New Delhi, December 25, 2025 – A fiery on-air confrontation between Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) spokesperson Amitosh Pareek and Supreme Court advocate Colin Gonsalves has ignited fresh controversy over claims of forced religious conversions and rising communal tensions targeting India's Christian minority.
The exchange, aired on a national news channel late Wednesday, centered on a recent incident in which a visually impaired woman was allegedly beaten by members of the Bajrang Dal—a youth wing affiliated with the VHP—during a Christmas celebration in Uttar Pradesh. The woman was accused of attempting to convert attendees, though no formal charges have been filed. The debate quickly escalated into accusations of selective outrage, political manipulation, and vigilante justice, drawing widespread attention on social media.
Pareek defended the actions of the Bajrang Dal, arguing that the group's intervention was justified amid widespread concerns over "forced conversions" in tribal and vulnerable communities. "Who the hell gave you the permission to do that?" Pareek retorted when Gonsalves questioned the authority of self-appointed activists to police religious events. He cited a string of grievances to highlight what he called hypocritical "selective targeting" by critics: the removal of Santa Claus hats by Bajrang Dal activists, opposition from tribals to the depiction of Mother Mary as a tribal goddess in certain cultural portrayals, and a 2018 scandal involving an orphanage run by the Missionaries of Charity in Jharkhand, where a 14-year-old child was allegedly sold under the guise of adoption. Pareek further claimed that Hindus in tribal areas have long demanded a halt to Christian celebrations and church constructions, pointing to assertions by a local pastor that over 100,000 Hindus had been converted. "You have a problem with Bajrang Dal removing Santa Claus hats, but no issue when Mother Mary is depicted as a tribal goddess and tribals oppose it," he charged, accusing opponents of double standards.
Gonsalves, a veteran human rights lawyer known for his work on minority rights and social justice cases, pushed back vehemently, dismissing the conversion allegations as unsubstantiated "political propaganda" that has now "risen to the level of violence." "They will not be able to show you a single conviction by a single court in the country saying that so-and-so person forcibly converted somebody," he stated, urging restraint and due process. "Go to the courts," he advised, emphasizing that vigilante actions undermine the rule of law.
In a particularly charged moment, Gonsalves turned the tables on Pareek, labeling organizations like the VHP and Bajrang Dal as "terrorists who have gone scot-free for a long time." He called for their prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), demanding they be "put behind bars and denied bail." The remark drew immediate backlash from Pareek, who interrupted to defend his group's role in protecting Hindu interests, leading to overlapping shouts and host interventions to restore order.
The debate, which lasted under two minutes in the viral clip, has amassed thousands of views across platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, sparking polarized reactions. Supporters of the VHP praised Pareek for exposing "hidden agendas" behind missionary activities, while human rights advocates echoed Gonsalves' call for accountability, warning of a chilling effect on religious freedoms during the holiday season.
This incident occurs against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny on anti-conversion laws in several Indian states, including Uttar Pradesh, where stringent legislation aims to curb alleged coercive practices but has been criticized by activists for enabling harassment of minorities. No official response from the VHP or the Uttar Pradesh police has been issued as of press time, though local Christian groups have condemned the assault as "brazen intolerance."
As India grapples with balancing cultural preservation and constitutional protections, the exchange underscores deepening divides, with both sides invoking the judiciary as the ultimate arbiter—yet arriving at starkly opposing conclusions on who truly holds the moral high ground.
For More News Updates Follow Us On Www.tconews.in
