---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Irfan Engineer <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:57 PM Subject: [Secular Perspective] The issue of Religious Conversions in the Constitutent Assembly Debates To: [email protected]
*The issue of Religious Conversions in the Constitutent Assembly Debates* *By Irfan Engineer* The Constituent Assembly first met in the Constitution Hall on 10th December 1946 while India was still not Independent. First, the Resolution on Aims and objects of the Constitution was moved by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru which defined the outline of the plan and pointed the way which the Constituent Assemble would tread. The Resolution was in the nature of a pledge. The para Nos. 5 and 6 were as under: “*(5) WHEREIN shall be guaranteed and secured to all the people of India Justice, social, economic and political; equality of status, of opportunity, and before the law; freedom of though, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action, subject to law and public morality; and* *(6)WHEREIN adequate safeguards shall be provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and depressed and other backward classes;*” The Resolution on Aims and Objectives laid the vision of the future Constitution of India. From the para 5 & 6 of the Resolution, even in 1946 it was clear that Indian Constitution would be secular, treating all its citizens as equals, and the citizens would be bestowed with various freedoms, including freedom of belief, faith, worship and conscience and there would be adequate safeguards for the minorities. Freedom of faith and adequate safeguards to minorities was the basic pledge and vision of the future Indian Constitution right from the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly. The issue of conversion was next mentioned in the Interim Report on Fundamental Rights. Clauses 13 to 17 of the Interim Report on Fundamental Rights[1] were *Rights relating to religion*. The clause 13 read as follows: “*All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion subject to public order, morality or health or other secular activities that may be associated with religious practice*” and the clause 17 read as under: “*Conversion from one religion to another brought about by coercion or undue influence shall not be recognized by law*” While the clause 13 of the Interim Report gave not only right to freely profess and practice religion, but also to propagate religion. The word “propagate” was included, as we shall see a little later, keeping Christians in mind. The right to propagate was considered a demand of Christians. The second aspect of including the word “propagate” was that it was by and large understood to include conversion. Therefore, the clause 17 also formed part of the Interim Report and it was sought to be made clear that conversion brought about by coercion or undue influence shall not be recognized by law. The debate on clauses 13 & 17 were heated and fairly on communal lines with a few exceptions of D.N. Datta and Ambedkar. K M Munshi’s interventions were partly supportive of Christians in as much as he was opposed to exclusion of the word “propagate” from clause 13 but at the same time wanted the clause 17 to be amended to include fraud alongside the words “coercion or undue influence” as a ground for derecognition of conversion and also derecognize any conversion of minors under the age of 18. While fundamental rights are individual rights which accrue to individual citizens and not to a community or a collective, the clauses 13 and 17 of the Interim Report on Fundamental Rights was debated as if they pertain to communal rights of Christians – and Christians only. The Hindu debaters considered the right granted in clause 13 to propagate as a communal right to minorities (as against individual) right that can be used by the minorities to predate upon the majority community. The majority community appeared in their debates as victims of minority predation – none of them wanting or desiring to convert to any religion but fearful that minority would by using fraud, undue influence or force convert the poor hapless victims from majority community. The majority community was homogenous and every member was otherwise contended about their religion and their status within their religion. Strangely, the only member of Depressed Class – P.R. Thakur – who intervened in the debate on this clause represented that members of the depressed classes were prime victims of the religious preachers and they take advantage of their ignorance, extend all sorts of temptations and ultimately convert them. The depressed class in his intervention was represented as people without any agency themselves falling to the temptations and the tactics of the preachers. The other member of depressed class, Mr. Jagjivan Ram withdrew his amendment and therefore did not intervene in the debate. It was strange that discussion on Fundamental Rights should be communalised in the manner in which it was done. Among the interveners in the debate who suggested that the word “propagate” may be deleted from the Clause 13 were Purushottamdas Tandon who with a very patronizing attitude towards the minorities said “We Congressmen deem it very improper to convert from one to another religion or to take part in such activities and we are not in favour of this. In our opinion it is absolutely futile to be keen on converting others to one’s faith. But it is only at the request of some persons, whom we want to keep with us in out national endeavour that we accepted this. Now it is said that they have a right to convert young children to their faith? What is this?” he further addressed the Christians in English language with these words “…. but we want to carry our Christian friends with us … and we have agreed on their insistence to retain this formula about propagation”. There was a patronizing attitude in Tandon’s intervention as if they (the Hindu community) was the granter of the religious rights and those rights were being granted even against their own interest and there was also a warning – no more – no conversion of child below 18 years even with the consent of the parent and even when the child wished to embrace Christianity