As Jharkhand debates the prospect of an anti-conversion law, SOLI J. SORABJEE returns to debates in the Constituent Assembly on the freedom to propagate one's religion
SOLI J. SORABJEE
During the framing of India's Constitution, minorities, especially the Muslims and Christians, were most concerned with the guarantee of freedom of religion. Article 13 of the original draft Constitution inter alia provided that all persons have shall the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health. It is noteworthy that this freedom extended to all persons - citizens and non-citizens alike - and included the right not merely to profess and practice but also to propagate religion.
What was the founding fathers' understanding of the expression "propagate"? Was conversion included in propagation and consequently in freedom of religion? Was the subject of conversion debated in the Constituent Assembly and what was the ultimate outcome?
At the outset I want to clarify, the present article is not about the legality or propriety or otherwise of conversion. It is to highlight the fact that the topic of conversion was very much in the minds of our founding fathers, was discussed in the Constituent Assembly and in the Advisory Committee on fundamental rights.
There was heated, extensive debate in the Constituent Assembly about the expression "propagation". Loknath Misra was opposed to the expression. He proposed an amendment to delete the word "propagate" from the article. This amendment was rejected. K T Shah mentioned that there are "religions which are professedly proselytising", obviously referring to Islam and Christianity. He was not against what he called "propaganda of religion" (meaning conversion), which is "calculated to change the religion or form of belief or worship inherited with one's parentage", provided the limitations in his proposed amendment were accepted. The principal limitation was that there should be no propagation in institutions receiving aid and consisting of young children.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (W Bengal" stated that "the Indian Christian community happens to be the most inoffensive community in the whole of India". He expressed the view "that propagation does not necessarily mean seeking converts by force of arms, by the sword, or by coercion. But why should obstacles stand in the way if by exposition, illustration and persuasion you could convey your own religious faith to others? I do not see any harm in it".
Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras) said, "So far as my experience goes, the Christian community have not transgressed their limits of legitimate propagation of religious view and on the whole they have done very well indeed. It is for other communities to emulate them and propagate their own religions as well". He emphasised, "It is very necessary that we should show tolerance. That is the spirit of all religions. To say that some religious people should not do propaganda or propagate their views is to show intolerance on our part".
K Santhanam felt the word "propagate" was unnecessary because propagation is merely a facet of freedom of expression. He noted that the word "convert" was not in the article. He was however happy that no "unlimited right of conversion has been given", obviously referring to the right to propagate one's religion and the limitation in the Constitution that this right is subject to public order, morality and health.
Rohini Kumar Chaudhari (Assam) had "no objection to the propagation of any religion. If anyone thinks that his religion is something ennobling and that it is his duty to ask others to follow that religion, he is welcome to do so".
The speech of T T Krishnamachari (Madras) is significant. He said, "I know as a person who has studied for about 14 years in Christian institutions that no attempt had been made to convert me from my own faith and to practise Christianity. I am very well aware of the influences that Christanity has brought to bear upon our own ideals and our own outlook, and I am not prepared to say here that they should be prevented from propagating their religion. I would ask the House to look at the facts so far as the history of this type of conversion is concerned. It depends on the way in which certain religionists and certain communities treat their less fortunate brethren. The fact that many people in this country have embraced Christianity is due partly to the status that it gave to them. Why should we forget that particular fact?" He concluded his speech by saying it is only fair to give "the same right to every religionist - to propagate his religion and to convert people, if he felt that it is a thing that he has to do and that is a thing for which he has been born and that is his duty towards his God and his community".
K M Munshi, who had taken a leading part in the framing of the Constitution, pointed out that he "was a party from the very beginning to the compromise with the minorities, which ultimately led to many of these clauses being inserted in the Constitution and I know it was on this word (propagate) that the Indian Christian community laid the greatest emphasis, not because they wanted to convert people aggressively but because the word 'propagate' was a fundamental part of their tenet... So long as religion is religion, conversion by free exercise of the conscience has to be recognised. The word 'propagate' in this clause is nothing very much out of the way as some people think, nor is it fraught with dangerous consequences". He urged that the word propagate "should be maintained in this article in order that the compromise so laudably achieved by the Minority Committee should not be disturbed".
Freedom of religion ultimately enacted in Article 25 of our Constitution inter alia provides that subject to public order, morality and health every person has the fundamental right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. The debates in the Constituent Assembly clearly indicate that our founding fathers did recognise that conversion was implicit in propagation of religion and that the expression "propagate" was deliberately incorporated because Islam and Christianity are proselytising religions. In this context the rejection of Loknath Misra's proposed amendment to delete the word "propagate" is noteworthy.
Our founding fathers were not swayed by narrow-mindedness and prejudices against certain religious minorities. They displayed broad-mindedness and the spirit of tolerance in keeping with our tradition which is most heartening. The crying need of the hour is to preserve that spirit of tolerance in all religious communities which is a must for creating an atmosphere conducive to mutual trust and understanding so essential to the welfare of our multi-religious, multi-cultural nation.
