated in Tamil Nadu

legislative assembly on 21st August 1981. The members of opposition parties moved

an adjournment motion in order to debate the mass conversion issue. On this debate

legislative members Anbalagan (DMK), Ilaiyaperumal (Congress), N.Sankaraiah

(CPM), S.Alagarsamy (CPI), N.S.V. Siththan (Congress), A. Sahul Hameed (IUML),

Andi Thevar (Forward Bloc), Era.Neduncheliyan (AIADMK), G.Moorthy (RPI)

expressed their opinion on mass conversion of dalits at Meenakshipuram.

These debates endorse the police atrocities and biased action of Government officials

as the immediate causal factors for the mass conversion. In the debate, the member

Alagarsamy said that, the Government officials were not taking action against upper

caste offenders because of their biased mentality. N.Sankariah, suggested that, the

67
officers of SC/ST must be placed wherever the scheduled caste people are

numerically majority. This is the only solution to solve these kinds of problems.

The member of RPI G.Moorthy advised to impose a ban on the caste associations,

that are responsible for caste clashes and he requested the government to give

protection to scheduled caste people (“Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Debates”,

21 August 1981).

1.14 Victimological Approach to the study of religious conversion - Basic

Scholars have different views on the focus and place of the discipline of

Victimology. While some believe that Victimology should function as an independent

area of enquiry, others view it as a subfield of Criminology. A second issue relates to

the type and extent of victim related issues to be taken into consideration under the

field of Victimology. Some scholars opine that Victimology should limit itself to the

study of victim-offender interaction. Others argue that the needs of crime victims,

functioning of the organizations and institutions which respond to these needs, and the

emerging roles and responsibility for crime victims within the Criminal Justice

System are important areas of scientific inquiry for Victimology. A third issue is the

breadth of the definition of the term ‘victim’. One approach is to limit the concept to

victims of traditional crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, burglary etc. However, it

has also been proposed to include a broader definition of the concept by covering

groups such as prisoners, immigrants, subjects of medical experimentation, and

persons charged with crime but not proved guilty (Doerner & Lab, 2005; Karmen,

2005; Chockalingam, 2010; Dussich, 2006).

68
 Victimology as conceptualized by the World Society of Victimology could be

defined as “the scientific study of the extent, nature and causes of criminal

victimization, its consequences for the persons involved and the reactions thereto by

society, in particular, the police and the criminal justice system as well as voluntary

workers and professional helpers” (Van Dijk, 1999). This has been accepted as a

comprehensive definition covering both penal or interactionist, and general or

assistance oriented Victimology. The UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice

for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (UN General Assembly, 1985) describes

victims thus: “Victims means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered

harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or

substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are

in violation of criminal laws, including those proscribing abuse of power.” In the

recent decades, many scholars also express the view that while the General

Victimology of Mendelsohn is too broad an approach, criminal victimology is too

narrow a perspective and propose that victimology should evolve as a science of

victims of human rights violations, including crime.

Victim-offender study was the principal focus of early pioneers in the field of

Victimology, like Hans von Hentig. Hentig explained the concepts of ‘victim

vulnerability’ and ‘victim culpability’ and gave a typology of victims. ‘Victim

vulnerability’ refers to susceptibility of certain groups of people to victimization,

through no fault of their own, but based on certain demographic or other

characteristics (e.g. children, elders, women, dalits), as these people are more

vulnerable to becoming victims. ‘Victim culpability’ refers to actions on the part of

victims that may either invite or precipitate victimization. Deriving from the concept

69
of victim culpability, (Wolfgang, 1958) proposed the concept of ‘Victim

Precipitation’, and in his classic study of homicide victims in Philadelphia, he found

that in 26% of homicides, victim precipitation occurred. Although some behaviour of

victims may be partially responsible for their victimization, victimologists are also

talking of the danger of ‘victim blaming ’. Besides, in Penal or Criminal Victimology,

where only the crime victims were included, Beniamin Mendelsohn proposed a new

approach called ‘General Victimology’, to include a wide variety of victims, as he felt

that human beings suffer from many causal factors and focusing on the criminal

victimization alone under Victimology is too narrow a perspective. According to

Mendelsohn (1976:21), “Just as medicine treats all patients and all diseases, just as

criminology concerns itself with all criminals and all forms of crime, so Victimology

must concern itself with all victims and all aspects of victimity in which society takes

an interest” (Chockalingam, 2010).

In the current research, the author considers dalits as victims as they fufill

the characteristics and attributes of victims as propounded in the General

Victimology of Beniamin Mendelsohn. The entire happenings surrounding the

everyday life of dalits in the Meenakshipuram village which is the locale of the study

describes the human rights violations, social discrimination, sufferings and atrocities

perpetrated on dalits justify a scientific study of victimization from a victimological

perspective and hence the researcher has attempted the current study on “Mass

Religious Conversion at Meenakshipuram: A Victimological Analysis”.

70