Convert not, fear not: Jaya

In a detailed statement, she said: ‘‘I wish to allay the fears and suspicion of all minority groups whose yeoman service for the welfare of the needy is acknowledge by all, that this ordinance does not in any way encroach upon their freedom. It seeks to protect the weaker sections in society from exploitation.’’

She referred to a 1977 Supreme Court verdict that had held that the right to propagate one’s religion (by advocacy or preaching) did not include the right to convert another.

Pooh-poohing the Opposition charges that she had identified herself with the Hindutva bandwagon for political gains, she said: ‘‘The AIADMK is a value-based party that acts out of its own ideological convictions and does not need to hitch itself to the Hindutva or any other bandwagon to subserve any electoral interest.’’

The AIADMK regime, that derived its strength from the Dravidian ideals of Periyar, Anna, and MGR had always stood for protecting the weak and downtrodden in society, she said.

The AIADMK’s traditions had always emphasised that one’s religion was a matter of personal faith, thereby upholding the dignity and freedom of the individual. The ordinance only prevented any religion from being brought out in the market and being ‘‘converted’’ into a purchasable commodity. ‘‘I have never ever tolerated such concepts.’’

‘‘A simple reading of the ordinance will show that it contains no reference to any particular religion,’’ she said.

‘‘It clearly recognises and provides for action to be taken to arrest a disturbing trend found in various parts of the state, as reported and documented, where inducements, monetary and material, fraudulent and clandestine, have been adopted by some persons and institutions to convert people to another religion, capitalising on their poverty, illiteracy and ignorance.’’

The state had a duty to make laws to protect its citizens from exploitation by such unscrupulous elements.

Surely, Article 25 of the Constitution, that guaranteed the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, did not extend to a licence to secure a change in the religious denomination of the individual against his/her will by exploiting the vulnerable state of his/her mind in conditions of extreme poverty or illiteracy.