It is an established principled of just and fair jurisprudence that once any law is passed, that contains anti-constitutional and oppressive provisions, selective policing, state surveillance, harassment or interference in issues of personal liberty, privacy and autonomy, follow. These take a collective form when the very intent of such laws is not community neutral but majoritarian.

So, it is with the slew of “anti-conversion” laws passed in state after BJP-ruled state since 2020, all of which are under constitutional challenge presently. Before this resource delves into the background and history of such restrictive legislations, the ‘facts and figures’ –- data –behind the issue of ‘forced religious conversions’ requires our attention.

The issue of “forced religious conversions” has been a recurring bogey whipped up by organisations that espouse a state control over women’s autonomy and free choice in general. It is not a coincidence that these forces and voices represent a majoritarian even supremacist worldview that are at loggerheads with the non-negotiable constitutional principles of the right to life, equality before the law, right to live without being discriminated against and the freedom of faith, belief and worship. Presently in power at the centre and in several Indian states, this narrow and partisan attitude sees expression in hyperbole, exaggerations that are not really backed by any credible data.

Here we ask, are ‘forced conversions’ a hysterically whipped up myth or a reality? What does all available data tell us?

Modi 2.0 Government’s stance on conversion in Parliament

Data given by governments in power is regarded as reliable and authentic simply because it is provided to the House of Representatives, Parliament. Since 2021, on three occasions, pointed questions put to the ruling regime, specifically on the issue of “forced conversions” has evinced denials or replies in the negative.

February 2, 2021

During the Budget Session of the Parliament, 2021, Lok Sabha Members of Parliament Dr. Mohammad Jawed, Shri Anto Antony, Shri T.N. Prathapan, Shri Kumbakudi Sudhakaran, and Dr. A. Challakumar had all asked the Ministry of Home Affairs whether the Government is of the view that inter-faith marriages are happening due to forceful conversions, and to provide the details regarding the evidence that has been collected by the Government which shows that interfaith marriages in India are connected to instances of forced religious conversion

In response to his question, Shri G. Kishan Reddy, Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs informed the Lok Sabha that “‘Public Order’ and ‘Police’ are State subjects as per the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Hence prevention, detection, registration, investigation and prosecution of offences related to religious conversions are primarily the concerns of the State Governments/Union Territory (UT) Administrations. Action is taken as per existing laws by the law enforcing agencies whenever instances of violation come to notice.”

In furtherance to this, when these elected officials probed further and asked the  MHA if the central government intends to propose a central Anti Conversion Law to curb interfaith marriages, the government had replied in the negative.

Over the question of bringing a law for religious conversions, the Government has categorically told Parliament that the question of the central government passing such a law does not arise since law and order are State subjects.

The full reply can be read here.

March 14, 2022

During the Budget Session of the Parliament, 2022, Lok Sabha Member of Parliament Shri Kanakmal Katara had asked the Ministry of Tribal Affairs “whether it is a fact that the conversion of religion is a very a serious issue in the states of Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Jharkhand etc. particularly in the Parliamentary Constituency of Banswada-Dangarpur, and, if so, requested information on the steps taken by the Government to stop the said conversion of religion and to save the thousands of years old culture of our tribes. The minister had also asked the Government “whether the Government has constituted or proposes to constitute any Committee to find out or to investigate the reasons for the conversion of religion by the Tribal Community.”

In response to his question, Shri Bishweswar Tudu, Minister of State for Tribal Affairs provided the same standard reply,  that was provided by the government when they were asked to provide details and evidences to support their claims of forced conversions taking place in the country.

The full reply can be read here.

August 1, 2022

During the Monsoon Session of the Parliament, 2022, Lok Sabha Members of Parliament Shri Arvind Ganpat Sawant and Shri Vinayak Raut had asked the Ministry of Tribal Affairs whether it is true that religious conversion is taking place on a large scale in many cities, villages and towns in the country and the steps taken by the Government to deal with the same.

On August 1, 2022 the Ministry of Tribal Affairs clearly stated that it does not maintain figures about religious conversion amongst tribals and that neither has it constituted any committee to find out the reasons of religious conversion by the tribal community people, indicating that this has not been an issue on the ground at all.

The full reply can be read here.

Government, therefore has simply not alerted the house of people’s representatives about the hyperbolic issue, “the danger of forced conversions.” Despite this, in every other public for a, representatives of the same government, including law officers continue with exaggerated claims and statements.

The Myth and Reality behind claims of forced conversions

In 2021, a BJP MLA Goolihatti Shekhar of Hosadurga, Karnataka alleged that his mother had been forcefully converted to Christianity, and directed the police to conduct a survey on all churches. The police in its report clearly said that they could not identify any ‘illegal church’; Tahsildars who were recruited to examine the “charges of forceful” conversion noted they identified 50 families from two villages who embraced Christianity without any allurement or force. Interestingly, in December Goolahati himself retracted his statement and said that he was “not sure” whether his mother was actually converted.[1]

This is just one example of a powerful elected official from the ruling dispensation mis-using his position to add to the false bogey which is then again used to justify the need for such regressive laws.

When the same government is thereafter asked to provide empirical evidence of the “forced conversions and the mass conversions”, they either dodge these questions or provide a standard reply that collecting such data falls under the constitutional responsibilities of states. To date, there are no official numbers of cases or convictions that have been provided by the central government to support the claims of forced conversions made repeatedly by law officers associated with them.

Who is actually benefitting from the anti-conversion laws?

Recent “anti-conversion laws” passed by Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Uttarakhand by BJP-led governments from 2020 onwards have a common phenomenon—any “attempts to convert members of the SC, ST, OBC community as well as, women, and minors” carry a higher penalty for the “offender.”

According to the Jharkhand Freedom of Religion Act of 2017, conversion is punishable by three years in prison, a fine of Rs. 50,000, or both; however, conversion of a SC, ST, woman, or a minor is punishable by four years in prison and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, or both. In a same manner, the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religious Ordinance, 2020 calls for harsher penalties for converting Adivasis and members of lower castes in addition to juveniles and women.

These laws contain disparate punitive provisions despite the long history of conversions being used by India’s most oppressed sections to liberate themselves from the evil burdens of caste-driven exclusion and violence. Since 1956, when Dr B. R. Ambedkar led a mass conversion into Buddhism, oppressed castes among Dalits and Adivasis especially have used conversions to step away from the oppressor faith.

What do the figures tell us?

Hinduism saw the largest increase in new converts, according to statistics collected by The New Indian Expresscollated from government gazettes that contain official figures for the year 2020. Hinduism, says this analysis, was “adopted” by 47% of those who converted to a different religion in Kerala during the referred year. 241 of the 506 people who reported their change of religion with the government were Christians or Muslims who converted to Hinduism. Islam attracted 144 converts overall, compared to 119 converts to Christianity.[2]

The majority of Dalit Christians, or Christian Cheramars, Christian Sambavas, and Christian Pulayas, made up 72% of the new Hindu converts. It was clear that the absence of quota and reservation advantages had led to the re-admittance of Hinduism by many Dalit Christians. Christianity lost 242 believers to the other two religions and attracted only 119 persons. Islam gained 144 new believers and lost 40 during the period. Buddhism received two new believers who switched from Hinduism.

As many as 77% of the new converts to Islam were Hindus and 63% women. It attracted the highest number of persons from Ezhava, Thiyya and Nair communities. 25 persons, including 13 females, switched from the Hindu Ezhava caste, to Islam. Data reveals that 17 Thiyya community members including 11 females converted to Islam. 17 persons including 12 females were from the Nair community. Of the 33 persons who crossed over to Islam from Christianity, 9 were Syrian Catholics, who included two women.

To provide a breakdown, the following number of conversions took place:

Data Source- The New Indian Express[3]

Despite these trends, a complicit silence exists around this — cases of conversion to Hinduism are not referred to in public debate and not debated by the country’s media. Such forced or mass conversion or “re-conversion” are termed as ghar vapsi or ‘Homecoming’. Even when the present anti-conversion laws are spoken about, the conversion to Hinduism does not find much place.  The erroneous assumption that the “original” faith of Adivasis and Dalits is/was sanatani Hinduism is a highly contested one since their faith practices pre-date the formalization of the caste-ridden, stratified Hindu faith.

Examples/Instances of “Gharwapsi” and forced conversions to Hinduism by Extremist Groups:

Source: Table collated by CJP Legal Research Team

There is more interesting data. According to census figures, the Buddhist population in India increased to 84 lakh in 2011 from 64 lakh in 1991.Under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, Dalits who belong to Hindu, Sikh & Buddhist faiths are considered members of the Scheduled Castes (SC) and can access the benefits of reservation.[13]

In the current year, 2022, as many as 302 attacks against Christians reportedly took place in the first seven months, according to the United Christian Forum (UCF), which has collected data on the basis of distress calls it received on its helpline numbers. UCF is a Delhi based non-governmental organization established with the objective of protecting the targeted and providing them help. UCF’s data shows that the state of Uttar Pradesh has reported over 80 such instances – the highest – followed by Chhattisgarh, which reported 60 such cases.[14] Clearly, this bogey of “forced conversions” is an actual stick to beat a vulnerable minority with.

