Delivered by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru on October 28, the ruling attempts to establish a fierce boundary between religious propagation (protected under Article 25) and “conversion by inducement” (termed a “social menace”), but critically fails to protect the constitutional rights of a targeted minority group. The judgment’s most scathing indictment lies not in its rhetoric against exploitation, but in its procedural abdication that validated the exclusion of citizens based on their faith, thereby establishing a worrying precedent for the fragmentation of India’s secular citizenship.

“When it becomes a calculated act of exploitation disguised as charity, it undermines both faith and freedom. The so-called “conversion by inducement” by certain missionary groups is not merely a religious concern, it is a social menace that threatens the unity and cultural continuity of India’s indigenous communities. The remedy lies not in intolerance, but in ensuring that faith remains a matter of conviction, not compulsion.” (Para 26)

Context and background

The petitions arose from a series of Gram Sabha resolutions and hoardings erected at the entry points of several villages in Kanker district, proclaiming a ban on the entry of Christian pastors and those who had converted. These villages, falling under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution and governed by the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), justified the move as a safeguard against “forced” or “induced” religious conversions allegedly targeting impoverished tribal populations.

Practising Christians challenged the resolutions, arguing that they infringed upon their fundamental rights under Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement) of the Constitution. They contended that while Gram Sabhas are empowered to preserve cultural heritage, their authority remains subject to the overarching supremacy of constitutional rights. The petitioners also cited a 2025 government circular encouraging protection of “Jal, Jangal, Jameen” (water, forest, and land), alleging that this had been misused to legitimise discriminatory hoardings.

The State, however, defended the Gram Sabhas, invoking the PESA Act and the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968, whose validity had been upheld by the Supreme Court in Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977). It argued that the Gram Sabhas were merely exercising their statutory duty to protect tribal traditions and prevent conversion through “allurement, coercion, or fraudulent means.”

Court’s Findings: Faith as conviction, not compulsion

In its detailed judgment, the Bench observed that “conversion by inducement, manipulation, or exploitation of vulnerability” among illiterate and impoverished tribal populations had emerged as a “social menace.” The Court noted that while missionary activity in India had historically contributed to social welfare through education and healthcare, certain groups had, over time, allegedly used these as “platforms for proselytization.”

“Religious conversion has long been a sensitive issue in India’s socio-political landscape. Among the various forms of conversion, those allegedly carried out by Christian missionaries among poor and illiterate tribal and rural populations have generated particular controversy. While the Constitution guarantees every citizen the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion, the misuse of this liberty through coercion, inducement, or deception has become a matter of grave concern. The phenomenon of mass or motivated conversions not only disturbs social harmony but also challenges the cultural identity of indigenous communities. Missionary activity in India dates back to the colonial period, when Christian organizations established schools, hospitals, and welfare institutions. Initially, these eLorts were directed at social upliftment, literacy, and health care. However, over time, some missionary groups began using these platforms as avenues for proselytization. Among economically and socially deprived sections, especially Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, this led to gradual religious conversion under the promise of better livelihoods, education, or equality. What was once seen as service became, in many cases, a subtle instrument of religious expansion. The menace arises when conversion ceases to be a matter of personal faith and becomes a result of inducement, manipulation, or exploitation of vulnerability. In remote tribal belts, missionaries are often accused of targeting illiterate and impoverished families, oLering them monetary aid, free education, medical care, or employment in exchange for conversion. Such practices distort the spirit of voluntary faith and amount to cultural coercion. This process has also led to deep social divisions within tribal communities. Tribals converted to Christianity often adopt new cultural practices, distancing themselves from traditional rituals and communal festivals. As a result, villages become polarized, leading to tension, social boycotts, and sometimes even violent clashes.” (Para 24)

The Bench went on to say that induced conversions among Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes under the promise of material betterment amounted to “cultural coercion” and disrupted traditional systems of belief, leading to polarization, social boycotts, and even violent clashes. The Court adopted a highly charged, prescriptive stance on conversion:

• The “social menace” finding: The Bench forcefully argued that conversion ceases to be a spiritual matter when it becomes a result of “inducement, manipulation, or exploitation of vulnerability,” particularly targeting “illiterate and impoverished families” of Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Scheduled Castes (SCs). This practice, according to the Court, is a subtle instrument of religious expansion that amounts to “cultural coercion” and directly causes social polarization, tension, and violence within tribal communities.
• Reaffirmation of Rev. Stanislaus: The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark 1977 decision in Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which established that the right to “propagate” religion does not include the right to convert another person by force, fraud, or allurement. This precedent was used to justify the State’s power to prohibit conversion activities.

Quoting Article 25’s guarantee of religious freedom, the Court nonetheless emphasized that this right is “not absolute” and must be balanced against the State’s duty to preserve social order and cultural integrity. The judgment reaffirmed that the right to “propagate” religion does not include the right to convert another person, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Rev. Stanislaus.

“The Gram Sabha is a constitutionally recognized body under the PESA Act and has been conferred specific powers to manage community resources and safeguard tribal traditions. These powers, however, must operate within the limits of the Constitution of India. The expression “right to propagate religion” under Article 25 of the Constitution, as interpreted in Rev. Stainislaus (supra), does not extend to converting another person through inducement, force, or fraudulent means. The Act of 1968 prohibits such activities. Therefore, a general cautionary hoarding intended to prevent illegal conversion activities cannot, per se, be termed unconstitutional.” (Para 25)

Consequently, the Court upheld the hoardings as “general cautionary measures” intended to prevent illegal conversions. It found no violation of constitutional rights in such preventive action, terming them “precautionary” and “not discriminatory.” The Court concluded that the Gram Sabhas’ action was constitutionally permissible:

• PESA empowerment: Since the Gram Sabha is empowered under PESA to safeguard tribal tradition, a “general cautionary hoarding” intended to prevent illegal conversion activities (which are already prohibited by law) “cannot, per se, be termed unconstitutional.” The Court thus accepted the ban as a necessary precautionary measure.
• Procedural non-interference: Crucially, the Court declined to exercise its Article 226 writ jurisdiction to investigate the facts, compelling the petitioners to first avail the alternative statutory remedy under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh PESA Rules, 2022. This process requires them to approach the very Gram Sabha that imposed the ban, followed by an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue).

However, it allowed petitioners the liberty to approach the Gram Sabha or higher administrative authorities under PESA if they felt aggrieved or threatened, and directed the police to provide protection if any threat to life or liberty arose.

Critical Analysis: The peril of judicial expediency

The judgment, while purporting to protect cultural integrity, is fundamentally flawed in its application of constitutional principles, making it a dangerous legal precedent.

1. The Unproven Premise: Judicial assumption over fact

The most severe legal weakness is the Court’s tacit acceptance of the presumption of guilt without conducting a rigorous judicial fact-finding inquiry.

• Restriction based on suspicion: The Court validated the restriction of fundamental rights against an entire religious community based on generalized historical allegations and the potential for future wrongdoing, rather than proven evidence of coercion in the villages concerned. A constitutional court’s duty is to scrutinize restrictions, not sanction them on mere political or social apprehension.
• The shift from act to person: The judgment critically fails to distinguish between the prohibition of an illegal act (coercive conversion) and the prohibition of a person (the Christian visitor/pastor). The Stanislauws ruling limits the act of propagation; the Digbal Tandi ruling limits the entry of the propounder. This constitutes a substantial, disproportionate restriction on Freedom of Movement, treating an entire class of Indian citizens as prima facie offenders.

