Srinivasan Jain, the popular TV anchor with NDTV, has done a tremendous service to the Constitution of India and thereby, to the people of India.
In a hard-hitting exposé on his weekly segment ‘Truth vs Hype,’ released November 19, Jain talks about the so-called ‘Forced Conversions’ with incontrovertible facts and the falsehoods and myths that are built around the issue. A good part of his expose is an interview with Ashwin Kumar Upadhyay, the petitioner in the current case on ‘forced conversions’ in the Supreme Court.
Jain directly takes on Upadhyay and the 65-page petition submitted by the latter to the Supreme Court. Jain emphatically states that not a single example cited by Upadhyay in the petition comes under the ambit of ‘forced conversion.’ In fact, Jain proves that one of the examples is completely fake. Upadhyay however, continues with his rant without being able to authenticate or substantiate or furnish a single bit of evidence to prove his points, as Jain says, in an absolutely ‘flimsy’ petition.
Who is this Ashwin Kumar Upadhyay? He is obviously a member of the BJP and an advocate in the Supreme Court. His claim to fame comes from the several Public Interest Litigations (PILs) he has filed – many of them are apparently frivolous and are summarily dismissed by the courts and even at one time referred to a PIL as Publicity Interest Litigation.
The point of the matter however, is not whether one has the right ‘to convert another’ but whether as an adult citizen of India, one has the right to choose a religion of one’s choice. Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees the freedom of conscience, the freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion to all citizens and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
One also needs to ask: if two mature consenting adults would like to marry each other, what right has the state to stop them from doing so? Then, if a Dalit girl wants to embrace Buddhism, since it is the religion of her husband and will perhaps lead to enhancing the quality of her life, does she have the right to do so? Or for that matter, if a Christian girl wants to freely embrace Islam after marrying a Muslim, does she also have the right to do so? Why should the state (with its brutal mechanism and vigilantes) or anyone else, interfere in matters which are personal and private and clearly violative of Article 21: the right to privacy.
On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court of India in a historic judgement declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right, protected under the Indian Constitution. In declaring that this right stems from the fundamental right to life and liberty, the Court’s decision has far-reaching consequences for every citizen. In an order that is expected to have a significant impact, the very day of the Supreme Court order November 14, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the provision of the state’s anti-conversion law requiring prior notice to a district magistrate for religious conversion violated a person’s fundamental right to life and privacy and so was unconstitutional.
One also needs to take note that addressing a huge gathering of Mahars in Bombay in May 1936, Dr B.R. Ambedkar openly spoke out his ideas on conversion and why he considered it to be the best and only route towards emancipation saying, “I tell you all very specifically, religion is for man and not man for religion; to get human treatment, convert yourselves. Hindu society does not give equality of treatment, but the same is easily achieved by conversion.” Are those in power listening to Ambedkar today?
The ‘forced conversion’ issue is certainly a lie, a ‘bogey,’ foisted on the nation. It is clearly meant to defocus from more important and pressing issues plaguing the nation today: which include, the growing impoverishment of the poor, rampant corruption and the total lack of Constitutional governance by those in power.
Besides, with elections coming up, a ploy like ‘conversions’ becomes an emotive and manipulative subject. It is left to be seen, that if in keeping with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and as the nation observes ‘Constitution Week,’ whether this two -member bench of the apex court will have the courage to stand up for what is right and appropriately penalize the petitioner of such a frivolous and unsubstantiated petition?

Fr. Cedric Prakash SJ