08 Jan 2021  |   05:11am IST

Selective love and justice

Selective love and justice

Gladstone D’Costa

“Love Jihad” and anti-conversion laws have dominated the media for months now. Wrapping my head around either was difficult. Take “Love Jihad”. Love is easy enough to understand. “Jihad” implies a holy war. The term therefore suggests a war spawned by love, as in Helen of Troy’s’ “face that launched a thousand ships”. But this Love Jihad leads us to anti-conversion laws and an explosion of religious fundamentalism. The Oxford dictionary defines “Jihad” as ‘a religious war of Moslems against unbelievers’. A more charitable interpretation is that Jihad includes any effort to promote Islam, not necessarily by war. One needs to wind the clock back a little to understand the concepts.

Interestingly, the term originated in Kerala in 2009. The then CM, Oommen Chandy, declared that during 2009-12, 2,667 women of other faiths were converted to Islam; 33 times more than the 81 who converted from Islam to other faiths (India Today, 4.9.2012). The Karnataka government joined the chorus dubbing it a serious issue. It was lapped up by Hindutva groups and gained further traction when the Union of Catholic Asian News (13.10.2009) published a report headlined “state concerned about ‘Love Jihad’”. Even the Syro-Malabar Church expressed concern. The NIA, directed by the SC, probed the issue and reported 94 cases of love marriages between Muslim men and non-Muslim women; of which 23 were “suspected” of being cases of Love Jihad. Such fears were fertilised by various studies (Fargues, Nitze, Hassam Munir etc.). Christian Sahner went further in his book on Christian Martyrs that one of the four methods by which Islam spread through the Christian world was “via the bedroom.” The idea spread nationally, as well as globally, to Buddhist Burma and Thailand. In 2019, the Kerala Minority Commission Vice-Chairman wrote to the Union Home Minister Amit Shah on organised conversion warning that “love jihad is on”. Nationally, a survey by the National Council of Applied Economic Research showed that inter religious marriages accounted for only 2.21 per cent of all marriages of women between 15-49 years of age. There is no data on how many of these came to any grief; only anecdotal evidence.

What of the anti-conversion laws? According to research papers (US Library of Congress), laws restricting religious conversions were first introduced by princely states headed by Hindu royal families in the 1930s and 1940s. Following colonisation, these royal families perceived a threat to their religious identity from the missionaries who closely followed the colonial powers. The anti-conversion laws were introduced to counter this threat and preserve their Hindu identity. More than a dozen such princely states, like Bikaner, Raigarh, Jodhpur etc. enacted such laws. Following independence, there were numerous attempts to introduce laws restricting religious conversions. None of these made it through parliament and eventually the Union Law Ministry in 2015, opined that as law and order was a state subject, it was not possible to pass a central law against conversions. Thereafter over the years, eight states enacted laws named “Freedom of Religion Act” or variations of the same. 

More recently, three states, UP, MP, and Himachal Pradesh enacted amended and more stringent versions of the laws, based on the claim that there was a sharp rise in coerced or fraudulent conversions linked to inter-religious marriages. One can’t help wondering what it is about these laws that created such an uproar across the nation.

To start with, they turn a fundamental principal of jurisprudence completely on its head; that you are innocent until proven guilty. These laws mandate that once accused, it is up to the accused to prove his innocence. This is unacceptable in any civilised society and the sole purpose appears to be to intimidate the minority communities. If there is an accusation that the sole purpose of the conversion was marriage, then that marriage can be declared null and void. Anyone can make a complaint claiming to be the aggrieved person; including those with no connection with the couple. In short it can be used to settle scores. Jail terms extend to 10 years and fines up to Rs 1 lakh. There is no statute of limitations and no search warrant required. A declaration of intent to convert has to be made to the DM at least 60 days prior, with even the officiating Priest being required to inform. All these clauses collectively fly in the face of Article 14, 21 and 25 of the constitution. How do these laws fare in implementation?

In one month since implementation in UP, there have been 14 cases, 49 people in jail and a woman complainant in two. Allegations have been declared without any basis and dropped (Bariely police). A couple simply walking home from a birthday party were accused and jailed. Another in Moradabad who had got married before the enactment of the law, was arrested, the woman tortured in jail and had a miscarriage. The Himachal HC is already on record for asking “why should a human being be asked to inform the authorities that he is changing his beliefs?” The Allahabad HC ordered the release of a girl because the arrest was “without application of mind and lacked application of legal provisions”. It appears to me that Yogi Adityanath should be more concerned by the fact that 42% of children in UP are stunted because of malnutrition; that it tops the list of encounter killings and custodial deaths; that along with MP it has the highest incidence of rapes (NCRB); that every 8 minutes a child is kidnapped and sold to brothels or child labour markets (BBC).

A petition against these laws is due for hearing in the SC one day before this column is due to appear in print. Let’s hope sanity prevails.


(The writer is a founder member VHAG)


IDhar UDHAR

Idhar Udhar