POLICING FAITH: THE ERA OF ANTI-CONVERSION LAWS

- Helen McCloy

The main aim of anti-conversion legislation wielding in many states in India is to curb and possibly restrict forced alterations through inducement. The contemporary legislation dealing with such transfigurations has its roots back to many colonial statutes which enveloped a wide range of issues like public safety, defection and anti-conversion Acts in colonial India. The thesis for enacting such statutes mostly reckons on suppositions that if the people entangled were coerced or altered by their own consent.

The existing laws ubiquitous in India stresses upon two segments, i.e firstly that all those who have been converted might not have done it out of their own consent, and secondly, that certain sections and classes of people are more unguarded from constraint when it talks about conversion.

All the laws on anti-conversion embraced by the Indian states have been perused for their misty and exceptionally comprehensive vernacular which encounters with the fundamental right of freedom guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. The presumptions made by the present anti-conversion legislations fortify type caste of different sects and classes of the society being further primal and hence more vulnerable to oppression and control. Therefore , anti-conversion laws as other ‘defensive’ laws in this state of affairs draw a lot of checks as they regulate personal freedom and choices.

Indian History of Anti Conversion Laws The earliest anti-conversion laws were found in colonist India, established by the princely states in the course of the 1930s to 40s. These initial anti-conversion laws were formed in response to the overpowering of the British advocates to protect and halt the reduction of the traditional recognition of the princely states. Many of them had turned to this cause and enacted their anti- conversion laws like the Udaipur State Anti-Conversion Act, 19461, the Raigarh State Conversion Act, 1936, and many other states like Patna, Jodhpur, Bikaner. Following independence, various anti-conversion bills were initiated, and none of them gaining validity because of insufficiency of approved support. The first Bill repudiated was introduced in 1954 [Indian Conversion (Regulation and Registration) Bill2 ], looked for enforcing mandatory registration of transformation and licensing the pioneers. One more similar Bill was introduced in 1960 focusing on preventing the transformation of Hindus to different religions like Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Judaism, all those that were considered according to the Bill as ‘non-Indian religions’. And hence this Bill was known as the Backward Communities (Religious Protection) Bill.

Another Bill of this kind was the Freedom of Religion Bill that was introduced in 1979 focusing on limiting inter-religious conversions. Though all such bills were initiated, but were never validated as laws due to deficiency of parliamentary authorization. Scenario and status of anti-conversion statutes in independent India The footing of these laws across the complete nation was explicated by The Ministry Of Law And Justice3, which stated this type of attempted wrongdoing was not at all justifiable as it was purely a subject of the state. And because many Indian states had already administered their anti-conversion laws to prevent and control alterations which took place sue to threat, force, fraud, or any other ill-intentioned way. And therefore, states started calling their Freedom of Religion Acts in the 1960s in the wake of various ‘in vain’ experiments which were carried out to enforce an all nation anti-conversion statute. The first states to enforce such laws were Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. In the present day, only 8 out of 29 in India have enforced anti-conversion laws. These are Jharkhand, Odisha, Arunachal Pradesh, Uttrakhand, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, and Himachal Pradesh. The anti-conversion laws were explicitly aimed to prevent the conversion started by Muslims for non-muslim people in the 1980s and the alterations by Christian pioneers in the 1990s for encouraging operative recruit as a part of becoming a devout Christian, i.e familiar opinion widespread in the society. Even though there are differences in the laws ranging from state to state, but the principal aim of the statutes rests undistinguishable, i.e to restrict the capacity of people and societies to change from the religion of their ancestors to a different one, supporting that some sections of people, women, and children can be easily influences to transform and hence require shielding as anti-conversion legislations. The lodged Uttar Pradesh Ordinance looking for prohibition of “illegitimate” religious transformations speak for a die-hard march in the vicinity to intolerable medievalism and a disgraceful passion to

