The term conversion has different meanings. It means different things in different contexts, the basic meaning being change or transformation into another state, form or substance. Thus, for instance, it could refer to change of land use in context of land or property. It could mean exchange of money value in the context of money/currency. It could also mean finding equivalents of weights and measures in different systems (e.g. U.S. system to metric system and vice-versa). In the context of games, it could mean converting a penalty corner into a goal.  It can also mean change of one’s opinion, view point, behaviour or giving up of evil habits etc.  

However, the word conversion is mostly used in the context of religion to mean a change from one belief, doctrine, cause of action or religion to another. In other words, it refers to religious conversion, that is, to change one’s religion by adopting and following another religion. In the present article we use the term conversion to mean religious conversion.
    
Prohibition of Conversion
Religious Conversion is a controversial subject. Attempts have been made by several States of the Union to curb or curtail conversions, even if not ban it completely. At least seven States (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) have passed the so-called Anti-conversion laws, often calling them Freedom of Religion Acts. Unfortunately, rather than ensuring freedom of religion, the Acts are intended to prohibit conversions, making it so difficult for a person to change one’s religion, that most of them would not bother to go through such hassles and suffer hardships or persecutions. 

Thus, for example, “Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act” is said “to provide for prohibition of unlawful conversion from on religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or by fraudulent means or by marriage and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. The Act states: “No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any other person from one religion to another by use or practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or any fraudulent means or by marriage or shall any person abet, convince, or conspire such conversion.” 

The terminology is so comprehensive, vague and ambiguous that any situation could easily be interpreted or misconstrued as force, fraud, or allurement and any conceivable situation could be brought under the purview of this law. Even for a person who genuinely wants to change one’s religion in order to follow that of his/her spouse is prohibited by this law. With the intention of prohibiting the so-called love-jihad (a term which no one has defined, but widely used) the Uttar Pradesh Act makes the inter-faith marriage so cumbersome that the liberty, freedom and the right to choose one’s life-partner is severely curtailed. 

It is ridiculous that one needs to get permission from the District Administration to marry a person of another faith. In a pluralistic society this makes inter-faith marriages, which are fairly common these days, so difficult and cumbersome. The basic intent seems to be not just to prohibit unlawful conversions, but all conversions. However, strangely enough, the so-called “Ghar Vapasi” when real force, threat, intimidation and allurement etc take place, is cleverly considered as not conversion prohibited under this Act: “If any person re-converts to his/her immediate previous religion, the same shall not be deemed to be a conversion under this Act”.

Many provisions in the Anti-conversion laws in the country (often called the Freedom of Religion Acts), though meant to prohibit unlawful or forced conversions, are unconstitutional, and the real intent seems to be to prohibit all conversions. Triggered by the recent arrest of two Muslim clerics who are allegedly involved in forced conversions as well as having links with terrorist organizations, many citizens and bodies clamour for a central legislation to ban all conversions. 

At the outset here, I would like to state that any conversion done by use of fraudulent means or by force or coercion is wrong and is condemnable. However, it must be admitted at the same time that such cases are rare and hardly anyone is convicted so far for using fraud or force for conversion. Furthermore, in order to prevent such things from happening we cannot ban all conversions because that would go against the fundamental rights of a person to freely profess, practise and propagate a religion.  

Total ban on conversion is illegal and immoral. The Constitution of India in Article 25 guarantees the citizens the freedom to profess, practise and propagate a religion of his/her choice. Article 25 (1) states: “Subject to public order, morality and health, and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion”. This is a fundamental human right. It is a God-given right. In other words, the Constitution of India has not given any favour or privilege or bounty to the citizens by granting this right. It has simply recognized and acknowledged that it is a fundamental human right and therefore enshrined it in the Constitution. 

We enjoy freedom of conscience and religion simply because we are human beings, not because we are citizens of India. Therefore, any attempt to curtail or destroy this freedom will be violation of fundamental human right and would also be unconstitutional. It would be a violation of fundamental human right anywhere in the world, not just in India, because it violates a right based on natural law and not just constitutional law. 

Therefore, every human person has the right to change one’s religion if he/she so desires. All of us are born into a family which professes a particular religion, be it Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, or Jainism. It is quite possible that some may be born to atheistic parents. Thus, we usually follow the religion of our parents. However, when we grow up as adults and exercise our freedom to choose, we can freely choose a religion of our liking and conviction. If a person is not happy with his/her own religion and finds another religion better and more appealing, and gives him/her more joy, happiness and spiritual fulfilment, certainly that person is perfectly free to follow that religion, practise and propagate it. 

Even an Atheist can change his/her atheistic stance and follow any religion of his/her choice. That is one’s freedom and right. There is no force, coercion or fraud here. It is a free choice. Most conversions are, in fact, free and voluntary. Force, coercion, fraud and allurements cannot be presumed but must be proved. Such free and voluntary choice of a religion cannot be banned by any government. If it does, it acts in an autocratic, dictatorial and totalitarian manner, violating fundamental human rights and is morally culpable. 
Therefore, a total ban on conversion is illegal because it goes against the freedom of religion guaranteed in the Indian Constitution (Art25). It is immoral because it goes against the fundamental human right which a human being enjoys by virtue of his/her being a human person. It is a fundamental human right based on natural law which God has written on the conscience or heart of a human person. And to violate that law is morally culpable.

Let us not forget that there are enough laws in the country already existing (both in the Constitution and India Penal Code) to handle cases of fraud, coercion or force. We do not need laws to prohibit conversion in the pretext of prohibiting force or fraud. As it is, there are hardly any proven cases of forced conversions. 

Often clerics and pastors are falsely accused of forced conversions or allurement or undue influence for some ulterior or revengeful motives. There are some instances of Priest or Sister Principals who are falsely accused (and sometimes even arrested) by teachers or employees when some disciplinary action was taken against them or were dismissed from school. Later on, it is proved that it was a false and baseless allegation. Worse still, sometimes even POCSO Act is slapped on Principals in order to take revenge. 

It is an irony that a government which is so keen to prohibit force or coercion or allurement for conversions is now proposing a Bill to control population by imposing two-child norm with coercive methods of disincentives to couples having more than two children. It seems to be using two different standards for two laws. In one it wants to prohibit force or coercion and allurement and in the other it uses coercion by imposing two-child norm and disincentives and allures them by incentives!

Conclusion
Therefore, as experience testifies, anti-conversion laws are more often abused or misused than used for the rightful purpose. The same is true of UAPA and other draconian laws. They become a handy tool for those who hate other religions and/or want to take revenge. So many undertrials are languishing in jails because of the draconian laws; a large number of them are innocent and victims of hatred or activists who represent dissenting voices. It is hoped, even if the Legislature passes sometimes unjust and unconstitutional laws, the Judiciary would uphold and safeguard the freedom and constitutional rights of its citizens. Is it too much to expect or hope for?

(The writer is the bishop of Lucknow)