GLADSTONE D’COSTA
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
A front-page photograph of our Prime Minister in a Catholic church in Delhi on Christmas day, re ceiving a blessing from the Archbishop filled me with the hope that this would be the shape of things to come. He even posted on X “The service reflected the timeless message of love, peace and compassion. May the spirit of Christmas inspire harmony and goodwill in our society”. I turned the page and my hopes were dashed. Right wing groups had called for a day-long bandh in protest against religious conver sions allegedly taking place in various states. An armed mob barged into a mall and vandalised Christmas decorations and installa tions. Figures of Santa Claus were “beheaded”; reindeer, sleighs and snowmen were destroyed. Church services were disrupted. In a Jabalpur church, a BJP district VP as saulted a visually impaired woman accusing her of en gaging in conversions. A birthday party was vandal ised and people beaten just for being there. Such sto ries were repeated in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and elsewhere. Our PM’s (hypocritical) silence amounted to tacit approval yet again. Twelve states controlled by his party have anti-conversion laws in place; the latest being Rajast han, which introduced the Bill in February 2025, and amended it in September. The amended Bill has steeper pen alties for violations with ex haustive and dissuasive pro cedures for those wanting to convert. Those “returning to their ancestral religion” have been exempted. Involvement in unlawful conversion can be punished with a jail term of 7 to 14 years, along with a minimum fine of Rs 5 lakh. All offences will be cognisable and non-bailable. Property can be seized or demolished, irrespective of whether it be longs to the person convicted or to someone else; and ir respective of whether it was used with the consent of the owner or not. In case of volun tary conversions, the exhaus tive process prescribed could take months. The Rajasthan Law Minister said the bill was required “to prevent forcible conversions”. I have always failed to under stand the concept of “forced” conversions. Force implies something to be gained. What is to be gained by a forced con version? The very use of the term “forced” implies that the person is hardly likely to ac tively practise the religion; re ligions which have strict laws and are often difficult to abide by, even for those born into that religion. It just doesn’t make sense; and appears to be an attempt to divert atten tion from the numerous policy failures, such as water and air pollution, garbage, inflation, unemployment, corruption, pathetic roads, and non-func tioning schools. It is not as if Christian society is parasitic. The list of Union Cabinet min isters who are alumni of Chris tian institutions speaks for itself. L K Advani, J P Nadda, Piyush Goyal, Nirmala Sithar aman, Ashwini Vaishnav, Jyoti raditya Scindia are just some of the more prominent exam ples; who have also publicly denied any attempt at conver sion. Six crore students are en rolled in the 54,000 Christian institutions across the coun try annually; making them the most sought-after even by party law-makers. Seventy five percent of these students are non-Christians. The contribu tion in healthcare is equally significant. Christian health care facilities reach out to 2% of India’s population; 80% of these facilities are established in remote areas with no med ical services. 60,000 inpatient beds were made available in over 1,000 hospitals during Covid. The Catholic Health As sociation of India, with over 3500 institutions, has 76,000 health professionals, 25,000 nurses, 10,000 paramedics, and 15,000 social workers, making it the largest non-gov ernmental healthcare network in India. Repeated allegations of conversions have not re sulted in a single conviction till date. This reinforces the con cept that such noise is purely diversionary. Seven hundred attacks per year on Chris tians without any convictions, amounts to terrorism. The “law” led to the Catholic Bish op Conference of India (CBCI) filing a petition with the SC challenging the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan law. Does the data for conver sions justify implementing a law that violates fundamen tal rights? Or is it just a ploy to fulfil hidden sinister agen das under the garb of pro tecting “gullible persons.” In 2021, the Pew Research Cen tre released a report entitled “Religious Composition of In dia” which dealt with the re ligious changes in India and their causes. According to the report, 99% of persons who claim to have been raised as Hindus still identify as such. 97% of Muslims remain Mus lims. 94% of Indians who grew up as Christians remain Christians. The few who do change balance each oth er out. For instance, whilst 0.7% were raised as Hindus do not currently identify as such, 0.8% raised outside Hinduism are now Hindu. In terfaith marriages are highly uncommon. Ninety nine per cent of Hindus, 98% of Mus lims, and 95% of Christians report having a spouse who share their beliefs, and were brought up in their present faith. The false sense of reli gious insecurity created by right–wing extremists mere ly fans the flames of religious intolerance and violates the fundamental rights provided in the Constitution of India. It creates an atmosphere conducive to abuse by giv ing officials broad immunity, imposing undue procedural limits on voluntary conver sions, and transferring the burden of proof to the ac cused, exerting state control over individual faith choices. A political ploy rather than true protection. Even admitting a child from a poor background to a school or providing medical care to sick people in a hos pital can be misinterpreted as allurement aimed at re ligious conversion. Putting the burden of proof on the accused, goes against the basic principles of the Indi an legal system. The SC, on November 28, 2025, directed the Rajasthan Government to respond to a plea challenging the validity of the provisions of the Rajasthan Act. A two judge bench issued notice to the Centre and the gov ernments of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Ut tarakhand and Haryana, directing them to respond within four weeks. The mat ter will be taken up after six weeks to consider the prayer for stay of these laws. This country cannot permit the destruction of its secular and pluralistic fabric. (The author is the Past IMA Goa State President, founder member and Past President of VHAG, and a past member of the Central Executive Committee of VHAI)
