When India adopted its Constitution in 1950, it pledged an audacious experiment: a nation of many faiths united by the freedom of conscience. Article 25 guarantees every citizen the right to “profess, practise and propagate religion.” That guarantee was not mere rhetoric. It emerged from a hard-fought debate in the Constituent Assembly where leaders rejected demands to curb missionary activity, insisting that personal faith must never be policed by the state.
Yet within a decade the promise began to fray. Long before the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) became national forces, Congress-ruled states pioneered the very anti-conversion laws they now criticise.
Congress Planted the Seeds
In the 1950s and ’60s, Congress leaders worried about tribal belts where Christian missionaries were active. Records from the Constituent Assembly (6 Dec 1948) show leaders such as K. M. Munshi and Sardar Patel entertaining proposals to restrict proselytisation, though the national framers ultimately refused. But state Congress units moved anyway: Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 and Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978. These laws required prior notice to district magistrates and criminalised conversion by “force, fraud or inducement.” Supporters invoked “nation-building” and “demographic balance,” fearing that large-scale Dalit or Adivasi conversions to Christianity would weaken Hindu influence.
The data never justified the panic. The 1961 Census put Christians at just 2.4 % of the population, barely changed from 1951. But political calculus triumphed over principle: in tribal constituencies, Congress leaders sought to reassure conservative Hindu elites and keep missionary influence in check.
BJP Perfected the Playbook
If Congress sowed the seeds, the BJP harvested the crop. Beginning with Gujarat’sFreedom of Religion Act (2003)under then-Chief Minister Narendra Modi, a new wave of tougher statutes spread: Himachal Pradesh (2006, amended 2019), Uttarakhand (2018, amendment 2022), Uttar Pradesh (2020 ordinance, 2021 Act), Madhya Pradesh (2021 amendment), Haryana (2022), Karnataka (2022), and Rajasthan (2025).
These laws introduced unprecedented measures—mandatory prior permission for conversion, non-bailable offences, and steep prison terms of up to 10 years. Several explicitly target “conversion for marriage,” a dog-whistle to the unproven conspiracy of love jihad.
Rajasthan provides a recent, telling example. Its 2025 Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Bill mandates up to life imprisonment and fines of ₹25 lakh for “mass conversions.” The government claimed it was protecting Dalits and women from deceit, yet the Home Department admitted no “love-jihad” case had been registered in five years (Times of India, 29 Mar 2025). During debate, BJP MLA Gopal Sharma even urged Muslim legislators to “return to their original religion,” exposing the communal undertone. In Uttar Pradesh, where the 2020 law requires district-magistrate approval for conversions linked to marriage, over 700 people have been booked but conviction rates remain negligible (The Quint, 2024). Madhya Pradesh tells a similar story: between January 2020 and July 2025, 283 cases were filed; of 86 that reached judgment, 50 ended in acquittal and only seven in conviction (NDTV, 2 July 2025).
A Bipartisan Pattern of Fear
The uncomfortable truth is that both major parties are complicit. Congress birthed the idea to protect its tribal vote banks and appease Hindu conservatives. The BJP today amplifies the same fear with a sharper communal edge. Political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot calls this “the politics of demographic anxiety”: the conversion debate is less about faith than about mobilising majorities.
No Measurable Benefit
Six decades of experimentation offer a clear verdict: these laws deliver no public good. 1. Conversion rates are minuscule. Pew Research (2021) found that 98 % of Indians remain in the religion of their birth. Only 0.7 % of adults are converts, with flows in both directions cancelling out net change. 2. Social harmony has not improved. Instead, human-rights groups document harassment of pastors, mosque committees, and interfaith couples. 3. Women are not safer. Instead, interfaith marriages face police raids and vigilante violence. The “benefit” that remains is political. These laws reliably mobilise majoritarian sentiment in election season.
Constitutional Betrayal
Article 25’s guarantee of “freedom of conscience” cannot be reconciled with a requirement to obtain government permission to change faith. Even the Supreme Court’s narrow 1977 reading (Rev. Stanislaus v. State of M.P.) that “propagation” does not include the right to convert deserves re-examination in light of today’s intrusive statutes. Ironically, these laws betray the very religions in whose name they are passed.
Local Stories of Misuse
In Uttarakhand, Pastors have been arrested on thin allegations, while couples marrying across faith lines face police interrogation. Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami routinely warns against “land jihad” and “mass conversion,” inflaming local fears. In Haryana, the 2022 Act criminalises conversion by marriage and requires 30-day advance notice. Civil-rights lawyers report it is used to harass interfaith couples more than to prosecute genuine coercion. In Karnataka, church prayer meetings were disrupted repeatedly after the 2022 law, with police filing cases against pastors rather than the mobs attacking them (People’s Union for Civil Liberties report, 2023). These vignettes underscore the gap between rhetoric and reality: laws advertised as protecting minorities are more often tools to intimidate them.
Freedom, Diversity and the Right to Disagree
India’s strength has always been its pluralism—the ability of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and atheists to live and argue side by side. That pluralism demands not mere tolerance but active respect for the right to choose one’s faith, to marry across faiths, or to reject religion altogether. Islamic tradition reinforces this vision: the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never coerced belief. Classical jurists echoed the Qur’anic principle that faith is an act of free conscience. An India true to both its constitutional and civilisational ideals must therefore protect conversion as an exercise of conscience.
Electoral Business, Not Public Good
From the Congress governments of the 1960s to today’s BJP administrations, anti-conversion laws have been less about protecting the vulnerable and more about electoral business—a reliable tool to polarise communities, rally majoritarian sentiment and distract from governance failures. After decades of enactments and amendments, the numbers speak plainly: negligible conversions, high acquittals, and no demonstrable social benefit. India deserves better. A confident democracy does not fear the free conscience of its citizens; it trusts them. To criminalise the personal decision of faith is to betray both the Constitution and the centuries-old Indian wisdom of agreeing to disagree. The only conversion India truly needs is a conversion to liberty and justice for all.
Key References
- Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol VII, 6 Dec 1948
- Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967; Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968
- Rev. Stanislaus v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India (1977)
- Pew Research Center, Religion in India: Tolerance and Segregation (2021)
- Times of India, “No Love-Jihad Case in Rajasthan,” 29 Mar 2025
- NDTV, “More Acquittals than Convictions under MP Anti-Conversion Law,” 2 Jul 2025
- The Quint, “700 Accused under UP Anti-Conversion Law,” 2024
- People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Karnataka Church Attacks Report (2023)
Courtesy: countercurrents.org