Editor,
India prides itself on being a land of freedom; yet recent trends suggest a growing shift toward authoritarianism. The revival of the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act (APFRA), 1978, after decades of dormancy, raises serious questions. The government insists that this move is in the best interests of the people, but is it truly about protecting cultural identity, or is it a politically motivated attempt to control religious demographics?
Originally enacted in 1978, the APFRA was designed to prevent forced and deceitful religious conversions. However, it was never enforced and remained largely forgotten – until recently, when the Arunachal Pradesh government decided to revive it. While safeguarding indigenous culture is a legitimate concern, the manner in which this law is being revived suggests an underlying political agenda rather than genuine public interest.
The fear of losing traditional values is the primary reason for unrest among indigenous groups. Many tribal practices are fundamentally different from foreign religions. Conflicts have long existed between Christianity and animism, with the former being monotheistic and the latter polytheistic. Similarly, Hinduism and Islam have their own dietary and cultural restrictions that differ from tribal customs. Protecting indigenous heritage is important, but does the revival of the APFRA serve this purpose, or is it a tool for religious and political control?
Terms like ‘inducement’ and ‘fraud’ lack clear definitions, allowing subjective interpretations and misuse by authorities. The inclusion of ‘threat of divine displeasure’ under ‘force’ is controversial, as most religions include concepts of divine consequences. Prosecution requires prior sanction from the deputy commissioner, making the law susceptible to political misuse. With a maximum punishment of two years and a Rs 10,000 fine, the Act lacks the strength to effectively deter actual cases of forced conversions.
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freely practice, profess, and propagate one’s religion, subject to reasonable restrictions. However, Section 5(1) of the APFRA, which mandates reporting religious conversions to the deputy commissioner, ironically introduces coercion through bureaucratic red tape. This could lead to ‘forced unconversion’, violating the very freedom it claims to protect.
Moreover, Arunachal has reported few to no cases of forced conversion, raising the question – why was this Act revived in the first place? If the concern is genuine, targeted legal action against specific coercion cases would be more effective than a blanket law affecting all religious conversions. This is like buying a new car just because a tyre got punctured – an inefficient and wasteful approach.
The upcoming census is expected to reflect a rise in the Christian population, potentially shifting the political balance in Arunachal. Many national parties fear losing influence, as Christian-majority states in the Northeast tend to favour regional parties over national ones. The revival of the APFRA may not be about forced conversions at all – instead, it could be a strategic move to curb religious demographic shifts before they impact electoral outcomes.
The makers of the Indian Constitution deliberately kept religion separate from politics to prevent communal tensions. Politicising religion in this way only risks creating discord, division and conflict among Arunachal’s diverse communities, contradicting the principles of inclusivity and democracy.
A wise man once said, “When you give a man power that can be abused, he will abuse it.” We already have the infamously famous draconian laws like the APUAPA and the AFSPA, which grant the state excessive control over individual freedoms when needed. The revival of the APFRA adds another layer of bureaucratic control over personal choices.
The lack of clear investigative mechanisms is evident in the fact that only officers of the rank of inspector or above can investigate these offences, yet there is no proper framework to determine what qualifies as ‘inducement’ or ‘force’. This vagueness makes misuse inevitable.
While the Act claims noble intentions, it lacks mechanisms to prevent misuse by bureaucrats and politicians. There is no authority to monitor civil servants, leading to unchecked power. Citizens have no clear process to challenge wrongful prosecution under the APFRA. Officials can act on politically motivated complaints without facing any repercussions.
The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978, is deeply flawed in its current state and requires significant changes to ensure it protects religious freedom rather than restricting it. Necessary amendments should be made to clearly define ‘force’, ‘fraud’, and ‘inducement’ to prevent misuse and align the Act with Article 25 (Religious Freedom) and Article 21 (Personal Liberty). Implementation improvements should make conversion reporting voluntary, require judicial approval before prosecution, and ensure unbiased enforcement. Promoting interfaith dialogue, educating communities on religious rights, and preventing political misuse are essential. Additionally, a review of the Act’s necessity is crucial to determine if existing legal provisions on coercion and fraud are already sufficient.
Most importantly, stakeholders – including religious leaders, civil society organizations, legal experts, and community representatives – must be involved in policymaking to ensure fairness and inclusivity. A balanced approach, focusing on awareness rather than restrictions, will help prevent coercion while preserving religious freedom and social harmony in Arunachal.
Anonymous Banana