A friend of mine rather smugly suggested to me some months ago, “As it turns out, it is not so difficult to live under Hindu nationalism.” Despite the great respect I have for this friend, an academic, circumspection seemed necessary. Ever willing to be proved wrong, however, one decided to give this opinion some time to see if it held water.
If the same formulation were posed today, one would respond, “Why not suggest this to Fr. Vineet Vincent Pereira?” who has recently found himself in a lot of hot water, for the simple reason of stating a basic Catholic truth: Jesus Christ is the one true way to paradise.
To provide more context, Fr. Pereira, who is a priest serving the diocese of Allahabad, in the state of Uttar Pradesh was recently the object of a police complaint and subsequent proceedings. The complaint alleged that during prayer meetings, Fr. Pereira would repeatedly affirm that Christianity is the only true religion. This, the complainants alleged, hurt the religious sentiments of members of other faiths.
Fr. Pereira then petitioned the High Court of Allahabad to quash the complaint and the proceedings against him. Responding to this petition the High Court dismissed the petition, with an observation that gives cause for concern.
Justice Saurabh Srivastava, speaking for the court, observed that it is wrong for any religion to claim that it is the “only true religion,” as such a claim implies disparagement of other faiths in a secular country like India. He is reported to have elaborated that in a secular nation where people of different faiths and beliefs live together, such statements amount to deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Darab Farooqui, a commentator on social media captured why the opinion expressed by Justice Srivastava is a demonstration of how we already live in a Hindu republic where Hindu nationalist logic influences the court. Farooqui correctly observed that “Many religions, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam teach that theirs is the only true religion. This is not a rare opinion. It is the very heart of their faith.” He also correctly observed that the belief in what Jesus said, that He is the way, the truth and the life, and that no one reaches the Father except through Him, is at the heart of the Christian faith.
To preach this truth – according to Christians – is, therefore, at the heart of the Christian faith and consequently, at the heart of their right to the freedom of religion, which recognizes the right of persons to preach their faith to others.
Farooqui points out when a court tells a citizen that “’claiming only one true religion is wrong,’” it is quietly pushing a Hindu-style idea that all religions are equally true (what people call ‘all paths are the same’).” He concludes with a pithy statement: “You cannot protect someone’s right to follow a religion by first forcing the religion to stop being what it is. That is not justice. That is the state deciding what people are allowed to believe in public.”
But this is what life in India is turning out to be. One must live one’s life as per the norms decided by those policing what Hinduism is, if one is to survive in India.
I use the formula “those policing what Hinduism is” because in the recent incident in Varanasi it has become clear that it is not that all Hindus are offended, but only certain persons, who are taking on authority that they simply may not have. In this incident in Varanasi, some Muslim men breaking their Ramzan fast on a boat in the Ganga, did what many of us casually do when on a boat, they disposed of their organic waste into the river – feeding, no doubt, the marine life that live in it. Just as in the case of Fr. Pereira, these innocents were hauled to the police and then placed under arrest. What is interesting in this case is the observation of Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati that the “so-called Hindus” who were offended by the innocent disposal of organic waste, seem entirely unperturbed while untreated sewage and waste from multiple drains regularly flow into the river.
The policers of Hindu sentiments seem to have very pliable standards! In other words, they articulate this claim only when they wish to bully others – both Hindus and those of other faiths – into submission.
To return to the issue at hand, Fr. Pereira drew attention to the fact that his statements have always been within the context of the prayer meetings he organizes. One understands by this statement, that his statements are always within private contexts. This is what makes Farooqui’s observations even more pertinent. It appears that according to these Hindu nationalist policers, one does not seem to have the right to assert one’s opinions even in private!
A similar case emerged in Goa some time ago, where a priest was hauled over coals for preaching to his congregation, within the space of his church. An outrage was generated for his suggesting to his parishioners that they counsel their friends, whether Catholic or otherwise, when these friends were confusing creations of God with God.
Once again, one may agree with what was said by this Goan parish priest, or not, but the question is one of how one understands the operation of law in a secular society; and whether these statements, often made within private settings, can be assumed to be the cause for those of other faiths to take offence. Examining the issue dispassionately, one realizes that the priest was fulfilling his duty to educate his parishioners about the contents of their faith, and then urging them to persuade – not force – others about the value of this Christian logic.
To return, once again, to the case of Fr. Pereira in Allahabad; those who have filed the complaint must demonstrate how his statements, made in a private context, to persons who are presumably interested in becoming Christian violates the reasonable restrictions on the right to the freedom of religion: that one must not intend to inflame passions against other groups, not threaten the safety and integrity of members of these groups, and not insult these groups. Of course, the sensitive often see insult where none is intended.
And this is where we must ask the question. Christians are used to their faith being mocked – one has encountered the statements of those who suggest that Christians worship a dead man. Indeed, making mockery of Christian beliefs lies at the heart of the contemporary social science production and progressive agenda. One’s response is often to simply shrug it off, or engage in debate with these groups. Why is it then, that members of a group that is politically, socially, and numerically dominant in this country, so keen to police what others say in the privacy of their homes and institutions?
(A version of this text was first published in the O Heraldo on 11 April 2026.)
