Congratulations! Now Deliver!

ALL INDIA CHRISTIAN COUNCIL

PRESIDENT: Dr Joseph Dsouza   Secretary General Dr John Dayal

PRESS STATEMENT

New Delhi, 16 May 2009

 

[The following is the text of the Press Statement issued on behalf of the All India Christian Council by its Secretary general, Dr John Dayal, on the results of the General Elections to the Lok Sabha, the House of the Peoples of the India Parliament. The results were declared today after five rounds of voting which began on 16^th April and ended 13^th May 2007, involving an electorate of over 714 million. The results gave the Congress, currently in power, 203 seats in the 543-member House, and its United Progressive Alliance 260 seats, with the National Democratic Alliance led by the Bharatiya Janata party getting 163, the BJP itself scoring, 121, and the Left Front 24.]

 

The All India Christian Council salutes the people of India for the consummate and decisive manner in which they have rejected divisive, communal and sectarian political forces in the General elections results for which have been declared today. Their vote, for secularism, stability and development, imposes on the party they have trusted with their mandate, the Indian National Congress, and the architects of its victory, party president Mrs Sonia Gandhi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and general secretary Mr Rahul Gandhi, the important responsibility of restoring national political discourse and governance to its pristine values inscribed in the Constitution and articulated by the country’s founding fathers.

 

We hope the national leaders of the party and the Government will correct the aberrations that crept in after 1991 leading to the demolition of the secular fabric of the country, untold misery to the people, unprecedented bloodshed and massacres of religious minorities.  We also hope that the government will build on its policies to wage a winning war on poverty, to ensure food, clothing and shelter to the vast number of people below the poverty line. This will also demand an unceasing war on corruption and graft, and sincerity in devolution of resources to the countryside and for urban regeneration.

 

The lessons have been learnt by winners and losers alike, we hope. India’s billion and a quarter people want human dignity and progress, brotherhood and justice. They abhor hate-mongering, and narrow self interest under the pretext of ideology. Above all, the people, especially women and youth, across the country have shown that they share a hope in the nation’s future. shunning despair and cynicism in the midst of an economic cataclysm.

 

We therefore hope we will never again have to see a Gujarat 2002, or a Kandhamal 2007-2008, that farmer’s suicides will cease and that women will be safe in their home and on the streets of our cities.

 

For the Christian community, hope increases that the rapists, killers and arsonists of Orissa’s Kandhamal and Karnataka will be brought to justice, that our  cry for development – articulated in the manifestos we gave to the political parties on the eve of the general elections -- will be fulfilled. The Christian community needs special economic and development resources from the government, and should not be relegated to the margins because of its unwavering commitment to peace and because it does not always articulate politically its genuine needs.  Dalit Christians look forward to a realisation of their 50 year old search for equal rights, promised often but yet to be given.

 

The All India Christian Council warmly congratulates the Congress and the new government that will take shape in the next few days. The Council extends its full cooperation in efforts at National Integration, Human rights, the emancipation of Dalits and Human dignity. It also congratulates those who have won for the BJP, the Left and the Third and Fourth Fronts. Each Member of Parliament has a God given Duty to work for the common man. We pray God will bless them abundantly.

 

God bless India.

 

Released to the Media by Dr John Dayal

Christians need to do some strategic voting in Indian General Elections

Voting from the margins

 -- Opportunities for the Christian community in a General Election of Virtual and Future Alliances

 

By John Dayal

[This was written in March 2009 for a special April issue of the New Leadcr, Chennai]

 

Babri Masjid’s 6^th December 1992 demolition is a big black mark in the Indian political calendar, remembered by even those who forget that the day is also the death anniversary of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar, the man who changed the face of political India as much as Partition had, but in a positive, affirmative manner. Will anyone think of 24^th August 2008 as a scratch on any political yardstick? And does it matter, really, even to Christians that it was on this day, 24^th August 2008, that the community in India saw the beginning of its worst nightmare in modern history since Tipu Sultan put the Konkani Catholics into captivity. Kandhamal 2008 finds no mention in the Election manifestos of political parties as they face off for the general elections 2009. It does not matter to Church groups. Catholic or Protestant, in Kerala as they argue and negotiate with the Congress led UDF for seats for favoured benefactors. It is even forgotten by well-off Oriya Christians seeking tickets from any political party that will have them, even from Kandhamal where there may be not many Christian voters left.