1. The abdication of writ jurisdiction

The refusal to interfere under the doctrine of alternative remedy represents a judicial evasion of responsibility in a matter involving the core rights of a vulnerable minority:

• Inadequate remedy: Directing petitioners to seek redressal from the Gram Sabha (the body that passed the exclusionary resolution) is a travesty of natural justice. The remedy is not just administrative but inherently political and majoritarian, guaranteeing a biased and ineffective outcome for the minority.
• The obligation of constitutional scrutiny: When an infringement of fundamental rights is alleged, particularly one arising from the action of a state or quasi-state body (the PESA Gram Sabha), the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is intended to be immediate and effective, not relegated to a lower, potentially partisan, forum. The Court’s decision elevates procedural expediency over constitutional protection.

1. Fragmentation of citizenship and secularism

The ruling delivers a severe blow to the principles of secularism and unified citizenship:

• Sanctioning exclusion: By validating the ban on entry based on religious identity, the judgment grants quasi-judicial sanction to social boycott and exclusion, risking the normalization of internal “no-go zones” where the rights of minorities are subject to local majoritarian veto.
• Impact on cultural choice: The judgment restricts the right to receive information and the democratic space for individuals to make informed choices about faith. While opposing coercion, the Court’s action paradoxically limits the free exercise of conscience by denying access to legitimate religious discourse and pastoral care for local Christians.

Democracy, pluralism, and the burden of proof

The Court’s invocation of cultural identity resonates deeply with the sensitivities of tribal communities, but it also raises the spectre of State-sanctioned gatekeeping of belief. India’s secular fabric, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, hinges on the idea that faith is a matter of individual conscience, not collective control.

By upholding village-level restrictions on the movement and presence of a particular religious group, the judgment potentially sets a precedent for decentralized discrimination — where Gram Sabhas, endowed with limited judicial oversight, can unilaterally police religious identity.

The ruling’s repeated emphasis on “conversion by inducement” as a “menace” stands on rhetorical rather than constitutional footing. It conflates missionary service work with coercion and imputes motive without inquiry. This approach, while couched in the language of cultural preservation, risks normalizing suspicion-based governance in regions already vulnerable to communal polarization.

The constitutional paradox

At its core, the judgment highlights the enduring paradox of India’s constitutional secularism: the simultaneous protection of freedom of religion and the power of the State to regulate conversion. While the Supreme Court’s precedent in Rev. Stanislaus does allow such regulation, it did not endorse blanket prohibitions or collective exclusionary acts against any community.

The Chhattisgarh High Court, by treating village hoardings as benign “precautionary measures,” overlooks the symbolic violence inherent in signage that bars a specific faith group from entering. The very idea of a “Christian-free” village space contradicts the constitutional guarantee of equality and fraternity.

A truly democratic reading of Article 25 would demand proof of coercion before restriction, not the other way around. In the absence of such proof, preventive exclusion transforms into punitive discrimination, cloaked in cultural rhetoric.

Conclusion: A troubling precedent

While the Court has refused to invalidate the Gram Sabha’s resolutions, its judgment carries implications far beyond Chhattisgarh. It redefines the limits of religious freedom by allowing collective fear to override individual liberty, and elevates cultural protection over constitutional protection.

The ruling’s caution against “conversion by inducement” echoes legitimate anxieties about exploitation, but its failure to distinguish between faith and fear, prevention and prohibition, leaves India’s constitutional secularism on uncertain ground.

In a democracy that aspires to pluralism, the line between protection and persecution must be drawn with evidence — not presumption. The Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision, though couched in legal restraint, risks reinforcing precisely the kind of intolerance it cautions against.

The complete judgment may be read below.

Related:

From ‘Tauba Tauba’ to ‘Expel the Ghuspaithiya’: The language of exclusion in Bihar’s election season

From slogan to sanction: how a Chief Minister’s words hardened into punitive policing after the “I Love Muhammad” row

Vested Rights under Threat: Tharu tribe petitions High Court against administrative harassment

Policing Autonomy: Women become the first casualty of religious extremism

The post Guarding culture or policing faith? Chhattisgarh High Court’s ‘social menace’ observation and the future of Article 25 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Violent upheavals including intra-community violence, even targeted pogroms have also witnessed this issue raising its head. The surge in not just identity politics but a majoritarian slant in wings of the Indian state have seen this visual manifestation –police jeeps and police stations with idols and or temples within, government offices observing religious ceremonies. Even court premises have not been immune to this trend.

What have India’s constitutional courts said on the issue? Has there been a consensus and unequivocal upholding of non-partisan neutrality? This legal resource examines the jurisprudence around this question.

In the case of Noorul Islam Samskarika Sangam Thottekkad v. District Collector, Malappuram, [2022 (5) KHC 595], the Kerala High Court emphasised this perspective, adding that “religion is the creator of religious places,” a timely reflection on the growing issue of illegal encroachments on government land. Further reinforcing this, the Court in Balakrishna Pillai v. Union of India, [2021 (4) KHC 282], beautifully articulated, “The God almighty is omnipresent… for the development of the National Highway, if the religious institutions are affected, God will forgive us. God will protect the petitioners, the authorities, and also the author of this judgment. God will be with us.” These cases is a reminder of the need to preserve public spaces for the common good, free from religious encroachments that threaten secular harmony.

Beyond encroachments, there is also the issue of maintaining the secular nature of the state by ensuring that religious activities do not take place within state-maintained institutions like police stations, government offices, or other public service entities.

No illegal religious construction on government land: Kerala High Court

On May 27, 2024, the Kerala High Court delivered a significant judgment emphasising the need to preserve religious harmony by preventing the construction of illegal religious structures on government land. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, in his ruling, asserted that the construction of such structures, irrespective of religious affiliation—whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or any other—would not be permitted as it could lead to religious disharmony in the state. The Court highlighted the importance of the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, specifically the principle of a secular state, and noted that while religious freedom is a fundamental right, it does not extend to the encroachment of public land for religious purposes.

Justice Kunhikrishnan stressed Kerala’s unique position as a “God’s Own Country” with a high population density and a diverse religious landscape. The Court expressed concern that allowing religious structures to be erected on government land could spark disputes and law-and-order problems. He further pointed out that the government is focused on distributing land to landless individuals, and such land cannot be misused for religious purposes. By emphasising the need for communal harmony, the Court directed the identification and removal of unauthorised religious structures on government property, reinforcing the secular ideals enshrined in India’s Constitution.

The Judgement of Kerala High Court dated 27.05.2024 can be read here:

MP HC seeks list of temples and other religious structures within police stations

On December 16, 2024 the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the state government to provide a detailed list of temples and other religious structures built within police station premises across the state. Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, who presided over the hearing, ordered the government to submit the requested information within seven days. The court also sought details on the dates these structures were constructed and the specific orders under which they were established.

The petition, filed by advocate Satish Chandra Verma, challenges the legality of religious structures within police stations, arguing that such constructions violate the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s vague response and made it clear that only precise and factual information would be accepted. It also emphasized the need for detailed records, including the legal legitimacy and orders authorizing the construction of these religious sites.

The petition contends that these constructions violate both Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 25 (Right to Freedom of Religion) of the Constitution. The petitioner argues that using state property for religious purposes undermines India’s secular framework. The next hearing is scheduled for January 6, 2025, by which time the government directed to present all relevant documents. Advocate Verma remarked, “This issue challenges the core principles of the Constitution, and we hope the High Court will take decisive action.” As per a report in Live Law.

