Conversion, fruit of intolerance

A seminal question which beca-me a matter of national debate in the context of the visit of the Pope, who has committed himself to conver...

A seminal question which beca-me a matter of national debate in the context of the visit of the Pope, who has committed himself to converting Asia, is whether organised conversion by any religious group is a secular activity.

While secularism is integral to the basic structure of the Constitution, the concept evolved in the West in the Middle Ages to divest the religious authority of control over the political authority. Secularism meant that the State or political authority should be independent of the church. In India, religious leaders have never exercised any control over the political authority. The ancient Indian constitutional law, the Rajadharma, did not recognise the authority of religious leaders to interfere with the political power of the king. Religious leaders had a purely advisory role, tendering opinion when it was sought or suo motu on matters of public interest. There used to be a process of consultation, not of confrontation.

Therefore, India never had a State religion, for Rajadharma, which was part of Hindudharma, did not prescribe or permit the declaration of any religion as State religion. Besides, Rajadharma made it clear that the State was under an obligation to afford equal protection to all religions. Narada Smriti vide Dharmakosha, p. 870 laid down thus: quot;The king should afford protection to compacts of associations of believers of the Vedas Naigamas as also of disbelievers Pashadis and of othersquot;. This is why no Hindu king has ever persecuted anyone on the ground of religion. Thus, it is clear that in the Indian context, secularism meant respect for all religions as distinct from mere tolerance of other religions. This respect is part and parcel of Hinduism, to which theocracy is unknown. In fact, they cannot co-exist any more than light and darkness.

It is because of this history that secularism became a basic element of the Cons-titution. Article 25 confers the fundamental right to every citizen to practice his religion and Article 15 prohibits religious discrimination. In the Constitution, secularism implies respect for all religions, without discrimination. So the very idea or desire to convert flows from disrespect or intolerance towards other religions. Those who practice conversion claim that the fundamental right to practice and propagate religion includes the right to convert.

It is a settled rule that the meaning of the Constitution8217;s provisions should be understood in the light of its basic elem-ents. Whether the fundamental right to practice and propagate religion includes the right to convert has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rev Sta-nislaus vs Madhya Pradesh 19772 S.C.C. 611 at Page 616 in which the constitutional validity of the laws enacted by Madhya Pr-adesh and Orissa, which prohibited conversion, was challenged. The Court ruled thus: quot;What the Article grants is not the ri-ght to convert another person to one8217;s own religion, but to transmit or spread one8217;s religion by an exposition of its tenets.quot;

Article 251 guarantees freedom of conscience to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion, and that, in turn, postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert because it would impinge on the other8217;s freedom of conscience. Having held that the fundamental right to practice religion does not include the right to convert, the Apex Court upheld the constitutional validity of the two laws, holding that they were meant to avoid disturbances to public order.

In view of this, it is clear that planned conversion leads to the disruption of social harmony. Further, it brings about estrangement between blood relations who get converted and those who do not.

Story continues below this ad

Christian missionaries say that they serve humanity by providing education and health services to the weaker sections. This is laudable, provided it is bereft of the desire for converting the beneficiaries of these services.For the aforesaid reasons, it is obvious that organised conversion, whether by force or fraud or by providing help or allurement to persons, taking undue advantage of their poverty and ignorance is anti-secular. Respect for all religions is the essence of our secularism, whereas religious intolerance constitutes the basis of planned conversion. Therefore, conversion cannot be a secular activity.

The writer is a former chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court