But the pogrom in Kandhamal, which left 120 dead and 50,000 homeless, must matter as another of the touchstones for secular democracy in India. And responses to that event -- rated on a pro rata basis to be emotionally at par with the violence against Sikhs in 1984, against Kashmir pundits, and against the Muslims of Gujarat in 2002 – must expose political parties and candidates to a searing searchlight of their ideologies and commitments.

These are going to be unusual elections for everyone, unusual even by the crazy standards that have come into being since 1977, when Indira Gandhi’s Congress was wiped out in the wake of the excesses of the State of Emergency imposed in June 1975, and her return three years later; more important than the rise of the OBCs after Prime minister V P Singh opened the Mandal floodgates, and of course L K Advani’s Rath Yatra which polarised India on religious lines.

I mention those important events to also recall that in Indian Parliamentary democracy, any election result, howsoever improbable, is possible!

A good thing to remember these days when to the ravenous and undying appetite of communalism has been added the full impact of globalisation and the economic meltdown.  And Terrorism capitalised by 24 hour Television news channels. The ambitious middle class, who has BJP once, and in the wake of Mumbai 2008 attacks vowed not to vote for any politician, is feeling the pinch of the economic downtrend. The 9 per cent growth rate has been downgraded to a hopeful 6 per cent or so, but job cuts have become a chilling reality. Telugu `biddas' who were so happy in Silicon Valley till last year are returning home by the planeloads, and some have chosen the short cut of suicide rather than face the ignominy of unemployment and rebuke at home. Karnataka, Mumbai and Tamil Naidu have seen the impact of the puncturing of the big dream. And there are no jobs at home either. Will middle class and once high paid youth vote for hope of the Congress variety or be led by the hate campaigns of the Bharatiya Janata party which is already telling them it is the Semitic religions which are at the root of the crisis in India? Fortunately, India is bigger than its middle classes, though they hog the media limelight.

THE ISSUES:

For the Dalit and the rural poor, nothing really has changed. Even for Dalits who call themselves Hindus, or have converted to Sikhism and Buddhism, and get 15 per cent reservation in jobs as also in the Lok sabha and the State assemblies. For Dalits who became Christians or Muslims, they share all the suffering, but are deprived of the palliative and the curative. It is not a question on the number of Dalits killed, or raped. That runs into thousands every year. It is in the aggravation of poverty. [For the record, the 2005 Annual Report of the National Crime Records Bureau reported a total of 26,127 cases against the Scheduled Castes. A crime against Tribals was committed in every 29 minutes.]

 ”Poverty is still a grinding reality for millions of people in India.” the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights noted in her recent visit to India. Recalling that the Supreme Court has defined India as “a country of people with the largest number of religions and languages living together and forming a nation,” the UNHCR warned this diversity had the potential for igniting competing claims and even strife if stressed by poverty and inequalities. Twenty or so of 28 States are afflicted by internal armed conflicts. Many of these States are heavily militarised. In our report to the Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Indian Civil rights groups noted that the almost 250 Special Economic Zones, constructions of dams and leasing of areas for mining have become virtual “conflict zones”.

Patently no single political party or group has been responsible. The Congress has ruled the most states the longest. But the others have had their chance. The Bharatiya Janata Party and the Left parties, too, have ruled the nation in their alliances, and remain in power in several states. They must share the blame as they can also, justifiably, claim a share in all the good that has accrued ever since the visionary Jawaharlal Nehru spoke of the Modern India and a scientific temper as its guiding spirit.

It is in this social and economic overview of the Great Indian Reality that the average Indian -- and the Christian voter is just an average Indian with just one more overlay of vulnerability as a religious minority, possibly a Dalit or a Tribal – looks at the players in General Elections 2009.

THE CONTENDERS:

Real politics has dissolved the Great Alliances that were formed to rule India after the last two General Elections. The currently ruling United Progressive Alliance, and its predecessor in office, the National Democratic Alliance, formally exist no more, with constituent parties mostly going their own ways.

But one must not hurry to dismiss the Grand alliances as being ‘dead’ and buried. Alliances are like the Count of Dracula – they are the `Living dead”, phantasms that can take body and shape when the time comes. Till then, they exist as “virtual alliances”; in most states by design or by default, as I will explain, and come into being after the results are declared claims are staked for office.  What it means is that the people and issues that hogged television time and headline space have to be taken with a pinch of salt, and breakups of NDA and UPA need not mean the partners have filed for divorce never to marry again. And they may well marry the same party again! But having said it, I need point out it is the Bharatiya Janata Party which loses the most friends, with the sanitising and secular lure of the  yet to be born Third Front luring away staunch allies Telegu Desam and All India Anna DMK, and tempting old friend Naveen Patnaik’s Biju Janata Dal in Orissa.

