Editor,
The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act (APFRA), 1978 has been widely debated for its implications on religious freedom and individual rights. While proponents argue that it seeks to protect indigenous faiths from external influence, a closer analysis reveals significant concerns regarding its constitutional validity, its impact on fundamental rights, and its potential for misuse.
- Constitutional concerns
- Violation of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees every individual the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion. The APFRA, by imposing restrictions on religious conversions, directly interferes with this fundamental right. While the law claims to prohibit conversions through “force, fraud, or inducement,” it fails to define these terms clearly, leading to the potential criminalisation of voluntary religious conversions.
- Conflict with universal human rights
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which India is a signatory, upholds the right of every person to freely choose, change, or propagate their religion. The APFRA, by restricting conversions and requiring official permission, infringes upon this internationally recognised right.
- Judicial precedents on religious freedom
While the Supreme Court of India in Rev Stainislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh upheld certain anti-conversion laws, it did not prohibit individuals from changing their faith of their own free will. The APFRA, however, creates a bureaucratic mechanism that can discourage and intimidate individuals seeking to exercise their right to religious choice, making it a de facto restriction on religious freedom.
- Ethical and social concerns
- Discrimination against minority faiths
The law disproportionately affects religious minorities, particularly Christians and Muslims, who engage in religious propagation as part of their faith practices. Indigenous religions are actively promoted and safeguarded by the state, while missionary activities from other faiths are scrutinised and curtailed. This selective approach contradicts India’s secular ethos.
- Hindrance to personal autonomy
Religious belief is a deeply personal choice. The APFRA places unnecessary barriers in the way of individuals who wish to convert, implying that people are incapable of making informed decisions about their own faith. Such a paternalistic approach undermines personal agency and treats citizens as subjects of state control, rather than as individuals with inherent rights.
- Potential for misuse
Since the terms ‘inducement’ and ‘force’ are vaguely defined, the law can be misused to target religious organisations and individuals engaged in social work. Any act of charity, including providing education, medical care, or financial assistance, could be misrepresented as an ‘inducement’ for conversion. This creates an atmosphere of fear and discourages genuine humanitarian efforts.
- Addressing the concerns of indigenous faiths
- Protecting indigenous traditions without restricting freedom
The argument that the APFRA protects indigenous faiths overlooks the fact that true religious preservation comes from within a community, not from government restrictions. Instead of imposing conversion barriers, the government should focus on promoting cultural education, supporting indigenous religious institutions, and allowing people to choose their beliefs freely.
- Upholding secularism and pluralism
India is a pluralistic society where multiple religions have coexisted for centuries. Protecting one faith at the expense of another contradicts the constitutional principle of secularism. A truly secular state does not regulate religious choices but ensures that all faiths have an equal space to thrive.
Conclusion
While the intention behind the APFRA may have been to safeguard indigenous cultures, its implementation raises serious concerns about constitutional rights, personal freedoms, and religious equality. True religious freedom cannot be achieved by restricting personal choice but by fostering an environment where all faiths, including indigenous ones, can flourish without fear of state intervention. Instead of laws that hinder religious conversion, the government should focus on empowering individuals to make informed choices about their beliefs, thereby strengthening the democratic and secular fabric of the nation.
A citizen