No conviction, only false allegations: a pattern

Decades back, when the first “anti-conversion” bill was passed by the Odisha government in 1967, there were only about 2 lakh Christians in the state comprising approximately 1.1% of the total population, as compared to 1.7 crore Hindus. Following the example set by Odisha, Madhya Pradesh approved its first “Freedom of Religion” bill in 1968. Notably, according to the 2011 census, Madhya Pradesh has 0.29% of its inhabitants that today identify as Christians.[15]

• Despite this track record that shows up the bogey for what it is, in January 2021, Madhya Pradesh came up with a stringent ordinance, and within the first 23 days, as many as 23 cases were filed alleging forced conversions. None of them resulted in any conviction though.
• There has been just one conviction by the lower court out of 16 cases under the UP anti-conversion law.[16]According to UP Police data accessed by ThePrint, it was discovered that charge sheets have been filed in 72 of the 108 cases initiated. Final reports have been filed in 11 cases due to lack of evidence against those named in the police complaint, and investigation is under way for 24 of the complaints. The investigation of one case has been transferred to Bengaluru. The largest number of cases in UP have been lodged in Bareilly zone (28), Meerut zone (23), Gorakhpur zone (11), Lucknow zone (nine), and Agra zone (nine). Both Prayagraj and Gautam Buddh Nagar stand at seven each, while Varanasi and Lucknow are at six cases. Kanpur has only two such cases registered. Within nine months of the ordinance being promulgated, police had arrested at least 189 people in connection with anti-conversion cases.[17]
• In September 2022, Tamil Nadu rejected the NCPCR report on the “forceful conversion of children in child homes and schools”, stating that the claims are false. The NCPCR had alleged that the hostel warden was tutoring students to convert and follow Christianity.[18]
• On October 13 2021, the Gujarat High Court granted bail to all seven individuals arrested in the state’s first case under the amended freedom of religion law. The case involved a Hindu woman who filed forced conversion charges against her Muslim husband, five of his Muslim family members, and the officiant at their wedding; all of whom were arrested on June 18.  On August 5, the woman filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court to retract her complaint, stating the police had “twisted” her complaint into a case of forced religious conversion, rape, and other charges.  According to the police report, her Muslim husband had claimed to be Christian before their wedding and, once they were married, the family pressured the wife to convert to Islam.  Police dropped the case after the woman retracted her complaint. [19]
• A joint report entitled Christians under Attack in India, drafted by NGOs United Against Hate, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, and the UCF, noted that more than 500 incidents of violence against Christians were reported to the UCF hotline during the year.  The report stated that 333 of 486 incidents were recorded in Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka States.  The report stated that only 34 FIRs were filed against the perpetrators through the year.  At the end of the year, 19 cases were pending against Christians in nine states under the conversion restriction laws, although no Christian had been convicted in the country for illegal religious conversion during the year, according to the report.[20]
• The sangh parivar’s (wider family of supremacist organisations) claims of numerous “forcible conversions” around the Tirumala Hills have been contradicted by V V Ramena Deekshitulu, head priest of the Lord Venkateshwara Temple at Tirumala, who has stated there have been no conversions in that area. This is consistent with the 1999 observations of the then chairperson of the National Commission for Minorities(NCM) that no evidence had been found to support the allegation that Dalits and tribals had been converted by force.[21]

Petitions against Conversion- An attempt to further oppress the minorities?

The Supreme Court as well as the Delhi High Court have, over  the last two years dismissed three similar pleas on “forced conversions” filed by the same petitioner – serial public interest litigator and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay.

On December 12, a PIL was filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay alleging “mass conversions” taking place across the country. In his plea, Upadhyay claimed that the Hindu population in India had declined from 86% in 2001 to 79% in 2011. If this trend continued, the petition declared, “Hindus shall gradually become a minority” in India.

While hearing the said case, the Supreme Court took exception to certain tasteless and scurrilous statements made against minority religions in the PIL. The court clearly asked senior advocate Arvind P Datar, appearing for the petitioner who belongs to the BJP, to ensure that such scurrilous remarks do not find place on the record. At the recent hearing, the judges asked that any such remarks be expunged while on prior dates of hearing the law officers of the central government had made misleading statements leading the bench to observe that “forced conversions are a serious issue!”   At an earlier hearing of the same court in this matter, the Supreme Court called the issue of “false conversions” a “very severe” problem, even directing the central government to gather data from the states regarding legislation governing religious conversions!

Ironically, petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay himself is today facing prosecution for hate speech. Upadhyay had on an earlier occasion in 2021 faced stern rejection from the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court that had also threatened levying costs on the petitioner. The three-judge bench consisting of Justices RF Nariman, BR Gavai, and Hrishikesh Roy rejected a petition submitted by Upadhyay himself, threatening to levy hefty fines if he persisted.[22] This bench had ruled that religious conversion law or anything that infringes one’s right to religion would be unlawful since the Indian Constitution allows people to practice any religion they choose and because the word “propagate” is also used in Article 25 of the Constitution. The bench stated that a person above the age of 18 should have the freedom to choose their religion.[23]

CJP’s challenge to the constitutionality of state anti-conversion laws, against autonomy and free choice

In the third week of November 2022, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the earlier (2020-2021) batch of petitions challenging the Freedom of Religious Acts introduced by some states legislatures, namely Uttarpradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, in the name of ‘love jihad’ against religious conversions done for the sake of marriages. Senior Advocate, CU Singh, appearing on behalf of ‘Citizens for Justice and Peace‘, one of the petitioners, mentioned the pleas before a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice JB Pardiwala, for urgent listing. Informing the court about urgency of the matter, CU Singh informed the bench that the court had already decided the issue of the right of an individual to change of faith as being a part of fundamental right of choice in Shafin Jahan’s matter.

CJP’s petitions, that will now be heard in early 2023 challenge the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020 and the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 as also the Madhya Pradesh similar law. The laws promulgated by Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh have been challenged before the court, later.

Notice has been issued in the batches of these petition in January 2021. Last year, Madhya Pradesh government made it mandatory for people to inform officials two months in advance about interfaith marriage or willful conversion to another religion. Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act stipulates punitive actions including imprisonment and penalty if an individual fails to adhere to the law

2020-2022, using the courts to fan the phobia

Several petitions have also been filed in the Supreme Court around these laws passed by the states, FIRs have been filed, and individuals from the minority communities have been arrested/harassed. One provision, common to all these laws enacted in several states during the second central term of the NDA II regime (post 2020 onwards to be precise) requires that anyone who intends to convert intimate the district magistrate in advance. This provision gives a legal sanction for the state’s interference in a matter of individual liberty and autonomy, and personal choice. There are provisions against “mass conversions” too. More and more states (all governed by the supremacist, Bharatiya Janata Party- BJP) are now passing stringent laws –that infringe on individual liberty – to directly or indirectly bring under the scanner/target India’s more marginalised sections, its minorities. The latest addition to the list of states that have passed an even more stringent anti-conversion law is the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion (Amendment Act), 2022.

These laws have been passe post 2017 despite the fact that an earlier version of the same law, passed in Himachal Pradesh had been struck down. A decade back, in 2012, the HP High Court set aside Section 4 of the HP Act of 2006 as ultra vires the Constitution and struck down Rules 3 and 5 thereunder, insofar as they related to Section 4. Section 4 read as follows:

“4. Notice of intention.- (1) A person intending to convert from one religion to another shall give prior notice of at least thirty days to the District Magistrate of the district concerned of his intention to do so and the District Magistrate shall get the matter enquired into by such agency as he may deem fit:

 Provided that no notice shall be required if a person reverts back to his original religion.

(2) Any person who fails to give prior notice, as required under sub-section (1), shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.”

The High Court observed that:

“A person not only has a right of conscience, the right of belief, the right to change his belief, but also has the right to keep his beliefs secret. No doubt, the right to privacy is, like any other right, subject to public order, morality and the larger interest of the State. When rights of individuals clash with the larger public good, then the individual’s right must give way to what is in the larger public interest. However, this does not mean that the majority interest is the larger public interest. Larger public interest would mean the integrity, unity and sovereignty of the country, the maintenance of public law and order. Merely because the majority view is different, does not mean that the minority view must be silenced.”

In this case, the High Court specifically held that the right to privacy and the right to change the belief of a citizen cannot be taken away under the specious plea that public order may be affected. The High Court observed: “We are unable to comprehend how the issuance of a notice by a convertee will prevent conversions by fraud, force or inducement. In fact, this may open a Pandora’s box and once notice is issued, this may lead to conflicts between rival religious outfits and groups”.