The order of MP High Court dated 16.12.2024 can be read here:

The issue raised in the petition is of significant constitutional importance, as it challenges the presence of religious structures within police station premises, questioning their alignment with India’s secular principles. The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s scrutiny highlights concerns over the use of state property for religious purposes, potentially undermining the secular nature of the state, as guaranteed by the Constitution. This case touches on the delicate balance between religious freedom and the state’s duty to maintain neutrality. It also raises questions about the potential violation of citizens’ right to equality and freedom of religion under Articles 14 and 25.

MP High Court temporarily stops temple construction in police stations

On November 4, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s principal bench in Jabalpur also issued a significant directive banning the construction of temples on police station premises, igniting a debate on religious structures within state institutions. Led by Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kaith, the bench issued notices to senior state officials, including Chief Secretary Anurag Jain, Director General of Police Sudhir Saxena, and the Jabalpur district administration, seeking explanations on how religious structures were being erected on government property. This practice potentially contradicted the secular framework of the Indian Constitution. Notices were also sent to the Home Department, Urban Administration Department, and the Station House Officers (SHOs) of four Jabalpur police stations—Civil Lines, Vijay Nagar, Madan Mahal, and Lord Ganj—where temples stood.

The order of MP High Court 04.11.2024 can be read here:

In 2006, Gujarat High Court ordered removal of religious structures upon public spaces

In year 2006, the Gujarat High Court, prompted by a news report in The Times of India (Ahmedabad Edition, May 2, 2006), which revealed that 1,200 temples and 260 Islamic shrines had encroached upon public spaces, took suo moto action. The High Court on May 2, 2006, issued an interim order directing the Gujarat government to take immediate steps to remove religious structures from public spaces without discrimination and to submit a report on the progress.

In response, the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the interim direction issued by the Gujarat High Court resembled a final order, which could only be made after hearing all parties involved. The Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the Gujarat High Court’s order on May 4, 2006. Subsequently, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) informed the Supreme Court that the central government, after consulting with the concerned state secretaries, would seek a consensual approach to address similar issues nationwide and requested time to do so.

The matter returned to the Supreme Court on July 31, 2009, when ASG Gopal Subramanian filed an affidavit. He stated that no religious structures—whether temples, churches, mosques, or gurudwaras—would be allowed on public streets or public spaces.

However, this matter is yet to be decided by the Gujarat High Court’s division bench, and is listed for January 2, 2025 for hearing.

Home Secretary informed the Union that no such construction is permitted

Notably, during the hearing of this case before the Supreme Court, the then Solicitor General of India, Gopal Subramanian submitted letters dated September 19 and September 23, 2009, from the Home Secretary, which were addressed directly to the Solicitor General of India. The content of letter reads as under:

“I had taken a meeting with the Chief Secretaries of the States on 17.09.2009 with a view to evolve consensus on the problem of encroachment of public spaces by religious structures. I am glad to report that after the meeting, the following consensus emerged: –

• No unauthorised construction of any religious institution namely, temple, church, mosque or gurudwara, etc. shall be permitted on public street/public space. 

• (ii) In respect of unauthorised constructions of any religious nature which has taken place in the past, the State Governments would review the same on a case by case basis and take appropriate steps. This will be done as expeditiously as possible.”

When the Supreme Court says ‘no’ to religious structure within public spaces

The matter initially revolved around the issue of illegal religious structures encroaching upon public spaces in Gujarat. However, recognising the far-reaching implications and potential consequences of the case, the Supreme Court took a significant step and impleaded all states and Union Territories as respondents in the petition. The Registry was directed to issue notices to all states and Union Territories within three days. Additionally, the Union of India was instructed to supply the entire set of papers to all standing counsel representing state governments and Union Territories.

Subsequently, on September 29, 2009, the division bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, issued an important directive. The Court ordered that state governments and Union Territories review existing unauthorised religious constructions on a case-by-case basis and take prompt action to resolve the issue. Furthermore, as an interim measure, the Court mandated that “no unauthorised construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of a Temple, Church, Mosque, or Gurudwara on public streets, public parks, or other public places.”

The order of Supreme Court dated 29.09.2009 can be read here:

Is encroachment in the name of religion not questionable?

Encroachment in the name of religion is a contentious issue because it raises fundamental questions about the role of the state in regulating public spaces and maintaining a secular environment. While religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, it is crucial to ask whether encroaching upon public spaces for religious purposes is justified. The state, as the custodian of public order, has the constitutional duty to ensure that its institutions remain separate from religious or worship activities. This separation is key to maintaining a secular state, where public resources and spaces should not be monopolized by any religious activity.

The question arises: should religious activities be allowed to take over public spaces that are meant for the common use of all citizens? If religious structures are permitted to encroach upon public land, it undermines the principle of equal access to space for all citizens, regardless of their beliefs. Furthermore, it puts the state in the precarious position of endorsing religious activities in a way that may conflict with its duty to maintain neutrality and equal treatment for all religions. The state must ensure that public spaces remain accessible, inclusive, and free from religious encroachment.

When Rajasthan ADJ bans temple construction on police station premises

Rajasthan’s Additional Director General of Police (Police Housing), A. Ponnuchami, issued a directive on October 25, 2021, prohibiting the construction of temples within police stations and their surrounding areas. This move was aims to uphold the religious neutrality of state institutions and prevent religious encroachment in public space

Ponnuchami highlighted that over the years, various police departments had constructed religious places of worship, violating the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Public Places Act of 1954. Under this law, religious structures cannot be built in public spaces, including government buildings and parks, without approval from the District Collector and local authorities. The directive was seen as a necessary step to restore adherence to the law and maintain the neutrality of public institutions.

Rajasthan High Court dismissed the PIL against ADJ order banning temple construction

Subsequently, the order faced legal challenge in the Rajasthan High Court. On November 11, 2021, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging the state police’s decision to prohibit the construction of shrines within government premises. The petition, filed by Pooja Gurnani, argued that the police’s circular interfered with religious beliefs by barring religious structures in public spaces. The circular was issued in line with the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Public Places Act, 1954, which mandates that places of worship cannot be built in public areas, including government buildings and parks, without approval from the District Collector and local authorities.

The Court, led by Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana, referenced the October 25 circular in its ruling. The bench emphasized that the circular merely called for strict adherence to the 1954 Act, urging authorities to enforce its provisions. The court noted that there was no legitimate grievance from the petitioner since the circular aimed at ensuring compliance with the law.

Additionally, the court dismissed Gurnani’s request to exempt government buildings and police stations from being classified as “public places” under the 1954 Act. Justice Kureshi clarified that the court could not direct the legislature to amend laws in any specific way.

The order of Rajasthan High Court dated 11.11.2021 can be read here:

J&K High Court also issued directive on illegal religious encroachments

On September 3, 2020, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court also took significant action concerning illegal religious structures encroaching on public land. The court, led by the then Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Puneet Gupta, directed the Divisional Commissioner of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh to gather detailed reports from all Deputy Commissioners regarding such encroachments. These encroachments were primarily on public spaces, including streets, parks, and other public areas. The directive aimed to ensure that authorities take immediate and comprehensive action on this issue.