It is also salutary to remember that the first major defeat the Congress suffered nationally in 1977 was at the hands of a coalition called the Janata Party that was formed while the leaders of various parties were in Jail, put there by Indira Gandhi. It was a party only in name. It was a strategic and tactical coalition forged by Jaiprakash Narain with the support of the Marxists who provided the brain power to the mass bases of the other constituents. That coalition could not last, and broke up when George Fernandes objected to the former Jana Sangh members retaining their membership of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. Several members of that group later rejoined the BJP as electoral allies, as Mr Nitish Kumar in Bihar, or the Akali Dal in Punjab.

The two recent alliances, UPA and NDA. were in actuality only coalitions of two major national partiers --  one of which had lost its country-wide strength for various reasons over a period of time, and the other which could not really expand to cover every state -- forged with regional players who had a caste or linguistic base in at least one State. There was only the opportunism of power which soldered the alliances. There was no ideological glue to bring them together, not even really common policies. The Common Minimum Programmes were their election agendas reduced ad absurdum, with a veneer of populism. For regional parties rising from linguistic, religious or ethnic aspirations, the omnibus nature of the Congress makes it a perpetual opponent locally, and an `impossible ally’ nationally, the necessary evil they need to get central funding and a place in the sub.

The Bharatiya Janata Party formed the fulcrum of the NDA around which a motley group of regional parties, some of them breakaway factions of the Congress, came together in the last few years of the Twentieth century. The BJP does not hide its ideology as a child of the Muslim-bashing RSS, and most of its main partners reconciled themselves to its worldview because they themselves had extremely constricted visions that sought to insulate their communities from outside influences, or nursed real and perceived historic grievances. The Akali Dal in Punjab is a party representing the religious and land interests of the powerful and rich Jat Sikh peasantry which gained strength after Indira Gandhi’s ill-conceived military expedition against the Golden Temple fortress of Bhindrawalen’s armed militants. For the Sikhs, it was felt no national party could represent them after the massacres of Delhi-Kanpur in 1984. The BJP, which in Punjab represented the Hindu business community, was no competition. It was convenient to forget that aggressive elements within the BJP had been quite in the forefront of the anti Sikh sentiment, backing Indira Gandhi to the hilt in her fight against Sikh extremism of the 1970s and early 1980s. Similarly in Assam, the Ahom Students movement against Muslim Bengali migrants gave birth to the Assam Gana Parishad, a natural and permanent ally of the BJP in its anti Muslim theology.

The third major ally of the BJP till recently had been Telegu Desam, born of one man’s ambition, and the political aspirations of a powerful caste combination which had been ignored by the Congress controlled by Brahmins and Reddys in Andhra Pradesh. Actor N T Rama Rao converted his popularity as a celluloid Lord Rama into political success for his caste and the middle class Telegu groups. In Tamil Nadu, both Dravidian groups, Jayalalitha’s All India Anna DMK and M Karunanidhi’s Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, twins born in an earlier Dravida split, have taken turns to partner the BJP, but, like the other BJP partners, have made sure that it is not allowed to grow in their states. That leaves the oddest companion in Bihar’s Janata Dal United, a rump of the once united Janata Party now localised in a small grouping of caste interests. Nitish Kumar and Sharad Yadav, the Janata leaders, too make sure that the BJP does not grow at the grassroots in Bihar even if it could breach the caste walls.

The RSS long ago realised that its ideological growth as an extreme right wing Hindutva organisation would not be possible without the protection and the resources that came with political party, and the Indian system allowed only political parties to be part of the system of governance and administration, the huge public budgets and the billion dollar contracts. Even as it gave birth to different groups such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram to cater to niche segments, the RSS founded first the Jana Sangh and after the breakup of the Janata Party, it came up with the Bharatiya Janata Party. The BJP’s agenda remains unabashedly Hindutva, seen to advantage in prime ministerial candidate L K Advani’s Rath Yatra in the late 1980s, and the system of governance propagated by Narendra Modi in Gujarat. Its essentials remain a pandering to the interests of big business and landed peasantry, and a sectarian espousal of what are projected to be Hindu interests. These are constructed from a well thought out strategy to protect Muslims, and now Christians, as threats to Hindus and by extension to India as a country. This combination seems to work in brief spurts, and basically in the cow belt of north India, but has not been able to sustain itself across the country. The BJP entry into Karnataka has to be seen in the context of the fragmentation of the vote collectively garnered by the Congress and the Deve Gowda Lingayat caste group of the Janata Dal Secular. The reverse has happened in Orissa where the Biju Janata Dal, its long term senior ally, has ditched it unceremoniously, and to add insult to injury, has held it responsible for spreading communalism in the state.  

