Editor,
Religious freedom is a fundamental right in a democratic country like India, allowing individuals to choose and practice their faith without state interference. However, the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act (APFRA), 1978 directly contradicts this principle. Originally its objective was to prevent forced conversions. The Act has instead become a tool for state control over personal religious choices.
Rather than protecting indigenous cultures, APFRA imposes unnecessary restrictions on conversions, requiring individuals to apprise the authorities before changing their religion, which raises serious questions. Why should faith be subject to government scrutiny? Why does the state need to interfere in personal religious matters? Why did the state feel the need to introduce this Act? Why is there an issue with personal faith and liberty? Why is the state trying to impose restrictions on individual’s faith and choices? If the government is genuinely concerned about preserving our indigenous culture and practices, there are many ways and initiatives to achieve that – so why is it attempting to divide the society in the name of religion? The APFRA directly violates our fundamental rights, yet the state still trying to enforce it. Religion is such a sensitive matter that people can go to any extent for it.
The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion under Article 25, allowing individuals to practice and propagate their faiths. The Supreme Court, through the Puttaswamy judgement (2017) also affirmed that faith is a private matter and must be protected from state interference.
However, the APFRA violates these rights by making religious conversion a bureaucratic process, subjecting individuals to government scrutiny and potential social harassment. Instead of ensuring freedom, it creates fear and discourages people from exercising their rights.
Although the Act does not explicitly target any religion, it has been used disproportionately against Christian missionaries and tribal communities converting to Christianity.
Instead of respecting the individual’s freedom, the APFRA imposes legal barriers, making religious conversion a difficult and risky decision. Those who choose to convert will often face social stigma, harassment, and discrimination, creating an atmosphere of fear and oppression once this Act is implemented.
The government justifies the APFRA by arguing that it prevents forced conversions. However, existing laws already criminalise fraud, coercion, and undue influence, making this Act redundant.
If the real goal is to protect indigenous culture, the government should focus on education, language preservation, and economic empowerment, rather than interfering in religious choices. True cultural preservation comes through progress and awareness, not restrictions on faith.
Even Chief Minister Pema Khandu admitted in 2018 that the Act is outdated and could be misused. Yet, despite this, it remains in force.
If India is to uphold secularism and democracy, the APFRA must be abolished immediately. No individual should have to justify their faith to the government and no law should infringe on the right to personal belief.
The APFRA is an outdated and unconstitutional law that has no place in a democratic India.
Rajesh Degio,
Chimpu, Itanagar