25/12/2014

Conversion and freedom of religion - The Hindu

Opinion Lead
Published: December 23, 2014 01:13 IST | Updated: December 23, 2014 01:13 IST

Conversion and freedom of religion

Suhrith Parthasarathy
While organised events of conversion can incite violence and hatred, the enforcement of a national anti-conversion law, as some
advocate, is not the panacea. Besides inflicting greater damage, it would render our rights to freedom of conscience and religion
valueless, and derail efforts at achieving a peaceful, democratic society

One of the oft-repeated theories in the wake of the general election this past May was that Prime Minister Narendra
Modi assumed power by presenting a single-minded commitment to developing Indias economy. In truth, campaigns,
in many parts of the country, were intensely divisive affairs. Many of those who canvassed for votes, and who have
since been accorded important positions in the ruling party, often trod treacherously beyond communal boundaries.
This dissonance, which was inherent in the attitude of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) towards the election, has now
grown further, and it increasingly appears that the government is incapable of deviating from what is quite plausibly its
real agenda.
As much as Mr. Modi would like us to believe that it is his plank of a developmental model that continues to hold the
primary sway in his policies, his stark reticence in dealing with the acrimonious practices of the BJPs allied groups
seems to paint a different picture. The state, under the BJP, is slowly progressing towards more pervasive involvement
in matters of ethical choice such as religion. And, the Sangh Parivar has only been emboldened by the attitude of the
new regime. Week after week, its agenda of Hindutva has seen the imposition of new and stridently discordant
measures. The latest salvo involves the organisation of programmes of Ghar Vapsi, for the conversion (or
reconversion as the Hindu Right would have it) of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism.
The right wing and conversion
The Dharam Jagaran Samiti (DJS) an offshoot of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bajrang Dal
only recently announced that it aims to meet a target of converting one lakh Muslims and Christians into Hinduism
every year. Earlier this month in Agra, the DJS reportedly converted some 200-odd Muslims to Hinduism. The event
came to light after the supposed converts, many of who are among the most impoverished sections of the society,
alleged that they had been misled into believing that they would be offered Below Poverty Line cards by consenting to
the conversion. In spite of these contentions, the Sangh Parivar remains unmoved in its agenda. According to a report
on the website Scroll.in, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has already made plans to mark the 50th anniversary of the
groups founding on February 6 with a Ghar Vapsi in Faizabad next year. Making matters worse, the VHP has claimed,
as The Hindu reported, that those Muslims or Christians who reconvert to Hinduism in such programmes would be
allowed to choose a caste for themselves once the VHP has investigated the tradition, faith, and culture of the converts
ancestors.
Read: The Hindu's Sunday Anchor story: Conversion Confusion
The Ghar Vapsi programmes organised as they are by the Sangh Parivar are an attempted show of strength. They seek
the states connivance in administering a terrifying form of majoritarianism. But, when we respond to these organised
events of conversion, it is crucially important that we view them in the right light. The programmes no doubt carry
enormous potential to incite violence and hatred between communities; they are immoral, wicked and capable of
producing dire consequences. To that end, we must certainly impose responsibility on the state to curb the creation of
an even more fractured society. But we must not see the enforcement of a national anti-conversion law, as some have,
as the panacea. Such legislation can produce even greater damage; it would render nugatory our rights to freedom of
conscience and religion, and in the process, it would scuttle any genuine attempts at achieving a peaceful, democratic
society.
Indeed, the BJP has already been quick to take advantage of the clamour for an anti-conversion legislation. In reacting
to rhetorical pressure from the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament, the Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister, M.
Venkaiah Naidu, suggested precisely such a law as a solution for the present unrest. Yogi Adityanath, the BJP member
of the Lok Sabha for the Gorakhpur constituency, who is a star attraction for the Hindu Right in Ghar Vapsi events, has
already fuelled the fire. This (Ghar Vapsi) has been happening for ages. It is an ongoing process and it will continue to
happen, he told reporters after the recent event in Agra. If the Uttar Pradesh Government feels the reconversion
programme is wrong then the way the State governments of Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh
and Gujarat have a law ... a similar legislation should be made in U.P. He further sought to place the Opposition in an
exacting conundrum. If parties feel there should be a law against conversion, he said, why dont they support the move
of having such a law?
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/conversion-and-freedom-of-religion/article6716638.ece?css=print