Focus on detailed reports and timely action

The court, referencing previous Supreme Court order in Times of India (Suo Moto) 2006, on similar matters, insisted that the Divisional Commissioner obtain reports under specific headings: the location of the encroachments, the area covered, and the identity of the encroachers. This step was part of an effort to identify and address the widespread issue of unauthorized religious structures occupying valuable public land. The court ordered that these reports be compiled and submitted within six weeks. Additionally, it directed that the information be reviewed by the Chief Secretaries of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh to ensure that a suitable policy decision was made.

The order of J&K High Cour dated 03.09.2020 can be read here:

The issue of religious neutrality in the functioning of state-maintained public premises and offices is a crucial aspect of upholding the secular framework of a nation. In India, the Constitution mandates that the state shall not support or favour any religion, and it must remain neutral in matters of religious practice and beliefs. This principle is reflected in various judicial rulings and actions taken to prevent religious encroachments on government land and public spaces, as well as the maintenance of secularism within state-run institutions.

Secularism and public spaces: addressing the challenge of religious encroachments

The balance between religious freedom and the state’s obligation to maintain secularism has been a recurring theme in India’s legal landscape. The issue of religious structures on public spaces, particularly government-owned land, has sparked debates about the limits of religious expression and the importance of preserving secularism. The Kerala High Court’s recent ruling in Noorul Islam Samskarika Sangam Thottekkad v. District Collector, Malappuram (2022) reinforces this by underlining the state’s duty to maintain public spaces free from unauthorised religious structures. This principle is enshrined in the Indian Constitution, which mandates a secular state where no religion receives preferential treatment.

The misuse of government land for religious purposes

One of the most contentious issues in this debate is the construction of religious structures on government land. As Kerala High Court Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan stated, religious structures—whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or others—cannot be allowed on public land. This was echoed in the court’s decision to remove unauthorized religious encroachments from government properties, highlighting that the state cannot permit the misuse of public resources for religious activities. This ruling stressed the importance of secularism in ensuring that no religious structure dominates public spaces, thus fostering harmony among different communities.

The Court’s reasoning in cases such as Balakrishna Pillai v. Union of India (2021), where the need for a secular state was emphasized, reflects the broader societal concern that allowing religious encroachments on government land could lead to religious disharmony. The constitutional commitment to secularism mandates that public spaces remain neutral, ensuring equal access for all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliations.

The role of state institutions in upholding secularism

State institutions, including police stations and government offices, are meant to remain neutral in matters of religion. The public manifestation of this neutrality is a space and authority free from religious symbolism. The presence of religious structures within such institutions challenges this neutrality, as highlighted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ongoing scrutiny of religious constructions within police stations. In a recent directive, the MP High Court asked the state government to provide detailed information about these religious structures, pointing out that the construction of temples or other places of worship in government-run institutions could undermine the secular fabric of the state. The challenge raised in this case is of constitutional significance, questioning whether such religious structures violate the principles of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 25 (Right to Freedom of Religion) of the Indian Constitution.

Similar concerns were raised by Rajasthan’s Additional Director General of Police, who prohibited the construction of temples within police stations to uphold the secular nature of state institutions. This directive was in line with the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Public Places Act, 1954, which prohibits religious structures on public land without prior approval from authorities.

The constitutional mandate: religious neutrality of public spaces

Religious neutrality is a fundamental tenet of India’s Constitution, which forbids the state from endorsing any religious activity in its institutions. This principle is reinforced by judicial rulings that prohibit the encroachment of public spaces for religious purposes. For instance, the Gujarat High Court, as early as 2006, ordered the removal of thousands of religious structures from public spaces, reaffirming the constitutional requirement for secularism. The Supreme Court, too, directed those unauthorized religious constructions be reviewed upon public spaces nationwide, underscoring that no religious structure should be allowed to occupy public land.

A unified approach: the need for policy and enforcement

The rise in unauthorised religious structures underscores the importance of strict enforcement of laws to maintain secularism and the effective use of public spaces. It is essential that all levels of government—from the local to the national—take consistent action in preventing the encroachment of religious structures on government land. The actions taken by various High Courts, such as the Kerala and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, highlight the need for a clear and cohesive policy that addresses both existing and future encroachments, ensuring that public spaces are preserved for the collective benefit of all citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

However, while religious freedom remains a cherished right in India, the construction of religious structures on government land is a misuse of public property that undermines the secular nature of the state. Judicial rulings, including those from the Kerala and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, serve as important reminders of the need for vigilance in upholding constitutional values of secularism and ensuring that public spaces remain accessible to all. The state’s duty is to protect these spaces from religious encroachments, fostering a society that values harmony, equality, and religious neutrality.

Related:

MP: High Court temporarily stops temple construction in police stations, questions legality on government land

Rajasthan HC endorses police order to bar worship areas on gov’t premises

Rajasthan ADG bans temple construction on police station premises 

The post Religious structures inside the public institution are invalid, what the constitutional courts say appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The USCIRF hearing took place on 3rd October, 2023. The concern by the commission on religious freedom concerns in India follows two important bilateral meetings that took place between the country’s top leaders, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Joe Biden. One of the meetings was the official state visit of PM Modi to Washington in June and a subsequent bilateral meeting in New Delhi in September.

After the latest Modi-Biden meetings, the USCIRF had announced that it would hold a meeting in September to address the rising issues. The panel gathered to testify before the Commission included Fernand de Varennes, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, Tariq Ahmed, a foreign law specialist from the law Library of Congress, Sarah Yager, the Washington Director of Human Rights Watch, Sunita Viswanath, the executive director of Hindus for Human Rights, and Irfan Nooruddin, the Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani Professor of Indian Politics at Georgetown University.

Witnesses offered powerful fact-based testimony at the hearing and shed light on potential policy options for the United States to collaborate with India in addressing religious freedom violations and associated human rights issues within the nation. The hearing further noted that in the past ten years, the Indian government has put into effect and actively applied discriminatory measures targeting religious minorities and furthermore, these measures include laws against religious conversions, provisions that favour citizenship based on religion, and limitations on support for non-governmental organisations engaged in civil society work.

The commission also noted recent developments in the country which have seen instances of violence such as the anti-Muslim violence which erupted in Haryana earlier this year, as well as specific attacks targeting Christian communities in Manipur. It notes that these incidents emphasise the necessity for new approaches by the US to address and reduce violence against religious minority groups Hindu’s for Human Rights (HfHR), a nonprofit human rights organisation, has noted that “The severely weakened state of religious freedom in India is undeniably alarming.”

USCIRF also pointed to its public database titled Frank. R Wolf Freedom of Religion or Belief Victims List, which documents people detained in India for exercising their freedom of religion or belief. The database currently lists 37 individuals from various faiths who are incarcerated in India. Therefore, the hearing also witnessed cases of several incarcerated activists being highlighted, such as Meeran Haidar and Rupesh Singh. “…both of whom are detained for protesting religious freedom conditions. In April 2020, Haider was targeted for leading peaceful protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and was charged with offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Singh is a freelance journalist known for his reporting on state violence and discrimination against Adivasis,” noted USCIRF Vice Chair Frederick A. Davie. “Haider, targeted for leading peaceful protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), faces charges under the UAPA. Singh, a freelance journalist known for his reporting on state violence and discrimination against Adivasis, has been detained since July 2022, also under the UAPA. USCIRF urges the Indian government to review these cases and release all prisoners of conscience, as well as those detained for peacefully expressing their religion or belief.”

