The law vs freedom of religion

Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led NDA government at the Centre is likely to bring a bill to prevent conversion of religion. The sources said that the government has already started preparations for the same and discussion are underway to bring the bill that might prevent any kind of religious conversion. However, it is not clear how the central government looks to enacting it and what will be the content and details of the Bill. 

Currently, six states — Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh, have anti-conversion laws in place to prevent forced conversions. The laws do not ban conversions so long as they are voluntary.

In this week’s DNA  Samwad, the panelists debated on the significance and sidelines of the law. They agreed on the need for law against forced religious conversion, but some members questioned government’s intrusion into one’s personal choice. 

The paneslists comprised Amita Apte, social worker and associate with Legal Rights Observatory, Dolphy D’Souza, former president of Bombay Catholic Sabha, Advocate Ghanshyam Mishra, member of Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad, Rahul Sakpal, associate professor, Maharashtra National Law University and visiting fellow at Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands and Umesh Gaikwad, Former convener, Bajrang Dal, Konkan Prant, Yusuf Muchhala, senior advocate. 

FOR

Amita Apte, Social worker and member, Legal Rights Observatory

Religions have been given to us from our ancestors but today it is being interfered with. I am a simple housewife so my views on the Anti-Conversion law are that of a common citizen in our country. Freedom to chose a religion is one's basic right. This means, people should have every right to practice their or any religion without any interruption.

I am a Hindu and it is not just a religion for me, but a way of living. People have a problem whenever a Hindu celebrates his or her festivals. For example, there are many restrictions one has to follow in order to follow Ganesh Utsav or Dahi Handi. The anti-superstition law too is related to Hindu religion only. My question is, aren't there any superstition in Islam and Christianity or any other religion? The word superstition is itself a Christian word.

When I worked in North-east India, I have heard about instances of people being converted from Hindu to other religion at a gun point. Conversions based on allurements and threats needs to be curbed. If an individual is happy with whatever religion they are in, let them be. If you believe your God is great, that does not mean other Gods are satanic. And if you still think that way, it is your ideology, don't force it on other people. Conversion in schools should be curbed. These schools give religious materials to the students which is the beginning of conversion. Nobody will implement a blanket ban, and I have complete faith in my government. Even if the bill becomes reality, it will only prevent such activities of convergence.

I think on individual basis there won't be any problem. If I want to convert at this age to Christianity, I can go to any church and get baptized or in any way they generally do. I have the right to chose my religion. There are several existing projects that target people with special powers or who are the intersection in the society, as it can take the conversion further into the masses. These are the things that should be affected if the bill is passed. If I want to get married to a Christian man, I can, no law can stop me. Even further, in some years, if I am spiritually unsatisfied with my own practicing religion, I can and I have the power to change (convert) if I think that the other religion is more enriching for me. Nobody including the anti-conversion bill will have the power to stop me.

The idea of every religion is asymmetrical in nature in India. People from every religion in our country has a problem with person who practices some other religion. This asymmetric is creating a chaos. There are forces like Right Wing Activist, who see conversion as a business. There are the ones who clearly benefiting out of it, and they are winning it here in every aspect.

Advocate Ghanshyam Mishra, Member, Akhil Bhartiya Parishad

The law against conversion is not new to this country. If we go by history, India was initially a Hindu country. Later, people from different cultures and beliefs became a part of India. It was then that cases of forceful conversions emerged. Some missionaries coax the poor with money, whereas some are offered food and admission of their children into schools.

If we go back in history, between 1930 to 1940, there were many princely states that had implemented anti-conversion law. As per the constitution, every Indian has a right to follow religion as per his or her choice. But, our Constitution does not allow forced conversions. As per the Article 25 and many judgments by the court, forceful conversion are barred in India.

After independence, the government of India brought-in anti-conversion bill three times before the Lok Sabha. These bills were debated over in 1954, 1960 and 1979 and it could not be passed due to various reasons.