 

Ironically, the BJP has succeeded to an extent in forcing its agenda on the Congress, which has to now continuously stress that it too represents Hindu interests while also protecting the religious minorities. This was best seen in the party’s ambivalent attitude to the Babri issue where it began the process by opening the locks of the mosque, and then Mr Rajiv Gandhi, at the best of his home minister and Cousin Arun Nehru, calling for Ram Rajya. The Congress which led the Freedom Struggle as a rainbow collation of all castes, religions and linguistic groups, has over the decades not been able to  hold on to its strategy of welding the Dalits, Muslims and upper castes into a cohesive electoral machine. If the BJP has nibbled away a section of the Brahmins, the Dalits have found a new Messiah in the Bahujan Samaj led by the charismatic Mayawati. The Congress alienated the Muslims repeatedly, and lost them to the Samajwadi party which otherwise represented the peasant back ward communities. The Congress is also indistinguishable from the BJP in its economic dalliance with the rich and the powerful. And yet, the Congress has been able to convince a significant segment of Indian society that it still retains much of the spirit that was given it by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. The persona of the Nehru Gandhi family is neither the cause of this strength, nor the fruit of it. It just symbolises the core values of the Congress and its claims to be secular, to be concerned for the poor, and to be capable of protecting broader Indian interprets in the international arena. In this success the Congress remains unique amongst all Indian political parties.

 

The Third Front is an aspiration of the Left combine, consisting of the Communist Party of India, the CPI Marxist and the minor Leftists of the Forward Block and others. But they have lost the fire that once moved the communist movement. Ideological splits and confusion, and the need to modify strategies in the wake of the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the globalisation of the Chinese economy, have irreparably changed the Left. It can now impose SEZ culture in Bengal, and cohabit with Islamic parties in Kerala with equal élan.  This unfortunately has also made it to remain confined to Kerala, Bengal and to the Bengali population of Tripura. [Incidentally, there is no noise about Tripura, unlike Assam, against Bengali settlers!]

 

While the Yadavs may be confined to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and Sharad Pawar’s NCP to Maharashtra, Mayawati has a historic opportunity to build the Bahujan Samaj as another rainbow coalition much as the Congress once was. But her haste to achieve greater political office, the creeping sense that she is betraying Dalit interests by pandering to upper castes and her inability to build a political party infrastructure within the BSP will possibly ensure her ultimate failure to become a future political giant.

 

The Election scenario is changing rapidly as the poll dates approach. The utterances of Varun Gandhi and the BJP defence of his anti Muslim rhetoric threaten to further polarise the electorate. But perhaps communalism will have to take second place to economic regeneration, the need to tackle the great rural crisis and the increasing urban poverty. These could take the shine off the BJP’s polarising antics.

 

Will the Congress be able to convince people that it will ensure communal harmony whole repairing the economy remains a matter of conjecture?

 

And do the people, Christians among them, have any real choice?

 

The dynamics of the virtual and future alliances gives a window of opportunity. Unless it sweeps the elections in a still to be born Hindutva “wave”, the BJP just cannot muster the strength in UP, Bihar and South India, to dream of forming a alliance that can be called to form a government. It has lost two important allies of the past – the Telegu Desam and Jayalalitha’s to the Third Front, and there are no replacements.

In Tamil Nadu and Kerala, Andhra and Karnataka, Bengal and Bihar, it will therefore be possible for secular people to vote for the Marxists, for Deve Gowda, for Laloo Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav without fear that this could benefit the BJP. We can be sure that the Left and the two Yadavs, were they to do well in the states they control, will be bound to support, or be supported by, the Congress in a future secular formation, whether they now call themselves the Third Front or no. And Mayawati, a possible ally of the BJP, but not an ally of the Congress, will have to either watch from the sidelines or hold its peace.

 

This is good news for the Christians. If they wish to vote for the Congress, they are voting for a party professing secularism. If they chose not to, they have an option to still strengthen the secular polity by voting for the Marxists, the DMK and AIADMK, even Telegu Desam. The Muslims have used this to great advantage by choosing candidates with the best chance of defeating the BJP. They call it strategic voting. The Church, Catholic, Protestant or Syrian, cannot dictate who the Faithful should vote for, though it may claim it can influence the Laity. The Church’s interests in protecting its absolute control over institutions can hardly be reason to foreclose options and freedoms that the current elections offer.

