After a long wait, the High Court of the Indian State of Himachal Pradesh issued its judgment in a case challenging the state's "Freedom of Religion Act" (its anti-conversion law). Read the full opinion here and a very brief news account here.
A couple of thoughts. First, it was good to see that the High Court struck down the requirement that one give 30-days notice of intent to convert (pars. 22-37). (The Court was especially piqued that there was no such requirement if the conversion is to one's earlier religion.) I was also heartened to see that the High Court affirmed the fundamental right to convert in the face of a spirited argument that no such right exists (at least from Hinduism). Finally, it is not surprising that the Court didn't consider the constitutionality of the provision of the Act making it a crime to convert someone because India's Supreme Court has clearly held that no such right exists under the Constitution of India.
Thus, the High Court upheld the validity of the law's prohibition of conversion by force, fraud, or inducement. Indeed. But the rub isn't that the law prohibits what should never be done but that the law as applied permits anyone to claim that such has happened. That such initial complaints are rarely if ever prosecuted does little to comfort those who may have spent some days in jail awaiting an initial disposition. On the one hand, the High Court paid short-shrift to this recurrent phenomenon by noting merely that "when the provisions of the Act are misused, the affected party can approach the Court for redressal." (Par 12). On the other, it implicitly admitted there was a problem when it ordered the authorities of Himachal Pradesh to resolve a prosecution for forcible conversion that has been languishing for over three years (par. 48).
While the High Court clearly upheld the right of one to propagate one's religion, the Court went on, gratuitously, it seems to me, to observe that "the right to propagate one's religion may entitle a person to extol the virtues of the religion which he propounds [but not] to denigrate any other religion, thought or belief." (Par. 16). What statements amount to a denigration of a religion will necessarily vary with the one who hears. The High Court thus upheld in effect the criminalization of "defamation of region," something that the United Nations decried only a year ago (read General Comment 34 of the Human Rights Committee here or a brief discussion of it here). It will be interesting to see how India's Supreme Court deals with the High Court's obiter dicta if this matter is appealed.
Enough discussion of the opinion for now. Some thoughts about its relevance to the American scene in the near future.
(In any event, however, before the Court's judgment is finally published, someone should let the judges know that it was not St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) who came to India in 52 A.D. (par. 15) but Jesus' disciple, the Apostle Thomas. A quick correction could save some long-term embarrassment.)
A couple of thoughts. First, it was good to see that the High Court struck down the requirement that one give 30-days notice of intent to convert (pars. 22-37). (The Court was especially piqued that there was no such requirement if the conversion is to one's earlier religion.) I was also heartened to see that the High Court affirmed the fundamental right to convert in the face of a spirited argument that no such right exists (at least from Hinduism). Finally, it is not surprising that the Court didn't consider the constitutionality of the provision of the Act making it a crime to convert someone because India's Supreme Court has clearly held that no such right exists under the Constitution of India.
Thus, the High Court upheld the validity of the law's prohibition of conversion by force, fraud, or inducement. Indeed. But the rub isn't that the law prohibits what should never be done but that the law as applied permits anyone to claim that such has happened. That such initial complaints are rarely if ever prosecuted does little to comfort those who may have spent some days in jail awaiting an initial disposition. On the one hand, the High Court paid short-shrift to this recurrent phenomenon by noting merely that "when the provisions of the Act are misused, the affected party can approach the Court for redressal." (Par 12). On the other, it implicitly admitted there was a problem when it ordered the authorities of Himachal Pradesh to resolve a prosecution for forcible conversion that has been languishing for over three years (par. 48).
While the High Court clearly upheld the right of one to propagate one's religion, the Court went on, gratuitously, it seems to me, to observe that "the right to propagate one's religion may entitle a person to extol the virtues of the religion which he propounds [but not] to denigrate any other religion, thought or belief." (Par. 16). What statements amount to a denigration of a religion will necessarily vary with the one who hears. The High Court thus upheld in effect the criminalization of "defamation of region," something that the United Nations decried only a year ago (read General Comment 34 of the Human Rights Committee here or a brief discussion of it here). It will be interesting to see how India's Supreme Court deals with the High Court's obiter dicta if this matter is appealed.
Enough discussion of the opinion for now. Some thoughts about its relevance to the American scene in the near future.
(In any event, however, before the Court's judgment is finally published, someone should let the judges know that it was not St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) who came to India in 52 A.D. (par. 15) but Jesus' disciple, the Apostle Thomas. A quick correction could save some long-term embarrassment.)
You have correctly pointed out the primary concern civil soicety has with these laws. The vague and imprecise definitions can be understood and misunderstood to mean so many differnt things. A similar law calling for the regulation and registration of converts was sought to be introduced in the Indian Parliament in 1955. The then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, said: “I fear this bill... will not help very much in suppressing the evil methods [of gaining converts], but might very well be the cause of great harassment to a large number of people. Also, we have to take into consideration that, however carefully you define these matters, you cannot find really proper phraseology for them. Some members of this House may remember that this very question, in its various aspects, was considered in the Constituent Assembly, [and] before the Constituent Assembly formally met, by various sub-committees... Ultimately, Sardar Patel got up and said, ‘Let there be no heat about this matter – because there was heat – it is obvious that three committees have considered this matter and have not arrived at any conclusion which is generally accepted. After that, they came to the conclusion that it is better not to have any such thing because they could not find a really adequate formula which could not be abused later on.’
ReplyDelete“The major evils of coercion and deception can be dealt with under the general law. It may be difficult to obtain proof but so is it difficult to obtain proof in the case of many other offences, but to suggest that there should be a licensing system for propagating a faith is not proper. It would lead in its wake to the police having too large a power of interference.”
The parliament, accepting his advice, rejected the bill. It had the support of only one member, the rest of the House being opposed to its adoption.
India would do well to heed his sagely advice today.
It is not surprising that someone who supports proselytizing aspect of Chrostianity would find the part of judgement: "....[but not] to denigrate any other religion, thought or belief." not acceptable. To denigrate something with absolute scientific proof would and should be acceptable, but not plain claims(Historical and theist) and demonisation of other religions, where scientific proof of what Jesus promises is true can only be believed but not given. It is the same for all religions. It would be wrong for christians to demonise other religions(Hinduism) and thus ask Hindus to follow christianity.
ReplyDeleteIt is not surprising that someone who supports proselytizing aspect of Chrostianity would find the part of judgement: "....[but not] to denigrate any other religion, thought or belief." not acceptable. To denigrate something with absolute scientific proof would and should be acceptable, but not plain claims(Historical and theist) and demonisation of other religions, where scientific proof of what Jesus promises is true can only be believed but not given. It is the same for all religions. It would be wrong for christians to demonise other religions(Hinduism) and thus ask Hindus to follow christianity.
ReplyDeleteKiran -- My concern about criminalization (criminalisation) comes not from my Christian beliefs but from my experience in law, including defending those charged with crimes. If whether certain words amount to a crime depends on the sensitivities of the hearer, we no longer have the rule of law but the tyranny of as few as one. I also found it odd that the High Court thought it appropriate to speculate about the illegality of certain conduct that was not barred by the law in question. The foolishness of such conduct goes, I hope without saying.
ReplyDelete