In 1968, Orissa enacted the law which was followed by Madhya Pradesh. However, the bill was challenged in the Supreme Court. Thereafter, other states like Rajasthan, Gujarat, Arunachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh and Jharkhand followed the suit. Some states got the bill passed.

State government can allow the conversion, one just needs to submit an affidavit with the reason of conversion. They can permit it after by going through the documents.

I believe that there should not be a blanket ban as this will lead to chaos in the society. The present government can bring the anti-conversion bill by taking confidence the state government, local administration and society. A section of society is already supporting the bill.

The anti-conversion bill is no threat to the minorities, people should not fear it. The bill will be discussed in the parliament and if requires the Supreme Court will take care of every individual of the country. Also, the Constitution of India guarantees right of equality, freedom of speech and right of choice which will not be curbed through the bill. The purpose of the bill is to curb forceful conversion. There are many examples, where even known personalities like a singer converted to other religion but there is no hue and cry. They converted as per their wish and choice and we respect their choice and decision. The state has to come in picture if the conversion has some hidden agenda like love jihad where a girl belonging to a certain section is targeted. In such a scenario, the government intervention is required as it affects the social harmony of the society.

I feel that through missionaries, foreign funds are being used with vested interest. It is natural to doubt when missionaries spend crores in giving education and spend on health of the poor in the country. There is need to check the source did these missionaries receive the fund from, and what is their long term plan. The issue of conversion crops up when people say wrong things about Hindu religion. They talk about flaws in the religion. They say there is caste system, andhashraddha (superstitions) and other issues. There are factions in Islam and Christianity too. We Indian accept Islam as one religion, despite their division of sects like Shia, Sunni and many more. Similarly, Christianity has several fractions, but we take them as one. The law that will come, and will be applicable for people converting from Hindu religion to others and from other religions to Hindu religion.

Umesh Gaikwad, Former convener, Bajrang Dal, Konkan Prant

There is a need to understand the dimensions of religion in our country. If you ask me to explain religion in a sentence - it's a duty, it is a way of living, and it has been believed since last 200 years. When people from Iran and Iraq came to India, instead of throwing them out, our kings offered them milk because that is how we get to know of different cultures. Once its diluted, its inseparable. Even when the Parsi's migrated to India, they lived here happily and still are. When the entire world hated Jews, we welcomed them with open arms. This is our culture and it has been this way all these while. The ideology of the government is to run the country with a moral code of conduct. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is following the same path.

We have a self-sufficient culture, yet we have never sent any missionary overseas to propagate our religion among the foreigners. They come to us because of the qualities in our culture and traditions.

Our only motive is to save our religion, that is all. We are not focusing on any conversion or any propaganda but to preserve it. Our religion is applauded across the globe as a way of living instead of a mere religion.

Till a person is a Hindu, who belongs to the scheduled caste (SC) and scheduled tribe (ST), he has the right to reservation. If you visit places like Kurla, Dharavi, Nalasopara etc, one could see how people are lured into conversion and the reason is dissatisfaction. If you see the statistics, the demographic ratio is always been shown inverted of the converted force. Remember, any sensible religion won't create appeasement of or for any religion.

In our country, there is freedom but there are regulations for everything. You can freely walk on the road but by considering the traffic rules. As the saying goes, "live and let live", we and our Vedic traditions has propagated that principal. If one doesn't believe in our religion, it would be okay for us. We wouldn't tag him for being a kafir. Murlidhar Devidas Amte's third generation is still helping the patients suffering from leprosy without converting them into Hinduism.

Our culture has stepped ahead of nationalism and have advocated the belief of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. Foreign invasions that include the Greeks, Kushanas and Christians brought orthodox religious practices in our country. This history has escalated us towards an unfortunate state today.

When Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar was not satisfied with his religion, he started an argument. At this point, several people lured him into vivid religions. Like for example, the nawab of Hyderabad offered him a sum to accept Islam, while the churches lured him into Christianity. He rejected all of it. This is when Sant Ghadge Maharaj gave him options of Sikhism and Buddhism. After learning about the Buddhist philosophy, Dr Baba Saheb embraced Hinayana, a sect in Buddhism.