I am sure the community is now politically less naive than it was in the last few decades. It does not want to be defined as a vote bank of one party. And it knows it cannot afford to strengthen, even by default, political elements who will damage the secular fabric of our democracy, or constrict its vibrant plurality.

 

There never was such choice ever before.

It is time to challenge Himachal Government in High court

Chhattisgarh Governor holds back anti conversion bill and seeks top legal advice, but Himachal makes it law
Christians decide it is time to challenge Himachal Government in High court

[JOHN DAYAL’S NOTE: NEW DELHI 6TH October 2007: This has been a momentous, if negative, week in the history of Freedom of Faith in India. In the dock are both the Bharatiya Janata party, ideologically aggressively opposed the presence of Christianity and Islam on the soil of India, and the Congress party, sworn to a secular political thesis but easy prey to competitive Hindu fundamentalist arguments as it seeks to retain its century-old political supremacy in India. The Congress government in Himachal Pradesh, the Himalayan State, has at last formulated the bureaucratic rules which will allow Police and Civil officers to monitor conversions to Christianity, and other faiths, in the province, and punish pastors with prison terms and massive fines. I have been waiting for these rules to be formulated ever since the laws were passed by the legislature and then affirmed by the State Governor many months ago, Though the Governor had given his assent, we could not move the Himachal High court as it would have been premature. In Gujarat in similar circumstances, we failed to get a response from the High Court which reminded us Legislative Acts could be challenged only after appropriate rules were put on the Statutes. Our first step now is to move under the Right ton Information to ask the State government the number of actual cases of fraudulent and forcible conversion to Christianity it has recorded in past years to justify its claim that such harsh laws had become necessary in a State where minority communities are barely visible in census figures. In Chhattisgarh, carved out of Madhya Pradesh [both are currently ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party], the Congress-appointed Governor however has resisted the administration’s efforts to sharpen an existing similar law. The Governor has sought the opinion of Union law officers in New Delhi on the constitutionality of the law. The present Vice President of India, Mr Hamid Ansari, had in his earlier appointment as Chairman of the National Minorities Commission pilloried such laws as injuring Freedom of Faith and going against the national Constitution. The current President of India, Mrs Pratibha Patil, too had refused to sign a similar Bill when she was Governor of Rajasthan, another state ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party. Ironically, she will now have to give her decision on the same Bill. Union law officers, including the Solicitor General of India, have made it clear that in their opinion such laws are an anathema to the secular credentials of the Constitution of India. It remains to be seen how the Himachal High Court will rule. We are seeking the assistance of the best legal brains in this cause. I give below reportage and texts of the latest move in Himachal Pradesh and the advice of the Solicitor General of India. Goolam E Vahanvati to the Madhya Pradesh government’s so called Freedom of Religion Bill which adds to the original Act passed some decades ago.]

In Raipur, Chhattisgarh governor E S L Narasimhan has referred the BJP state government's anti-conversion Bill to attorney-general of India Milon Banerjee for legal opinion. Official sources said the governor has sought clarifications from Banerjee on certain provisions of the Bill. Legislative affairs minister Ajay Chandrakar confirmed that the Chhattisgarh Religious Freedom (Amendment) Bill, which was passed by the state Assembly in mid-2006, is yet to receive the governor's assent. "However, I won't be able to specify the nature of clarification sought by the governor," he said. When contacted for an explanation about the governor's action, secretary to the governor PC Dalai neither confirmed nor denied the development. The Bill has a provision of "penalising those who change their faith without informing concerned authorities".
The clarification sought by the governor relates to the provision that would make reconversion simple. According to the draft Bill, a person born to parents who had changed their faith could convert to their original faith or that of his or her forefathers without any hindrance. It would not be considered conversion. The governor's decision assumes significance as Chhattisgarh is preparing for polls in 2008. "The delay in getting gubernatorial assent has put the BJP government in a spot," a source said. The Bill has been pending for more than a year as even Narasimhan's predecessor K M Seth had denied assent.
According to the Bill, people wishing to change religion must inform the district magistrate a month in advance. The penalty for those violating the law, including those who convert people forcibly, could be between Rs 50,000 and a Rs 1 lakh with imprisonment of up to five years.
Former Rajasthan governor Pratibha Patil, too, had referred the Bill to then president APJ Abdul Kalam.
In the Case of Madhya Pradesh, the Solicitor General of India faulted the state’s Freedom of Religion Bill.
The following is the text of the Solicitor General’s note:

