Opinion Ram Madhav writes: What the current discourse on religious freedom gets wrong

The USCIRF’s reports have no sanctity outside the four walls of the US Congress. Yet, they have helped create a “religious freedom industry”. A breed of “religious freedom ambassadors” has emerged in over 30 countries.

Religious freedom, per se, is not contentious. Several democracies, including India, hold it as sacrosanct. Articles 25 to 30 of the Indian Constitution offer various freedoms to religions including the freedom of conscience, the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate, and the freedom to manage their affairs without state intervention. Minority religions enjoy positive discrimination by way of special rights to run educational and cultural institutions. The same rights are not available to the majority Hindu religion.

India is the only country where people of all religions, including several Christian denominations and Muslim sects, coexist in harmony. It’s not that there are no religious tensions, but they must be seen in the context of India’s population of a billion-plus Hindus, almost 200 million Muslims and 40 million Christians. In its long history, Hindu society has endured enormous religious persecution by invading Mughal armies as well as violent religious inquisitions by Christian rulers like the Portuguese in Goa. The country was partitioned in 1947 on religious grounds after a brutal and violent campaign led by the Muslim League.

That history has made the leaders of modern India recognise the need for strengthening the bond of national unity based not only on political and constitutional foundations but also on cultural and civilisational ethos. Religious bigotry and fundamentalism — majority or minority — were rejected and emphasis was laid on creating a national mainstream. For a vast and diverse country with a long history of religious strife, that’s not an easy task. Yet, occasional outbursts notwithstanding, India has achieved commendable success in demonstrating unity and harmony.

Still, India remained in the USCIRF’s crosshairs. There are two important reasons for that bias. One is that the commission places its religious freedom discourse in a Eurocentric framework. It refuses to take into account country-specific sensitivities. Two, it relies on scholars who are reportedly biased.

I was at a conference in Rome recently where the Atlantic Council’s initiative to view religious freedom from the prism of integral human development was the central theme. Propounded first by Jacques Maritain, a French Catholic philosopher, in 1936, and followed three decades later by Deendayal Upadhyaya, the ideological father figure of the BJP, Integral humanism emphasises the need to rise above religions to secure not only the material but ethical, moral and spiritual well-being of individuals. It advocates a pluralistic approach for achieving such an integral development.

It is imperative that the religious freedom discourse be situated in the national context to achieve a proper understanding of the role of religions in the integral growth of people. The Indian Constitution imposes reasonable restrictions on public order, morality and health on all fundamental rights, including the freedom of religion. That calls for religions that came from outside to internalise the cultural experience of India, in which pluralism and respect for all religions is an important basic principle. No religion can claim universality or superiority. Hence, in the Indian context, the religious narrative should shift from “one god” to “only god” — everything is divine —  and “one truth” to “only truth”.

Religious conversions are an important challenge in this context. In a landmark judgment in Rev. Stainislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court held that the right to “propagate” does not include the right to proselytise and hence there is no fundamental right to convert another person. The Court clarified that it does not impinge on the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution, but rather, protects it. It may be worthwhile to recall that Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis had criticised proselytism, albeit in the limited context of Catholics being won over by other denominations.

A proper understanding of the cultural and civilisational experiences of various nations helps in reframing the religious freedom discourse in the right perspective. Otherwise, the Atlantic Council’s efforts will also be seen as “a form of ‘cultural imperialism’ or a ‘Western’ endeavour with a hidden agenda”, to borrow from its own report.

The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP. Views are personal