When the law exists, the country won't go towards anarchy. You pray with your hands closed or open, you will have freedom in this country. Gone are those days when you were asked to convert into something under the threat of a gun point. In order to curb the indirect methods of conversion, you need law and order.

Even in Buddhist countries – where they pretend to be believers of Ahimsa (non-violence), at the same time they are running violent campaigns against minority Muslim groups, lakhs of them are being killed when conflict emerges. While in India, everyone is welcomed, no matter what religion they are practicing.

AGAINST

Dolphy D'Souza, Former president, Bombay Catholic Sabha

Anti-conversion laws have been passed in eight states, and there has been no conviction for a fairly long time. People fear involving police into matters that are purely personal. Police has other important matters to look into. If they are asked to intervene in personal matters, then that would rip apart the fabric of the nation. Diversion of police from other important issues into personal matters would be wrong. It is an instigated way of creating fear in the minds of the people. There are hardly any evidence of forcible conversions, except if the victims files a complaint, and that rarely happens.

There are third parties who are complaining of conversion. In 1964, the population of Christians was 2.64% and now according to last census, it has come down to 2.26%. The question is, is it actually the job of the government to get involved into this? Religion is a purely personal matter, and you can't regulate a persons personal choice.

The ministry of law and justice put a road block because it states, for national laws, it is not tenable. It lies purely under the constitutional domain, under the states list in Schedule 7 of the Constitution. That's the reason why there were attempts made to make a central law but it didn't happen.

The government must prioritise. There are other major issues to be looked into, like farmer suicides, unemployment etc. I suggests that the government needs to first have an anti-defection law for the politicians so that they act deterrent, and stop jumping from one party to another.

Which era are we in that we are even talking about passing an anti-conversion bill? Eight states have already brought anti-conversion laws, and besides 31 arrests, there have been no conviction so far. This whole process is divisive in nature. Policemen are not supposed to step into or monitor our personal matters. India is a melting pot, where we are open to all traditions. Youngsters falling in love, don't think about religion. Now will you stop them from marrying the person they want to because of religion? Think of the consequences.

In Maharashtra, 4 lakh children to go Christian schools, about 98.8% of children come in from all religions. How many of them actually get converted? Are we looking forward to enhancing our nation or are we regressing it!

Any political party or politician is not allowed to interfere in a citizens personal matter and every citizen is allowed to preach and follow whichever religion they want to. Political parties play their divisive agenda and we get engulfed in that. It is simply a political agenda to divert people's attention from the actual core problems to such issues.

Rahul Sakpal, Associate professor, Maharashtra National Law University and visiting fellow at Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands

I am against the idea of having anti-conversion law. This law was earlier passed in the seven states. In Rajasthan you have a 'conversion law' where thet state that people are allowed conversion, but they cannot have their forefather's religion. So, you cannot come back after bring converted. You live in a globalised world where you want to have an access over everything, then why you want to get into that particular sphere? Because this freedom allows me to increase my capability also, to access knowledge, or maybe to participate. We are not a European country where countries like Italy, Germany have a state religion.

In 1936, BR Ambedkar came to Mumbai, and while speaking to Mahar community members, he explain the importance of conversion. He said that if a religion gives me more empowerment, brings about more social consciousness, then in a democracy, I have a freedom to choose a religion that is good for me. While drafting the Constitution, he kept in mind, that we need to give people that freedom. Now, you cannot target the Buddhist, because law also states that they are denomination of Hindus, but now mass-conversion is happening within the community and it is for their personal mobility.

Conviction rates (related to conversion) are almost negligible. 32 have been arrested so far. At the end, we are victimising the accused. Under state laws, you have to give 30 days notice to the District Magistrate, and he will give permission for conversion. DM has every power to allow or restrict the conversion. There have been instances where the administrative body have tried to prevent the conversion.