Questioning the Himachal Pradesh Act’s requirement of 30 days’ notice, the High Court asked how the Government would determine when the thought process of a person has changed. It observed: “Change of religion, when it is of its own volition, will normally be a long-drawn-out process. If a person of his own volition changes his religion, there is no way that one can measure or fix the date on which he has ceased to belong to religion A and converted to religion B. This has to be an ongoing process and therefore, there can be no notice of thirty days as required under the Himachal Pradesh Act”.

The High Court also found the proviso to Section 4 discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It explained: “ ‘Original religion’ has not been defined in the Himachal Act … The general consensus of opinion used was that the original religion would be the religion of the convertee by birth, i.e., the religion he was born into. We fail to understand the rationale why if a person is to revert back to his original religion, no notice is required….Supposing a person born in religion A converts to religion B at the age of 20 and wants to convert back to religion A at the age of 50, he has spent many more years, that too mature years, being a follower of religion B. Why should he not be required to give notice?… if a person born in religion A, converts to religion B, then converts to religion C and then to religion D, if he converts back to religion B or C, he is required to give notice, but if he converts back to religion A, then no notice is required. This also, according to us, is totally irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India“.

The High court was of the view that conversion by “force”, “fraud” or “inducement” should be dealt with strictly and should be discouraged. But, it added, by and large, it is the poor and the down-trodden, who are converted by “force”, “fraud” or “inducement”. By enacting Section 4 and making the non-issuance of the notice a criminal offence, the State has, in fact, made these poor and down-trodden people criminals, whereas the main thrust of the Act should have been to deal strictly with the persons who convert people by “force”, “fraud” or “inducement”, it added, while asking why a person, who fails to give such notice, should be required to pay a fine, which may extend up to Rs.1000.

However, despite this background, in 2019, the HP Act of 2006 was repealed and replaced by the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019. The provisions set aside by the HP High Court have been included within the new law passed in 2019. Under the new law, Section 7(4) stipulates that a conversion carried out without following the procedure of advance declaration would be rendered illegal and void.

Notably, the 2012 judgment by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Evangelical Fellowship of India vs. State of Himachal Pradesh was authored by Justice Deepak Gupta, who remained Acting Chief Justice of the High Court twice. He was later elevated as a Judge to the Supreme Court in 2017. Justice Deepak Gupta retired from the Supreme Court in 2020.

Citizens for Peace and Justice (CPJ), a Mumbai-based NGO filed a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court in 2020, challenging the validity of the anti-conversion laws in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by former Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, along with Justices V. Ramasubramanian and A.S. Bopanna, issued notice to the states, vide its order dated January 6, 2021.

Thereafter, in February 2021, an amendment to the petition was filed by CPJ to also challenge the validity of the new anti-conversion laws passed by Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The amendment petition was allowed by the Supreme Court by its order dated February 17, 2021.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh observed that “Larger public interest would mean the integrity, unity and sovereignty of the country, the maintenance of public law and order. Merely because the majority view is different, does not mean that the minority view must be silenced”.

In so far as the new law brought about in Himachal Pradesh is concerned, the petition by CPJ submits that the 2019 law added several provisions dealing with “conversion by marriage”, and by sections 7 and 9 reintroduced even more obnoxious and unconstitutional provisions of prior notice, enquiry and investigation than were contained in the struck down provisions of the HP Act of 2006. This is a case of patent legislative overreach and an attempt to legislatively overrule a binding declaration of law by the competent High Court, without removing the unconstitutionality pointed out by the High Court, submits the petition. The new law, in fact, casts a reverse burden of proof upon the person converted and made the offences, including the “offence” of getting married, cognizable and non-cognisable. The petition, titled Citizens for Peace and Justice vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

1977: Stanlislaus Judgement of the Supreme Court

After the first passage of these “anti-conversion” laws in Odisha and Madhya Pradesh, both had then been challenged on constitutional grounds. The Odisha Act was unequivocally held to be ultra vires the Constitution by the High Court of Orissa in 1973. However, this was overturned by the Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in 1977.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Stainislaus examined whether the right to practice and propagate one’s religion also included the right to convert. Upholding the constitutional validity of the Odisha Act and the MP Act of 1968, the Court held that Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons, the right to freedom and conscience, and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health. The Bench further held that “the word ‘propagate’ has been used in Article 25 (1), for what the Article grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets.”

The calls for a re-visiting of this verdict is in order. Senior advocate, Sanjay Hegde makes out a strong case for a persuasive re-look at this judgement. According to Hegde, the state laws against conversion let the mobs have the final say. “If you are born in a religion, you can’t change your religion, without the State’s consent“, says Hegde when asked to comment on these laws. Religious beliefs cannot be forced or regulated, he says….These laws try to control women, rather than marriage, and assume that the women don’t have any agency of their own.”

Propaganda laced with rhetoric however sways the public mood and holds the show together as electronic channel after channel, continue with the propaganda dissemination. Both, the organs of the state in allegiance with non-state actors with an allegiance to the dominant Hindutva ideology have systematically used this bogey to intimidate and harass the Christian and Muslim minority’.

Unless sanity and dialogue –which includes assimilation and dissemination of all available data becomes the norm, this tool to beat the vulnerable minority will continue.

The post Anti-Conversion Laws: The trope of forced religious conversions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Local Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) units and its youth branch, Bajrang Dal, have long complained about these “conversion rackets” that are taking place in Uttar Pradesh, involving Christian organizations. In recent months, the police have responded to these complaints with an unparalleled zeal.

The police response is a result of allegations made by VHP or Bajrang Dal members claiming that these Christian organizations or individuals are attempting to convert Hindus through coercion, deceit, allurement, or a combination of these methods. As a result, the arrests of Christians in Uttar Pradesh’s Fatehpur district continue to take place over allegations of forced conversions.

The Hindutva outfit filed its initial complaint in April of this year, just before Easter. Maundy Thursday prayers were reportedly interrupted on April 14, 2022, just before Easter celebrations, by a group of Hindutva activists. Sixty to seventy VHP employees are accused of breaking into the church’s property and locking it from the outside.

The claims have led to the current detention of over ten individuals in Fatehpur jail, and additional arrest orders have been filed. As was reported by the Wire, these members of the Bajrang Dal and the VHP then started chanting the slogan of ‘Jai Shree Ram’. After the police came, the Aadhaar and identity cards of the residents were verified and the worshippers were told that we will be protected and taken safely to our homes. However, they were instead taken to the police station. After midnight, an FIR was registered by the police.

Six months later, Christians allege there has been an attempt to target the community with false allegations.

The FIR, which was accessed by the Wire, shows that the complaint was registered by the VHP leader Himanshu Dixit and the sections evoked against the worshippers are IPC sections 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 506 (Criminal intimidation), 420 (cheating), 467 and 468 (forgery and cheating), and Sections 3 and 5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The FIR names 35 persons and 20 unknown persons, and claims that close to 90 Hindus were being forcefully converted to Christianity with the help of workers at the Broadwell hospital.

The law provides for imprisonment of one to five years with a minimum fine of Rs 15,000 for forced conversions, and three to ten years of jail time for the conversion of minors and women from the SC/ST community.

Dixit’s complaint further alleged that the forceful conversion of Hindus had been ongoing for 34 days – part of a 40-day process. As reported by the Wire, while Dixit has no idea what activities were taking place, the VHP acted on the basis of the inputs given by the people living in the vicinity.

In the immediate aftermath of the complaint, 26 people were arrested. As a result of the allegations, more than ten people are currently detained in Fatehpur jail, and additional arrest orders have been issued. As a result of the police allegedly discovering fake Aadhaar cards used in the alleged conversion attempt, more arrests are still being made.

Pattern of false allegation against Christians by the Hindutva Outfits

Hindutva organizations have long protested what they claim to be Christian conversions in Fatehpur, particularly in the rural areas, but in recent years, the tenor has become stronger.

Christian converts were “purified” with gangajal, or holy water from the Ganges, by SadhviNiranjanJyoti of the BharatiyaJanata Party (BJP), who arrived at Teesi hamlet in August 2013. She further attacked World Vision International, saying that its major objective is to convert people to Christianity. Since 2014, NiranjanJyoti has represented Fatehpur in the LokSabha and is now the Union’s state minister for rural development.

Workers from the VHP and Bajrang Dal have protested numerous times over the past few years, burned effigies of Christian groups, and locked up homes where prayer services were allegedly held.

According to Virendra Pandey, provincial secretary of the VHP’s Fatehpur unit, the police have started “cooperating” and clamping down on the “illegal activities” of Christian groups, as was reported by msn.[1]

The state’s anti-conversion law — the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act — prohibits religious conversion through force, religious misrepresentation, and allurement.The punishment for ‘mass conversion’, which translates to two or more people, ranges from imprisonment for three to 10 years and a fine of Rs 50,000 or more.

