Author: M G Devasahayam
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: June 27, 2003
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=26522
Introduction: The A-G's stand against
anti-conversion laws is backed by wisdom of 50 years ago
For once, Attorney-General Soli
Sorabjee, once the firebrand follower of Jayaprakash Narayan, has spoken
his mind on the draconian anti-conversion law recently enacted in Tamil
Nadu and Gujarat. And, true to style, he did not mince words. With the
kind of drubbing the legislation has received from the highest law officer
of the land, its continuation on statute book is no longer tenable.
Let us look at the unassailable
arguments put forth by the Attorney-General. First and foremost this law,
by constraining even voluntary conversion, violates the fundamental right
of religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution. Faith is a personal
matter and it is an individual's choice to follow the religion he or she
wishes. By forcing the individual to seek approval or notify such conversion
under threat of prosecution and imprisonment, his fundamental right has
been severely undermined. Sorabjee goes on to say that anti-conversion
law has created an insecurity among minorities and has shattered their
confidence in the State. In the prevailing communally charged atmosphere
this was totally unwarranted. According to him, the 1977 Supreme Court
ruling that right to propagate does not mean right to convert is erroneous
and faulty.
Even otherwise, anti-conversion
legislations in TN and Gujarat - two pronouncedly fascist dispensations
- does not stand the test of reason or equity. There is not even basic
rationale for such legislation. The reasons given in the preamble are vague,
unspecific and presumptuous and there is no shred of evidence to substantiate
these. State governments, particularly TN, have adduced no proof or evidence
of 'conversions' that have disturbed 'public order, morality and health'
prior to passing of the Act.
No doubt apologists for the Act
aver that this legislation is meant only to prevent 'forcible conversions'
and that religious minorities need not feel perturbed. The fact of the
matter is that a motion for ''prohibiting conversions from one religion
to another brought about by coercion, undue influence and offering of material
inducement'' (put forth by K M Munshi) was discussed and debated in the
Sub- Committee of the Constituent Assembly constituted for the purpose.
After due deliberations this motion was rejected on the ground that such
provisions were liable to be misinterpreted and misused.
The Constitution-makers had such
an apprehension in an era when politics was comparatively clean and political
leadership was saner. It is far worse now with many fascists masquerading
in the name of patriots and political leaders. Even a much more draconian
and repressive legislation like POTA is being blatantly abused and misused
and the states of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat are in the forefront here also.
In the event, state minions are bound to use anti-conversion laws as an
instrument for terrorising non-pliable minorities and their institutions.
Furthermore, it does not lie within the ambit of State governments to promulgate
Ordinances or enact legislation in a casual and cavalier manner on a matter
deliberated and decided upon by the Constitution makers.
The real purpose of these anti-conversion
laws is to place 'Hindutva' at the centrestage of the electoral battle
for some key states in 2003 and Parliament in 2004. This is borne from
the fact that frontal organisations of the Sangh Parivar - RSS, VHP, Bajrang
Dal and Hindu Munnani (Front) - as well as the BJP top leadership have
launched a vigorous campaign for enacting similar law for the whole country
by the Central Government. The hidden agenda is blatantly communal and
militates against the secular character and fabric of India. Because of
this agenda, religious minorities, living in peace for centuries, have
developed a fear psychosis and there is a widespread feeling of insecurity.
This is detrimental to the governance
of the country and will adversely affect the educational, healthcare and
charitable services that minority institutions are rendering to the poor
and disadvantaged. Vague definitions of ''allurement'' and use of words
like ''attempt to convert'' in the Bill leave enough scope for misuse,
harassment and victimisation of Christians and Muslims and others who carry
on commendable and socially valuable services ranging from education and
medical care to AIDS awareness and control under the auspices of institutions
established by religious networks or in the name of God. Protest against
the ant- conversion law has been simmering. Now that the Attorney-General
has spoken out, these legislations must go - lock, stock and barrel.