Amartya Sen rightly pointed out, 'I want the freedom to express my political, social and religious opinion because that increases my conscious level. If that conscious level has increased definitely I will have my sustenance of life and I will enjoy everything.' Now this law is going to reduce my capacity. This creates some kind of polarization in society, which I think is ethically wrong. Government should devote their energy and time in making this democracy stronger. Unemployment rate is at 6.15%. Where government on one hand believe in free market, why can't they believe in free life or freedom of choice?

Caste system, which is integral part of Hindu religion, creates so much negativity, externality in society. It does not allow inter-caste marriage and inter-religious marriage. Since last six years we have seen, there is a direct attack on our kitchen, attack on my choices to have food and now there will be an attack on our choice, on whom to marry.

With respect to allurement, if the government is failing in providing education and health services, then people go with those who are helping them. The Bill, if passed, that day will be darkest day in secular country of ours. I like to walk on road, and will follow traffic instructions stated in our Constitution, not those given by some Manuvadi political forces.

For youngsters who are not well versed with history, it will create "we versus others" debate and bring bitterness. Varna system is ingrained into Hindu culture, and this is a wrong practise. Are you really going to take away that from system? If you do, then nobody will go to other religion and I am sure that people will be very happy to have a ghar wapsi (return back to the community).

Yusuf Muchhala, Senior advocate

Religious freedom under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed in 1947-48, states that every individual has a right to select the faith that suits his conscience.

This particular concept is very well expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Hadiya. The main issue was that can the state agencies interfere with the individual's choice to select his own faith. The Supreme Court had come down heavily on the way in which the Kerala High Court treated the matter. A Writ of Habeas Corpus was turned into a declaration that her marriage with her Muslim husband was void. The Supreme Court also firmly established that one has a right to select faith and state cannot interfere. So the blanket ban is totally out of question. It will be unconstitutional and against the spirit of the civilised notions of the religious freedom.

Our Constitution is based on the principle of plurality, and pluralism means that you must have a coexistence. Kanhaiyalal Munshi and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel asked to retain only the positive aspect of conversions and to leave it to the legislatures to decide to create a law to prevent forcible conversions. So the forcible conversions can never be a part of the Fundamental Rights.

The Supreme Court had also said in Fr. Rev. Stanislaus case that our Constitution gives the freedom of conscience to profess and propagate religion. The court had to reconsider legislation passed by Orissa and Madhya Pradesh preventing forcible conversions. Profess and propagate means not merely believe in it, but also to put that belief into practice. Propagate would necessarily mean that you can also communicate or transmit your thought process to others. But the transmission cannot be in such a way as to induce fear, so that they become victims of certain false propaganda and they give up their original faith.

When I said that there can be a law preventing religious conversion, but that law must be on the same lines as that in MP and Orissa, where constitutional validities are held. It can be done only with the approval or consent of the District Magistrate. So there must be an intervention of a responsible or a judicial mind before the action is taken.

Right after Independence, India has refused to become a theocratic state. In 1947 or 1948, Israel was formed as theocratic state by turning the local inhabitants into refugees - the Palestinians. Then Pakistan became a theocratic state. We have always opposed that.

Most cases of conversions are from the lower castes and tribals. If the people who are suffering because of illiteracy and poverty, and if someone renders certain humanitarian aid in the form of providing them education and healthcare, would you call this an allurement? There are some of the religious institutions that are rolling in riches, certain temples are known to have huge wealth, why have they not taken this humanitarian job themselves? Why then blame someone else?

Giving humanitarian aid should not be and cannot be equated with allurement. There are certain state laws which say that conversion should be monitored if it is to Christianity or Islam or other religions, but if it is otherwise, then there is no provision at all. Now this particular type of legislation if you are bringing, then it is definitely going against the spirit of Article 14, 15, 26 and the Right to Equality.

The issue of conversions has its own political ramifications and that is where politicians of our country have not been able to delink it with religion.