voluntarily. Tandon also spoke as if all the Congressmen agreed with him and were against conversion. D.N. Datta however intervened in the debate and corrected that the remark of Tandon that the majority of the Congress members are not in favour of introducing the word “propagate” in clause 13 is not correct and that this matter was discussed the day before and the majority were in favour of keeping the word “propagate”. Datta was the lone speaker from the majority community. in the debate on clause 13 and 17 demanding that entire clause 17 should be deleted or otherwise the clause 17 should be referred back to the Fundamental Rights Committee. Jagat Narain Lal from Bihar warned the Christians to be satisfied with what they have got against the wish of the majority community – right to propagate their religion. Quoting constitution of various countries he stated that none gave the right to propagate religion one’s religion – only right to profess and practice one’s religion. The right to propagate therefore became a minority right rather than a fundamental right given to all citizens of the country and minorities were advised to be satisfied by the right granted to them and not to press for more and take undue advantage of the generosity of the majority. Algu Rai Shastri argued that majority community had no access in the areas declared as Excluded Areas (most of the North-Eastern region) where the Christian population was increasing rapidly whereas Christians had access to the entire country and could convert. Hindus, according to him were either converted by force or by undue influence by Muslims and Christians respectively. In Chhattisgarh the Hindu missionaries could not carry out their work amongst the criminal tribes. This was a crooked policy according to him. None of the Christian intervening during the debate on clauses 13 and 17 were opposed to the clause as it was framed and were happy and satisfied with both the clauses, even clause 17 that stated that conversion brought about by undue influence or force would not be recognized by law. What they were opposed to and for which got earful from the speakers from the majority community was the amendment moved by K.M. Munshi stating that even voluntary conversion of a minor under the age of 18 would not be recognized by law. Rev. JJM Nichols-Roy from Assam argued that a youth under age of 18 can experience God and if a youth below 18 gets a call from god why shouldn’t he listen to his conscience? Why should law compel him to wait till he is 18 years old? Rev. Nichols-Roy was inviting the members to have a look at the spiritual side of conversion and not identity based conversion. He gave his own example and said he had a similar call from god for conversion when he was just 15 years old and he was ready to lose everything and sacrifice everything for that call. Why should law compel him not to follow his conscience and oppress him? Rev. Jerome D’Souza (Madras) argued that what if parents convert to another religion and have children below the age of 18? What would be their religious status? It would disrupt the authority of a man over his family and disrupt the sanctity of the family. Rev. D’Souza asked what if the converted parents of minor child die, then according to which religion the inheritance will be allowed – religion of the child or religion of the parents? What if minor child of a converted parents wants to get married (and at that time it was not illegal for a child below 18 to get married), then the marriage would be in accordance of the religion of the converted parents or rituals of the child’s religion? Would the parents still care their children as much if they could not follow their religion and could not teach their religion to their children? This, according to him would lead to a lot of confusion. He therefore opposed K.M. Munshi’s amendments. F.R. Anthony suggested a way out of the mess. While not opposing Munshi’s amendment in toto, he suggested that Musnshi’s amendment that conversion of under aged minor should not be recognized by law by adding words, “except when the parents or surviving parents have been converted and the child does not chose to adhere to its original faith”. He also argued that otherwise the family life would be disrupted if the parents and the children were forced to follow different religions which was contrary to natural law and justice. Anthony’s amendment gave the discretion back to the child and the child alone would decide, not the state, what religion he should follow. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar intervened at the final stage and his was almost the last word. He opposed Munshi’s amendments and stated that the issue of conversion of minor was discussed in the Fundamental Rights Committee as well as Advisory Committee. He pointed out who would adopt the orphans if the orphan could not follow the religion of the adopting parents? And would the orphans not have any religion if the religion in which they were born is not known? Could they not be given any religious instructions by the kind adopting parents? Dr. Ambedkar agreed to only the proposition of prohibition of conversion where the minor has been converted without the knowledge or consent of the parents or guardians. Sardar patel then suggested that the matter be referred back to the Advisory Committee and his suggestion was carried the day Next the discussion on conversion arose in the Constituent Assembly when Sub-clause (6) & (7) of the Draft Article VI of the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights were discussed . the Sub-clauses (6) & (7) were as under: “*(6) No person under the age of eighteen shall be free to change his religious persuasion without the permission of his parent or guardian* *(7) Conversion from one religion to another brought about by coercion, undue influence or the offering of material inducement is prohibited and is punishable by the law of the **Union*.” Notice the clause (6) which was based on the amendment suggested by K M Munshi during the discussion on clause 17 on the Interim Report on Fumdamental Rights, but with the modification that with the permission of the parent or guardian a minor could change his religion. So the Advisory Committee took into consideration the suggestions of Christian speakers during the debate on Interim Report on Fundamental Rights but also included the amendment suggested by K M Munshi. In the Sub-clause (7) above, the conversion by coercion and undue influence or by offering material inducements was not only prohibited, but now punishable by law. However, these Sub-clauses (6) & (7) did not find any place in the chapter on fundamental Rights of the Constitution as adopted. