The recent targeted attack against the Christian community in rural Orissa on the eve of Christmas allegedly by radical Hindutva groups once again demonstrates the susceptible communal divide that lies beneath the surface waiting to ignite into violence and ill feelings perpetuated by religious extremists on either side of the divide. This is a fundamental problem that exists not only in India but across societies marked by pluralism. The challenge is how to live and let live in peaceful coexistence while respecting each other’s diversity and religious beliefs while also ensuring that extremist elements are not allowed to disturb communal harmony. As far as the State machinery is concerned, whether it is attack on Hindus, Muslims or Christians or their places of worship, government action must be affirmative i.e. to establish the rule of law, protect its citizens and deliver justice as the case may be.
What happened in Orissa since December 24 when Churches were destroyed and people killed because they were Christians and the gross neglect shown by the local police against the affected community all point to a sinister design to placate majoritarianism further polarizing the situation on the ground. As such, the manner in which the Orissa government has handled the recent attack on Christians calls for wide condemnation. The essence of a secular polity enjoins that every individual is guaranteed the freedom to profess and practice the religion of one’s choice. The very essence of secularism as enshrined in Article 25 is being directly attacked by the callousness of a State government and to let it merely pass off as an aberration will set forth a dangerous precedent that will cause permanent damage to the secular character of the country.
While controversy is usually centered around those who allegedly convert, most notably the Christian Missionaries, the very basis of Article 25-28 dealing with freedom of religion under the Constitution would imply that religious conversions itself is a natural corollary to the choice given under this fundamental right. While conversions brought about by fraud or coercion amounts to a crime, there are enough safeguards under the present penal system to check such notorious designs. One should rather consider the problem by making a difference between conversions that is voluntary and involving one’s free choice and all other conversions that involves coercion, allurement and one that is forced upon an unwilling individual.
Similarly it would be unfair to put the onus of forced conversion merely on Christian missionaries. The political and religious groups who are concerned by the desertion of believers to other religions would also have to turn the search light on themselves and find out the reasons as to why believers are flocking to other religions and faith rather than blaming the missionaries. While freedom has its reasonable limits, to profess, practice and propagate one’s religion is a matter of individual choice and consent and no one can take this away, not by forced conversion and certainly not through the dictates of State power or violence. Both are undesirable acts.
