[ Xun Bagang ]
Religious freedom is a fundamental pillar of Indian democracy, enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution, allowing individuals to profess, practice, and propagates their faith. Simultaneously, the Constitution grants special protections to tribal communities to preserve their unique cultural identity and safeguard them from external influences.
The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act (APFRA), 1978, has been at the centre of debate, with differing views on whether it restricts religious freedom or acts as a necessary safeguard against cultural erosion.
A nuanced perspective is required – one that upholds individual religious rights while ensuring the protection of Arunachal’s indigenous communities.
The need for tribal protection
Arunachal Pradesh is home to diverse tribal communities with deeply rooted spiritual beliefs and traditional practices. These communities have historically followed animistic and indigenous faiths, distinct from mainstream organised religions. The Indian Constitution, under Articles 29 and 46, ensures their protection from exploitation and cultural erosion.
Large-scale religious conversions, whether through inducement or social influence, can significantly alter the demographic and cultural fabric of a region. Many tribal leaders fear that rapid religious shifts could lead to the loss of indigenous traditions, customary laws, and social cohesion. Recognising these concerns, constitutional provisions such as the 5th and 6th Schedules grant special protections to tribal communities.
The APFRA seeks to regulate religious conversions, ensuring that they occur voluntarily and without coercion. However, critics argue that the law imposes undue restrictions, affecting certain religious communities disproportionately and creating bureaucratic hurdles for personal faith choices.
Does APFRA violate religious freedom?
Critics contend that the law contradicts Article 25 by mandating official notification before converting, imposing government oversight on a personal decision. Some also argue that Article 14, guaranteeing equality before the law, is compromised if the law is selectively enforced.
However, Article 25 is not absolute – it is subject to public order, morality, and health. The Supreme Court has upheld that while individuals can propagate their religion, the state can regulate forced or fraudulent conversions. The APFRA does not ban conversions outright but aims to ensure they occur transparently and without undue influence.
Additionally, coercion or inducement can already be addressed through the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This raises questions about the necessity of a separate law targeting religious conversions and whether its implementation aligns with constitutional principles.
The risk of misuse
A significant concern regarding the APFRA is the potential for misuse. In states with similar laws, there have been false accusations against religious leaders and individuals engaging in peaceful religious activities. Ambiguities in defining ‘force’ or ‘inducement’ create space for harassment and legal overreach, fostering fear among religious minorities.
Conversely, tribal leaders argue that unregulated conversions leave indigenous communities vulnerable to external religious influences that may not always operate in good faith. Instances of material incentives, social pressures, and conversion-driven divisions within communities highlight the need for some level of oversight.
To strike a balance, clear legal definitions and safeguards must be established to protect both religious freedoms and tribal heritage.
Finding a constitutional balance
A middle ground can be achieved through reforming and refining the APFRA, rather than outright repeal or uncritical enforcement. A well-structured law should:
Ensure voluntary conversions: Require clear documentation proving voluntary conversion while simplifying bureaucratic processes to avoid delays.
Prevent inducements and coercion: Penalise forced conversions while ensuring that false accusations are discouraged.
Respect tribal autonomy: Consult tribal leaders to align legal frameworks with cultural protections.
Uniform application: Apply the law equitably across all religious conversions to prevent selective enforcement.
Judicial oversight: Conversion-related disputes should be handled by independent judicial bodies, not local political or administrative entities.
A collaborative path forward
The debate over the APFRA is not solely about religious freedom but also about tribal identity and cultural preservation. While individuals must have the right to choose their faith, the concerns of tribal communities regarding external influences and cultural dilution cannot be ignored.
To achieve a fair and lasting solution, dialogue – not conflict – is key. A structured roundtable discussion should be initiated, bringing together:
Tribal leaders, to voice concerns about preserving indigenous traditions.
Religious leaders, to ensure that faith-based activities remain free and voluntary.
Judicial representatives, to uphold constitutional principles and prevent misuse of laws.
Government officials, to facilitate policymaking based on balanced discussions.
By fostering coexistence with mutual respect, Arunachal can build a future where religious freedom and tribal protection are harmonised within the constitutional framework, ensuring a just and inclusive society. (The views expressed are personal.)
