(The Political Line newsletter is India’s political landscape explained every week by Varghese K. George, senior editor at The Hindu. You can subscribe here to get the newsletter delivered to your inbox every Friday.)
Three points to note about SC on conversion
If the number of Christians in the country increases, will it be a threat to India’s national security? The Supreme Court of India recently had to make some comments on this question. The court has ordered the Center to file an affidavit on or before November 22 detailing the steps it has taken to curb forced conversions. Conversion through force or allurement, the Court said, “ultimately affects the security of the nation and the freedom of religion and conscience of the citizens…. Everyone has the right to choose his religion, but forced conversion or inducement No… ”
Following the observation of the Court, three points are noteworthy.
First, the implicit assumption is that the greater the number of Christians in a country, the greater the threat to India. The idea that nations are bound by a common religious bond is not new or unique to India. That Hinduism is a fundamental glue of the Indian nation is also nothing new. In fact, the issue of conversion was controversial even during Jawaharlal Nehru’s prime ministership and he himself rejected conversion, reiterating the rights of minorities to practice and propagate their faith. I think it would be difficult to imagine any India as a nation without accepting Hindutva as its foundation. At what point does a country’s cultural heritage degenerate into viewing minorities as a threat to the nation? This question has troubled many countries in the past, and continues to do so today, including the United States.
The second problem in the view of the Court is the definition of inducement, coercion etc. for the purpose of determining the validity of certain conversions. Given that conversion of belief occurs primarily in the mind, and that any outward expression of a belief is convenience and often tactical, the state’s decision-making on all of this would be a mess. Compare this to someone who is changing their political affiliation – this could be due to attraction, a new understanding or many other factors. And after all she may decide not to vote for the party she campaigned for! Achieving the sacred objective of making politics free from greed or freebies will not be easy. There are motivations for all human action, and often they are material. What has been effected on a person’s mind is in his mind only and any outside agency has little access to it.
The third point is that the court is calling upon the Center to give itself wide powers to curb conversions. “But the difficulty is that who will file the complaint? … Even the concerned states cannot file … So the Union must intervene,” the court said,
In 2021, the same petitioner was warned by the court for coming up with the same petition to enact a law against conversion. “Why shouldn’t a person above the age of 18 choose his religion? What kind of writ petition is this? We will impose a heavy fine on you… withdraw it or argue and risk the consequences.’ Justice Nariman reminded Mr. Upadhyay of the fundamental right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health, under Article 25 of the Constitution. “Why do you think ‘propaganda’ is the word?” Justice Nariman asked the petitioner,
As the benches change, times change, the views of the courts also change, it seems.
federalism path
Dravidian parties of Tamil Nadu are celebrating Release of six people convicted in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, This is an example of the madness of regional pride and autonomy. They walked out not only in freedom – but in stardom it seems. Yet, Nalini, one of the convicts and part of the murder conspiracy, was clearly not happy.
“I am not happy with my release as I spent most of my life serving sentence in jail. I was disheartened today (Saturday) when I saw that my husband (Murugan) [was] was being taken in a vehicle that was used to transport dogs while being taken to a special camp in Tiruchy. Still, I will continue my fight to get him out of there soon.” Nalini was present at the spot where the former Prime Minister of India was killed in a suicide bombing, along with several others. He was sentenced to death, but it was commuted after the intervention of the late prime minister’s widow, Sonia Gandhi.
I am against capital punishment. I find the act of taking people’s lives in a premeditated manner by the government to be abhorrent. That’s why I didn’t want the culprits to get the death penalty. The commutation of the death sentence should have meant that he should spend the rest of his life in prison. More than that, there is a celebration of these culprits in whose violence many people died.
According to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK StalinHis release “is a victory for the strong legal battle we fought soon after coming to power. This is a victory for all those working for human rights.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the convicts set a precedent for the acquittal of Perarivalan, another accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The Court is exercising extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do so. What does Article 142 say? Reading this lecturer,
Beyond my personal disgust at the cheering of the assassins of a former prime minister, there are some philosophical questions that greatly complicate the discussion of what constitutes nationalism, war, and legitimate violence. In fact, one of the released convicts said that they should be seen as victims and not criminals. I try to wrap my head around some of these issues. One of the fascinating thinker-soldiers I follow is Benjamin Burrell Ferenc, now 102. He was an investigator of Nazi war crimes after World War II, a Jew who had once been an American soldier. His views on war and violence by the state are worth listening to.
here is an excerpt from Interview,
Interviewer: Have you met many people who have committed war crimes who in your opinion would otherwise have been normal, upstanding citizens?
Benjamin Ferenc: Of course is my answer. These people would never have been murderers if it had not been for the war. These were people who could quote Goethe, who loved Wagner, who were humble…
Interviewer: What is it that turns a man into a wild animal?
Benjamin Ferenc: He is not wild. He is an intelligent, patriotic person.
Interviewer: Although he is a savage when he kills.
Benjamin Ferenc: No, he is a patriotic man who is working in his mind, in the interest of his country.
Interviewer: Don’t you think they become too wild for the act?
Benjamin Ferenc: Do you think the man who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was a savage? Now let me tell you a very profound thing which I have learned after many years. War makes murderers out of otherwise civilized people. All war, and all civilized people.
you can read more Here,