By an ordinance, the Andhra Pradesh Government
has declared the seven hills surrounding the
temple town of Tirumala, the abode of Lord Venkateswara
and the roads and foothpaths leading to the
temple as “Tirumala Divya Kshetram”
and no religious activities would be permitted
other than what was traditionally practiced.
The Government notified the places of worship
covered by the ordinance include 10 theerthams
within the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD)
limits and 20 temples elsewhere in the State.
The ordinance also bans all political activities,
including election of local body for self governance.
Any violation of the provisions of the Ordinance
will attract stringent punishment of imprisonment
upto three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- or
both. The total area of Tirumala Region is 332
Sq. kms consisting of 7 hills – i.e. an
area lager than Mumbai city. Tirupati Balaji
Temple is on the 7th Hill. However, the Tirumala
Divya Kshetram extends to all the seven hills
and the roads and footpaths. Much like the Sangh
Parivar demand after demolition of Babri Masjid
that no construction should be permitted within
the “Panchkoshi Parikrama” which
area is far wider than Ayodhya.
BJP and Sangh Parivar’s ability to influence
government agenda even when not in power must
be acknowledged. The Chief Minister of AP is
Christian and a severe campaign was being conducted
by individuals and organizations under the influence
of Hindutva ideology against the Chief Minister
YS Rajashekhar Reddy targeting his religion.
This is obvious from an online petition addressed
to the Governor, which carries hundreds of hate
YSR Reddy messages by signatories to the petition
on the ground that he is a Christian. Among
the messages by the signatory, one links “Y
Samuel Rajashekhara” (the Chief Minister)
to “Antonio Mary” (Sonia Gandhi)
behind the alleged conversion moves in the Tirumala
Region. The wild allegations of widespread conversion
activities in the Tirumala Region by the Christians
seem baseless from the fact that the Tirumala
Tirupati Devasthan Chairman B. Karunakar Reddy
himself said that a false campaign had been
launched that religions other than Hinduism
were being propagated on the Hills. Not a single
non-Hindu activity had come to light. The wild
and defamatory allegations of “Y Samuel
Rajashekhara” having met “Anonio
Mary” and worked on a strategy to encourage
Christian missionary activities reminds us of
similar allegations by Sangh Parivar leaders
in Gujarat against the then Chief Election Commissioner
B. Lyngdoh who did not agree for early elections
in Gujarat till victims of carnage in 2002 were
rehabilitated and could exercise their right
to vote. Lyngdoh was then alleged to have met
“Anonio Mary” in Church and decided
the strategy not to hold early elections.
The Ordinance issued by the Andhra Pradesh is
on a different footing than Freedom of Religion
Acts legislated by various states in recent
years, latest being by Himachal Pradesh. Freedom
of Religion Acts seek to out law “forced”
or “Fraudulent” conversions or conversions
by “inducements”. The Andhra Pradesh
Ordinance outlaws not only all conversions,
including those which are not by force, inducement
or by adapting fraudulent means, it also bans
all religious activities that were not traditionally
practiced. When the challenges to Madhya Pradesh
and Orissa Freedom of Religion Acts were before
the Supreme Court, they were held to be constitutional
on the ground that though every person had right
to profess, practice and propagate religion
on his choice, nobody had a fundamental right
to convert another person. Even prayers and
other religious ceremonies come within the teeth
of the Ordinance if they were not being traditionally
practiced. The Ordinance will have to meet the
twin test of Art. 19 (right to freedom of speech
and expression and right to assemble peaceably
and without arms); and Art. 25 (right to freely
profess, practice and propagate religion). However
the state can impose reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of these rights amongst other,
on the ground of public order. The Chief Minister
in his press conference invoked the ground of
public order. According to him, religious activities
of other religions are posing a threat to public
order. Except empty threats by lunatic fringe,
no imminent threat was perceived by anybody,
including the Chairman of the TTD Mr. B. Karunakar
Reddy, who in fact went a step ahead and said
there was no significant Non-Hindu activities
had come to light. The members of public do
not have access to any intelligence reports
on which the CM will have to heavily bank to
defend the Ordinance. It must be remembered
here that the provision of issuing an Ordinance
is to meet exceptional emergencies when the
legislature in not in session and the Government
cannot wait till the legislature is in session.
What the Ordinance does is not put a reasonable
restriction the rights guaranteed by Art. 19,
it deprives the citizens of the right altogether.
In A. K. Gopalan v/s. State of Madras ’
case, the Supreme Court held reasonable restriction
did not mean deprivation and that the interference
must be reasonable. The reason for restricting
the rights guaranteed must also be clear and
present threat to public order and not an imagined
and remote threat.
The AP Government seems to have come up with
a perverted logic. If a lunatic fringe threatens
the public order, then the state must, restrict
the rights of others and encourage the fringe
to achieve its goals by threatening public order
instead of using lawful means to tackle the
threat. If this logic was to be accepted, since
there was a threat to public order and to three
thousand mosques, including those in Ayodhya,
Mathura and Kashi, which according to the Sangh
Parivar propaganda have been constructed after
demolishing Hindu temples, instead to confronting
the unlawful assemblies one witnessed in the
run up to the demolition of Babri Masjid they
should be given to the Sangh Parivar. Or if
a lunatic fringe amongst the Muslims threaten
public order demanding that Salman Rushdie or
Taslima Nasreen should not be allowed to enter
India or Christians demand that films like the
Da Vinci Code should not be exhibited, would
the state allow itself to be dictated by such
demands and restrict the right of others? If
Jammu and Kashmir and Meghalaya Governments
likewise prohibited religious practice of Non-Muslims
and Non-Christians in towns surrounding certain
religious institutions, on the ground of public
order, would we still be able to call these
states as democratic states? Political expediency
and the lunatic fringe in all religions threaten
our Constitutional values. Will we all stand
up against the threats to be counted?