The hearing further witnessed detailed mention of the ongoing crisis in Manipur, with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, Fernand de Varennes,  saying, “They (the situation) show a steady and alarming erosion of fundamental rights, particularly for religious and other minorities from the review of communications from 2011 to now: By 2022, almost all of them involve grave allegations of denial of fundamental rights, particularly targeting religious minorities. The most recent is perhaps symptomatic: on 4 September, myself and 18 other colleagues expressed our alarm about reports of serious human rights violations in Manipur, including alleged acts of sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, forced displacement and other ill-treatment where the victims were from the predominantly Christian Kuki minority last May.”

The USCIRF currently considers India on its list of countries of particular concern (CPC)and has persistently recommended and urged the US government to designate India as a  CPC too due to the reported systematic, ongoing, and intense violations of religious freedom that continue to trouble observers.

The USCIRF is basically an “independent and bipartisan federal agency” established under the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act, as mentioned on its website.  Its objectives include overseeing and “safeguarding” the fundamental right to freedom of religion or belief on a global scale and it is actively involved in formulating policy suggestions for the President, Secretary of State, and Congress. Furthermore, it states that it also monitors the execution of these recommendations and the response by the government. The commission comprises nine Commissioners, each  of which are appointed by either the President or prominent leaders from both major political parties in Congress. USCIRF is further supported by a non-partisan team of professionals. This means that while the group is affiliated to the government, it can only recommend changes but does not have the power to implement them. That would be lie in the jurisdiction of the US state department.

The USCIRF is supposed to make these recommendations by submitting these annual reports to the United States’ Congress. These reports are based on initial drafts prepared by all US embassies which have information based on government records, journalist reports, academic and media reports etc, following which the  Office of International Religious Freedom, based in Washington collects it through a rigorous process of verification, and consultation with various groups.

In June 2023 too  the  USCIRF had called upon President Biden to address pressing issues related to religious freedom and other human rights during PM Narendra Modi’s state visit. USCIRF had also further brought attention to violence against Christian tribals in Manipur through a special Spotlight Podcast episode and published an update on India’s state-level anti-conversion laws which they continue to monitor.

The Indian government has not not given any response to the most recent hearing and its press release by the USCIRF. However, the government had responded to last year’s report with Arindam Bagchi, the spokesperson for India’s foreign ministry, criticising senior US officials for what he termed as “ill-informed” and “biased” remarks. Bagchi had further spoken about India’s inherent pluralism as a society and maintained that the nation was intent on its commitment to upholding religious freedom and human rights.

In its 2022 report, amongst other actions, the USCIRF had recommended US officials to openly criticise India’s discriminatory policies against religious minorities as it argued that private diplomacy is becoming insufficient and public statements are needed to highlight the grave situation. Secondly, it also recommended the US government to encourage India to implement police reforms, and to ensure fair investigation of communal violence which should have mechanisms to make it free of any influence by political parties. Thirdly, it also recommended that India be urged to hold party leaders and their supporters to be held accountable for hatred about party leaders and supporters for inciting and participating in attacks on religious minorities.

Related:

NIA raids on Allahabad human rights activists ‘part of larger political repression’ in UP

Gauri Lankesh assassination: 6 years down, no closure for family and friends, justice elusive

India today has all the markers of a failing democracy. But the situation is not irreversible

Indian elected officials and hate speech: ADR Report

The post US commission highlights decline in religious freedom in India, recommends policy action  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

India is a plural country with many religions. While the majority religion is Hinduism, Islam and Christianity are the practiced by major religious minorities. While the freedom movement accorded them equal status as religions, the communal forces regard these as alien religions. Lately there are various attempts to co-opt them under the umbrella of Hinduism. The statements of communal forces are not uniform on this, and starting from the second Sarsanghchalak M.S Golwalkar, who presented them as ‘internal threat’ to the Hindu nation, the later ideologues tried to use the geographical use of Hindu and even labelled them as Hindus. Murli Manohar Joshi of BJP used the term Ahmadiya Hindus for Muslims and Christi Hindu for Christians. The current RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat at times has stated that since this is Hindustan, all those living here are Hindus.

These efforts are mere face savers, as at ground level the Muslims and Christians in particular are regarded as those belonging to alien religion, a lot of hate has been built up against them through spreading misconceptions against them and selectively picking up the incidents to show them in poor light.

Indian Constitution, outcome of freedom movement, foundation of our republic and protector of our democratic values in articles 25 to 28 gives the provisions of freedom of religion. We all are free to practice, propagate and preach our religions. Those who have faith in religions and those who are agnostics or atheists also have equal right to live with their values. While freedom of religion is basic to these articles of pure Constitution, the last few decades in general and last few years in particular have witnessed decline in the degree of religious freedom. In India nine out of 28 states have brought in anti- conversion laws. The massive violence like major carnages in Mumbai, Gujarat and Muzaffarnagar are very fresh in our memory, the brutal murder of Pastor Graham Stains, the Kandhamal violence are a part of our painful memory.

We recently saw Delhi violence, which killed nearly 52 citizens, mostly innocent, over 2/3 of those killed were Muslims. The occasional and scattered anti-Christian violence has continued all through. More such incidents are coming to light lately. There are some organizations and individuals who keep monitoring these incidents in India, there are many at global level, who are chronicling these. Center for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai, comes out with an annual report and analysis on the same. Few other organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom are also doing the invaluable work in bringing to our notice the violations of Freedom of religion. Of course, these are few organizations and many more individuals and groups are doing the same. But these all are not too well known in the public domain.

What came forward prominently in recent times in public domain was the US State Department’s report on Human rights in India. Before mentioning the salient features of the report let me make it clear that various US based organizations in particular come out with these reports but they are not binding on the policies of the state. While some US presidents have ineffectively talked about promotion of human rights globally, by and large US foreign policy is not guided by these considerations of human rights violation. Though of course in some very glaring cases they do take action, like denial of Visa to Narendra Modi in the wake of 2002 Gujarat carnage. These are few exceptions when Human rights status, religious freedom in other countries has guided their policy. One also knows that US itself indulges in various such violation, the Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo bay being the most glaring among them

There are different opinions on how to assess these reports and the role of these monitoring groups. By and large these do show as a mirror of what is happening in particular countries. These reports guide the human rights defenders to give direction to their work.

The office of International Religious Freedom, United States Dept. of State, in its 2019 report released on June 10 highlights the violation of freedom of religion. It is comprehensive and systematic reporting on Indian minorities. The report is an in-depth coverage and analysis of challenges faced by religious minorities, especially Muslims, Christians and lower caste Hindus (Dalit) in India. The highlight of this is the religiously motivated killings, assaults, discrimination, and vandalism. It also refers to the Ministry of Home Affairs data, which reports 7,484 incidents of communal violence during 2008-2017 in which more than 1,100 people were killed.

The report cites specific examples of horrific lynching’s of Muslims, Christians and Dalits. “While the lynching’s are atrocious in and of themselves, what should alarm and galvanize the international community to action is the continuing incendiary rhetoric that is now part of mainstream discourse,” There are other noted organizations like Open Doors, whose monitoring tells us the condition of safety of Christians. “Since the current ruling party took power in 2014, incidents against Christians have increased, and Hindu radicals often attack Christians with little to no consequences.”

The team of the State Department, which wanted to visit India for understanding the issue in depth has been denied visa on the ground that India is not guided by these external observations. It is a tough call, in the globalizing World. Can we hide our dirty linen under the carpet? If we have nothing to hide, we should welcome all the efforts of all organizations and learn from them.

