Skip to main content

The politics of fear? Why anti-conversion laws are a betrayal in the name of faith

By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ*  
For many in India, and particularly in Gujarat, 26 March will always be remembered as a black day. On that day in 2003, Narendra Modi, then Chief Minister of Gujarat, introduced the draconian Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act. Earlier that morning, Haren Pandya, former Home Minister of Gujarat and Modi’s bête noire, was assassinated under mysterious circumstances. To this day, the truth of Pandya’s death—who killed him and why—remains officially unrevealed. His father, Vitthalbhai Pandya, pursued justice relentlessly, even approaching the Supreme Court, convinced of who was behind the killing. Analysts and even the BBC documentary The Modi Question (banned in India) have highlighted how Pandya was a stumbling block to Modi’s rise.  
The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003, remains one of the most draconian laws in any democracy. Modi had promised such legislation during his 2002 campaign, railing against Muslims and Christians, and delivered soon after. The Opposition walked out of the Assembly in protest. Rules for implementation took five years to frame. 
In 2006, at the Shabri Kumbh in the Dangs, Modi declared it his “constitutional duty” to prevent conversions, while Morari Bapu accused Christians of flying in missionaries from the Vatican. Both endorsed “ghar wapsi” programmes. In 2009, the Gujarat United Christian Forum for Human Rights challenged the law’s constitutional validity, but the petition was later withdrawn to be strengthened. In 2021, the Gujarat High Court blocked amendments, leaving the law intact.  
The bogey of “forced conversion” has since become a central strategy of the Sangh Parivar. These laws, ironically called “Freedom of Religion,” are unconstitutional. Today, thirteen states, including Maharashtra, have enacted or proposed such laws. Maharashtra’s draft Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam 2026 requires prior permission for conversion, claiming to protect freedom of religion while imposing penalties. Civil society groups, led by PUCL, CJP, and BCS, condemned the move at a press conference in Mumbai, warning of its lack of transparency and its dangerous reliance on the “love jihad” conspiracy theory—a claim with no legal basis.  
The constitutional validity of these laws is already under challenge before the Supreme Court. Petitions led by CJP have been pending since 2020, raising fundamental questions about freedom of conscience, personal liberty, and equality before law. Yet the bogey of forced conversion continues to be weaponised, deflecting attention from real crises: spiraling prices, corruption, crony capitalism, scarcity of essentials, and erosion of democratic institutions.  
The judiciary itself has been inconsistent. In November 2022, a two-judge bench observed that forced conversions may affect national security and asked the Centre to respond. Yet in April 2021, a three-judge bench dismissed a similar petition, warning it was “very harmful” and affirming that adults are free to choose their faith. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights echoes this, affirming the right to change one’s religion or belief.  
History reminds us of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s path-breaking decision in 1935 to abandon Hinduism, urging Dalits to embrace a faith that offered dignity and equality. In 1956, he and hundreds of thousands converted to Buddhism. His words—“If you want self-respect, change your religion”—still resonate.  
The question is simple: Is an adult citizen of India free to choose the religion of one’s choice? The Supreme Court must act decisively, strike down these unconstitutional laws, and uphold the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. Whether it has the courage to confront the Hindutva brigade remains to be seen.  
---
*Human rights, reconciliation & peace activist and writer

Comments

TRENDING

Civil society at a crossroads: Service delivery vs. rights in the fight for social change

Counterview News   In the latest episode of the podcast Unmute , hosts Gagan Sethi and Minar Pimple convened a profound conversation with two veteran development practitioners to dissect a persistent tension within civil society: the perceived divide between service delivery and the struggle for rights. The episode, titled "Beyond Service Delivery: Civil Society, Rights, and the Politics of Social Change," featured Apoorva Oza , a development practitioner with decades of experience in rural development and institution-building, and Professor Dipa Sinha , a development economist known for her work on food, nutrition, gender, and social policy.

Grain vs. gasoline: How the global biofuel boom threatens India’s food and water security

By Rajiv Shah  A new report published by the international research and advocacy organization GRAIN has warned that the global resurgence of biofuels is triggering a dangerous dynamic of “more fuel, less food, more land grabs.” Driven by intersecting energy security concerns, geopolitical tensions, and aggressive decarbonization mandates, the expanding agrofuel industry is increasingly pitting corporate energy interests against global food security and indigenous land rights. 

Sikkim governor row: ALIFA asks centre to explain hurried appointment in Ankita Bhandari case

By A Representative   The All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) on Saturday expressed “immense pain and outrage” that even after four years and a national uproar, justice has not been fully delivered in the Ankita Bhandari murder case and that a ruling party politician facing allegations has been “gifted a high-ranking constitutional office.” In a statement, ALIFA extended “unflinching solidarity” to Ankita’s parents, who it said are “fighting for justice on the streets of Delhi,” and demanded that pending the CBI inquiry and judicial decision, the appointment of BJP leader Dushyant Kumar Gautam as Sikkim’s Governor be subject to “immediate presidential review.”