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the rejection is that the Constituent Assembly considered granting religious rights including that of professing, practicing and propagating religion but rejected all suggestions to prohibit or punish conversions whether of minors with or without permission of the parents and guardians or with or without coercion, with or without undue influence with or without or material inducements. What the Constituent Assembly rejected, is now sought to be brought through various anti-conversion legislations by State Governments, but we will see more about the Constitutionality of such legislations in another article. In the Draft Constitution, the Article on freedom of Religion was Art 19, which now is Article 25 of the adopted Constitution. Article 19, as the Article 25 talks of right of all persons to practice, profess and propagate religion, subject of course, to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of the part of Constitution on Fundamental Rights[2]. The Anti-conversion lobby wanted to amend the Article and delete the word “propagate”, which according to speakers after speakers would include and mean right to convert. The first stack came from Tajamul Hussain. He said religion was private affair and anyone’s faith should not be interfered with. Religion was only for attaining salvation. KT Shah moved amendment to Art. 19 (1) and he wanted to subject the freedom of religion to the following proviso: “*Provided that no propaganda in favour of any one religion, which is calculated to result in change of faith by the individuals affected, shall be allowed in any schoold or college or other educational institution, in any hospital or asylum or in any other place or institution where persons of a tender age, or of unsound mind or body are liable to be exposed to undue influence from their teachers, nurses or physicians, keepers or guardians or any other person set in authority above them, andwhich is maintained wholly or partially form public revenues, or or any State or punlic authority therein.*” Loknath Misra went on to use a strong comment that Art. 19 (1) was charter of Hindu enslavement for including the word “propagate” and went on to suggest, “*If you accept religion, you must accept Hinduism as it is practiced by an overwhelming majority of the people in India*.” K.M. Munshi stated: “when we object to this word (propagate), we think in terms of the old regime. In the old regime, the Christian missionaries, particularly those who were British were at an advantage. But since 1938, I know, in my part of Bombay, the influence which was derived from their political influence and power has disappeared (after Congress ministry came to power in 1937). …and since then whatever conversions take place in that part of the country are only the result of persuasion and not because of material advantages offered to them. He further stated: “I am sure, under the freedom of speech which the Constitution guarantees, it will be open to any religious community to persuade other people join their faith. So long as religion is religion, conversion by free exercise of conscience has to be recognized.” Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra supported the inclusion of the word “propagate”, quoting the liberalism of Swami Vivekananda and the great work done by the Christian community without any matching zeal to convert. He asserted that propagation of religion did not mean forcible conversions or using undue influence. Likewise, Krishnaswami Bharathi, K. Santhanam, Rohini Kumar Chaudhari, TT Krishnamachari, also supported the inclusion of the word propagate. TT Krishnamachari pointed out that even Arya Samajists were propagating Shuddhi and they too would have their right. He was the only speaker who linked conversion to Christianity to the status Hindu religion gave to untouchables. Based on very vocal support from the aforesaid speakers for inclusion of the word propagate in Art 19, all amendments to the contrary were negated. The Constitution of India thus included in the freedom of religion, not only right to profess and practice, but also to propagate religion, which the Constituent Assembly was well aware, would include freedom to convert.[3] ------------------------------ [1] Constituent Assembly Debates, Book No. 1, pg 442 Published by Lok Sabha, New Delhi, 14th Reprint** [2] CAD Book 2. [3] CAD, Book 2 Irfan A. Engineer, Director, Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, 603, Silver Star, Nr. Railway Bridge, Prabhat Colony, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400055, India. Tel (O) +912226149668; +912226102089 Tel (R) +912226630086 Mob.: +919869462833; Fax +912226100712 e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] -- http://venukm.blogspot.com http://www.shelfari.com/kmvenuannur http://kmvenuannur.livejournal.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Engineer;Irfan;Asgharali;Adv. FN:Irfan Asgharali Engineer NICKNAME:Irfan ORG:Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution TITLE:Director TEL;WORK;VOICE:+912226149668 TEL;HOME;VOICE:+912226630086 TEL;CELL;VOICE:+919869462833 TEL;WORK;FAX:+912226100712 ADR;WORK:;;603, Silver Star, Nr. Railway Bridge, Prabhat Colony, Santacruz (East);Mumbai;Maharashtra;400055;India LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:603, Silver Star, Nr. Railway Bridge, Prabhat Colony, Santacruz (East)=0D= =0AMumbai, Maharashtra 400055=0D=0AIndia ADR;HOME:;;2nd Floo, Irene Cottage, 4th Road, Santacurz (East);Mumbai;Maharashtra;400055;India LABEL;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:2nd Floo, Irene Cottage, 4th Road, Santacurz (East)=0D=0AMumbai, Maharashtra= 400055=0D=0AIndia EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[email protected] REV:20090807T142726Z END:VCARD