And finally, the violation of freedom of religion is totally against the said articles of Indian Constitution, which tells us that it is the duty of the state to protect this freedom of religion. The problem is with communalism on the rise, those out to torment religious minorities and violate the ‘freedom of religion’ of others enjoy great deal of impunity. We need a humane India which not just tolerates but celebrates diversity, which at one time was the core strength of our freedom movement.

* The writer is a human rights defender and a former professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (IIT Bombay).

Other pieces by Dr. Puniyani:

Palakkad, Kerala & death of a pregnant elephant: Communalisation of a Tragedy 

Dealing with Corona Virus: No place for blind Faith

Delhi violence: Genesis of carnage

The post Freedom of Religion: Indian Scenario appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religious Belief (IPPFoRB) has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to raise their concerns for ongoing developments in India and the implications for freedom of religion or belief.

The International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief (IPPFoRB) is a network of parliamentarians and legislators from around the world committed to combatting religious persecution and advancing freedom of religion or belief.

The IPPFoRB has expressed its concern with regards to the recent National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise that was carried out in Assam and left over 19 lakh people ‘stateless’. In Assam, after the NRC exercise, the government confined to detention camps, around 988 ‘foreigners’ all who they thought were illegal immigrants. 29 people have died in these detention camps and reports of the government not providing the basic facilities to these detainees, most of them who are women and children, have surfaced.

Currently the Indian government has announced the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and a possible nation-wide NRC. The CAA seeks to grant citizenship to religiously persecuted Hindus, Jain, Catholics, Buddhists, Sikhs and Parsis from the countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangaldesh. The country has erupted in protests against the Act as it is set to have a potential impact on Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis, women, the transgender community and other marginalized groups.

The letter read, “We wish to express concern that the recent efforts to update the National Register of itizens in Assam has negatively impacted Bengali Muslims. With 1.9 million names left off of the updated final list, there are fears that this implicitly creates a religious requirement for citizenship, potentially leaving those denied citizenship stateless. While we understand the importance of verifiable citizenship for any nation, we hope that the integrity of this process will not be compromised to unfairly target religious minorities. We request your government to work closely with local authorities to verify that no Indian citizens are disenfranchised simply because of their religious identity.”

Speaking about the abrogation of Article 370 and the transformation of Jammu and Kashmir from a state to a Union Territory, the parliamentarians expressed their concern of the move on the freedom of religion. After the government abrogated Article 370, Kashmir was put under an indefinite blockade. Communications were hit, internet and telephone lines suspended, trade went bust, emergency facilities suffered and nobody could report the ground reality for the media was banned there.

The letter of the parliamentarians read, “Prohibitions on assemblies led to the cancellation of Muharram processions; restrictions on movement have limited the ability to visit mosques, particularly during Eid celebrations; and the shuttering of mosques with concerns of anti-government activity. While understanding the political difficulty of that situation, measures should be put into place to protect Kashmiris’ right to freely practice their religion or belief.”

The letter also mentioned the growing incidents of mob-related violence against minorities, especially the Muslims and said, “While these kinds of issues are in no way unique to India, we encourage you to take concrete measures to protect religious minority communities and their ability to freely practice their faith, embracing the traditions found within India’s great history.”

The entire letter by the IPPFoRB may be read below.

Related:

CAA-NPR-NRC means of harassing specific communities: Teesta Setalvad
RSS seeks Madras HC help for erasing its violent Hindu-Muslim heritage: A case fit for perjury

The post Int’l panel of parliamentarians for freedom of religious belief writes to PM Modi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At some point during the Khalistan movement, I came across a brief news item about a constable of the Punjab Police killed by Delhi Police personnel. The two teams had completed their interrogation of a suspected militant. Whose job was it to clean up the blood? Disagreement, a scuffle, a killing.

Legitimized brutality; the stench of blood inflaming the senses; the knowledge of absolute power and absolute impunity.
All of India is that interrogation room now.

Hindu Rashtra is here.

Has there not been violence earlier in this land? Yes of course there has been. A full seven decades of an independent state’s violence against the people of the land declared to be India – against dispossessed peasants and tribal people, against industrial workers, against the people of Kashmir, and of the states of the North East; centuries of violence by savarna Hindu society against the Dalit-bahujan; misogynist, sexist violence against women, up to and including female foetuses in the womb; decades of coldly planned and executed communal violence by institutionalized systems of riot production coordinated by the organizations of the RSS – against Muslims, against Christians, and as a secondary force, against Sikhs in 1984.

What is unique about this conjuncture, then?

What is specific, what is unique, is the entwining together of all these strands of violence into one thick, blood-soaked rope –  the violence of the pro-corporate and bought-out state; of ‘Indian nationalism’ cast in the savarna, masculinist, Hindu nationalist mould; of misogyny, of heteronormativity; of propertied contempt for the dispossessed – all of these now woven thickly into the Hindutva ideology, in which hatred and contempt for non-savarna North Indian Hindu culture is the driving force; in which the non-Hindu other is to be decimated physically, because the very presence of Muslims and Christians in the land of Savarkar and Golwalkar, is an affront.

There were signposts to this new land of India in 2014, when Narendra Modi’s multi-million dollar publicity machine (as well as many reasonable intellectuals) persuaded us  that Modi was done with carnage, that he would establish a centrist, reasonable, growth oriented  government.  ‘Growth oriented’ is code, as we all know, for corporate loot of common resources and the continued trajectory of an inequitable, unjust and ecologically unsustainable capitalist agenda, but that had already been established as the agenda of all mainstream parties.

But there was that other element, Hindu Rashtra as the explicit agenda, and the signposts to it were there, back in 2014, before the elections.

The physical attack in Thirur, Kerala by RSS and BJP activists on Hindu preacher, Swami Sandeepanandagiri, because he said in a public lecture that the Bhagavad Gita is a communist text, and Sree Krishna was the first communist.

The relentless propagation for about a decade at least, growing in strength since 2014, of the idea that there is a planned conspiracy of ‘love jihad’, claiming that Hindu women are being enticed by Muslim men into marriage so as to convert them. These claims have been demolished again and again, and yet the same lies are repeated till today by Hindutva ideologues, on prime time TV, on their tame channels.

The violence against women refusing to be docile – young women beaten for their dress, for being at pubs, for being women, for being defiant.
The signposts were there. Savarkarite Hindutva with its slogan of consolidating Hindu society and militarizing it – this consolidation or samrasta being touted by Hindutva ideologues today as being progressive and anti-caste; when in fact Savarakar’s attempt to modernize Hinduism and free it from its shackles, was only the road to forever rendering the Muslim and Christian non-Indian, for only those whose punyabhu or sacred land, is ‘here’ can be Indian.

But of course, so visceral is the savarna hatred for the Dalit bahujan, that this Savarkarite version of Hindutva has few takers – as Dalits from Una to those who have faced a thousand other humiliations and lynchings can testify.

It is still Golwalkar who has the last word on Hindutva:
The non-Hindu people of Hindustan must either adopt Hindu culture and language, must learn and respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but of those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture … In a word they must …stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizens’ rights.

This passage is often disowned by Hindutvavaadis – it was not Golwalkar who wrote it, it is an interpolation, and so on. Interesting, that they should not own up to the statement publicly and proudly. But that is quite characteristic of their slyness – disown even Godse if it comes to that. (They cannot of course, own up the fact that the sobriquet of ‘Veer’ was conferred on Savarkar by himself, in a text he himself wrote under a pseudonym!)

