None other than His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and he was referring to certain Protestant sects while on a visit to Brazil just a few months ago. It isn't my mission to score debating points, I am simply pointing out unrestrained language isn't the exclusive preserve of those persons and organisations who are protesting against the Pope's visit to India. (That may be one of the reasons why even the Sri Lankans demurred against a Papal visit -- it isn't just the Chi-nese who refused permission!)

Frankly, my own attitude about the whole wretched controversy is one of `A plague on both your houses!' At this point, I simply cannot decide which is more `un-Indian' -- the protests against John Paul II's visit, orthe protests against those protestors.

In a fine display of hair-splitting, the first group says that John Paul II is welcome in his capacity as a Head of State, but not as the head of the Roman Catholic sect. This, I am afraid, is carrying the `one man, one post'doctrine a bit too far. If nothing else, I am afraid there are several precedents. The current heir to St. Peter has visited India once before as I recall, and so too did one of his predecessors. Come to think of it, why wasn't this argument raised when Elizabeth II came to India; she is, after all, both Queen of Britain and simultaneously head of the Anglican denomination?

In any case, who says `faith' has to be defined in the narrow limits of religion alone? Communism is as much a faith as anything else and its adherents can be just as fanatical as those of any religion. Seen in that light, I would classify a visit by the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, such as Nikita Khrushchev, in the same bracket as that of thePope. After all, in the days when Khrushchev visited India, the Kremlin was the Vatican of Communism and the First Secretary of the CCCP was the Red Pope. (Re-ad Stalin's oration on the internment of Lenin and the rhythms will remind you of the famous `Our Father which art in Heaven...' -- not surprising given that the Soviet dictator once trained as a seminarian.)

What about those who protest against the protestors? I find the archbishops and their ilk reminding us how unIn-dian it is to protest ag-ainst the visit. That hoary tag, atithi devo bhava1, is invariably raised on these occasions. Pleased as I am to find the bishops quoting scripture, I must protest against this gratuitous mistranslation. An atithi is not just any old guest, but someone who drops in unexpectedly; it certainly does not apply to a Head of State who comes over on a well-planned state visit.

And as long as I quoted precedents against the first set of protestors, I am honour-bound to point out that the highly vocal princes of theChurch were silent when far nastier remarks were made on John Paul II's earlier visit.

In Kottayam, the head of a rival Orthodox sect talked about the undesirability of ``sheep stealing''. (As with John Paul in Brazil, he was worried about his fellow Christians poaching on his fl-ock.) No Catholic leader said anything at the time –in stark contrast to the daily outpourings of today. Is it acceptable if a Chr-istian Indian says so, but utterly unacceptable if a Hindu Indian uses much the same language?

I suppose the Pope's visit will be as much of a success as is possible. (Assuming the ailing Jo-hn Paul isn't struck do-wn by the truly appalling pollution in Delhi on Deepavali!) But the fireworks aren't going to stop once he goes back to the Vatican. Because the true cause of the br-ouhaha isn't the Pope's visit, but the whole vexed issue of conversions.

Or even perhaps how we in India choose to define `secularism' itself. Is it a total separation of Church and State, with both exhibiting a certainamount of hostility towards the other? Or is sarvadharma samabhava --equal respect for all religions? We have, I think, leaned towards the second definition. But recent events are fraying that consensus.

For instance, in Kerala there was a rule that only Hindus could serve on the temple trusts. The reigning Marxist government has changed that so that even atheists may do so. Would they, I wonder, be equally fr-ee and easy with, say, waqf trusts? Or is there one rule for Hindus and one for the rest? And, of course, if secularism is a total separation of Church and State, why sh-ould government ministers -- Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or atheist -- be allowed to interfere at all?

What if `secularism' is respect for all faiths? Well, the harsh truth is that such respect seems to be pretty much a one-way street. We applaud when some Hindu priest gamely bends the knee and proclaims that it is acceptable to worship Jesus. But can you name any Christian or Muslim cleric, not a layman, who accepts even thepossibility that, say, Rama was an incarnation of God? I know some who will reluctantly admit that he was a `hero' if pushed, but there is a huge difference between a hero and the Almighty as they know perfectly well.

Respect begets respect. If the representative of other faiths don't really respect Hinduism, how do they expect anything in return? And can you imagine a greater act of disrespect than converting someone? Isn't a missionary effectively saying, ``Your faith is flawed, but mine is not''?

The Papal visit isn't really the time to initiate a discussion on proselytisation. But nor can it be wished away forever. The Catholic Church took some steps forward in initiating a debate with other faiths after the Second Vatican Council. It would be a pity if hotheads -- on both sides -- derailed whatever little progress has been made since then. This is the time for conversation and not conversions, certainly not for confrontations.