OFFICE OF SHRI G E VAHANVATI SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, SUPREME COURT, NEW DELHI 110 001

Dy. No. 1166/07 dated 3/5/07, Deptt. of Legal Affairs

I have gone through the letter of His Excellency, the Governor dated 16 April 2007. Before dealing with questions which have been raised, it is necessary to note the relevant provisions.
Section 5 of the M.P. Dharma Swatamtraya Adhiniyam 1968 before its amendment read as follows:
“5. Information to be given to District Magistrate with respect to conversion:- (1) Whoever converts any person from one religion faith to another either by performing himself the ceremony necessary for such conversion as a religious priest or by taking’ part directly or indirectly in such ceremony as may be prescribed, send an intimation to the District Magistrate of the district in which the ceremony has taken place of the fact of such conversion in such form as may be prescribed.
(2) If any person fails with sufficient cause to comply with the provision contained in sub-section (1), he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both,”
By virtue of the proposed amendment to Section 5, the original section 5 is proposed to be substituted by a new Section 5 which reads as follows:
“5(1) Any person intending to convert his religion, shall give a declaration before the District Magistrate or before ,an Executive Magistrate specially authorized by the District Magistrate of the concerned District, prior to such conversion to the effect that he intends to convert his religion on his own will.
(2) The concerned religious priest, who intends to convert any person from one religious faith to another, either by performing himself the ceremony necessary for such conversion or by taking part directly or indirectly in such ceremony, shall intimate the date, time and place of the ceremony in which conversion shall be made along with the name and address of the person to be converted, to the concerned District Magistrate one month prior to the date of said ceremony, and the intimation shall be in such form and shall be delivered or caused to be delivered by the priest to the concerned District Magistrate in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) On receiving the intimation under sub-section (1) and,(2) the District Magistrate shall inform the details of proposed conversion to the concerned Superintendent of Police, who shall ascertain through the office-in-charge of the concerned police station regarding the objection, in any, to the proposed conversion by local inquiry and intimate the same to the District Magistrate.
(4) Whoever fails to comply with the provision contained in sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
Whoever fails to comply with the provision of sub-section (2) shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or both.”

The following changes may be highlighted:

Under the existing provisions the obligation to furnish an intimation is cast on the person performing the conversion ceremony. Now, it would be on both- the person who wants to convert and the person performing the ceremony.
Sub section (2) casts an obligation on the person performing the ceremony to defer it by a month since prior intimation of one month is required to be given. This is not there in the existing provisions.
Under Sub section (3), the District Magistrate has to inform the details of the proposed conversion to the SP who is required to ascertain, through the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station “regarding the objections, if any, to the proposed conversion.”
No provision is made for the consequences of an adverse report.

Sub section 3 creates a serious problem. On receiving the intimation under sub-section(1)&(2), the District Magistrate is required to inform the details of the proposed conversion to the concerned Superintendent of Police, who is to ascertain through the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station regarding objections, if any to the proposed conversion by local enquiry. Sub section 3 is not happily worded at all. The enquiry is supposed to be with regard to objections if any to the proposed conversion, but it is not even required to enquire whether the conversion is forcible or not. If somebody merely objects to the proposed conversion, does that make it forcible?

