Editor,
Through the columns of your respected newspaper, I wish to draw attention to a serious concern arising from the growing use of anti-conversion laws in India.
No reasonable person supports conversion through force, fraud, coercion or improper inducement. Such acts should certainly be prevented and punished. However, laws intended to stop forced conversions must not create fear among ordinary citizens who simply wish to explore a faith, attend a church, or pray voluntarily according to their own conscience.
A particularly troubling situation arises when non-Christians visit churches of their own free will. A Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist or person of no religion may wish to enter a church, attend a prayer meeting, seek spiritual comfort, or learn about Christianity. Merely doing so should not automatically create suspicion that an illegal conversion is taking place. Freedom of religion must also include freedom of conscience—the freedom to listen, reflect, pray and make personal spiritual choices without intimidation.
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations. The distinction between peaceful religious practice and forced conversion is therefore crucial. Even recent judicial discussions have emphasised that propagation of religion is different from forcible conversion.
There is a genuine fear that broadly framed anti-conversion provisions, prior-notice requirements and investigations can make ordinary religious gatherings vulnerable to misunderstanding or misuse. Critics have also raised concerns that such laws may subject voluntary, conscience-based religious choices to excessive state scrutiny.
A church should not have to treat every visitor as a potential criminal case, and a non-Christian should not have to fear consequences merely for choosing to pray inside a church. The same principle should apply equally to every religion and place of worship.
India’s strength lies in its diversity and constitutional commitment to individual liberty. The law must firmly protect citizens from coercion—but it must also protect their freedom to worship voluntarily. Preventing forced conversion and respecting personal religious freedom should not be seen as opposing goals. A just democracy must do both.
I hope the government and the judiciary will ensure that laws against coercion are not interpreted in a manner that discourages peaceful prayer, religious fellowship or the free exercise of conscience.
Jubel D’Cruz,
Mumbai