Related:

Christian Group in Bengaluru Approach the DG of Police to seek protection against targeted violence
Over 300 attacks on Christians reported this year, over 2000 women, Adivasis and Dalits injured
Survey of Churches, anti conversion laws only empower radical mobs: Archbishop Peter Machado
Hate watch: Christians attacked during Sunday mass in Chhattisgarh; 9 hospitalised 
No coercive action against voluntary religious conversion: MP High Court
India has chosen a path of exclusion and persecution for religious minorities: CMRI report
BJP has strayed away from Nehruvian vales of secularism: IAMC report

The post False allegation of Conversion leads to the continuing Abuse against Christians appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Union Government said that it is “cognizant of the gravity and the seriousness” of the issue of forced religious conversions. This affidavit is in response to a PIL filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking measures to control forced conversions, the Union said that, “the relief sought in the present petition would be taken up in all seriousness by the Union of India and appropriate steps shall be taken as the Central Government is cognizant of the matter.”

Incidentally, on April 9, 2021, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court, (Justices Rohinton Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy) had dismissed a previously filed PIL by the same petitioner, Ashwini Upadhyaya commenting, “ I don’t see a reason as to why any person above 18 cannot choose his religion. There is a reason why the word ‘propagate’ is there in the Constitution”, had observed Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman. These oral observation was made when a bench headed by him was hearing a PIL filed by Ashwini Upadhyaya seeking to control black magic, superstition & mass religious conversion of SC/STs through intimidation, threats & gifts. Also observing that the PIL was nothing but a “publicity interest litigation”, which was of a “harmful kind”, the bench warned the petitioner that heavy costs will be imposed if the matter was pressed. Following that, the petitioner withdrew the petition but had within three days on April 12, 2021 made a representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs. This was followed by the present petition filed in January 2022 (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India – W. P. (C) 63/2022).

The present and ongoing petition has sought for direction to the Union and State Governments to take stringent steps in order to curb forceful religious conversion by intimidation, threats and deceivingly luring through gifts and monetary benefits. Upadhyay also sought directions to the Law Commission of India to prepare a Report as well as a Bill to control religious conversions.

The Supreme Court on the previous hearing on November 14, had termed the issue “very serious” and directed the Union to make its stand clear. In the affidavit filed in pursuance of the Court direction, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated “the right to freedom of religion does not include a fundamental right to convert other people to a particular religion. The said right certainly does not include the right to convert an individual through fraud, deception, coercion, allurement or such means”

November 14, 2022: Forceful conversion of religion will not only affect the Union of India but also affect the freedom of religion and conscience of individuals, the Supreme Court of India observed on Monday.

Terming this as a “very serious issue”, a Bench of Justices MR Shah and Hima Kohli asked the Union of India to make its stand clear by filing a counter affidavit in the matter within November 22.

November 18: No coercive action against voluntary religious conversion: MP High Court Four days later, the Madhya Pradesh High Court barred state government to mandate inter-faith couples to declare conversion before district administration. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has barred the state government from using coercion against anyone who disobeys section 10 of the MP Freedom of Religion Act, which requires anyone who wishes to convert to another religion to notify the district administration in advance. The petitioners had asked the court to invalidate the MP Freedom of Religion Act 2021 as being unconstitutional.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court then issued this significant ruling, prohibiting the State Government from using coercion against anyone who violates Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, which calls for anyone wishing to change their religion to make a declaration to the District Magistrate.

A bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta further ordered the state not to prosecute the adult citizens if they solemnize the marriage of their own free will after finding section 10 to be prima facie unconstitutional.

November 28, 2022, Supreme Court:

“The issue with respect to alleged conversion of religion, if it is found to be correct and true, is a very serious issue which may ultimately affect the security of the nation as well as the freedom of religion and conscience of the citizens. Therefore, it is better that Union government may make their stand clear and file counter on what further steps can be taken by Union and/or others to curb such forced conversion maybe by force, allurement or fraudulent means.”

Referring to the judgment of the top court in Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., the Union said, “The Hon’ble Court held that the word ‘propagate’ does not envisage the right to convert a person rather is in the nature of the positive right to spread one’s religion by exposition of its tenets.” The Supreme Court in the five-judge bench led by Chief Justice A. N. Ray had examined the scope of the words ‘propagate’ and ‘public order’. The Union further submitted that the Supreme Court in the judgment had upheld the enactments which sought to control and curb the menace of organized, sophisticated large scale illegal conversions.

Union stressed upon the fact that such enactments are necessary for protecting the cherished rights of vulnerable sections of the society including women and economically and socially backward classes. Union also pointed out that the States of Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Haryana, have already made the legislations in this regard.

CJP’s Constitutional Challenges to State Laws against Autonomy and Free Choice 

Early last week, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the earlier (2020-2021) batch of petitions challenging the Freedom of Religious Acts introduced by some states legislatures in the name of ‘love jihad‘ against religious conversions done for the sake of marriages. Senior Advocate, CU Singh, appearing on behalf of ‘Citizens for Justice and Peace‘, one of the petitioners, mentioned the pleas before a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice JB Pardiwala, for urgent listing.Informing the court about urgency of the matter, CU Singh informed the bench that the court had already decided the issue of right of change of faith being a part of fundamental right of choice in Shafin Jahan’s matter.

The petitions mentioned by the senior advocate CU Singh particularly challenge the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020 and the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018.

The Apex Court had also issued a notice in these batch of petition in January 2021. The laws promulgated by Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh also have been challenged before the court. Last year, Madhya Pradesh government made it mandatory for people to inform the officials two months in advance about interfaith marriage or willful conversion to another religion. Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act stipulates punitive actions including imprisonment and penalty if an individual fails to adhere to the law.

Related:

MP: Ahead of Assembly Polls, Govt Enacts PESA 1996, CM Believes ‘It Will Stop Tribal Conversion’

No coercive action against voluntary religious conversion: MP High Court

The post Must take serious steps against ‘forced’ religious conversions: Centre Tells Supreme Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: https://hwnews.in

The Madras High Court has directed transfer of investigation in the Thanjavur minor’s suicide case from the State police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) while casting aspertion over the manner in which the police were proceeding. The court’s order came in response to a petition filed by the father of the deceased girl who stated that he had lost confidence in the state police’s investigation after the school was exonerated by the state’s Education Department of allegations of attempted forcible conversion and the Superintendent of Police (SP) ruled out angle of conversion in the initial phase of the investigation.

In a detailed order, the single bench of Justice GR Swaminathan looked at the facts and circumstances that led to the suicide and the developments thereafter and deemed that the investigation must be transferred to the CBI. However, while having reached this finding, the court made several observations that suggest the court’s alleged prejudice with respect to the religious conversion angle in the case.

The court has made some unwarranted and problematic observations in the order which reflect the court’s alleged prejudices, and even though the court has asked the CBI to not take the court’s observations into account, it has definitely steered public perception towards the case.

The court’s observations range from making comments about the name of the village being “Michealpatti” to make it seems that conversion angle is probable, to quoting from popular culture references to show how characters in movies defied attempts at religious conversion, to casting aspersions on the SP that she wanted to divert attention from the conversion angle in the case.

In this background it is pertinent to note that the case has caused a major political row with the involvement of a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader who recorded the statement of the minor girl. On January 28, a petition was submitted to Thanjavur district collector by residents of Michaelpatti village stating that “unidentified persons are coming to their village and trying to create communal disharmony.” According to reports, the villagers told officials that they “are being asked to speak against the school where the class 12 student was studying.” They added that their own children have studied in the school and there is no question of forced conversions.

Background

The deceased was a Class 12 student of a school in Michealpatti and was living in the hostel. On January 9, she consumed pesticide and started vomiting and when was taken home, she had not informed anyone that she had consumed pesticide and she was given treatment for stomach pain. When she was taken to the hospital, the doctor found out the actual cause and informed the police station and then a trainee Senior Inspector recorded her statement and offences under sections 305 and 511 of IPC and Sections 75 and 82(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 were registered. Her statement was also recorded by Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur. A few hours later, she passed away.  

On the next day, a video of the child alleging that the correspondent of the school spoke to her parents about conversion to Christianity was circulated in the social media. The petitioner, the father of the girl, also submitted a complaint by enclosing the said video to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District. The SP then held a press conference stating that the preliminary investigation conducted by the police ruled out the conversion angle hence, the petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of investigation.

This court directed that the statements of the parents be recorded under section 164 of CrPC and after receiving the same in a sealed cover, the same was handed over to the IO. The original phone on which the video of the deceased girl was recorded was directed to be handed over to the IO.

On January 28, the petitioner submitted before the court that he had completely lost faith in the State Police since a high ranking Minister had given a public interview absolving the school authorities of the charge of conversion as also, the Education Department had conducted a departmental enquiry and gave clean chit to the school administration. This plea was opposed by the state police stating that the investigation was proceeding on the right lines.

The petitioner also alleged that the girl’s dying declaration was leaked by the police to the media to build a counter narrative, since she had not mentioned about conversion therein.

