Don't Target Converts by Michael Pinto (Times of India dt.8.10.2008) As Orissa continues to burn and Karnataka to simmer, we are confronted once again with that old bogey of conversion. The allegation is that at least part of the blame for the violence against Christians must be laid at the door of the aggressive policy of conversion of some evangelical groups. Besides the obvious fact that no amount of provocation can justify taking the law into one’s own hands, this argument is particularly strange in a country that counts the right to preach, practise and propagate one’s religion among its fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Should a civilised, tolerant society get into so personal a matter as the religious conviction of its citizens? After all, what is so perverse about conversion? If you exercise your fundamental right to preach and propagate your religion and someone, convinced by your arguments, comes over to your side how can anyone object? We are told that such changes cause unrest in society. But in public life we do not allow the unrest argument to prevent individuals from changing their loyalties or ideologies. The only legitimate ground on which conversion can be opposed is if it can be shown to have resulted from the use of force or fraud. Several states, including Orissa, have enacted legislation to prevent conversions by force or fraud or even inducement. In respect to the latter, they are on shaky ground. When you go to a shop and, under the terms of some promotion, you are told that you can buy one and get one free, is this not inducement? If this is allowed as a legitimate tool in commerce, it cannot be illegitimate elsewhere. But the use of force or fraud is anyway outlawed by the Indian Penal Code and action against such acts is not dependent on specific anti-conversion laws. Indeed, this is at the centre of the whole conversion argument. Whenever the topic comes up, apologists are at pains to point out that census data clearly show that the Christian population in percentage terms has actually fallen from a high of 2.6 per cent in 1971 to 2.3 per cent in 2001. This fact, while correct, is irrelevant. Even if the Christian population had increased substantially as a result of conversion, there would have been nothing wrong with this as long as the conversions were the result of a change of heart and not the use of force or fraud. This is where a further problem arises. While there is no question about the need to avoid conversion by force or fraud, the difficulty lies in adjudicating on this subject. So far most states, which have enacted anti-conversion legislation, have left it to the district magistrate (DM) to decide whether conversion is genuine or due to force and fraud. Aside from the fact that most civilised societies would hesitate to give sweeping \powers in such a sensitive matter to the state, the question is how does a DM decide on the genuineness of conversion? It is extra-ordinarily difficult to look into a person’s soul and decide whether it is God or Mammon that has dictated a particular course of action. At best the DM could rely on what people in the vicinity say. But that is an inadequate basis for such an important finding. The problem with anti-conversion legislation does not end here. Most Acts give the power to conduct enquiries into proposed conversions to the police. But in Himachal Pradesh, a state where Christians constitute barely 0.2 per cent of the population and where it would appear that such an Act was quite unnecessary, not only has anti-conversion legislation been put on the statute book but the Act lays down that the DM can authorise anybody to make such an enquiry. This is amazing because it gives the DM authority to pick and choose the person or body, who will make the enquiry. What is there to prevent an officer from handing over the enquiry to a fundamentalist organisation with an anti-conversion agenda? So we come back once again to the question: Which conversion is through force and fraud and which through conviction? Let there be no mistake. The person who converts through fraudulent means is our common enemy. But until we are able to establish the difference between the two through objective and easily identifiable criteria we will invariably end up penalising those who have a genuine change of heart or worse still use it as an excuse to terrorise a whole group of people. It is the absence of these criteria that have made existing legislation on the subject so ineffective. The anti-conversion Bill in Orissa was passed in 1967 but rules under the Act were framed only in 1999. So far no one has been convicted under the Act and no case has ever been filed under its provisions. But in one matter, at least, it is not difficult to nail forced conversions. The sinister campaign threatening Christians with the forfeiture of their property and the destruction of their homes if they do not renounce Christianity and become Hindus is the most chilling example of this. If we are serious about outlawing forced conversion we must use the clear provisions of a Bill passed more than 30 years ago to deal with precisely this evil. The writer is vice-chairman, National Commission for Minorities. -- Will the all new Indica Vista zip ahead of the Suzuki Swift? Read the expert review on Zigwheels.com http://zigwheels.com/b2cam/reviewsDetails.action?name=Ro11_20080829&path=/INDT/Reviews/Ro11_20080829&page=1&pagecount=9
