(http://www.sperofor
um.com/site/ article.asp? id=7751)
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Isn't it surprising that the various anti-conversion
laws in India fail to answer the most basic
question, i.e. when a person can be said to
have converted despite the fact that such laws
are in force for almost 40 years?
The reason this question is decisive in ensuring
justice is because the conversion laws in the
states of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh
require that all conversions be reported to
government authorities, failing which a person
can be imprisoned as well as fined like a criminal.
Yet, instead of dealing with this issue substantially,
the legislatures have reduced conversion to
performance of a ceremony. For, these laws assume
that conversion from one religion to another
is done "by performing any ceremony."
As a result, there have been numerous cases
where Christian priests have been prosecuted
on charges of "conversion" on account
of their performing baptism ceremony. This is
despite the fact that, according to the Christian
creed, the ceremony of baptism is not a means
to convert someone, but it is a sacrament practiced
by all major Christian denominations worldwide.
That is why almost all Christians, who are born
in Christian families, too undergo this ceremony
at some point in their lives. Similarly, when
a person from a different faith chooses to believe
in the Christian tenets, he or she may choose
to undergo a ceremony of baptism "after
conversion" (some take baptism years after
they actually accept and follow Christianity)
.
In the court of law, a person who professes
to be a Christian is regarded as a Christian
- as defined in the Indian Christian Marriage
Act. And baptism is one of the evidence, but
not conclusive in this matter. As, in K.J.B.
David Vs. Neelamani David, the Orissa High Court
Judge observed, "I have not been shown
any authority in support of the view that a
person cannot profess Christianity unless and
until he is baptized" Thus Baptism is good
evidence, but absence of Baptism does not prove
that one is not a Christian".
After all, "Religion is that which binds
a man with his creator", as was opined
by the judge in Ratilal Parachand Gandhi Vs.
State of Bombay (AIR 1958 Bombay). This implies
that one's religious affiliation to a particular
religious denomination is a matter of one's
inner convictions; all the more so in a case
of conversion, where a religion is adopted by
choice and not by descent. And this may not
always be tangible in legal terms, for a person
may decide to believe in the tenets of a particular
religion, while not partaking in its rituals.
In that case, how can it be established when
the conversion took place?
Now, let's say there is a tribal who accepts
the tenets of Christianity on a particular date,
forsaking his former practice of witchcraft.
But, for some reasons, he takes baptism a year
later. In the court of law, wouldn't the date
of his conversion be when he actually accepted
Christianity and not when he took baptism? So,
how can the priest who performs the baptism
ceremony as his Christian duty be held accountable
for "conversion" ?
This is violation of Article 26 (b) of the Constitution,
which guarantees every religious denomination
the freedom to manage its own affairs in matters
of religion. In accordance with numerous Supreme
Court judgments that an essential and integral
part of a religious denomination could be termed
as a religious practice, the sacrament of baptism,
as an integral part of Christianity, is a religious
practice protected under Article 26. Given the
above, the assumptions under which the anti-conversion
laws operate have made the definition of "conversion"
as clear as mud, for which innocent persons
are paying the price.