Submissions of the Police

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted on behalf of the police that instead of handing over the video of the girl to the police, an edited version was circulated, thus generating controversy. It was also submitted that the petitioner, allegedly under the influence of certain communal organisations, did not cooperate for inquest and postmortem. Since certain communal organisations had taken over the stage, the District Superintendent of Police thought it fit to hold a press conference to dispel the misgivings. The Prosecutor just stated that all directions of the court were duly followed and all investigation was going as per procedure.

The court observed that the prosecutor faulted the conduct of the petitioner and Mr. Muthuvel who had recorded the video for not cooperating with the investigation. The court held that it would be unfair to prejudge the issue.

About the facts and circumstances of the case, the court noted that the petitioner and a few communal organisations have made an allegation that the school management attempted to convert the child to Christianity and since the move was rebuffed, the child was harassed by the hostel warden in a variety of ways as a result of which the child took the extreme step. The court also noted that the classmates who were examined stated that there was no pressure or even suggestion to them to convert to Christianity and the local residents concurred with the same. The classmates stated that the girl was staying in the hostel to escape the tortures of her step mother and had even refused to go home in holidays.

Intervention by School

The School also intervened and submitted that the child was being mistreated by her step mother and that the child helpline had received complaints and the officials had also conducted enquiry in this regard. The counsel for the school submitted that the domestic situation of the child must have been so depressing that she was pushed to committing suicide. He further submitted that the so-called dying declaration was engineered by the stepmother to implicate Sister Saghayamary who was not only taking care of the child but was also paying her school and hostel fees. Further, Muthuvel who had recorded the video is a hate monger who has cases against him for spreading communal trouble.

The court noted that in the police statement as well as in the statement before the judicial magistrate, the child had directly and in unambiguous terms accused that the hostel warden had burdened her by assigning her nonacademic chores and, unable to bear the same, she consumed the pesticide. Which is why the warden was arrested.

The court commented on the comments of the SP in the press conferences and said,

“The Superintendent of Police probably forgot the virtues of silence. To a question from a news reporter, she asserted that in the preliminary enquiry, the conversion angle was not made out. Such a statement was unwarranted because by then the private video was already in circulation and the parents of the child have given a complaint alleging that there was an attempt to convert the child to Christianity. By stating that the conversion angle stood ruled out, the Superintendent of Police had brushed aside the petitioner’s complaint made in writing and backed by the video of the child. Therefore, the petitioner was justified in entertaining an impression that if the investigation continued by the District Police, it will be biased.”

Problematic references in the order

Steering away from the facts and points of law in the case, where the court was only required to decide whether the petition made a case for transfer of investigation from the State police to CBI, the court made a few references in the order which were not only unwarranted but gave the impression that the court had taken into account one side of the submissions and made up its mind.

The court quoted from the Bible as follows:

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

The court then went on to quote from a movie “Serious Men” where the Principal of the school urges a parent to accept Christianity in order to get the school’s scholarship. Then the court also made a reference to a Tamil movie “Kalyana Agathigal” where a Hindu girl is asked to convert to Christianity if she wishes to marry her Christian lover.

The Court even questioned these references made by it, “One may wonder if in a judgment of a constitutional court, there should be references to popular culture. I will not stop with a rhetorical – Why Not?” The court also stated that art reflects life.

On points of law

The court then cited the Supreme Court’s judgement in Rev. Stainislaus V. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (1977) 1 SCC 677 whereby the court held that the expression “propagate” used in Article 25(1) would not encompass the right to convert and there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one’s own religion.

“If one reads the views expressed by some of the Christian members of the Constituent Assembly, one would note that some of them had even batted for the right to convert even minor children,” this court pointed out.

Reference to the village name

The court seemed to have drawn aspersions to the name of the village as well and made an observation that “Michealpatti could not have been the original name”! The court even went out on a limb to reach a conjecture that “there is nothing inherently improbable in the allegation that there was an attempt at conversion.” The court tried to save this comment by saying, “It could be true or false.” The court further said, “The matter called for investigation and not outright rejection. But the District Superintendent instead directing the jurisdictional police to conduct investigation chose to proclaim that the preliminary investigation has ruled out the conversion angle…Instead of ordering the investigation officer to take the additional materials to account, the S.P directed the local police to register an FIR against the person who had taken the video.”

The court noted that while the invoking of section 74 of Juvenile Justice Act was warranted, the other offences under sections 153, 504, 505(1)(b) and 505(2) of IPC was indicative that the SP “wanted to silence any discussion regarding the conversion angle.” It further said, “With her experience, the SP obviously knew that the video was authentic. The video footage circulated in the social media was truncated. The earlier and the later portions had been omitted. But that will not make the video any less authentic. The S.P virtually threatened the person who shot the video. Instead, she should have goaded the investigation to take the religious angle into account.”

Doubting credibility of the State Police

The court noted that the I.T wing of the ruling party released portions of the private video that appear to exonerate the school authorities thus casting doubts on the credibility and impartiality of the investigation made by the state police. Whether there is truth in the allegation is a matter for investigation and eventually for the Court to decide. But a counter narrative is being built as if the father and the step mother of the child are responsible for the suicide. In the social media, an allegation has been made that the CHILDLINE received complaints some two years ago that the child in question was being cruelly treated by the step mother. Such deliberate leaks dent the credibility of the investigation.

The court noted that the girl in her video statement as well as in her dying declaration made no mention of any harassment by her step mother. “The attempt of the police appears to be to derail the investigation…. It is too early in the day for the police or the politicians to jump to conclusions. But they have done so. That is why, the petitioner is apprehensive that if the investigation continues to remain in the hands of the State police, he will not get justice. His apprehension is justified,” the court observed.

The court agreed with the petitioner’s contention that the police sent summons to the girl’s maternal grandparents and instead of finding out the truth of the allegations made by the deceased victim, have been trying to bolster the counter narrative.

Order of transfer of investigation

The post Thanjavur minor’s suicide: Madras HC orders case transfer to CBI; rife with prejudices, hints at ‘religious conversion’ angle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, echoed right-wing politicians and said that an “anti religious conversion” law must be made. Kejriwal was speaking in poll bound Punjab’s Jalandhar and said, “Religion is a private matter. Everybody has the right to worship a God. A law should definitely be made against religious conversions but nobody should be wrongly harassed through this. Conversion done by scaring them is wrong,” in Punjab’s Jalandhar. 

Punjab will go to polls in a single phase on February 20 and the counting of votes will be done on March 10. Kejriwal has projected AAP as the alternative to Punjab’s incumbent Congress-led government. However, his statement is similar to what political leaders of BJP-ruled states make, when it comes to religious conversions. The BJP-governed states of Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, have brought such a law in place and other BJP-ruled states, including Haryana and Assam, have also voiced their desire to enact similar laws to prevent conversions. 

Arvind Kejriwal is one of the few CMs who has also led his cabinet colleagues and performed a “public” a.k.a government’s Diwali puja for the past two years. It is the only religious festival celebrated publicly by the Delhi government using public funds. In 2020 RTI activist and TMC member Saket Gokhale, had cited an RTI reply to claim that  Delhi’s Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government had spent ₹ 6 crore on its Laxmi Puja event in November that year. The event was telecast live on November 14, 2020. In 2021, Kehriwal’s ‘sarkari’ or Government Diwali, as it were, was celebrated against a backdrop of Ayodhya’s Ram temple set up at Thyagaraj Sports Complex as part of its ‘Dilli ki Diwali’ celebrations.

However during his Goa campaign Arvind Kejriwal who is also AAP national convener had already promised the people of Goa “free pilgrimage” to various religious centres, including Ayodhya and Ajmer Sharif, if his party is voted to power. All for free. Free as in on Taxpayers money.  Wooing Goans he had said, “If AAP comes to power, we will arrange for free darshan of Lord Ram in Ayodhya. Christian brothers and sisters will be taken to Velankanni and Muslims to Ajmer Sharif. Many people also have faith in Sai Baba, and will arrange trips for Shirdi for them.” 

In Punjab, as reported in The Wire, the Bharatiya Janata Party is also trying to “polarise the Hindus of Punjab and try and include them in its larger Hindutva project.” 

Related:

Karnataka gov’t is “pro Hindu”: V Sunil Kumar 
K J George pinpoints major flaws in anti-conversion Bill
Hate Watch: Right-wing extremists attack Muslim man and non-Muslim woman for travelling together 
2021 was ‘most violent year for Christians in India’: UCF report

The post Law should be made against religious conversions: Kejriwal in Punjab appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Gujarat government has told the Gujarat High Court on August 17 that interfaith marriage is not prohibited under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021, but using it as a tool or instrument for effecting forceful conversion is not allowed. The bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav is hearing petitions challenging the amending Act. The matter will next be heard on August 19.

The original Act of 2003 prohibited conversion by force or allurement, however the 2021 amendment make conversion by marriage an offence which is one of the many common threads between the anti-conversion laws passed by UP, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh as well.

