In November 2019, the Law Commission of Uttar Pradesh, citing the increase in incidents of forced or fraudulent religious conversions, recommended the adoption of a new law regulating religious conversions. This prompted the state government to issue the most recent ordinance. The Karnataka state government has revived the debate on religious conversions, reviving an old law that has been put on hold several times over the years due to the great controversy it causes each time. This time, however, with a majority government led by Basavaraj Bommai of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the anti-conversion law was passed for the first time in the state. Karnataka was not the first Indian State to enact a law that impeded the fundamental right to religious freedom, which was limited not only to the practice of one`s religion, but also to the decision to practice the religion to which one aspired. One of the first reasons why an anti-conversion law was drafted in an Indian state was that there would have been an alleged increase in the number of people from Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and other backward classes (OBC) communities of Hinduism and converted to minority religions. The reasons why we need this law in all the states of India are actually quite ambiguous. Politicians are often seen in the media saying that minorities in India could overtake the Hindu population due to the forced conversions that take place again and again. The reality is far from there. This was followed by the introduction of the Backward Communities (Religious Protection) Act in 1960, “which aimed to examine the conversion of Hindus to `non-Indian religions`, which, as defined in the bill, included Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism.” Patil writes: The undisputed paradox is that, although such a reversal is widely accepted, the concept of conversion to Hinduism is considered totally unacceptable.
In India today, we see a lot of fanfare and media reports associated with adivasis when they convert again. Here, the fact that they may never have been Hindus always seems to be lost sight of. Finally, can we situate the Adivasi as those who were “born Hindus”? Nevertheless, there seems to be a logic that accepts their return to Hinduism without doubting their original Hindu identity. In other words, their Hindu identity is taken for granted, making reconversion quite possible, acceptable and, if necessary, justifiable. In all this there is a series of contradictions that homogenize all sections of Adivasi and outcasts as Hindus. While for the Adivasi and outcasts, this implies their “integration” into the Varna order, can the latter really be considered Hindus while being located as the outcasts of the Other? Jeff King, President of the ICC, said: “Anti-conversion laws are a serious violation of human rights as they aim to punish freedom of conscience and freedom of choice. We have seen a growing trend in India, where states are passing anti-conversion laws, and in each of these places we have seen an increase in attacks on Christians. These types of laws increase the vulnerability of all minority groups instead of providing protection. Hindu nationalists consider Hinduism to be the true religion of India, so when an Indian “returns” to Hinduism, it is not considered a “conversion” of another faith, but a “Ghar Wapsi” or “return home”: they are therefore exempt from anti-conversion laws.
Rajeshwar Singh, one of the leaders of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a militant Hindu nationalist group, said in national media that the RSS would liberate India from Christians and Muslims by December 31, 2021. One way to achieve this is through forced “reconversions”. Hundreds of Christians have been forced by intimidation and pressure to return to Hinduism over the past year. According to research from the U.S. Library of Congress (LOC), laws restricting religious conversions were originally introduced by princely states ruled by Hindu royal families during the British colonial era — particularly in the second half of the 1930s and 1940s. Vij told the legislature that the bill “will prevent religious conversion through violence, incitement, bluffing marriage or other unethical methods” and will provide for “strict measures against the guilty.” Hp`s amended 2022 legislation inserts a specific mention of “mass conversion” into the 2019 law, which “prohibits changing religion through violence or temptation” and increases the penalty for forced conversion from seven years to a maximum of 10 years. The 2006 amendment sought to establish specifications in the “convert” category by stipulating that “the provisions do not apply to denominational conversion of the same religion.” The Buddhist and Jain communities rejected it and the bill was also withdrawn in 2008. Those who resist conversion perceive it as a subversion, as an atrocity, as an “adharma”. Those who promote conversion consider above all that it is enlightening to save others by sharing their beliefs and beliefs, although for converts it can also be a protest against religious and secular oppression, as a quest for improvement, spiritual and otherwise. It is always a complex process of changing social identities and affirming human dignity, although their ability to act is too often not recognized, even when converts actually suffer for their Dharmantar. Converts, like everyone else, have mixed motivations, but this does not nullify their freedom of choice. Instead of fighting to maintain the old status quo, a constructive approach would be reactive politics and economic justice, religious reform and cultural renewal.
Protection against proselytism is rightly seen today as a response to a community`s right to its own religious tradition, as is the right to its own language and culture. But if they are concerned only with religious conversions and not with the miserable situation of their people, can resistance to their conversion be justified on religious grounds? What kind of religious community would be indifferent to the misery of its oppressed members and still oppose their wanting to leave it? What is confirmed here and what is denied? The law states that “no one may convert another person, directly or otherwise, from one religion to another, or attempt to convert him by false statements, violence, undue influence, coercion, temptation, or by fraudulent means or marriage, and a person may not facilitate or conspire such conversion.” Any “Damaged Peron” or his “parents or siblings” can file a complaint with the court. Several other states have followed the path of ordinances, including Uttar Pradesh, India`s largest state, in 2020. The authorities replaced the ordinance with a law in March 2021. Finally, an EPW editorial on the issues raised by conversion: India`s first anti-conversion law, passed in the state of Madhya Pradesh in 1967. In recent years, as the Hindu nationalist Bhartiya Janta (BJP) party came to power across India, the party began promising these laws frequently in election campaigns. The northern state of Haryana was the 11th Indian state to consider passing a law against religious conversions amid protests by opposition members who called it a “divisive policy.” In addition, in the case of allegations of forced conversion, the law stipulates that the burden of proof lies with the accused.
