Christian group rejects attempt by India’s largest state to increase penalties for ‘unlawful conversion’
MUMBAI, India – A Christian organization in India is against a plan by the state government in Uttar Pradesh to increase the penalties for “unlawful conversion.”
The northern state has India’s largest population – with over 241 million people – but only has 356,000 Christians, just 0.18 percent.
The National Council of Churches in India (NCCI) issued a statement condemning the intent of the Uttar Pradesh Government to pass the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill 2024.
“This amendment significantly intensifies the provisions of the original Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021,” the July 31 statement says.
“While the 2021 Act already classified religious conversion as a cognizable and non-bailable offense, with penalties up to 10 years in prison for conversions conducted through marriage, misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, or other allegedly fraudulent methods, the new amendment introduces even harsher measures. It raises the maximum penalty from 10 years to life imprisonment, allows any individual to file a complaint, and complicates the bail process,” writes Rev. Asir Ebenezer, the General Secretary of NCCI.
Uttar Pradesh, like the national government, is run by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), with strong links to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a militant Hindu nationalist organization.
RELATED: Christians arrested in India’s largest state, accused of ‘illegal conversion’
Hindu nationalists often accuse Christians of using force and surreptitious tactics in pursuing conversions, often storming into villages and leading “reconversion” ceremonies in which Christians are compelled to perform Hindu rituals.
These pressures on Christians, which also affect Muslims and other religious minorities, are part of what observers describe as a broad program for the “saffronization” of India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, meaning an attempt to impose Hindu values and identity while squeezing out rival faiths.
In his statement, Ebenezer said the NCCI objected to the newly proposed law in Uttar Pradesh because it violates the provisions of the Indian Constitution, which supports religious freedom.
“Conversion itself is not an offence unless induced by undue influence, misrepresentation, or coercion, which only the victim can claim. Additionally, the new law adversely affects the harmonious life in India and the basic rights of its citizens,” he says.
“The anti-conversion law encroaches on the constitutional right to freely practice and profess religion, a fundamental human right recognized by both the Indian Constitution and international human rights standards,” he NCCI general secretary continues.
Ebenezer says the law imposes undue limitations on individuals’ ability to make independent choices regarding their faith and grants grants extensive authority to officials and any third parties “which could be misused to target specific individuals or communities based on religious prejudice.”
“There is a risk of heightened harassment and criminalization of peaceful religious practices, including baptism in Christianity,” he writes.
“By creating an environment of mistrust and division, the law threatens to aggravate communal tensions and undermine India’s diverse religious harmony,” he continues.
Ebenezer also claims the new law contains “ambiguous provisions” including that of “mass conversion” that are susceptible to broad interpretation, leading to inconsistent enforcement and possible injustice.
“The law adopts a paternalistic perspective, undermining individuals’ dignity by implying they are incapable of making informed choices about their own religious beliefs,” he says.
“In light of these concerns, NCCI calls on the Uttar Pradesh Government to rethink this law and promptly abandon its effort to enact it. It is imperative that we uphold the values of freedom, equality, and respect for all individuals, regardless of their religious affiliations,” he continues.
“We encourage a more inclusive dialogue with all faith groups on how best to address concerns about coercive conversions without infringing on fundamental freedoms. The emphasis should be on ensuring that all individuals can make personal choices without fear of legal repercussions or social ostracism,” Ebenezer says.