Advocate General Kamal Trivedi appearing for the state quoted the statement of objects and reasons that ‘it is considered necessary to prohibit the forcible conversion by marriage’ and stated that the word “marriage” in section 3 takes its colour from the company of the words around it. Thus, as per his interpretation, the context of marriage comes only if there is “force, allurement or by any fraudulent means”.

Section 3 of the amendment Act states, “no person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religion to another by use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage or by getting a person married or by aiding a person to get married nor shall any person abet such conversion”.

A plain reading of this provision suggests that each means mentioned here i.e., force, allurement, fraudulent means, marriage are all independent of each other due to the use of the word “or” after each of these words.

The bench implored Trivedi that if he wants to make a statement on how the provision must be read, they will record the same. “But say that this (section 3) has to be read like this (in conjunction with the three elements of force, fraudulent means or/and allurement),” the bench said, to which Trivedi responded that he can take instructions and provide the same in writing, reported Indian Express.

At the previous hearing held on August 5, the high court had issued notice to the state government and the bench had orally expressed its displeasure over the changes brought about in the law. The bench had orally remarked, “Either you say if there is marriage by force or fraudulent means and then there is conversion, then of course, it is not right, fair enough. But if you say only because of marriage, someone converts and so it is an offence (it is not correct).”

The bench had opined that if an inter-religious marriage is without coercion or fraudulent means then it should not be treated as an offence. When state counsel Manisha Luvkumar contended that the object of the Act is to check that if in a relationship if one says unless you convert, there will be no marriage. To this, CJ Vikram Nath, reported responded that “it is between the two individuals”. This clearly indicated that the bench was keen on drawing a line on State interference in an individual’s privacy. Further, when the state counsel said that marriage does not require conversion, the court remarked that it is for the married couple to decide which religion they want to follow

SabrangIndia’s sister organisation, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has also moved the Supreme Court against the anti-conversion laws passed by UP, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The petition cites detailed grounds for this challenge including issues of privacy, extra-Constitutional powers to police and non-state actors, the fact that they violate the non-negotiable tenets of secularism, equality and non-discrimination.  Both, the Act and Ordinance, are inherently anti-women and discriminate against women, giving them no agency whatsoever and are therefore bad in law and substance.

In April, the Supreme Court made a passing remark on the right of an individual to choose his religion. While dealing with a plea against black magic, superstition and mass religious conversions, the court said, “I don’t see a reason as to why any person above 18 cannot choose his religion. There is a reason why the word “propagate” is there in the Constitution”.

Related:

Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act challenged, HC issues notice
Allahabad HC grants bail to man charged under anti-conversion law
Woman embraces Islam and marries a Muslim, Jammu & Kashmir HC grants protection

The post Gujarat gov’t counsel explores different interpretation of conversion by marriage appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The new Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020, that received the Governor’s assent late November, has already led to two people being booked under it.

After Uttar Pradesh, States like Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Assam are planning to come up with similar ‘anti-Love Jihad’ laws to criminalise religious conversions by marriage. An interesting aspect of the ordinance is that it still does not define ‘Love Jihad’ but attempts to criminalise it.

Deccan Herald had reported that the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a rally ahead of the assembly by polls had said those who “play with the honour and dignity of sisters and daughters by hiding their real names and identities…If they do not mend their ways, their ‘Ram Naam Satya’ journey will start.”

Although the purpose of such law was to counter alleged attempts to convert Hindu women to Islam in the guise of marriage, the ordinance does not mention any specific faith. So, does this law extend to non-Hindu-Muslim relationships? There is very little clarity on this.

The underlying tone of the ordinance delegitimises every conversion unless it gets the State’s blessing. Section 3 of the ordinance deems all conversions by marriage unlawful. Violation of this provision attracts a maximum of 5 years imprisonment and a fine of minimum rupees fifteen thousand.

Section 4 enables any person related to the converted person by blood or marriage to lodge an FIR against the conversion. Section 6 empowers Courts to declare any marriage done for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion or vice versa void.

Liberty and autonomy

All these provisions give power to the State to police personal relationships and throttle a citizen’s freedom of choice. In Shafin Jahan v Asokan KM (2018) 16 SCC 368, the Supreme Court had said, “Interference by the State in such matters has a seriously chilling effect on the exercise of freedoms.”

Others are dissuaded to exercise their liberties for fear of the reprisals which may result upon the free exercise of choice. Intimacies of marriage, including the choices which individuals make on whether or not to marry and on whom to marry, lie outside the control of the state. Courts as upholders of constitutional freedoms must safeguard these freedoms.

Section 8 and 9 lay down the procedure that needs to be followed pre and post conversion. It mandates an advance notice of 60 days to the District Magistrate before the intended conversion, which is to be followed by a police enquiry into the circumstances of conversion. The religious priest/converter doing the conversion is also required to give such prior notification to the District Magistrate. After the conversion, the person has to appear before the District Magistrate for confirmation. The authority will notify the conversion and will invite public objections, before confirming the conversion.

All this rigmarole for an unforced marriage damages a person’s liberty, autonomy and also gives State support to the threat and societal pressures most interfaith couples face. The courts have acknowledged the hostility couples have to face as such marriages are seen from the prism of a conspiracy theory rather than an intimate choice.

In Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2007) 1 GLH 41, the Supreme Court had observed that, “Parents of the boy or girl cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage.” Even with such precedents in place, constant lynching and harassing continues that forces young people to flee their villages, hometowns and live in fear.

The provisions also go against the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. When interfaith couples can marry in other parts of the country without State intervention, but UP based couples have to go through a complex process to have their marriages registered, a blatant sense of discrimination and arbitrariness emerges.  

Consenting adults

The Ordinance also disregards the decision made by two consenting adults. The courts have time and again stressed on the fact that if two people have attained the age of majority, they can marry and reside with whosoever they like to.

In Sony Gerry vs Douglas Gerry (2018) 2 KLT 783, the Apex Court said, “It needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individual’s life has its own significance. She/He is entitled to make her/his choice. The courts cannot, as long as the choice remains, assume the role of parents’ patriae. The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the court should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father.”

The former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, in Shakti Vahini vs Union of India 2018 AIR SC 1601, had remarked, “When two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal and they have the right to do so. And it can unequivocally be stated that they have the right and any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation.”  

The Right to Privacy

The new ordinance also has a tone-deaf position on people’s fundamental right to privacy. The landmark judgment of KS Puttaswamy v Union of India 2019 10 SCC 1, that upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right, had laid down privacy as an important facet of dignity. Choosing a life partner is a matter of privacy. The top court had said,

“Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone. Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy. Privacy protects heterogeneity and recognises the plurality and diversity of our culture. “The constitutional right to the freedom of religion under Article 25 has implicit within it the ability to choose a faith and the freedom to express or not express those choices to the world.”

The unreasonable intrusion of State to discredit wedlock’s violates this very right to privacy and disempowers individuals. If the State needs to be satiated about people’s right intentions to practice their freedom of choice, it leaves their right to privacy handicapped. In the Puttaswamy judgment, the court had also observed,

“The freedoms under Article 19 can be fulfilled where the individual is entitled to decide upon his or her preferences. Read in conjunction with Article 21, liberty enables the individual to have a choice of preferences on various facets of life including what and how one will eat, the way one will dress, the faith one will espouse and a myriad other matter on which autonomy and self-determination require a choice to be made within the privacy of the mind.”

Proportionality

Some may argue that conversion for the sole purpose of marriage or marriage for the sole purpose of conversion may be morally and ethically wrong. But is criminalising it a proportional outcome?

In Joseph Shine v Union of India 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1676, Justice Indu Malhotra had opined, “The element of public censure, visiting the delinquent with penal consequences, and overriding individual rights, would be justified only when the society is directly impacted by such conduct. In fact, a much stronger justification is required where an offence is punishable with imprisonment. The State must follow the minimalist approach in the criminalization of offences, keeping in view the respect for the autonomy of the individual to make his/her personal choices.”

The ordinance fails to address the necessity and reason to hold such marriages void, and force couples to give rigorous undertakings to go through something as personal as marriage. It also shifts the burden of proof (section 12) to the accused to prove that the wedlock entered into by the two people is not forced as opposed to the general principle followed in criminal law that places the burden on the prosecution and treats the accused as innocent until proven guilty.

This makes it easier for disapproving parents and family members to slap frivolous charges against the couple who defy their parent’s diktat on marriage. Such a law will also lead to disproportionate results of acting like a deterrent for interfaith couples.

Section 7 makes the offence of illegal/forced conversion a cognisable and non bailable offence. This means that a police officer has the power to arrest an alleged accused without a warrant and detain him for a number of days, at the court’s discretion.

Right to Conscience

Article 25 of the Constitution stipulates the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. The right to conscience has also been framed independent of the right to religion. This means one can be non-religious and exercise the right to conscience, which according to the dictionary meaning involves “a knowledge or sense of right or wrong, moral judgement that opposes the violation of previously recognised ethical principles and that leads to feelings of guilt if one violates such principles”.

