The T.N. anti-conversion ordinance
and Article 25By Valson Thampu
The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, is doing her best to espouse the Hindutva cause. It must be said to her credit that whatever she does, she does in style. So she has, in respect of the anti-conversion ordinance too. Understandably, the Sangh circles are elated; especially the BJP president Venkaiah Naidu.
But, unfortunately for them, an overwhelming majority of the people still remain sensible and fair, as the early media responses amply prove. They are perplexed and ask if there is any need at all to come up with an ordinance against conversion at the present time.
What are the ground realities in respect of conversion?
The Sangh mouthpieces caricature and denounce conversions as a calculated strategy on the part of Muslims and Christians to wipe out Hinduism from the land of its birth. They allege, further, that large-scale mass conversions are taking place and that every conversion is effected by ``force, fraud or inducement''. The evidence by which this conclusion is arrived at is kept a closely guarded secret, though.
There is hardly any credible explanation, besides, for the following facts. For all the tens and thousands of conversions allegedly effected by unfair means by Muslims and Christians, the demographic progression still remains in favour of Hindus, who comprise 82 per cent of the population. As a matter of fact, the Christian community has, in the last four decades (1971-2001), shown a steady demographic decline. Christians were 2.6 per cent of the Indian population in 1971. They dwindled to 2.43 per cent in 1981 and to 2.34 per cent in 1991.
According to Census 2001, Christians comprise only 2.18 per cent of the population of India. This puts in perspective the merit of the allegation that large-scale conversions by Christians endanger the very survival of Hinduism in India.
How well-founded is the allegation that all conversions are effected by `force, fraud or inducement'? This question was addressed ably by Justice Wadhwa Commission Report that puts together the findings in respect of the assassination of Graham Staines and his two sons, Philip and Timothy. Orissa was the first State in India to have formulated what is ironically named ``Freedom of Religion Act (1967)''; an example that was followed, the very next year, by Madhya Pradesh. The report records that there were 10 conversions-related complaints in Orissa since 1994, as per the records made available to the Commission of Inquiry. None has resulted in any conviction. To the best of our knowledge, no bona fide case of conversion by unfair means has been proved or punished anywhere in this country so far.
What politicians like Ms. Jayalalithaa do not know is that conversion is the last resort for a human being. We know how upset we feel when even a small habit of ours is disturbed. If so, it is easy to see how difficult it is for a human being to be uprooted from his familiar religious terrain and transplanted in a different spiritual soil.
Why do people convert in spite of this? The fact of the matter is that the Dalits/SCs and STs of this country are trapped in such unimaginable humiliation and degradation that they are `forced' to flee from their familiar home in search of freedom and dignity. If `force' plays a role in conversions, it is mostly force of this kind and it is generated not by those who `propagate' their faiths, but by the oppressive and inhuman caste system. As of today, a Dalit who converts, say to Christianity, stands to lose a great deal in terms of statutory benefits like reservation. Almost invariably, the converts are ostracised and disowned by their people. Several live with or flee from hostile social environments. Conversion rarely brings any direct economic relief into their lives. Any improvement in the socio-economic status of the converts results, as the Wadhwa Commission Report points out in respect of the converts in Mayurbhanj and Keonjhar (Orissa), from a reformation in their lifestyles and religious practices. The converts to Christianity, the Report notes, give up drinking and ritual sacrifices. The money thus saved leads to an improvement in quality of life.
Ordinances like what Ms. Jayalalithaa has now crafted serve only to raise the communal temperatures in our country and fuel the fire of intolerance. Those who have read the Wadhwa Commission Report sensitively could not have missed the subtle connection it establishes, albeit implicitly, between the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1967 and the murder of Graham Staines. Till this legislative measure was put in place, the resentment against missionary work in general and conversion in particular had only a subjective and incoherent basis. The moment matters of conscience like conversion are legislated upon from an obstructionist standpoint, this allergy acquires an air of objectivity and legitimacy. With this, the issue of conversion moves from the zone of resentment to that of righteous indignation. Those who practise and propagate their faith, as sanctioned under Article 25 of the Constitution, are seen thereafter as anti-social and anti-national elements. It becomes a religious duty, so to speak, to limit or liquidate them.Article 25 of the Constitution grants to every Indian citizen the ``right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.'' In interpreting the scope of this key provision, due emphasis must fall on the word, `freely'. What this implies is obvious from `Explanation 1' incorporated into this section of the Constitution. It reads, ``The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion''. To `freely' profess one's faith is, thus, to profess it in fidelity to its essential genius and uniqueness.
Anyone who knows the biblical faith would readily agree that the duty to preach and propagate the faith is at least as integral to Christianity as sword is to Sikhism. ``Preach the gospel in season and out of season,'' is the instruction that the Bible gives to its followers. Jesus called the disciples to send them out with the Good News. No one can be a practitioner of the way of Christ without ``wearing and carrying'' the Gospel, as the Sikhs are to do in respect of kirpans.
To insist that Christians should practice their faith without the freedom to propagate it is to say, in effect, that they are free to profess their faith not `freely' but only as dictated by Hindus who comprise the brute majority. Because Hinduism is not a propagating faith, in spite of the VHP, no other faith, in exercising the freedom to `freely' profess their faith, shall be free to `propagate' their religion. If they do, it will violate the freedom of the Hindus to `freely' profess their faith. This is the judicial wisdom obtained, as of today. This makes a mockery of Article 25 of the Constitution.
That being the case it is not clear as to how the Hon'ble judges of the Supreme Court, in Stanislaus vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh could come to the conclusion that the right to propagate does not imply the right to convert. Between propagation and conversion, there exists a relationship of cause and effect. Propagation is the cause and conversion the effect. To say that a person can have recourse to the cause but should not be free to bring about its effect is to take a curious position, to say the least.
(The writer is a peace activist)