In September 1997, we carried an article by Swami Agnivesh, "What kind of God will condemn a ‘heathen’ child to eternal hell?" It generated a sharp reaction from many Combat readers. Here we carry Agnivesh’s rejoinder

Iam only too aware that neither the Pope, nor an Ayatollah of Iran, nor the Dalai Lama , nor the Grand Mufti of the Al-Azhar mosque, nor any of the Shankaracharyas, or even the Arya Samajis, will agree with my proposal for the theological freedom to doubt, to debate and dissent. After all, all religions create their own enterprises and are, for many, a lucrative means of livelihood.

I hope, however that someday this debate will draw responses beyond people like Asghar Ali Engineer, Ammu Abraham and Syed Shahabuddin who are secular and open-minded. Let the carriers of fanatic dogma, obscurantism and exclusiveness —the professional mediators between God and lay believers — also come forward to debate the issues raised.

Let them have an open debate about what their prophets, gods and saviours revealed, on the source and content of scriptures and holy books. As a social activist all I have to say is: let the common man and woman be witness to this debate.

Though it would be presumptuous to take issue with a man of Asghar Ali Engineer’s integrity, I would like to point out that the Islam that Engineer makes reference to in response to my essay is not scriptural Islam, and the interpretation of the Quran that he picks up is not the most accepted interpretation.

All Muslims, not just the fanatics, believe that every word that the Quran contains is the word of God. The fanatic who believes that all unbelievers should be killed has as much authority as the Sufi who thinks all religions are true.

A deeper spirituality and esoteric meaning can be read and projected into any scripture by a person who has the mystical insight and conviction to do so. Quite often the great sufi had to do this also to protect his own life from persecution!

Both camps can quote Quranic texts to support their position. Who decides which interpretation is unauthentic and which authentic?

To Ms. Ammu Abraham: I was not aware that Hindus both in Pakistan and Bangladesh have separate personal laws and I regret this fatal error. In any case, the personal law for Pakistani Hindus is fast becoming irrelevant — how many Hindus are there left in Pakistan anyway? And, at the rate, at which Hindus are diminishing from Bangladesh, it will not be needed there either anymore in two generations!

My question is: Where has this privilege and protection of a separate personal law for Hindus taken them in both these countries? Were they able to have their religious processions, build new temples, raise their children as Hindus without any social pressure?

Whatever the answer, I am against any personal law based on religion. I am strongly advocating that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not laws based on religion or caste, be the basis for the formation of all laws, including those concerning inheritance, marriage and divorce. It is only such a document in all it’s simplicity that guarantees human dignity for all, including women and children, along with the freedom to question, to debate and to dissent.

Syed Shahabuddin talks my language in his rejoinder to my original article when he says: "I have a vision of Man professing and practicing and propagating a diversity of religions, peacefully, without coming to blows or unsheathing the sword of violence." He adds, "I have also the vision that a conscious individual, who has begun a spiritual journey, may not live or die in the religion in which he was born. I hope the Swami shall not grudge the Hindu man this freedom."

Not at all, I grudge no individual that freedom. But is the same freedom available to our Muslim friends in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. without risking a fatwa for apostasy? And where is the freedom to propagate his or her faith for a Christian, or a Bahai in Sudan, Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The fear and reaction to proselytising missionaries is justified if we take a closer look at our own north eastern states and read the pamphlets and books of evangelical Christianity — which condemn every heathen to eternal hell — and their missionary programs.

It is mainly the poor and illiterate who are receptive to conversion. How successful has Islam and Christianity been among educated Hindus? Let the downtrodden first learn to read the Bible, the Koran and then decide. In the meantime, let the missionaries prove the superiority of their faith in Columbia, the Philippines and Brazil.

If the Hare Krishnaites, Buddhists and other religions are allowed to propagate their faith in the Western world today, it is mainly thanks to a centuries’ old struggle lead by the exponents of enlightenment. We should never forget that freedom of speech, and freedom of religion and conscience had to be fought for against strong opposition by organised Christianity.