Thus, an individual’s exercise of conscience cannot be restricted simply because it does not conform to the ethics and morals set by a religion. If an individual feels a religious principle is violative of his or her ethical beliefs, and if the individual’s ethical beliefs are not in violation of laws or are in the manner of restricting the exercise of another person’s rights, the right to conscience cannot be circumscribed.

So, the important question to ask here is how can a State impose restrictions on a person’s right to conscience which could entail religious conversion? In the landmark judgment of Rev Stanislaus vs Madhya Pradesh 1977 SCR (2) 611, the top court looked at the constitutional validity of two anti-conversion legislations in Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court in 1975 backed the Madhya Pradesh High Court interpretation of the anti-conversion law.

The Madhya Pradesh court accepted the argument that the anti-conversion law is essentially a law protecting public order and so is covered by the reasonable restriction on right to religion and conscience prescribed in Article 25 (1) of the Constitution, upholding the state legislation. The Supreme court looked at religious conversion from the prism of public order.

The top court said, “The Acts therefore dearly provide for the maintenance of public order for, if forcible conversion had not been prohibited, that would have created public disorder in the States…. public order is an expression of wide connotation and signifies a state of tranquillity which prevails among the members of a political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established.”

To frame a matter of personal autonomy as that of public order, would be to hollow out the right to liberty and privacy. If communal elements create a public order problem because two individuals chose to marry, the duty of the state is to clamp down on intimidation and infringement of rights, not go into a digging expedition to determine the validity of someone’s belief.

However, while the 1975 judgement upheld the validity of anti-conversion laws, it did not say that a person should not convert for the sake of marriage.

Conversion for marriage

In Smt Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra and Anr vs. State of U.P. and ors. (W.P [C] No. 57068 of 2014), Noor Jahan along with her alleged husband approached the Allahabad High Court for claiming protection as it was alleged that she had embraced Islam after renouncing her Hindu identity to contract a Nikah with her Muslim husband. Under these circumstances, the court had held their union to be illegal as it was performed after a conversion which could not be justified in law.

The Bench had observed, “If a conversion is not inspired by religion feeling and under gone for its own sake, but is resorted merely with object of creating a ground for some claim of right or as a device adopted for the purpose to avoid marriage or to achieve an object without faith and belief in the unity of God (Allah) and Mohamed to be his prophet, the conversion shall not be bonafide. In case of a religion conversion there should be a change of heart and honest conviction in the tenets of new religion in lieu of tenets of the original religion.”

This case also referred to a 2000 Supreme Court judgment of Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc. vs Union of India & Ors (2000) 6 SCC 224. The Lily Thomas case essentially involved a Hindu man converting to Islam for the sake of marrying a second wife. This practice, the court held, was abhorrent. The judgement also provided a legal remedy. It categorically said that even if the man converts, if the marriage with the first wife was legally alive as per the Hindu Marriages Act, he would be liable for prosecution for bigamy. The conversion or apostasy only creates a legal ground for divorce but does not automatically change the position of the first marriage.

In Priyanshi @ Km. Shamren and ors v. State of U.P and Anr (Writ C No. 14288 of 2020), the Allahabad High Court followed the precedent laid down in Noor Jahan Begum and noted that the girl was a Muslim by birth and she had converted to Hinduism, just a month before the marriage was solemnised. The court declined to interfere in the matter of providing police protection to the couple.

But the 2014 Allahabad High Court judgment of Noor Jahan Begum and Priyanshi was overturned by the same court in 2020. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court noted on November 11 in Salamat Ansari and Ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors (Cri. Misc. W.P No. 11367 of 2020), “None of these judgments dealt with the issue of life and liberty of two matured individuals in choosing a partner or their right to freedom of choice as to with whom they would like to live. We hold the judgments in Noor Jahan and Priyanshi as not laying good law.”

It is clear that the proposals for a legislation to stop “love jihad” is motivated not by some sympathy for women, but with the sole purpose of stopping conversion and inter-religious unions. It also is a ploy to increase the role of the state, and in consequence vigilantes attached to the ruling dispensation’s ideology, in the personal lives of the citizens.

Recent HC orders

The ordinance that was produced by the UP Cabinet in the same month of the important and legally sound Allahabad High Court ruling on the matter speaks volume of the brazen insensitivity of the cabinet.

In Salamat Ansari and Ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors (Cri. Misc. W.P No. 11367 of 2020), a Division Bench held, “Right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship, would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals. We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat as Hindu and Muslim, rather as two grown up individuals who out of their own free will and choice are living together peacefully and happily over a year.”

They added, “The Courts and the Constitutional Courts in particular are enjoined to uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

As Karnataka is considering to implement a similar law, Justices S Sujatha and Sachin Shankar Magadumthe of the Karnataka High Court have held, “It is well settled that a right of any major individual to marry the person of his/her choice is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India and the said liberty relating to the personal relationships of two individuals cannot be encroached by anybody irrespective of caste or religion.”

If challenged to test the constitutional waters of this law, it might fail miserably. It is also high time that the country stops looking at women as mere objects that need valorous men to be rescued and let religious dogmas dominate personal choices of men and women.

Related:

UP Governor gives assent to anti-Love Jihad ordinance

UP: ‘Love Jihad’ law catches pace, 2 cases registered in Bareilly

Right to choose a partner is intrinsic to Right to life & personal liberty: Allahabad HC

The post Is anti-Love Jihad Law constitutional? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Eight people, including six men and two women falsely accused of forcibly converting children to Christianity in Madhya Pradesh in May 2017 were found not guilty by the Ratlam Sessions Court. The final judgment in the case was delivered on February 19, 2020.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) that represented the eight Christians accused of conversion issued a press statement saying, “On May 22, 2017 they were escorting the children to a Bible camp in Nagpur when the railway police separated the young children from them.  What followed was a tale of unspeakable harassment of the children and the accused at the hands of the authorities.” The statement added, “The ADF India legal team had to fight at every stage to secure them justice. They had to move the High Court to reunite the children with their parents. They had to persist for 3 months to secure the bail of the accused. And now, they have secured their acquittal.”

The charges were baseless as the parents of the children were Christian themselves, so there was no question of conversion. Many of them hail from the Bhil Adivasi community. MP has strict anti-conversion laws that require those wishing to convert have to give prior notice and police can investigate to check if the conversions are forced. 

“Justice has finally been done!” reacted Mrs. Tehmina Arora, Director, ADF India. She went on to add, “But we must not forget the toll that such false cases take on the families. No one should be targeted for their faith. The anti-conversion laws are tools to harass and target Christians and should be repealed since they restrict the freedom of religion guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”

The post 8 Christians falsely accused of forced conversion acquitted in MP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has given a timely call for a national debate on conversions as they are one 
 of the basic causes of communal tension in the country. The opposition parties have, as usual, opposed this call and have in stead demanded, as Congress spokesperson Girija Vyas has put it, a national debate on preserving the secular character of the Indian republic.

In fact, the two are two sides of the same problem. Let us therefore consider the so–called secular character of our Republic first.

The Preamble of the Constitution declares India to be a secular State and Article 25 spells out its content thus: “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion.” However, the next part of the Article makes discrimination between Hindus and non–Hindus by excluding the latter from the reformatory authority of the State. Furthermore, article 30 of the Constitution gives religious minorities “the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” Religious minorities, therefore, enjoy more freedom in managing their educational institutions than others. These provisions clearly constitute infringement of the principle of equal entitlement enshrined in Article 25. They make the Constitution and our republic pseudo–secular.

Granted that these exceptions to the principle of equal entitlement to religious freedom were made with the best of intentions, namely, to dispel apprehensions, if any, from the minds of India’s religious minorities about any domination by the majority community so that they would, of their own free will, join the national mainstream and promote national integration. That, however, does not absolve the Constitution and the republic from being pseudo–secular.

What is the most regrettable is that the said best of intentions did not pave the desired way. On the contrary, the greater freedoms granted to the religious minorities are being abused by them to protect, project and strengthen their separatism under the garb of separate identities. And the appeasement policies of the non–BJP–Sena political parties nourish that separatism. Thus, the Constitution and the republic that are already pseudo–secular in form, have actually become anti–secular in practice.

A word about the right to propagate religion would be proper here. According to the Supreme Court judgement of 1977 (Stainislaus v/s State of MP), “The right to propagate one’s religion means the right to communicate a person’s belief to another person or to expose the tenets of that faith, but would not include the right to ‘convert’ another person to the former’s faith.” But, Christian missionaries claim conversion to be their fundamental right and their appeasers support them. This goes against the secularism envisaged by our constitution.

So far, we have considered the question of secularism and conversions from the point of view of the provisions of our Constitution. But it can also be considered in the light of the theories of secularism.

