Friday, 24 November 2006 00:00
Allison Duncan served as a Research Associate at the Institute for Global Engagement during the summer 2006 term
Indian authorities and Christians are engaged in a mounting dispute over the meaning of religious freedom and what constitutes unethical and unlawful "proselytism." Increasing numbers of India's state governments are enacting anti-conversion laws, ostensibly to protect citizens from coercive evangelistic efforts. However, because of the ambiguity of these laws, along with precarious protection of religious freedom in the Indian Constitution, activities like rescuing prostitutes, visiting the sick, and persuading someone to join a church can be considered illegal proselytizing.1
To untangle the conflict over different definitions of illegitimate proselytism and legitimate evangelism, both Christians and Indian government officials will need to make good-faith efforts. Christians in particular have a reputation in India for coercive evangelism, and as such their work in ministry, service, and witnessing must be above reproach to avoid accusations from authorities with anti-Christian biases. And while the Indian church lives out responsible evangelism, Indian state governments should recognize and welcome the church's contributions to civil society rather than criminalizing its work.
Tensions are running high. For example, Pope Benedict's remarks in May on the deficiencies of religious freedom in India set off some indignant retorts from Indian leaders. During the Indian ambassador's visit to the Holy See, the pope praised India's heritage of accepting cultural and religious diversity. However, he expressed concern for the "disturbing signs of religious intolerance which have troubled some regions of the nation, including the reprehensible attempt to legislate clearly discriminatory restrictions on the fundamental right of religious freedom," which are "contrary to the highest ideals of India's founding fathers."2 The BJP, an influential Hindu nationalist party in India, expressed disapproval of the pope's criticism and asserted that the country maintains equal rights for all religious adherents.
Most anti-conversion laws in Indian states are similar to the one enacted in the state of Orissa, which reads, "No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means..."3 Although the Indian Constitution gives Indians the freedom to "profess, practice, and propagate religion," the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that "there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one's own religion" because this "impinge[s] on the freedom of conscience guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike." Yet the Court has also said ambiguously that the constitution allows citizens "to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets."4
Freedoms may be further curtailed by states whose laws define "inducement" as the offer of temptation in the form of a gift or benefit. These nebulous definitions of "propagation" and "inducement" leave room for authorities to brand valid persuasive discussion and charitable services as unlawful proselytism.
The anti-conversion laws of several Indian states indicate governmental reluctance to recognize that respectful religious debate and loving service to people of all beliefs is a legitimate part of practicing and propagating religion. Anti-conversion laws are often called Freedom of Religion Acts, suggesting that legislators equate freedom of religion with freedom from being persuaded to convert.
Unfortunately, the popular Indian stereotype of missions as an imperialistic, Western-based effort to threaten or bribe indigenous people is somewhat warranted. Without proper supervision and with a misguided zeal to report revival in India to their supporters, some Christians have resorted to unscrupulous methods of evangelism. In one case, missions organizations gave Indians a motorcycle and funding but not the oversight they needed to do evangelism. The Indians gathered townspeople for dinner and a church service and took pictures to show Westerners all the new believers. Other incidents of bought conversions have been reported, where Christians have used offers of health care or education as a lure to attract potential converts.5
These examples of proselytism have understandably caused Christians to lose credibility. However, the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations have repeatedly condemned attempts at evangelism that smack of coercion or fraud or that exploit poverty as a pretext for proselytism.
Despite this general agreement between Indian Hindus and Christians of different denominations about what constitutes unacceptable means of evangelism, some Indian state governments continue to resist legislative change on this issue. The nature of the laws, the observations of some human rights workers, and the comments of some Hindu nationalists suggest that one reason for resistance is that the Hindu majority wants to maintain its numbers and keep the under-classes in their place. Under most anti-conversion laws, people who try to convert women, minors, Dalits ("untouchables"), or tribal people face longer prison terms or heavier fines.6 And none of the laws prohibit re-conversion to Hinduism.
These two characteristics lead some commentators to speculate that the real motive behind anti-conversion laws is that high-caste Hindus want to uphold discrimination by keeping these groups under Hindu social hierarchy. If Dalits or other groups choose another religion, Hindus can no longer claim religious and social authority over these social inferiors, and the power of the majority crumbles. Joseph D'Souza, president of the Dalit Freedom Network and the All India Christian Council, has argued, "The upper castes want to keep [Dalits] as slaves," referring to the anti-conversion laws.7 The rhetoric used by certain BJP leaders is consistent with D'Souza'a interpretation. Rajnath Singh, the BJP chairman, once remarked:
Conversions comprise the greatest danger to our society: we cannot allow the demographic profile of the country to be changed. We will not let Hindus become a minority, as somebody has said they would be by 2060. As long as the BJP is on the political scene, it will fight such attempts tooth and nail…. As soon as I became chairman of the party, I asked all leaders to ensure anti-conversion laws were adopted in all our states, to destroy the plans of Christian missionaries.8
According to many human rights advocates, these laws negatively impact Indian society. Christian Solidarity Worldwide has observed that the laws may obstruct charitable work if officials decide that education and development efforts fall under the category of "inducement" or "allurement" to conversion.9 Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House, has noted that the laws lock people into Hinduism against their convictions and hinder free society by blocking open discussion.10
Again, the irony of this conflict is that most supporters of anti-conversion laws and most Christians in India agree that force and enticement are unacceptable methods of evangelism. Acknowledging this mutual understanding in principle is one step to deciding in practice whether a particular sect or missionary is guilty of exploitative coercion. By clearly offering services to people of all faiths and stressing that conversion is not a requirement for people to receive benefits, Christians will avoid appearing manipulative. When church authorities vigilantly hold the ministries they sponsor accountable, they will ensure that they serve people and evangelize with integrity.
In a statement responding to the controversy over the pope's comments, Indian Cardinal Dias wrote that although Christians make up only 2.3% of the country's population, they provide 20% of all primary education, 10% of literacy and community health care programs, 25% of care for orphans and widows, and 30% of care for handicapped, lepers and AIDS patients. The recipients of these services are overwhelmingly non-Christian.11 In light of the service that Christians offer to a significant part of the population, Indian governments should acknowledge the positive effects of religious activity. Indian converts to Christianity should give testimony stating their free choice of another religion and that Christianity's attraction is not a result of an evangelist's manipulation. As Cardinal Dias has argued, advocates of anti-conversion laws should not be offended that some Hindus are drawn to a religion founded on the service and sacrificial love of Christ.12
Both Christians and proponents of anti-conversion laws have a responsibility to resolve conflicting definitions of religious freedom. If they reach a mutual understanding in a transparent dialogue, Indian governments will be more likely to amend the laws to specify what conversion techniques are prohibited to keep authorities from interpreting laws to the detriment of Christians and other religious minorities and their work.
