Believe it or not Reena Martins looks at what the Constitution says on choosing your religion and the the law on religious conversions
Reena Martins [email protected] PHOTO: IN THE NAME OF GOD: Muslims in Agra who were allegedly forced to convert to Hinduism St. Stephen;s College is usually in the news for academic feats. These days, however, it is hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons. Earlier this week, a college employee accused the principal of trying to convert him from Hinduism to Christianity. The principal has denied the accusation. An incident like this would not have made it to the newspapers in normal times. But it comes in the wake of several other controversies relating to religious conversions. Last week, Parliament came to a halt when news broke about a group of Muslims who had been "reconverted" to Hinduism in Agra. Ghar wapsi -- homecoming -- is the new mantra of groups that are connected with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The campaign seeks to "reconvert" Hindus who have embraced other religions. Conversion, as defined by anti-conversion laws in the states, means renouncing one religion for another. The problem is with "forced conversion". The force can take varied forms -- a show of force or a threat of injury, threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication; fraud (misrepresentation or any other fraudulent contrivance); or inducement (offering any gift or gratification, either in cash or kind or the granting of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise). Forced conversions is a cognisable offence under Sections 295A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code and can lead to a prison term of up to three years and a fine. The problem is that religious conversion may have little to do with religion. Often, it is the path taken by those seeking to marry without a divorce. In 1995, the Supreme Court had in a case held that conversion to Islam was not valid if done for bigamy, which is a punishable act. Religious groups are also known to target and convert vulnerable people -- the poor, Dalits and tribals, for instance -- with lures of money or ration cards. It is ostensibly to check this that anti-conversion laws have been enacted in Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Arunachal Pradesh, too, has an anti-conversion law on its books, but since the rules for the act haven't been framed, it remains a dead letter. The Rajasthan Assembly has already passed an anti-conversion bill that awaits the President's assent to be made into law. Ironically, the Constitution gives you the freedom of choosing your religion. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freely profess, practise and propagate -- transmit or spread one's religion by bearing witness through its tenets -- but not at the cost of morality, health and public order. The debate is an old one. In 1954, Parliament took up for consideration the Indian Conversion (Regulation and Registration) Bill. In 1960, the Backward Communities (Religious Protection) Bill, 1960, was drafted to stop conversion. Neither was enacted. The state laws have also faced roadblocks. When the laws were first enforced in Odisha and Madhya Pradesh, they were challenged in the courts. When the constitutional validity of Madhya Pradesh's Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968, was challenged in the state's high court, it was upheld. The Orissa High Court, however, ruled that the state had no power to enact the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, as the Constitution guaranteed propagation of religion and that conversion was a part of Christianity. Matters eventually reached the Supreme Court in 1977, where in the Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh case the court held that conversion of another person was not a fundamental right under Article 25 and could be regulated by the state. "What is freedom for one is freedom for the other, in equal measure, and there can therefore be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one's own religion," the court concluded. A major problem with anti-conversion laws is the process that subjects have to follow when they seek to change their religion. A fortnight before a conversion ceremony they have to declare before a magistrate that they are converting of their own accord and furnish details about their address and family members. The officiating priest, too, has to convey information about the date, time and venue of the conversion ceremony to the magistrate, who will then pass it to the superintendent of police to enquire if the conversion is a forced one. "When the Constitution has guaranteed me the freedom of religion, why should the State be concerned?" asks Justice B.N. Srikrishna, retired judge of the Supreme Court. "Religion is what happens within the four walls of my house." On occasions, the judiciary has taken a strong position on conversion. In 2009, in the Betsy vs Nil matrimonial case, a division bench of the Kerala High Court ruled: "Religious conversions may appear to many... (as) unnecessary, puerile and a negation of the very concept of respect for both religions, as also the followers of such religion. But certainly, the freedom of faith guaranteed by the Constitution may not justify the negation of the right to pursue the chosen faith, by conversion where necessary." In 2012, the Himachal Pradesh High Court struck down sections of the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2006, which punished a person for not intimating the district magistrate before his conversion ceremony. "A person not only has the right to conscience, belief and the right to change his belief, but also to keep his belief secret," ruled the two-judge bench. Legal experts stress that the real trouble arises when acts are mooted by political parties with vested interests. These are efforts to gather votes through religious polarisation, says Girish Patel, a Gujarat High Court lawyer who has challenged the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill, 2003. "It's more about prohibition of religious freedom," he says. The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Rules, 2008, make it mandatory for a priest performing a conversion ceremony, organiser or anybody participating directly or indirectly to seek permission from the district magistrate, who has to either oblige or refuse within a month. The magistrate must also maintain a conversion register. "This is a direct violation of the fundamental right of freedom of conscience and freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion granted under Article 25 of the Constitution," says Patel. "It violates the privacy of a person. Conversion, like religion, is a private matter. Why should anybody seek permission for it?" The question deserves an answer -- but the ones it is addressed to are still quarrelling. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1141217/jsp/opinion/story_3874.jsp#.VJXCZUAAA ###