The second problem is that if anybody objects to the conversion, it could result in an adverse report. A mere objection leads to an adverse report irrespective of whether it is forcible or mot. A conversion may be purely voluntary but any objection can lead to an adverse report.
I do not agree with the view that a Superintendent of Police may report that the conversion is “forcible or note of its own free will.” This is not what the proposed Sub section 5(3) requires to report. The superintendent of police is required to report any objections to the proposed conversion. Such a provision is not only vague but also unreasonable since it does not focus on the real issue, namely whether the conversion is forcible or not.
Looked at from another point of view, the assumption is that if a Superintendent of Police were to give a favourable report, then there is no problem. But if the Superintendent of police records that there are objections then what happens? Do the persons go ahead? The proposed Section 5 does not provide for this contingency at all. If the proposed Section 5 had clearly stated that notwithstanding the adverse report of the Superintendent of police, the conversion can still take place, then the effect of that would be that the person converting could do so and face prosecution under Section 4. The failure to clearly provide for the consequences of any adverse report and the failure to clarify that this would not stand in the way of a conversion would have the inevitable effect of deterring the concerned person from going ahead with the conversion, which will in turn violate article 25 of the Constitution.
I also do not agree with the view that the person would have to challenge the report by way of Writ Proceedings under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Does this mean that till the report (merely based on a solitary objection) is set aside and quashed, the conversion cannot take place? If so, it is unreasonable as this would have nothing to do with “public order.”
In my opinion, lack of clarity and uncertainty in the proposed legislation is bound to lead to confusion which can have the effect of curtailing the right under article 25 in an unreasonable manner.
In my opinion, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment was concerned with the unamended Act. The Hon’ble Court had upheld the validity of the Act on the ground of public order. In paragraph 23 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Court observed:
“The Acts therefore clearly provide for the maintenance of public order for it forcible conversion had not been prohibited, that would have created public disorder.”
The Hon’ble Court in the Stanislaus case was not concerned with an “adverse report” and the effects there of on the fundamental right under Article 25. In the instant case, Section 5(3) would act as an unreasonable fetter to the fundamental right under Article 25. The proposed Section 5(3) is open ended. The said sub-section talks of objections if any an adverse report could be made on the basis of objections which are unrelated to prohibition of forced conversion which is the objective of the Act. In my opinion, the said Sub section 3 cannot be said to be a valid restriction on the ground of public order.
In the premises, I will answer the queries as under.

Q. (i) Whether proposed amendment in Section 5(1) to 5(5) of the M.P. Dharm Swatantraya Adhiniyam 1968 are ultra- vires to Article 24(1), 26 and 2(3) of the Constitution of India?
Ans. Yes, for the carious reasons mentioned above, pointing out lack of clarity and patent obscurity in Section 5(2) and 5(3) of the proposed amendment.

Q.(ii) If the person intending to convert his religion declares before the District Magistrate and if the report of Superintendent of Police is negative, then what legal remedy will be available to the person against whom the District Magistrate may take action? The Bill is silent on the aspect.
&

Q.(iii) If the Religious priest intimates about the conversion before one month to the District Magistrate and if the report of Superintendent of Police is negative, then what legal remedy will be available to the person (Priest) against whom the District Magistrate may take action? The Bill is silent on this aspect.

Ans. In my opinion, it is highly unreasonable to expect a person against whom a report is negative to be required to challenge the report. The implication of such an approach is that until the report is set aside by a competent court, the conversion cannot take place. That by itself amounts to unreasonable restriction under article 25.

Q.(iv) There is an ambiguity in sub section (3) of Section 5 of the Bill. It is not clear as to what order or action will be made or taken by the District Magistrate on receiving an intimation or report from the Superintendent of Police, if a flaw is found in the alleged process of conversion. This also needs to be scrutinized.

Ans. There is clear ambiguity in the proposed sub section 5(3). I have indicated the implications hereinabove. It is unreasonable to bring about a nebulous situation leading to deterring a person from going through and exercising his right to convert on the basis of a negative report based on extraneous factors such as “ objections” to the conversion. The failure to provide clearly as to what is to happen in the case of an adverse report renders the proposed clause unreasonable. The wording of Sub section 3 which refers to objections ( and not to forcible conversion) is contrary to the spirit of the Act. It would be quite strange that if somebody objects to a conversion then that would be treated as the conversion being forcible.
Goolam E Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India

III. Vice President Hamid Ansari while he was chairman of the National Minorities Commission had also Congress party chief minister Virbhadra Singh's anti-conversion law in Himachal Pradesh.
The freedom of Religion Act, 2006 enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh, received the assent of the Governor on February 18, 2007.
The National Commission for Minorities has examined the provisions of the Act and the Statement of Objects and Reasons. The latter refers to "rise in conversions based on allurement generally" and to " a persistent demand from across the different strata of the society, urging the State Government to curb it" as, otherwise, it may "erode the confidence and mutual trust between the different religious and ethnic groups in the State".
According to the 2001 Census, religious minorities constitute 4.53 percent of the total population of Himachal Pradesh. Of these, Muslims account for 1.97%, Sikhs 1.19%, Buddhists 1.25% , and Christians 0.13%. Media reports relating to the adoption of the Act suggest conversions by "force" to Christianity as the prime motivation for the new law. No specific data on such conversions, however, has been cited officially or in media reports.
The commission has noted with concern the terminology used in the Act and the methodology prescribed for implementing it. The definition of "force" includes "threat of divine displeasure" and " Social excommunication"; neither of these is considered an offence in the Indian legal system.
The Act prescribes that a person intending to convert from one religion to another must give a notice of at least thirty days to the District Magistrate who then "shall get the matter enquired into by such agency as he may deem fit". No time limit is prescribed for the conduct of such an enquiry nor have its modalities been defined. The failure to give such a notice, on the part of the person intending to convert, would be punishable by a fine. No such notice however is required if a person reverts back to his "original religion".
Since provisions of existing law already cover cases in which fraud or force are involved, the specific rationale cited for the enactment is not understood. On the contrary, the provision of notice and enquiry, and that too selectively, is tantamount to a gross interference with the individual liberties of citizens and would allow state functionaries to interfere in matter of personal life and religious beliefs. More seriously, it would impinge on the freedom of conscience, and free profession, practice and propagation of religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution.
In view of these considerations, the National Commission for Minorities expresses its profound concern over the attempt in this Act, and reportedly by similar pieces of legislation contemplated in some others States, to interfere with the basic right of freedom of religion that is the birth right of every Indian. It appeals to the Central and State Governments, civil society groups and individual citizens to recognize the existence of such trends and take timely steps to reverse them.

