Recently there has been a furore among the masses of Bharata with respect the introduction
of the recent Anti-Conversion Laws in various states like Uttar Pradesh. There have been
widespread debates taking place either in support or against such Laws. While some
individuals have heavily criticised this idea, refuting any instances of forced conversions
taking place, there have also been counterpoints to this position that consider anti-conversion laws to be the need of the Hour. Let us understand the ‘trends’ as well as the ‘ends’ with respect to this debate as well as the possible way forward that can be adopted.
‘Love Jihad’, ‘Grooming Jihad’, ‘Reverse Love Jihad’ and ‘Anti-Conversion Laws’
The year was 1924; a Muslim bureaucrat in Kanpur was accused of abducting and seducing a Hindu woman and forcefully converting her. This is said to be the case from where the use of the term ‘Love Jihad’ first came from. This term however gained public attention after some
developments that took place in Karnataka and Kerala in the year 2009 when various families filed cases of forceful conversions on the pretext of marriage and alleged that these were classic cases of ‘Love Jihad’.
We have two Viewpoints; two very contrary viewpoints with respect to these Anti-conversion
Laws-
Viewpoint Number 1- Against Anti-conversion Laws
People who subscribe to this view state that there is no Jihad in love, Love is pure. They
believe that Love Jihad happens to be an Islamophobic conspiracy theory developed by
proponents of Hindutva. For them, ‘Love Jihad’ is like a “Lochness Monster”; it is supposed
to be a monstrous animal but nobody has seen it. But those who believe in it say that it exists
in Scotland. In a similar fashion, there is no such evidence of Love Jihad.
Those who subscribe to this viewpoint consider anti-conversion laws to be antithetical to the
Idea of a ‘Secular India’. Critics argue that such acts violate the right to freedom of
conscience as well as the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion protected
under article 25 of the Constitution.
Marriage is a personal choice that cannot be dictated by the society or the government. Right
to marry a person of one’s choice is constitutive of Article 21 of the Constitution which
guarantees right to life with dignity. Anti-conversion laws thereby impinge upon these rights.
These anti-conversion laws have provided a stricter punishment if a victim happens to be a
female. Therefore, such laws promote patriarchal notions in the society by depicting women
as inherently naive and gullible and more susceptible to forced conversions. This goes against
the constitutional directive that considers matters of dress and of food, of ideas and
ideologies, of love and partnership to be intrinsic part of a women’s identity. For instance, the
Hon’ble Court in the case of Shafin Jahan had held the right to convert as a fundamental
right of choice that cannot be interfered with by either the state or the “Patriarchal
Supremacy”.
It is very interesting to note however that these individuals also believe in the Idea of
‘Reverse Love Jihad’; a supposed conspiracy by Hindu men to forcibly convert women of
other faiths, specifically Islam into their own religion. They however fail to provide any
evidence to support these claims.
Viewpoint Number 2- In favor of Anti-conversion Laws
Then there is a contrarian view that considers ‘Love Jihad’ to be a conspiracy by Muslim men
to convert non-Muslim women especially Hindu women under the pretext of love; under the
pretext of marriage. Various individuals supporting this viewpoint also use a new term
“Grooming Jihad”, which they believe more appropriately addresses the issue at hand.
Either way proponents supporting this view believe that strong anti-conversion laws ought to
be brought that criminalize forced conversions taking place in the society. Those who
subscribe to this view believe that conversion for marriage or marriage for conversion;
whether it is conversion before marriage or conversion after marriage, both should be
declared illegal, both should be outlawed.
Proponents of this viewpoint argue that the menace of forced conversions create serious
public order issues in the society. Forced conversions often lead to the stoking of communal
passions and breakdown of social fabric thereby posing a serious threat to the idea of
religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence. The anti-conversion acts thereby protect the
fundamental right of freedom to religion guaranteed by our constitution. The acts promote the
fundamental idea of equality of all religions and thereby protect the idea of secularism; a part
of the basic structure of our constitution.
The anti-conversion laws would also be able to protect the tribal communities of India whose
‘distinct’ cultures are vulnerable to such conversions by ‘inducements’ and ‘coercions’. Article 29 of the constitution mandates protection of religious and cultural minorities. The
Supreme Court in the landmark case of Rev. Stanislaus expressly held that the right to
convert others is not a fundamental right.
It may be important to refer to the findings of the Niyogi inquiry committee of 1956 in this
regard. The Report contains a summarized testimony of those converted through inducement, including lists such as, “The following persons reported that they were converted by giving [getting] loans for buying a plough”. Such conversions take place due to the unequal bargaining positions between the two parties and not out of one’s own ‘volition’ or free will.
Such conversions taking place due to “allurement” and “coercion” ought to be prevented in
the society.
Even if marriage happens to be based on one’s individual autonomy, conversion however is a
solemn act with serious ramifications that directly affect different rights of an individual
including citizenship, affirmative-action benefits, and right to seek elective office, marriage,
divorce and inheritance among others. Rights and obligations of the family members may
also vary depending on one’s religious identity, making conversion both a religious and a
political act.
For instance, divorce proceedings can be initiated on the grounds that the spouse has changed the religion. The right to contest elections is lost if the person changing the religion happens to be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in whose favour affirmative action exists in our constitution.
Supporters of anti-conversion laws argue on the other hand that these laws actually combat
male chauvinism and patriarchy prevalent in the society. Inter-religious marriages can take
place without any conversion, however due to the patriarchal society; in the majority of cases
it is the woman who has to convert. The Anti-conversion laws aim to curb the practice of
forced conversions which affects women disproportionately due to the inherent patriarchy in
our society.
Due to the patriarchy in the society, women often have to face gender based discrimination,
forced conversions, sexual exploitation and trafficking which violates a women’s
fundamental right to life with dignity, right to equality, right against discrimination and right
against exploitation. Therefore, there is a reasonable basis for providing stricter punishments in case of female victims. This is not to say that the act is reinforcing stereotyped notions of
women as no one has been exempted from civil liability in case of an unlawful conversion.
Recently several cases have been reported where Muslim men while courting women from
other faiths actually concealed their real identities from these women; for instance they posed
to be from a Hindu faith while approaching these women and also used Hindu names to lure
women to enter into relationships and matrimonial ties. In such cases, consent from the
women is obtained due to ‘fraud’ thereby not amounting to a valid ‘consent’ and constituting
a serious violation of a women’s individual autonomy to be with a person of her choosing as
well as her right to life with dignity and right against exploitation guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution. Anti-conversion laws therefore ought to be brought to strictly deal with crimes
of such heinous nature and protect women’s dignity and liberty.
Furthermore why is the Husband asking the women to convert in the first place; there is no
need for conversion if both the parties love each other; Love is pure. Is it because he is
uncomfortable in living with the person of another faith? Or is it because he believes that his
religion is superior to her religion and therefore by conversion he is taking her to a better
religion? Such an individual is bigoted and has a community level supremacist attitude that
needs to be dealt with.
Supporters of anti-conversion law therefore argue that anti-conversion laws are thereby
important to tackle the problem of patriarchy, bigotry, fraudulent and forceful conversions,
and community level supremacist attitudes in the society.
The way forward-
The only way forward in this respect is a requirement of an honest law that allows for inter-
faith marriages without any need for a man or a woman to convert. That is the only way in
which we can effectively tackle forced conversions as well as ensure that the individual
autonomy is also protected.
Comments