It’s passage was via voice vote, even as opposition members, Congress in particular, protested from the well of the House, demanding continuation of the debate on the Bill. But Congress was also embarrassed, as the ruling BJP alleged that the Bill had been initiated by the former Congress CM Siddaramaiah when he was holding office, which he initially denied, before admitting that as CM he had asked that the draft bill be placed before the cabinet but that no further decision was taken and so it could not be said that he had initiated the Bill.
The point of contention is not who piloted this particular Bill or when it was first mooted. That is an attempt to camouflage the more important aspect in a political debate of finger pointing. It is the contents of the Bill that are under question and that should be the focus. The Bill has already drawn a lot of controversy, with minority groups opposing it even before it was passed, hoping that the government would change its mind and withdraw the Bill. The Karnataka government, however, asserts that there is nothing to worry as regards the contents of the Bill and that it is constitutional and legal, and aimed at getting rid of the menace of religious conversion.
The Bill states that ‘No person shall convert or attempt to convert either directly or otherwise any other person from one religion to another by use of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage, nor shall any person abet or conspire for conversions.” However, the Bill exempts a person who ‘reconverts to his immediate previous religion’ and such an act will not be ‘deemed to be a conversion’. It provides for a jail term of three to five years and a fine of Rs 25,000 for general violators, and a jail term of three to 10 years and a fine of Rs 50,000 for those converting minors, women or persons from SC/ST communities.
Fear among Catholics in Karnataka is that the Bill may be used to target Christians. Catholic bishops from the State will be meeting to decide what can be done and a legal challenge cannot be ruled out. The Catholic leaders in that State feel there is no need for such a law as there already exists a provision to punish those involved in forcible religious conversion. Their argument is that the Constitution of India ensures equality, liberty and fraternity. They have pointed out that the Catholics have done a lot of service during the COVID pandemic but have never lured anybody to convert. This statement was made as the main contention of those backing the Bill is the use of coercive methods to convert people. Conversion should always be voluntary.
Religious conversion has been a subject of debate for very long in the country. India is a secular country where people of various religions have co-existed and still do. The argument that conversions could alter the demographic profile of the country, and hence such laws are required, is weak. There has been no major change in the population mix where religions are concerned to validate this point. The anti-conversion moves will not die anytime soon. They are going to continue and new laws such as the oe recently passed, will keep fanning the issue. The Bill, once it becomes an Act, should not be used to target certain communities.
