: On March 10, the Government of Gujarat withdrew the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2006. This amendment to the earlier 2003 legislation had become necessary because of the governor’s objection that it was violative of Article 25 (A) of the Constitution. The unconstitutional nature of it apart, the proposed amendment had displayed a remarkable ignorance of both sociology of religion and theological differences between religions. The amendment had taken a denominational view of religion. It defined Jain and Buddhist as denominations of ‘Hindu religion’, Shia and Sunni as denominations of ‘Muslim religion,’ and Catholic and Protestant as denominations of ‘Christian religion.’
This denominational view permitted inter-denominational conversion within the same religion. The amendment sought to effectively reduce Jainism and Buddhism to ‘sects’ of Hinduism and did the same to Shias and Sunnis as also to Catholics and Protestants. What the amendment sought to do was to effectively impose the Hindu view of religious life on all other religions. It was for this reason that all religious groups that had been classified as denominations opposed the proposed amendment.
But the withdrawal of this amendment does not nullify the more dangerous Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003. The title of the act is misleading, it is in fact an anti-conversion law. This act prohibits conversion under section 5 (1) and (2) and makes it mandatory for both the person seeking conversion and the person officiating at such conversion ceremony to seek prior permission of the district magistrate; failure to comply with this attracts punishment of both imprisonment and a fine.
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...
Tridip Suhrud