Hindutva card fails Himachal chief minsiter Virbhadra Singh

ALL INDIA CHRISTIAN COUNCILPresident: Dr. Joseph D’souza Secretary General: Dr. John Dayal
Hindu card fails Himachal Chief Minister as BJP Wins Parliament Sabha seat inHimalaya stateChurch must caution Goa government not to abuse land, environment
PRESS STATEMENTNew Delhi, June 7, 2007
[The following is the text of the Press statement issued by National Integration Council member Dr. John Dayal, President, All India catholic Union, and Secretary General Dr John Dayal All India Christian Council on the Assembly Elections in Goa and the Lok Sabha bye-elections in Himachal Pradesh. Himachal Pradesh had last year passed an odious Freedom of Religion Bill targeting Church activity in the small state where Christians are barely visible on the religious radar]
The efforts of Congress Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh of Himachal Pradesh to try to outdo the Bharatiya Janata Party on pandering to the Hindutva ideology has backfired, with his party losing the prestigious Hamirpur Lok Sabha bye-election to arch-rival Prem Kumar Dumal, former Chief minister and BJP leader.This should be a signal to the Congress in the Himalayan State which goes to the polls early next year to elect its legislature. Although he has bravely said the “Hamirpur result will have no impact on assembly polls”, Virbhadra Singh must wonder why bringing forth with much fanfare a new law banning religious conversions has not helped him. The BJP now controls the other mountain state of Uttaranchal in the neighborhood and is eyeing Himachal, which it has ruled several times since it was created.The BJP agenda for the entire foothills of the Himalayas, stretching from near Kashmir to Uttaranchal has been repeatedly affirmed. It calls this region a holy or divine abode of deities of the Hindu pantheon and wants to curb all religious activity other than of various Hindu cults.The Congress in both Uttaranchal and Himachal has sought to ape the BJP by also trying to appeal to religious sentiments of the people, spreading its largesse to chosen religious groups. The dire Religious Freedom Bill was the latest in this series.With Christians constituting less than one per cent of the population, the Freedom of Religion Act was widely seen as an empty gesture with no other purpose other than to try to match the Hindutva of the BJP.The law, which has now been given the Governors’ sanction, has been criticised by civil rights groups, and of course by Christian groups as unnecessarily stigmatizing them, and opening church workers to personal assault and official restraints. The All India Christian Council and others have already announced they are challenging the Act in the Himachal court after the Summer vacations of the court.It should be clear to the Congress that it cannot, and must not, compete with the BJP in this manner for narrow sectarian political goals. It tradition of secularism and its appeal cutting across communities will take a body blow unless it distances such maverick acts as those of Mr. Virbhadra Singh. In the same context, there is alarm that the Congress Working Committee at the behest of some short sighted members may chose to delay giving Constitutional citizen rights to Muslims and Dalits of Scheduled Caste origin, a step strongly recommended by the Justice Rangnath Misra Commission.The party will also help itself if it listens to the voice from the ground in Goa where it has managed to scrape through the corm a government. It came close to disaster because of policies which the people correctly perceive as being injurious to the environment and to the land. The Church has done well by its leadership in the interests of integrity and the environment, and its unceasing campaign for honesty in public life. We must salute the people of Goa who have been vigilant at multiple levels – the environment, economy, political and personal integrity, and ideology. Released for publication
Address for Correspondence:johndayal@vsnl.comMobile: 09811021072Website: http://www.aiccindia.org