Author: Our Special Correspondent
Publication: The Hindu
Date: October 12, 2002
URL: http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2002101204830400.htm
The anti-conversion ordinance is
"not directed against any particular religion, least of all any minority
religion", the Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, has said.
In a statement, she clarified that
it was "directed against the use of fraudulent means, allurement and force
in enticing individuals into changing their religious denomination against
their will".
Ms. Jayalalithaa reasoned that the
ordinance "clearly recognises and provides for action to be taken to arrest
a disturbing trend found in various parts of Tamil Nadu, as reported and
documented, where inducements, monetary and material, fraudulent and clandestine,
have been adopted by some persons and institutions to convert people to
another religion, capitalising on their poverty, illiteracy and ignorance.
The State has a duty cast upon it to make laws to protect its citizens
against exploitation by such unscrupulous elements". Even the Supreme Court,
in its 1977 ruling in the Stanislaus Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case,
held that the right to propagate one's religion (by advocacy or preaching)
did not include the right to convert another.
Asserting that the criticism against
"this well-intentioned move" stemmed from a "basically flawed initial assumption
that the ordinance is intended to cover the minorities alone", the Chief
Minister noted that conversion by use of force or allurement was an offence
on the part of whoever committed it. "The apprehension that the implementation
of the law would lend itself to intimidation, harassment and even persecution
of the converts, who invariably belong to socially oppressed or economically
disadvantaged sections, is totally misconceived and originates from a misreading
of Section 5(1), which obliges a person, who either performs the conversion
ceremony himself or participates in it directly or indirectly, to intimate
the district magistrate. The object is to keep the State informed of such
conversions. It was those persons resorting to conversions by force or
allurement or fraudulent means who would be prosecuted in court, for which
sanction for prosecution would have to be given by the district magistrate.
The question of determining whether
"fraudulent means have been employed and what constitutes force or allurement
is subject to judicial review. How this has been construed by certain sections
of the press to mean that the ordinance has subordinated the right to freedom
of religion is indeed beyond comprehension and is a sweeping and devastating
indictment as casual as it is irresponsible". Ms. Jayalalithaa pointed
out that similar legislation existed in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Arunachal
Pradesh. The Madhya Pradesh Act was challenged in court and was upheld
by both the High Court and the Supreme Court and was still the law of the
land.
Poser to Congress
The Chief Minister, pointing to
a Congress spokesman's description of the Tamil Nadu ordinance as being
directed against the minorities and offending minority sentiments, said:
"Perhaps the Congress, which prides itself on being the country's oldest
national party, is now in its dotage and suffers from total amnesia. How
else would they have forgotten that several Congress Governments in Madhya
Pradesh and Orissa never repealed these laws? If they so offend the secular
sensibilities of the Congress, why have successive Congress Governments
in these States allowed these Acts to remain in force?"
Ms. Jayalalithaa emphasised that
the "eclectic origins of Indian society that have been drawn into its fold
multifarious religious denominations cannot be allowed to be exploited
by unscrupulous forces, often funded by dubious and anti-national sources
from foreign countries to destabilise our social structure".
Asserting that the AIADMK had a
long-established "liberal secular tradition", she said, "the ordinance
only prevents any religion from being brought to the marketplace and being
converted into a purchasable commodity. No religious group would subscribe
to such a specious concept of conversion".
Allaying fears and suspicion of
all minority groups, she insisted that the "trenchant criticism" of the
ordinance by "misreporting the provisions, only betrays an innate and sinister
design to besmirch the AIADMK Government by falsely assigning to it a label
of Hindu religious fundamentalism".