The classical theory of secularism comes from the West, where conflict between the State and the Church regarding jurisdiction over human life led to the division between temporal and sacredotal functions and the giving of all secular functions, including secular education, to the State and all spiritual functions to the Church. This, in its full form, means separation of the school from the Church and of the Church from the State. To give religious minorities the right to establish educational institutions and to give them greater autonomy in their administration than permissible to the majority community, which is what Article 30 (1) does, is against the ideal of secularism as explained above. And when these educational institutions are used, overtly or covertly, to convert people of other faiths, it is bound to become a serious cause of inter–religious conflicts.

It is alleged, not without reason, that through conversions, separatist tendencies are fostered among the converts. This was the finding of the Niyogi Committee in the past and of the study undertaken by the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), Delhi, recently in 1992–93, which recorded that the curriculum followed in minority–managed educational institutions “was oriented to a culture of isolation of the community.” 
This is direct intervention by religion in the political sphere of the state and flagrant violation of the principle of secularism. As per the aforesaid theory, religious organisations should be banned from running educational institutions. If anyone wants to do humanitarian or welfare work, he may do it totally independently of religious organisation. That would be the real test of his motive also. Article 26 of the constitution gives every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious purposes. Whatever religious preaching it proposes to do, should be done only from there. Educational institutions should not be used for the purpose. Article 30 of the constitution is unnecessary, anti–secular and quite often anti–national too.

The western theory of secularism has been modified in India to suit its ethos and needs. Accordingly, secularism as implied in the Indian constitution means, firstly, that there would be no state religion and, secondly, that all religions would get equal treatment and respect. Mutual tolerance is the very basis of this secularism, while the basis of induced or forced conversion is invariably intolerance of the other religions, born out of the feeling of superiority of one’s own religion and denial that all religions, as so many paths to the same destination, deserve equal respect. It means my god is the only true god; yours is the false one and so you give up your god and worship mine!

Thus the attempt to convert is the expression of the worst form of intolerance which hits at the very root of Indian secularism. Intolerance breeds intolerance and conversion leads to re–conversion and even more conversions by all parties. Inter–religious hatred and strife bedevil national amity and unity. Thus, conversion is the very antithesis of secularism and should have no place in India.

Adoption of a new faith is one thing, converting someone to it is quite another. Even the adoption, to be genuine and valid, must be strictly based on an adequate understanding of the philosophy and practice of the other faith and on no other considerations. In fact, there should be religious courts to annul conversions which are not based strictly on these premises, in order to end conversion controversies forever. Conversions, to say the least, are un–religious acts. And when force, deceit or allurement is used for conversion, it unmistakably becomes an anti–religious act.

Regarding practitioners of deceit, the Bible says, “You outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness,” and asks, “How can you escape the condemnation of hell?” (Mathew 23:28,33). Similarly, the Quran declares that there can be no compulsion in matters of religion, condemns hypocrites and pronounces, “Woe to those that deal in fraud” (Sura 63:1 and 83:1). Perfect matching of means with ends is nowhere so very imperative as in the realm of religion. Their mismatch is the very definition of an anti–religious act. Surely, missionaries constitute a bunch of misguided zealots who, as per aforesaid prescriptions of their own religions, are not going to get any spiritual gain from induced or forced conversions.

Dr. Manmohan Singh has recently stated that the twenty–first century would be Mahatma Gandhi’s century. It would, therefore, be pertinent to note what Mahatma Gandhi had to say about conversions. “I hold,” wrote Gandhiji, “that proselytising under the cloak of humanitarian work is, to the least, unhealthy….. Conversions have now–a–days become a matter of business like any other.” Further he asks, “How can the conversion achieved through such unethical means be called religious in the true sense?” (Politics of Conversion, editor Devendra Swarup; Pp.337–8). Charity is no charity if it desires something in return; it is just a tacit bargain, an irreligious act.
Development of knowledge, both scientific and spiritual, has made it amply clear that some of the religious concepts and practices held dear in the past are no longer valid in modern times. They are, therefore, either being dropped or reinterpreted. The Church, for example, has dropped the concept of the flatness of the earth and exonerated Galileo (or itself?). It also recently accepted the validity of all religions as “different paths to the truth”, though rather reluctantly and not in full measure. Practice of idolatry, though condemned by Christianity and Islam, is today prevalent in the followers of both the religions in some form or the other, such as idols of Mary and Jesus, Kaaba, dargahs etc. Music, paintings of living beings etc. are now prevalent among Muslims too. Above all, by its relentless pursuit of knowledge in all spheres, the Christian world has practically given up the concept of original sin and replaced it, so to say, by the Hindu concept of original boon — Dnyanadev tu kaivalyam: Bliss through knowledge. It is also gradually dawning on people of different religions that all religions are different paths leading to the same destination and, therefore, they should practice tolerance and mutual respect.

It is true that there are some prescriptions in Christianity and Islam in pursuance of which conversion activities are resorted to. But there are some other prescriptions also which indicate the validity of all religions and the need to practice tolerance and mutual respect. Jesus Christ, for example, had said that he had come “to fulfil and not destroy” and that, “In my father’s house are many mansions.” (Politics of Conversion, p.126; quoted by V.V. John.). According to Islam, too, Allah himself sent different prophets to different lands and gave them different books. Further, Prophet Muhammad unequivocally announced to all non–Muslims: “I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine.” (Sura 109:1–6). Where then is the need or tenability of conversion?

Modern times demand that the aforesaid liberal principles prevail over the other illiberal and fundamentalist principles of Christianity and Islam that allegedly favour conversion; allegedly because reinterpretation of most of the latter will make them compatible with the former. Jihad, for example, is now interpreted by many enlightened Muslim scholars to mean war against the enemy within, such as greed, selfishness etc, and not against the enemy without. Conversion, likewise, can mean self–transformation into a better person. In any case, the concepts of Jihad, crusade, conversion, religious exclusiveness, fundamentalism, orthodoxy and the like are remnants of the past narrow feudal culture, which need to be abandoned or reinterpreted to fit them into the requirements of the modern period of liberalisation and globalisation.

It is the impact of the modern way of liberal and global thinking that has rightfully led to the demand of amends of apologies from the Pope for the atrocities committed in the past in the name of religion such as inquisitions of the 15th century. In India, both Christians and Muslims committed untold atrocities on Hindus in the past and they should, in all fairness, offer apologies and amends and stop all induced and forced conversions. That is the only just and honourable way to put the dismal past behind us and march jointly into the 21st century.

It is the eternal glory of Hinduism that it always believed in and practised religious tolerance and co–existence. Its cardinal principle is: “the Ultimate Reality, i.e., God, is one; only the learned men describe it differently.” (Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti). All religions, therefore, are different paths that lead to the same destination and hence should be treated with equal respect and tolerance. It distinguishes between Dharma and religion (panth). Dharma is universal and consists of ethical codes and modes essential for the sustenance of society (Samaj–Dharana). Religion or panth on the other hand, is the path to salvation. Dharma being universal is sovereign, but religion and state are totally separated from each other. Its secularism means: “Oneness of all Dharma and equal regard for all religions.” (Sarva Dharma Eka–bhav, Sarva Pantha Sama–bhav). The concepts have stood the test of time and are most relevant for and in keeping with the demands of the modern times.

Hindu tolerance is universally praised by non–Hindus but hardly reciprocated by them. They seem to hold: “You should ever practise tolerance because that is your principle; we would never practice it because it is not our principle.” This one–sided practice of tolerance has always put Hindu society at the receiving end; consequently, in the course of its history it lost vast chunks of its territory, population and even independence. It has, therefore, recently learnt the bitter lesson that it should not tolerate intolerance as tolerance of intolerance does not win over the intolerant to the side of tolerance but the latter invariably falls a prey to the predatory moves of the former. This realisation is at the root of the present–day aggressive stance of the Hindus. For this the reported move of the Church to resort to proselytisation in India in a big way to celebrate the year 2000, has provided a strong and immediate provocation. So, in order to re–establish cordiality, Christianity and Islam need to give up their intolerance.

Modern times also demand that all religions give up their exclusiveness, absorb what is good in all religions and function under an umbrella of universal Dharma.

Sonia Gandhi has recently praised Hinduism for its tradition of tolerance, which has sustained secularism in this country. If these words are genuine, her next logical step should be to call upon Christians and others to emulate Hinduism and give up attempts for religious conversion, which reflects the worse type of intolerance.

Religious conversions have another angle, a political one. As pointed out by the Niyogi Committee, they seem to be intended to create a state within a state. Foreign missionaries and foreign funds are suspect from this point of view and so they should either be totally banned or strictly regulated.

Conversions have no place in our march to the 21st century. We are at the cross–roads and have to choose between clash of civilisations, which is an inevitable outcome of mutual intolerance and synthesis of and harmony between civilisations, for which universal spread and practice of the Hindu tradition of tolerance and mutual respect is necessary.
(We are carrying this piece by the author in the interest of debate though we do not agree with its contents. — Editors)

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999. Year 6  No. 54, Debate  

The post Secularism or conversions appeared first on SabrangIndia.