Harsh Mander Critiques India’s Anti-Conversion Laws: A Hindrance to Religious Freedom

In the landscape of modern India, the principles of religious freedom stand as a cornerstone of the Constitution, designed to guarantee every citizen the right to choose, practice, and propagate their faith. The framers of the Constitution engaged in extensive deliberations, shaped by the traumatic experiences of the 1947 partition and the violent religious strife it incited. Yet, despite this foundational commitment, the freedom of religion has faced significant challenges, particularly through legislation that curtails the rights of those who choose to convert from Hinduism to other faiths.

One of the most contentious issues arises from provisions in the Constitution that govern reservations in education and government jobs for Scheduled Castes (SCs) associated with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. Enacted through the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order of 1950, these laws effectively penalize Dalit individuals who opt to embrace more inclusive faiths such as Christianity or Islam. The Supreme Court of India upheld this stance in a ruling from March 2026, asserting that any Dalit converting to a religion outside these approved categories would lose their SC status permanently. Although the court mentioned that this status could be reinstated if they reverted to their original faith, it further complicated the matter by emphasizing the need for acceptance within their caste community.

This judicial interpretation raises critical questions about the underlying intent of anti-conversion laws and their implications for religious autonomy in India. Critics argue that such policies betray the foundational promise of the Constitution, which sought to protect individual freedoms, including the freedom of conscience. Harsh Mander, a prominent activist and social worker, has voiced strong opposition to these laws, asserting that they reflect a deeper societal bias that seeks to maintain caste hierarchies and restrict the choices of marginalized communities.

The tension between religious freedom and state intervention highlights a broader debate in Indian society about the nature of identity and the rights of individuals. While the Constitution envisions a secular state where all religions are treated equally, the reality often diverges sharply from this ideal. Anti-conversion laws, aimed ostensibly at preventing forced conversions, are perceived by many as tools for maintaining the status quo of social hierarchies, especially against Dalit communities seeking a more egalitarian religious landscape.

As India grapples with the complexities of its diverse religious fabric, the conversation around these laws is crucial. The challenge lies in reconciling the state’s role in regulating religion with the essential freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Mander’s critique serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for religious freedom and the need for policies that genuinely reflect the pluralistic ethos of India.

Source: scroll.in