What has Modi accomplished in these three years? Under his shadow and with his explicit indulgence, Hindu Rashtra is being established. Not firmly yet, still being consolidated, but it is up, it is crawling on its millipede-like feet. There is absolutely no reason why a state driven by corporate capital should need xenophobia or racism or communalism or patriarchy or casteism. There is no necessary link between the two kinds of structures at all.

And that is the difference between earlier regimes and this one – despite every internal contradiction, this version of Hindu Rashtra fuses marauder capitalism with all of the above. Africans in India, people from the North East in the mainland, and of course, Kashmiris anywhere – deep visceral hatred and legitmized violence against all of these have been made visible as never before. This fusion is at the heart of Hindu Rashtra.

Hence the need to recognize two features explicitly, both of which are integral to Hindutva. The hatred of the Muslim Other is one. In this, the cow is but one alibi (we remember you, Akhlaque, we remember you Junaid, we remember you, Pehlu Khan…so many many others).

But the bland slogan of Swachh Bharat too, even the banal toilet, can serve as an opportunity to humiliate and even kill Muslims (we remember you, Zafar Hussain.)

Every slogan of this government is slick with blood.

JNU is under relentless attack for being ‘anti-national’, but Najeeb was disappeared for being Muslim.

But if only Muslims and Christians were Hindutva’s enemy, then Hindu Rashtra should be secure. If RSS ideology was natural to the rest of the people in this land called India, then Hindutva would not have to keep the violence going at an everyday level, normalizing blood lust and violence against every dissenter to the Hindutva project. From those refusing to stand compulsorily for the national anthem played at cinema screenings (in whose service proud ‘Indians’ can terrorize even a man in a wheelchair), to university students organizing a seminar on ‘Cultures of Protest’,

Hindutva’s “intimate enemy” (in Ashis Nandy’s immortal phrase) is very much to be sought out and destroyed – the Dalit, the hundreds of thousands of people classified as Hindu,  who may be savarna, but who do not subscribe to Hindutva.

The real question is – why is Hindutva not complacent yet? With the government and the courts very often, and the police and the army, and the Electronic Voting Machines, all with them?

Why are they afraid of women and men who define Hinduism their own way? Why are they afraid of centuries old traditions in which Sita is the heroine, not Ram; in which pre-Aryan goddesses are dark and fertile, dangerous and free; in which sex is not a pallid limited thing dictated by hypocritical priests but a multi-species, multi-gender splendid fluid thing in glorious technicolour? Why are they so afraid of people who love whom they love, regardless of their gender, their caste, their religion? Why are they afraid of independent women who choose to live their lives on their own terms, why are they so scared of young people who post anti-Hindu Right comments on Facebook?

But they should be afraid. Against Hindu Rashtra we are united – we, its Other and its Intimate Enemy. We will resist relentlessly their homogenizing and disenfranchising nationalist project – we who will not love by the rules; who will not be defined by our legitimate fathers because in the worlds we create, birth and fatherhood will not be the determinants of identity.

Amongst us of course, there are differences and arguments and bitter debates. Bitter histories to face up to and destabilize and heal. Privileges to be spurned, and rights to be snatched. But what we need to recognize is that solidarities and alliances are built not on birth-based identities, but on politics forged out of common struggle, as the women’s movement knows from its decades of experience. Most feminisms never thought of men, but of patriarchy as the enemy, and now we are not even a ‘women’s’ movement, but a mutually intersecting set of struggles and movements that are queer feminist, and we include transpeople and men and sex-workers, and also Dalit feminists who think sex work cannot be ‘work’ and that prostitution is violence. Yet we stumble along, we keep talking to one another, we keep shifting our own understandings in dialogue and argument.

And this is our strength. We are united against Hindu Rashtra, which would impose on us the peace of the grave. We will fight them, and we will fight among ourselves – cacophonous, unruly, turbulent, reckless
.
We will not let Hindu Rashtra proceed much further on its millipede legs.
As it creeps, we will march. Together and apart.

Courtesy: Kafila Online

The post Eid Mubarak, In solidarity, United We Stand Against the Hindu Rashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its 2017 Annual Report released yesterday on the state of religious freedom in selected countries, USCIRF has put India with countries like Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Turkey and several other countries.

India is put in Tier 2 where religious freedom violation is severe but does not fully meet the CPC, Country of Particular Concern standard. Bahrain too shares the same tier with India for cracking down on its Shi’a Muslim majority.

USCIRF has shown concern not only for minority communities but also for Dalits.

“Hindu nationalist groups—such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Sangh Parivar, and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)—and their sympathizers perpetrated numerous incidents of intimidation, harassment, and violence against religious minority communities and Hindu Dalits,” said USCIRF in the report.

The annual report broadly mentions the fund-cutting cases of various NGOs and puts it with several other factors like the religious conversion, cow slaughter which are eventually helping these conditions in getting severe.

USCIRF further said, “National and state laws that restrict religious conversion, cow slaughter, and the foreign funding of nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and a constitutional provision deeming Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains to be Hindus helped create the conditions enabling these violations.”

The 10 states which are of concern for USCIRF are Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. USCIRF has warned that religious freedom violations in some of these states are ‘systematic’ and ‘egregious’ which may put them under CPC standards.

The report talks about members from Muslim community and Dalit community who have been facing tough times due to Article 48, which prohibits cow slaughter in 25 out of 29 states of India.

“The application of these legal provisions also economically marginalizes Muslims and Dalits (who adhere to various religious faiths), many of whom work in the beef or leather industries. During the reporting period, there were a number of incidents of Muslims and Dalits being charged under these laws or subject to violence based on such accusations,” the report said.

The report also talks about the Anti-conversion laws – which are being practiced in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Odisha – which makes choice of religion a crime. The report finds flaws in the anti-conversion and says, “While the laws purportedly protect religious minorities from forced conversions, they are one-sided, only concerned about conversions away from Hinduism but not toward Hinduism.”

It adds, “Observers note that these laws create a hostile and, on occasion, violent environment for religious minority communities because they do not require any evidence to support accusations of wrongdoing.”

USCIRF acknowledged the role of BJP president Amit Shah who dared opposition and made a call for enacting anti-conversion law across the country six months after the BJP came to power in 2014.

The report also mentions how cracking down of NGOs citing FCRA regulation has made the matter worse for the country and is “detrimental to the national interest”.

USCIRF separately talks about violence against Muslims, Christians and Schedule castes and tribes that happened in the year 2016. It also talks about how so-called cow protection has served as a fuel for religious violence and how it has provided impunity to the accused personnel.

“Based on these concerns, in 2017 USCIRF again places India on its Tier 2, where it has been since 2009”, the report said.

When USCIRF team tried to visit India during March 2016, the Indian government failed to issue visas to the team members even though they had full support from the US State Department and US Embassy New Delhi. The failure came out as a denial, which State Department spokesperson John Kirby termed as a disappointment. The Indian government had previously denied visa to USCIRF in 2001 and 2009.

USCIRF has recommended to US Government that it should press Indian government for providing enough training and education on human rights violation; to sack and rebuke government officials and religious leaders who pass derogatory remarks; to repeal and amend anti-conversion law which are not according to international human rights standards and to allow USCIRF officials to visit the country.