Soli J. Sorabjee is a former attorney general for India
Click Here for Source
SOLI J. SORABJEE
During the framing of India's Constitution, minorities, especially the Muslims and Christians, were most concerned with the guarantee of freedom of religion. Article 13 of the original draft Constitution inter alia provided that all persons have shall the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health. It is noteworthy that this freedom extended to all persons - citizens and non-citizens alike - and included the right not merely to profess and practice but also to propagate religion.
What was the founding fathers' understanding of the expression "propagate"? Was conversion included in propagation and consequently in freedom of religion? Was the subject of conversion debated in the Constituent Assembly and what was the ultimate outcome?
At the outset I want to clarify, the present article is not about the legality or propriety or otherwise of conversion. It is to highlight the fact that the topic of conversion was very much in the minds of our founding fathers, was discussed in the Constituent Assembly and in the Advisory Committee on fundamental rights.
There was heated, extensive debate in the Constituent Assembly about the expression "propagation". Loknath Misra was opposed to the expression. He proposed an amendment to delete the word "propagate" from the article. This amendment was rejected. K T Shah mentioned that there are "religions which are professedly proselytising", obviously referring to Islam and Christianity. He was not against what he called "propaganda of religion" (meaning conversion), which is "calculated to change the religion or form of belief or worship inherited with one's parentage", provided the limitations in his proposed amendment were accepted. The principal limitation was that there should be no propagation in institutions receiving aid and consisting of young children.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (W Bengal" stated that "the Indian Christian community happens to be the most inoffensive community in the whole of India". He expressed the view "that propagation does not necessarily mean seeking converts by force of arms, by the sword, or by coercion. But why should obstacles stand in the way if by exposition, illustration and persuasion you could convey your own religious faith to others? I do not see any harm in it".
Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras) said, "So far as my experience goes, the Christian community have not transgressed their limits of legitimate propagation of religious view and on the whole they have done very well indeed. It is for other communities to emulate them and propagate their own religions as well". He emphasised, "It is very necessary that we should show tolerance. That is the spirit of all religions. To say that some religious people should not do propaganda or propagate their views is to show intolerance on our part".
K Santhanam felt the word "propagate" was unnecessary because propagation is merely a facet of freedom of expression. He noted that the word "convert" was not in the article. He was however happy that no "unlimited right of conversion has been given", obviously referring to the right to propagate one's religion and the limitation in the Constitution that this right is subject to public order, morality and health.
Rohini Kumar Chaudhari (Assam) had "no objection to the propagation of any religion. If anyone thinks that his religion is something ennobling and that it is his duty to ask others to follow that religion, he is welcome to do so".
The speech of T T Krishnamachari (Madras) is significant. He said, "I know as a person who has studied for about 14 years in Christian institutions that no attempt had been made to convert me from my own faith and to practise Christianity. I am very well aware of the influences that Christanity has brought to bear upon our own ideals and our own outlook, and I am not prepared to say here that they should be prevented from propagating their religion. I would ask the House to look at the facts so far as the history of this type of conversion is concerned. It depends on the way in which certain religionists and certain communities treat their less fortunate brethren. The fact that many people in this country have embraced Christianity is due partly to the status that it gave to them. Why should we forget that particular fact?" He concluded his speech by saying it is only fair to give "the same right to every religionist - to propagate his religion and to convert people, if he felt that it is a thing that he has to do and that is a thing for which he has been born and that is his duty towards his God and his community".
K M Munshi, who had taken a leading part in the framing of the Constitution, pointed out that he "was a party from the very beginning to the compromise with the minorities, which ultimately led to many of these clauses being inserted in the Constitution and I know it was on this word (propagate) that the Indian Christian community laid the greatest emphasis, not because they wanted to convert people aggressively but because the word 'propagate' was a fundamental part of their tenet... So long as religion is religion, conversion by free exercise of the conscience has to be recognised. The word 'propagate' in this clause is nothing very much out of the way as some people think, nor is it fraught with dangerous consequences". He urged that the word propagate "should be maintained in this article in order that the compromise so laudably achieved by the Minority Committee should not be disturbed".
Freedom of religion ultimately enacted in Article 25 of our Constitution inter alia provides that subject to public order, morality and health every person has the fundamental right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. The debates in the Constituent Assembly clearly indicate that our founding fathers did recognise that conversion was implicit in propagation of religion and that the expression "propagate" was deliberately incorporated because Islam and Christianity are proselytising religions. In this context the rejection of Loknath Misra's proposed amendment to delete the word "propagate" is noteworthy.
Our founding fathers were not swayed by narrow-mindedness and prejudices against certain religious minorities. They displayed broad-mindedness and the spirit of tolerance in keeping with our tradition which is most heartening. The crying need of the hour is to preserve that spirit of tolerance in all religious communities which is a must for creating an atmosphere conducive to mutual trust and understanding so essential to the welfare of our multi-religious, multi-cultural nation.
Soli J. Sorabjee is a former attorney general for India
Click Here for Source
No comments:
Post a Comment