safeguard the individual existence as well as trust of natives. Unclogged for proclaimation by the governor, it doesn’t utilize the Islamophobic style that pioneers of Hindutva have been discussing about to show some inter-faith marriages, but it clearly embarks the aim. It abjures the phrase “freedom of religion” which various other anti-conversion laws in different States have used to name their legislations. Neverthless, evidently being inclined by such legislation in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, it has tried to inculcate “alluring into marriage” as a supplementary basis for terming an occasion of religious transformation being illegitimate, excluding the use of some words like “force, coercion, undue influence and deceit”. There is also a antecedent declaration assistance for an intended conversion. These suggestions were presented in a report of the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission4 last year. While the panel had suggested that alteration only for marriage should be termed null and void, but the State’s statement on the ordinance tells that it declares marriages solemnised solely for conversion as invalid. While sustaining the rationality of the Freedom of Religion Acts of Madhya Pradesh and Odisha, in Stanislaus (1977)5, the Supreme Court had held that the “right to propagate” a religion did not incorporate the “right to convert”. Nevertheless, those early legislations did not barricade the alterations through marriage. The Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and the proposed U.P. legislations would be endangered in that regard. After the Court’s “right to prvacy”6, and the Shafin Jahan-Hadiya Case (2018)7, the usage of “marriage” as a basis for restricting conversion would not be constitutional, because it incorporates the rights of privacy, choice and marital freedom. On the other hand, all such precedent legislations were appreciated as “public order” legislation — the assertion is that “forced” or “fraudulent” alterations caused interference in order. An inter-faith marriage, on its own, is dubious to be appreciated by the courts as a circumstance influencing public interests. Hence, making marriage simpliciter a ground for rendering conversion illegal may not get through judicial check. Doubtless to keep away from this space, the U.P. ordinance uses the phrase “allurement by marriage”, but its capacity of dissipation is the alike.

Moreover, the amenities on compulsory advanced announcement of an objective to alter is alike to the one floored by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2012 as violating the right to keep one’s faith a secret. It is unsettling that many States are eager to connect to this bandwagon in odds with inter- marriages notwithstanding its capacity for intensifying communal conflicts and collective dissect. Loopholes existing in the law and possible solutions While there is cause to fancy that some alterations are simply a sham, the present anti- conversion legislations give space for mistakes that may give cause to tyranny and abuse by dominions. The undetermined and hazy expression shows a concequential route to tyranny, the terms used in the anti-conversion laws give space to ambiguities or are too broad, widening to topics far away from the protection of religious independence. This plan of action doesn’t seem to be inspired by the point to shelter the minorities but might be an anxious effort to limit and prohibit conversions. These unclear and cryptic titles leave a flaw for wrongdoers to use them prejudicially, violating right of freedom that they seek to promise. The definition of conversion itself shows an additional pitfall of the anti-conversion laws. As seen above the definition differs from state to state and also in some states like Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh it means rejecting domestic belief to embrace another, whereas in others like Gujarat it means to make someone surrender their native faith to make them embrace another. These two definitions cause different connotations that might be gloomy and ineffective to the offered motive of the legislation, i.e protect freedom of religion. Another concern is that the existing anti-conversion legislations aim more on the prevention of alteration to accomplish religious freedom. But the broad terms used by the preventive laws might be used by dominions to harass and discriminate against minorities.

The definition of the terms used to pick out unlawful transformations, that is, force, allurement, inducement, fraud, and others violate the religious rights of certain religions. The explanation of terms like allurement and inducement may incorporate inside their scope the conversion affairs that form an integral part of practice and propagation of religion which is protected as a fundamental right under the Constitution.

The principle that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 comes from Shafin Jahan vs Asokan.8 The order obstructing criminal action against those entering into a valid inter-faith marriage accounts to a notable judicial pushback against disconcerting efforts by States to provoke communal divides by dubious legislation.

Article 259 itself shows an extra issue related to these legislations, whereas the Article guarantees one’s right to profess and propagate religion it also holds it to some limits. No person shall force their religious faith and hence, no person should be forced to practice any religion against their will.10 The perverted explanation of this provision gives a bet when trying to limit false alterations and trying to ensure an person’s right to choose and propagate their religion.

Conclusion

It is unfortunate that Hindutva pioneers carry on to trust the medieval-minded laws which were against inter faith couples. Irrespective of straight rulings of the Supreme Court that it is no more constitutional to police private lives and beliefs, sections in the polity still believe that inter- religious marriages are aimed at religious conversions, that they have a bad impact on public order and comprised compulsion or fraud.

References

1 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/explained-history-of-anti-conversion-laws-in- india/articleshow/79472537.cms 2 https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Constitutional%20and%20Legal%20Challenges%20Faced%20by%20Reli gious%20Minorities%20in%20India.pdf

3 https://lawmin.gov.in/

4 https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/up-law-panel-moots-legislation-to-check-religious- conversions/article30039698.ece 5 Rev. Stainislaus vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors 1977 AIR 908, 1977 SCR (2) 611 6 https://www.thehindu.com/news/resources/supreme-court-verdict-on-right-to-privacy/article19551827.ece 7 https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/hadiya-case-courts-cannot-annul-marriage-between-two-consenting- adults-says-supreme-court/article22823474.ece