1/3

25/12/2014

Conversion and freedom of religion - The Hindu

Read: Propagation without proselytisation: what the law says

Intuitively, Mr. Adityanaths comments sans the divisiveness even appear logical. A law banning the use of
coercion in seeking religious conversion seems to be in consonance with general principles of a democratic society.
However, our experience with such legislation as can be gathered from the impact of such statutes in Madhya
Pradesh and Gujarat shows us that these laws would inevitably be fraught with interpretive maladies that often
strike at the root of our right to religious freedom. Whats more, a legislation of such a nature would be simply
unenforceable without applying a duplicitous standard of statutory construal. The better choice, in these
circumstances, is to prosecute illegitimate acts of force and coercion, which evoke genuine sentiments of communal
hate, through the general operation of the penal law aimed at maintaining public order, while leaving conversions
largely unmonitored.
Restricting religious liberty
The illiberal trappings of an anti-conversion law, however, do contain a rare appeal. In fact, the Supreme Court of India
has taken a kind viewing towards such laws. In 1977, in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1977 SC
908), a five-judge bench of the court delivered a verdict on the constitutional validity of two of the earliest pieces of
anti-conversion legislation in India: the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, and the Orissa
Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, both of which, with no small dash of irony, restrict, as opposed to promote, religious
liberty.
The two statutes are akin in that they both envisage intimation to the District Magistrate every time a conversion takes
place, and in that they both prohibit and impose criminal liability on conversion or attempt to conversion by the
use of force or by inducement (allurement, in the case of the Madhya Pradesh law) or by any other fraudulent means.
The definitions prescribed for these terms however are decidedly vague, capricious, and prone to causing substantial
harm. The Orissa law, for example, defines force, inclusively, to mean a show of force or a threat for injury of any kind
including threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication. And inducement is defined even wider, to include
the offer of any gift or gratification, either in cash or in kind, including the grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or
otherwise.
Interpreting Article 25
In upholding these laws, Chief Justice A.N. Ray, who delivered the judgment, adopted a muddled approach to
interpreting Article 25 of the Constitution. Article 25 states that subject to public order, morality and health, and to the
other fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and
the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. Justice Ray interpreted the word propagate, to mean to
transmit or spread ones religion by an exposition of its tenets, but to not include the right to convert another person
to ones own religion. It has to be remembered that Article 25(1) guarantees freedom of conscience to every citizen,
and not merely to the followers of one particular religion, wrote Justice Ray, and that, in turn, postulates that there is
no fundamental right to convert another person to ones own religion because if a person purposely undertakes the
conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the tenets of his
religion, that would impinge on the freedom of conscience guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike.

If a persons right
to propagate his
religion does not
include a right to
freedom of speech
aimed at seeking
conversions, would
not such a right be
purely illusory

Justice Rays reasoning, however, clearly conflates the issue. If a persons right to
propagate his religion does not include a right to freedom of speech aimed at seeking
conversions, would not such a right be purely illusory? As the constitutional law
scholar, H.M. Seervai, observed, in response to the decision in Stainislaus, to
propagate religion is not to impart knowledge and to spread it more widely, but to
produce intellectual and moral conviction leading to action, namely, the adoption of
that religion. Successful propagation of religion would result in conversion.
Therefore, when a person converts to another religion, based on speech, which aims
at producing such conversion, he or she is, in fact, exercising a general right to
freedom of conscience.
In confusing a persons liberty to exercise free conscience for another persons right
to propagate religion, Justice Rays verdict produced damaging results. A conclusion
that propagation ought to be restricted only to the edification of religious tenets is a
reasoning that gratifies the interests of the majority, and the majority alone. Or, as
Mr. Seervai observed, it is productive of the greatest public mischief.

In the decades that have followed Stainislaus, the Madhya Pradesh and Orissa laws
and similar legislation enacted in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh
have been used by State governments to target conversions to minority religions, in particular, upsetting, thereby even
the most basic commitment to secularism.
The decision in Stainislaus is however incorrect not merely due to its tangible consequences. The case relates to a
fundamental, and more nuanced, issue of intervention by the state and its courts in religious affairs. Antihttp://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/conversion-and-freedom-of-religion/article6716638.ece?css=print

2/3

25/12/2014

Conversion and freedom of religion - The Hindu

conversion laws allow the state the authority to determine what constitutes an illegitimate inducement, and, in doing
so, they create a slippery slope. They promote increased governmental involvement in matters that involve pure ethical
choices, and they ingrain a deep and dangerous form of paternalism: the state is always watching you, and it has
nothing but your best interests in mind. This ought to be a matter of grave concern.
(Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate in the Madras High Court.)
Keywords: Freedom of religion, religious conversions, Agra Bengali Muslim community, Agra conversions, Hindutva
organisations, Muslim clerics, Hindu Jagaran Samiti, VHP
Printable version | Dec 25, 2014 5:50:42 PM |
View comments (107)
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/conversion-and-freedom-of-religion/article6716638.ece
The Hindu

NaC6T6yL

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/conversion-and-freedom-of-religion/article6716638.ece?css=print

Box Rock Advertisement

3/3