How would Shivraj govt have acted in ‘Ghar Vapsi’ ?

Rakesh Dixit

On November 4 this year, Bajrang Dal activists mercilessly beat up over half a dozen Christians in Kotla village near Bhopal, accusing them of attempting to convert Hindus. A month before, Hindutva activists had forced the Alirajpur district administration to ban a Christian gathering that was being organised in the backdrop of marriage of a Christian boy with a Hindu girl. In the same month two Dalit youths in Shivpuri districts were booked for converting to Islam under the MP Freedom of Religion Act 1968 in Shivpuri district. They were  charged with converting their wives too.

In the backdrop of the three incidents, it is interesting to surmise how would have the Shivraj Singh Chouhan  government acted if the raging controversy on religious reconversion, euphemistically  dubbed as “Ghar Vapasi” had taken place in Madhya Pradesh ,not Uttar Pradesh ? Would the government have booked members of the Hindutva outfit that organised reconversion of 25 Muslim families to Hinduism under the provisions of the MP Freedom of religious Act, 1968 ?

The act provides a jail term of one year for forcible conversions. The term is up to two years when the convert is a minor, a woman or a member of SC/ST. In fact, the obstinate convertors of Agra would have faced a jail term up to three years or a fine up to Rs 50,000, or both, if the state government’s MP Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2013 had got the Presidential assent.

The amendment stipulates more stringent action for conversion using force, allurement or any other fraudulent means. When the person being converted is a minor, a woman or an SC/ST, the jail term will extend up to four years and fine up to Rs 1 lakh.

Mercifully, the obnoxious spectacle of ‘Ghar Vapsi’ has not occurred in Madhya Pradesh. BJP in the state is too strong to need such provocative tactic for polarising voters for votes. The government has admitted that cases of forced conversion in the state are negligible.

Nevertheless, the Shivraj government’s not-so-covert support to the Bajrang Dal and VHP was evident.  In the Alirajpur incident, the superintendent of police (SP) buckled under the Hindutva outfit’s pressure to declare the marriage between Joseph Pawar and Ayushi Wani null and void. The couple was arrested in Gujarat where they had gone to get married and brought back to Jorbat. . However, Ayushi refused to return to her parents and was brought to the Nari Niketan Trust, an association that welcomes and supports women ,who are widowed, divorced and poor.

About the Shivpuri incident, the police said Maniram Jatav, resident of Khanidana village, embraced Islam two years ago, changed his name to Abdullah and started a small business in the area. Maniram then lured Tularam Jatav, a labour for religious conversion, said police. Tularam changed his name to Abdul Kareem in 2013. The matter surfaced after he forced his wife to embrace Islam. She reported the matter to her family who subsequently approached an organization and got a complaint registered.

“Maniram is a convert and also the convertor. Investigations revealed that both of them had violated the law for religion conversion,” said SS Jadon, station house officer (SHO) of Khanidana police station where the FIR was registered. During investigations Tularam alias Abdul Kareem submitted an affidavit that he wanted to be a Hindu again.

Not only were the accused and their wives were arrested, but Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal activists ensured that they were reconverted to Hinduism.

A number of applications for religious conversion now lie with the state government, which refuses to act on them, even as right-wing organisations threatened punitive measures such as the destruction of standing crops and dispossession of land and other property for Dalits who dare to convert in the future. In Madhya Pradesh, it seems, conversions are banned if they take place away from Hinduism.

Before the last assembly elections, the BJP government had proposed the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2013 against the 1968 legislation mandating prior permission was compulsory. It also provides for a stringent jail term for forcible conversions.

While the 1968 legislation provided a jail term of one year for forcible conversions, the proposed bill stipulates a jail term   up to three years or a fine up to Rs 50,000, or both, for conversion done using force, allurement or any other fraudulent means.

A  move by the MP government to pass a similar amendment in 2006 was rejected by the President on grounds that it will violate freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution because it insists on prior permission.

While British India had no anti-conversion laws, in the post-independence era, Parliament took up for consideration in 1954 the Indian Conversion (Regulation and Registration) Bill and later in 1960 the Backward Communities (Religious Protection) Bill. Both had to be dropped for lack of support.

However, in 1968, MP government enacted Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam 1968. The law made forced conversion a cognisable offence under sections 295 A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code that stipulate that malice and deliberate intention to hurt the sentiments of others is a penal offence punishable for varying durations of imprisonment and fines.

In the act, the punishment was to be doubled if the offence had been committed in respect of a minor, a woman or a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.

It was clear that the law was aimed to keep the low caste Hindus within the fold of Hinduism. And so while the law prohibits conversion, `reconversion’ of low caste Hindus is permissible. If a low caste Hindu who had converted to another faith or any of his descendants reconverts to Hinduism, he might get back his original caste (Kailash Sonkar (1984) 2 SCC 91; S. Raja Gopal AIR 1969 SC 101). The law got a shot in the arm in 1977 when the then chief justice of India AN Ray ruled that propagation of religion is different from conversion. The controversial ruling came in the case challenging the validity of the Madhya Pradesh and Orissa Acts. The case is known in the annals of judicial history as Reverend Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1977 SC 908) and Yulitha v. State of Orissa and others.

Justice Ray expressed the view that “what Article 25(1) of the Constitution grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion by exposition of its tenets.” On the question of legislative competence, the court was of the opinion that since any attempt at conversion was likely to result in a breach of public order affecting the community at large, the State legislatures would have the competence to enact legislation which is likely to avoid disturbances to the public order by prohibiting conversion from one religion to another in a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the community.

In the light of the court judgement, two priests and a nun were sentenced to imprisonment on the charge of forcible conversion by a Raigarh court in Madhya Pradesh. This despite a written communication sent to the District Magistrate, the SDM and the SO (Police) claiming they had changed their religion voluntarily and without any allurement.

Conversion is often a core part of religion. In fact, in Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, if the Supreme Court had consulted the Constituent Assembly records it would have found that “propagation” in Article 25 explicitly refers to the right to convert. An amendment to remove the word “propagation” was even defeated in the assembly.

In fact, restricting conversion not only violates the right to religion but also the right to free speech. Moreover, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ensures that a person’s right to religion also includes the “freedom to change his religion or belief“.

The state has no business policing the religious beliefs of its citizens; neither is it in a position to allow or disallow a change of faith if India is to be a liberal state.

With the rise of Hindutva forces in 1990 in MP, voices against conversions to Christianity have become more strident.

In 2013, the Shivraj Singh government amended  the anti-conversion legislation to provide for prior permission compulsory and a stringent jail term for forcible conversions.

He bill seeks to amend the 1968 legislation on the ground that it stipulated lesser punishment, and was, therefore, ineffective to stop conversions.

While the 1968 legislation required the priest to inform the district magistrate after the conversion ceremony, the amendment proposes to make it compulsory for the priest to take a prior permission for the proposed conversion. The amendment proposes that even the newly convert will have to inform authorities within a stipulated time.

The BJP government had passed a similar amendment in 2006 but the President rejected it, saying it violated the freedom of religion guaranteed in the constitution because it insists on prior permission.

The amended legislation had been sent to the President by then Governor Balram Jakhar.  The governor also asked the state government to give details of conversions that took place in each district of the state.

.

|