Editor,
This is a clarification on ‘Mystic affairs of religion and state’ written by me and published on 20 February in this daily. Therein a sentence had been provided ‘… Right to propagate only sanctifies the right to preach the tenets of one’s religion and not right to convert through any means….’ The sentence meant to state that a person has right to propagate and to convert such other person, but not through all means. Meaning thereby that a person can be converted from one religion to another religion, and vice-versa (ie, can be converted back to his previous religion), provided that, in both the cases such conversion ought to take place on ‘free will’ of such converted person and not through means which are not mandated by the Constitution, viz, fraud, inducement, threat and the like. Therefore, the given sentence does not mean that there is no right of conversion. Conversion, even after the enforcement of the APFRA, 1978, remains valid, provided that there is free consent of such person desiring the conversion. And therefore, the Act intends to protect practitioners of every religion from being converted to other religion through fraud and inducement. Therefore, the motive is constitutional, but its vagaries depend upon those who enforce it, ie, the state.
S Umpo