JOIN USAnti-conversion laws once again showcase friction between Hindutva and secularism
On November 28 last year when the Governor of Uttar Pradesh passed the ordinance titled the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020, the debate surrounding the Hindu nationalist digressive politics popularly called 'Love Jihad' resurfaced. This was followed by few more states promulgating similar legislations, such as the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Bill, 2020. The so-called ‘Love Jihad’ laws in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and other states again showcase the problematic thought process that conversion out of Hinduism is a coercive phenomenon that needs to be stopped at all costs.
The UP Ordinance, popularly called the ‘Love Jihad Law’, was promulgated to further the aim of Mission Shakti, a campaign that works towards the safety of women. However, with a quintessential paternalistic attitude, the state attempts to outlaw inter-faith marriages, and ends up disregarding women’s personal autonomy by treating them as victims who need to be rescued from religious conversion. This mandate could create an avenue for female convertees to get abused and tortured by their family members and community.
These laws are not isolated instances but form a part of the larger agenda of the Hindu Right. There have been attacks on minorities, especially Muslims, ranging from lynchings to making religion a criteria for conferring citizenship (and hence excluding Muslims) under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and day-to-day acts, which are no less dangerous, such as holding Muslims responsible for spreading Covid -19 through the Tablighi Jamaat incident by making use of misinformation campaigns.
To define in simple words, ‘Love Jihad’ is an ideology propounded by Hindu nationalist groups which seeks to protect Hindu girls against the alleged attempts of seduction, marriage, conversion and trafficking by Muslim men.
However, what makes the Ordinance a concrete step to act on this ideology is that it makes conversion for marriage illegal. Such a marriage becomes null and void, thus affecting the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and Right to Equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution (due to singling out of women as victims without any rational basis). The deeper attack, is of course, on the secular character of the nation.
This sense of intolerance was reflected in the United State Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) report in 2018 which had raised concern regarding the violations of religious freedoms by government in India along with other countries like Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, and Turkey.
There have been several instances over the years where the Indian citizen’s Constitution guaranteed right to religious freedom has been questioned by Hindu groups. Few recent examples are the Bajrang Dal’s warnings to Hindus in Silchar that those attending celebrations in Churches would be beaten up.
Although India is a secular country, there have been several instances where religious freedom has been questioned by the Hindu nationalist groups. For example , in 1981, the VHP had organised campaign against the conversion of Dalits to Islam in Meenakshipuram, Tamil Nadu which was followed by the Jan Jagran Abhiyan that aimed to make Hindus aware that Muslims and Christians are conspiring to overrun Hindus.
Also Read: What is the definition of 'Love Jihad'?
All such incidents raise a question regarding the persisting tension between Hindu nationalism and India as a liberal democracy. What needs to be kept in mind is that Hindutva ‘religious nationalism’ is altogether different from ‘Hinduism’. While the former focuses on ethnic, racial, territorial and nationalist ideas whereas the latter is liberal, tolerant and respectful which gives rise to friction between Hindutva and secularism.
Seen in this light, the ordinances based on religious conversion are not merely to deter unlawful conversion but also challenge the foundational link between religion and state and the need to find the middle path between right to choice and justified state intervention.
(Abhinav Mehrotra and Konina Mandal are both Assistant Lecturers at Jindal Global Law School, OP Jindal Global University)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the authors' own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.