Courtesy: Two Circles
 

The post India at par with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Egypt in violation of religious freedom, reports US body on human rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Pinterest

The post Open Letter: To Islamist Extremists, from the Other Muslims of the World appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Representation Image

Mohammed Kashif and Shamsher, two students from B.Tech (Civil) were hired as trainees on February 15 by Spatial Geotech Private Limited (SGPL) at their Noida office. Speaking with Twocircles.net, Kashif, 22, said, “When we both joined, there were two more Muslims who were working in the company. We asked them where they offered Friday prayers, and they said no. So, all four of us went to our boss, Annu Gupta, and asked her if we could take some time off on Friday afternoons to offer the Jumma Prayers. She flatly refused the idea despite us saying that we would compensate for the time.”

After they were denied permission to visit a Mosque, the four decided to offer Zuhr prayers within the office premises. In the first week of March, according to Kashif, the four were called by Gupta and warned to not ‘disrupt the office environment’. “At that time, I did not know she was talking about us offering prayers,” he said. Subsequently, when they did the same in the following week, the two were again called to Gupta’s office and were shown a video of them performing the prayers. “We were told to wait in the office, and by evening we came to know through our college placement cell that the two of us (Kashif and Shamsher) had been terminated from our jobs. I am pretty sure that this was due to our offering prayers in the office, as the same was told to us by Gupta when we were in her office,” says Kashif. The two were not even given a termination letter and when they asked for a No-Objection Certificate from the company, even that was denied.

A member of the Glocal University placement office confirmed to Twocircles.net that these two had been terminated, but said that the reason was cited as performance and not the religious prayers. “In the telephonic conversation, however, the issue of offering prayers did come up, and Annu Gupta and the recruiting consultant Arjun Mishra did point out that this was not conducive to the office environment.”

He added, “The issue of performance is difficult to believe since they had been there only for three weeks, and clearly, the offering of prayer did not go down well with the company,” he said.

When Twocircles.net contacted Annu Gupta for comments, she said that the company’s response had been conveyed to the University and refused to add anything to the same. The recruitment agent flatly denied any case of religious discrimination and said, “The two were performing below par and that is why we asked the placement division to send more students.” He also said that the placement team had been told thrice about their incompetence, a charge which was denied by the placement officer. “I have no such written communication from them, and this was not pointed to us earlier. Yes, they had asked for more students, but that was not because these two were not performing well.”

But what is even more startling is that the letter sent by Mishra to the placement division complained of these students being “intoxicated” at work. “Unfortunately, even after the counselling and ample duration of time to learn and improve yourself, there has been no change in their performance. Their performance was still unsatisfactory and they were often found intoxicated at work, to the extent that they were so impaired that they were unfit to be entrusted with the employment duties.”

Kashif denied the claims, saying that he had never touched alcohol and that it was an insult to him and his faith. “This is the first time I have heard this (about the contents of the mail). I am shocked beyond imagination and hurt at their allegations…I wanted some time to offer prayers, and instead, they accuse me of being drunk?”

The two students, who have been under immense stress since this incident, are currently looking for other jobs, but they say that they have been left mentally scarred by the event. “I hope nothing like this happens ever again to another person,” said a cousin of Kashif. “He was just practising his faith. Since when has that become an issue?” he asked.

Courtesy: Twocircles.net
 

The post Two Muslim youth fired from job for offering ‘Friday prayers in office’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ECJ ruling related to two cases brought by national courts in France and Belgium, regarding Muslim women who had sued their employers. The women argued that they had been discriminated against at work for being asked to remove their veils – one by the employer and the other by a customer and subsequently by her employer – and were sacked when they refused to do so.

Within the EU, national laws about equality and non-discrimination in the workplace are governed by an overarching EU directive from 2000, and the French and Belgian courts wanted clarification from the ECJ around how to interpret the law in these cases.

The ruling will not allow employers to systematically ban the hijab and other religious and political symbols in all workplaces, but it does provide ammunition for those who want to ask their staff not to display religious symbols. The ECJ decided that if an employer’s goal is to provide services to customers in a neutral way, it is entitled to request its employees to remove visible religious or political symbols.

But this logic around respecting the neutrality of the employer’s goals remains fuzzy, and seems to go against a previous ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, which has upheld the rights of employees to display religious symbols at work as part of their religious freedom.

The ECJ judgement also specifies that requests from customers asking employees not to wear religious or political symbols will not constitute a legitimate ground for employers to ban such clothing. In fact, the ECJ said this reasoning would amount to religious discrimination. However, in an age where many employers take a customer-centred approach to their organisational goals, this could be a fine line.
 

Unprecedented in scope

The two plaintiffs in this ECJ case were from Belgium and France, countries in which vehement “laïcité” or state secularism already underpins laws regarding religious dress and has led to burqa bans. But as the ruling will affect the whole of Europe, not just France and Belgium, it is unclear how much the ECJ judges considered the implications of their ruling for other countries which do not share the French and Belgian policy of laïcité.
 

Thankfully, the ECJ’s jurisdiction does not pertain to religious freedom in general, and so the scope of this ruling is relatively narrow and limited to non-discrimination in the workplace. But its ruling is frustrating and contradictory, particularly as the EU was a pioneer in establishing the principles of equality and non-discrimination on religious grounds in a person’s occupation with the directive in 2000. The EU even set up an independent EU Agency for Fundamental Rights in 2007 to share good practices and research and to monitor EU countries in this area.

At a time when Europe is short of big ideals and existing conflicts and demographic transformations indicate we need to pay more, not less, attention to freedom of religion and of expression, it does not help that such a prominent international court is unwilling to be bolder in dealing with these fundamental freedoms and the idea of tolerance.

This is new territory for the ECJ and the scope of its ruling is unprecedented. So far, controversies about religious symbols in Europe have been considered by the European Court of Human Rights, an institution outside of the EU, because they dealt with issues of human rights and freedom of religion. The ECJ, an EU institution based in Luxembourg, had previously ruled on employment matters associated with non-discrimination and equality, but until now no such case had been brought there specifically on the grounds of “religious” discrimination.

Concerns have already been raised about how the ruling will affect Muslim women across Europe, whether they wear the hijab or not – at least on an emotional level. Yet, unless employers and national courts in different EU member states come across court disputes similar to those presented in this ruling, then this judgement will sit in a drawer without directly affecting people. Still, the ruling is likely to provide ammunition and political legitimacy to all those across Europe who are promoting anti-Muslim, anti-religious or anti-migrant feelings.
 

Britain looking more attractive

A serious implication is that EU states will now no longer need to create an anti-veil law for anti-veil views and behaviour to be established and legitimised in everyday life – they are now implicitly sanctioned by this ruling. The outcome could easily be prejudice, erosion of societal relations, intolerance, racist incidents, and fear among Muslim and other religious communities.

In the wake of Brexit, the ruling will have only a temporary effect in the UK – unless the British government decides to permanently incorporate this particular bit of EU law into its own body of law once the UK leaves. To date, the government has a firm position on hijab and burqa bans that it looks unlikely to change, viewing them as unnecessary and even counter-productive.

It’s therefore possible that after Brexit, the UK might become the only place in Europe where Muslims and other religious communities can take up jobs without being too worried that they will have to remove religious clothing, although this is not to dismiss the existence of anti-Muslim feelings in the UK. In an unintended consequence of the ruling, the UK might actually become more attractive to Muslims for professional reasons than the rest of the EU.
 

Sara Silvestri, Senior Lecturer, Department of International Politics, City, University of London
 

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Freedom of religion under threat across Europe after EU court rules employers can ban headscarves appeared first on SabrangIndia.