Right to convert

Debate on the topic of conversion frequently generates heat. One main reason is that conversion has acquired a sinister connotation on account of aggressive proselytisation practised by Muslim and Christian state authorities in the past.

Debate on the topic of conversion frequently generates heat. One main reason is that conversion has acquired a sinister connotation on account of aggressive proselytisation practised by Muslim and Christian state authorities in the past. Conversion really consists in persuading a person to change his opinion or belief or his way of life by convincing him about the truth and soundness of the tenets of another religion or creed or political system and for adopting it. For example, exhorting people to discard the capitalist system and its practices and to opt for the Marxist or socialist system, and vice versa. Again, people may be persuaded to discard organised religion, its rituals and superstitious practices and to accept rationalist philosophy.

It is argued that no one should be persuaded to leave the religion of his birth and embrace another. Why should the choice be not left to the individual? There have been and can be genuine conversions resulting from study, reflection and inner conviction and also from attraction to a particular religion. Many Dalits have converted to Islam and Christianity in order to escape the scourge of untouchability. Several Christians, especially blacks in America, disillusioned with the practice of Christianity, have converted to Islam and some have embraced the Hindu faith or the Bahai religion.

Some states in India have passed laws prohibiting conversion from one religion to another by use of force or allurement or by fraudulent means. Indisputably, conversions brought about by these means are not genuine and should not be permitted. The infirmity in these laws, however, is the provision that whoever converts any person from one religion to another by performing any ceremony has to send intimation to the district magistrate about it in a prescribed form. The Gujarat legislation further provides that whoever proposes to convert any person from one religion to another has to take permission from the district magistrate, and furthermore, the person who is converted has also to send intimation to the district magistrate about his conversion.

Legislation by the Chhattisgarh government goes one step further and stipulates that the district magistrate may permit or refuse to permit any person to convert any person from one religious faith to another. Failure to comply with these statutory provisions invites severe punishment of imprisonment and fine. These provisions are thoroughly objectionable. They intrude on a person’s right of privacy and his liberty of conscience. One’s religious belief is essentially a private matter, as is conversion from one’s religion to another. In a secular democratic state which recognises plurality of religions, no person should be subjected to the approval of another person or statutory authority for the free exercise of his choice of religion or belief. These provisions of anti-conversion laws have the inevitable practical effect of deterring genuine conversions and thus impair the substance of religious freedom.

The Human Rights Committee, constituted under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights 1966, which our country has ratified, in its General Comment No.22 (48) on Article 18 relating to freedom of religion has observed that “the freedom to ‘have or to adopt’ a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including, inter alia, the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another”. The right to change one’s religion and replace it with another is clearly recognised.

The crux of the matter is that an individual should be free to choose his god, his religion, his creed and his way of life according to his conscience. That is the essence of freedom of religion, which is one of the foundations of a democratic society that recognises plurality of religions. Our effort should be to preserve pluralism and also to foster the spirit of religious tolerance and broadmindedness and not to prevent genuine conversions by imposing direct or indirect restrictions. Osama bin Laden’s recent exhortation to Americans to embrace Islam, which, according to him, would lead to the end of war and violence, is a unique joke of this century.