This act which is in force in Gujarat construes an act of conversion not as a matter of faith and belief but as a consequence of ‘allurement,’ ‘force,’ and of use of ‘fraudulent means.’ The act, by its very structure and logic, understands each and every act of conversion as one done under coercion or allurement. It further states that any conversion of a minor, a woman, a person belonging to either the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would be punished with a prison term of upto four years and a fine of upto rupees one lakh. The act clearly believes that these groups are more vulnerable to force, allurement and treachery and that they need special protection. It also believes that their act of conversion has to be understood from a ground different from the possibility of conversion for the rest.

The act does not allow for the possibility of conversion to another faith as an act of social protest, as a cry of pain within one’s own religion which might be oppressive. It does not understand the kind of conversion that Babasaheb Ambedkar sought and propagated to Buddhism. It does not grant that conversion could be a political act, especially in times when caste and religious identities have acquired an edge and legitimacy in the political realm.

It does not allow for theological disaffection with one’s own religion. Without this deep theological disenchantment with one’s own ancestral religion, many of the world’s great religions would not be. It is a search for divine that moved the great teachers of the world, be it Jesus, Prophet Mohammad, the Buddha or the Jain Tirthankars and allowed them to suggest radical departures with their ancestral faith and modes of worship. Without the recognition of theological disaffection, even in our times, we would be forced to live with a fundamental sense of lack, the absence of faith altogether.

... contd.