Monday Musing
[ Amar Sangno ]
Religious spats indeed have no ending, but rather possess the potential to create disharmony in the society. The dispute over the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act (APFRA) between the Indigenous Faith and Cultural Society of Arunachal Pradesh (IFCSAP) and the Arunachal Christian Forum (ACF) has made this subject a forbidden apple that commentators are hesitant to take a bite from.
Both sides have intensified their pressure on the government – the IFCSAP for implementation the Act in toto, and the ACF demanding repealing it, stating that the Act is against the principles of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution – thus making a never-ending deadlock, far from reconciliation, in the foreseeable future.
Given the current situation, any neutral commentator would be walking on a tightrope while commenting on the APFRA. Honestly, I am currently going through the exact situation, as this controversial Act remains sensitive and touchy as ever – a bone of contention that has lasted four decades between Christians and believers of indigenous faiths.
The IFCSAP argues that the APFRA, 1978 is a protective legislation to protect the indigenous faiths, cultures, customs and identities. It further argues that the Act is not against any religion but safeguards all religions.
At the same time, the ACF terms the Act draconian and coercive and against the fundamental principle of secularism, targeting the Christian community. The ACF also argues that the Act is an infringement on Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and the implementation of the Act would cause social unrest and law and order problems in the state.
To give both sides’ arguments equal space and weight, I interviewed two of the most prominent political figures who know the genesis of the Act – Prem Khandu Thungon, the then chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, when it was a union territory, and James Lowangcha Wanglat, former home minister and human rights activist, who was one of the active activists who opposed the Act tooth and nail.
Revisiting history
Prior to the enactment of the APFRA, there were conflicting accounts that claim to be attributed to the enactment of the controversial anti-conversion Act in the newly created union territory (Arunachal Pradesh). One of the popular theories is the influence of right-wing Hindu nationalist organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangn (RSS), in enacting the Act.
The Act came into force at the peak of the Christian movement and was unjustly prosecuted by the state authorities over converting indigenous faiths believers and building churches across the state. To substantiate this account, many Christian believers, including Wanglat himself, who has written a book titled A Rise of Christianity in Arunachal Pradesh, have documented the prosecution.
Wanglat believes that the APFRA was the work of the ministry of home affairs (MHA) during the Janata Party government. He highlighted a prevailing perception in the early 1960s and the 70s that the CIA aimed to create a Christian buffer state in Northeast India, including the then NEFA now Arunachal Pradesh.
Wanglat recounted, “The then chief commissioner of Arunachal Pradesh, KAA Raja, informed me that the CIA intended to establish the eastern flank of India as a buffer state consisting of a Christian majority along the border with China and Myanmar.”
“I strongly believe that both Raja and the MHA were misguided on the geopolitical roadmap by Indian policy thinkers about a fear from foreign actors (in particular America),” Wanglat said. He suggested that these concerns were one of the contributing factors behind calling Christianity a foreign religion, leading to the enactment of the APFRA.
The then CM, PK Thungon, has a different account. He denied that the RSS played any role in the enactment of the law. According to him, the Arunachal Freedom Indigenous Faiths Bill was introduced in the Provincial Councillor Assembly, based on the resolution moved by Oken Lego of Roing, who himself became a Christian later.
“Law and order issue cropped up after Christian missionaries (pastors) started converting indigenous faith believers into Christianity. Oken Lego came up with a resolution in the Assembly, which aimed to protect indigenous faiths and customs and traditions,” Thungon recounted.
“The bill was not against any person. This bill is not against Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Islam. Under this Act, anyone can convert to any religion, provided they follow the procedures, so that no one creates law and order problems,” the former CM reiterated.
“Those who are saying that it is unconstitutional should go through the Constitution properly; there is a provision in the Constitution under which this Act was enacted after discussing thoroughly with the law secretary and the union law minister. Shouting unconstitutional on social media or public rallies will not yield any result; it must be declared unconstitutional through the court,” he added.
He further said that, as a dutiful chief minister, he had just carried out the wisdom of the wise and elderly people and Arunachali leaders in getting the bill through the Assembly by enacting a law.
Bone of generational contention
It is undeniable why the Christian community wants this Act to be repealed. It fears that the Act might be misused by anyone, and that there would be a curb on conversion, which has been happening since the 70s in Arunachal.
On the contrary, the indigenous faiths believers want the Act to be enforced in toto because in many villages, especially among the Nyishi community, indigenous faith groups have become a minority.
In his public interest litigation (PIL), former IFCSAP GS Tambo Tamin claimed that indigenous faiths believers’ population has alarmingly degraded to 26.20% as per the 2011 census. “The indigenous faith followers were 63,46% in the 1981 census; it decreased to 51.60% in the 1991 census, and it went down to 31.85% in the 2001 census. It settled at 30.73%,” he further claimed.
Wanglat believes that the explosion of Christian population is counter-productive to the Act.
On the part of the government and the IFCSAP, it would be a bluff to deny that the Act is not against the interest of any religion. At the same time, on the part of the ACF, it is just glossing over the fact that no forceful or fraudulent conversion had happened ever since this Act was enacted.
In many instances, forceful conversion of indigenous faiths believers and burning down of altars and desecration of indigenous monoliths were reported. Years ago, a video of a pastor burning down a Donyi-Polo altar surfaced in East Kameng district, which led to widespread condemnation and arrest of the pastor.
Another factor for disagreement is the reluctance among the Christian community to attend indigenous festivals, where rituals are a core value. Similarly, the intervention of the RSS and Hindutva bodies always raises a question on the indigenous faiths’ originality.
It is believed that the IFSCAP’s chorus for implementation of the APFRA got momentum as a direct repercussion of the Christian community’s attempt to build a church in Tawang in 2020, leading to the arrest of the CRC pastor. Liberal Christians like Wanglat say that one must learn to respect the beliefs of others and strive to coexist harmoniously as a community.
On the Tawang church, he said: “I don’t believe there are many Tawang Monpa who are Christian. We must remember that the Tawang monastery is considered an extremely sacred institution by Buddhists. Should we not respect?
“As god-fearing Christians, I strongly believe that we should honour the sanctity of the Buddhist holy place by refraining from confronting local Buddhist communities or insisting and constructing a large church,” he added.
Coexist harmoniously
Forceful enforcement of the Act would only invite chaos and uncertainty in the state. At the same time, using brute majority to stage agitations targeting the establishments would widen the mistrust among the communities.
Spats over the APFRA between the indigenous faiths believers and the Christian community are nothing but a battle for supremacy and survival. There is no end to the tunnel, unless both parties show maturity to sit across the table for a resolution and discuss thoroughly how all religions can coexist harmoniously without eyeing each other’s crown.
