Thread by @ConversionOK

Article 25 of the Constitution of India provides for freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion to all persons. On this #RepublicDay, we look at some interesting information on this fundamental right, especially on the term “propagate” 1/41 #Thread

The emergence of new nation required clarity on religious rights of minorities in Independent India and it was important to discuss this for forming a common national ethos 2/41

Religious conversions was a controversial issue even before Independence. Many princely states were averse to conversions and had promulgated anti-conversion laws, viz., the Raigarh State Conversion Act 1936 and Udaipur State Anti-Conversion Act 1946. 3/41

However, Christians argued that conversion was an important part of their religious life and it must be protected in Independent India. They emphasised that it wasn’t for any communal or political gain. 4/41

In a series of meetings held in Nov 1944, Oct 1945, Nov 1946, various Christian bodies expressed their deeply held belief that “every single individual” should have “freedom to profess, practise and propagate his or her faith, including the right to change it voluntarily…” 5/41

In Sep. 1946 J. F. Butler and S. Samuel published a 45-page pamphlet “The Right to Conversion”, which was a thoroughgoing statement, and a defense of Christians' right to propagate their faith 6/41

It argued that “Truth is universal—true, and therefore good for all: hence, when it fully grasps a man, it (or what is sincerely taken to be it it) grips him not only as a thing to hold, but as a thing to spread.” 7/41

It further said that the Hindus who are a majority in Indian have always been socially powerful. Post-Independence with the political power at their disposal they may legislate religious rights of the minorities. 8/41

While Christians argued from the perspective of individual rights, Hindus viewed conversion differently because for them integration and harmony of society was more important. 9/41

Hindu religious institutions issued a memorandum to the Constituent Assembly in Dec. 1946. They argued that notion of religious freedom should be based on principle of dharma as embodied in Hindu traditions and not on individual rights as Christians demanded. 10/41

Members of Muslim League had boycotted the Constituent Assembly and did not take part in the debates on conversion. They returned to their seats only later, in July 1947. In between, only a couple of Muslim members made brief comments on conversion. 11/41

The Constituent Assembly made an Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. This committee made five other sub-committees, including Fundamental Rights Sub-committee (FRSC) and Minorities Sub-committee (MSC) 12/41

The question of conversion was initially dealt with in the FRSC, in which K. M. Munshi and B. R. Ambedkar submitted drafts directly dealing with conversion 13/41

Concerned about the misuse of the right, and wanting to shield people from conversion efforts, K M Munshi said “Conversion from one religion to another brought about by coercion, undue influence or the offering of material inducement is prohibited and is punishable by law” 14/41

Ambedkar stressed individual right and freewill. “The State shall guarantee to every Indian citizen liberty of conscience and the free exercise of his religion including the right to profess, to preach and to convert within limits compatible with public order and morality" 15/41

FRSC took up Munshi’s draft on 24/3/47 and after a long discussion submitted it to Advisory Committee on 16/4/1947. Its Clause 16 was on religious freedom but did not have the word “propagate”; Clauses 21 and 22 dealt with prohibition on conversion, particularly of minors 16/41

On 17/4/47, the MSC decided to examine the draft clauses of FRSC. Bengali Christian educationist Dr H. C. Mookerjee was the chairman of this committee. He was also the vice-president of the Constituent Assembly 17/41

M. Ruthnaswamy, a member of MSC, proposed that Christianity and Islam are proselytizing religions, so propagation of their faith should be included as part of fundamental rights, and proposed that minors should be allowed to follow the faith of their converted parents 18/41

In its recommendations sent to FRSC on 19/4/47, MSC added the phrase “the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion” in place of “freedom of religious worship and to freedom to profess religion” in Clause 16. The restrictions as per Clause 21 remained. 19/41

The Advisory Committee examined both, the draft by FRSC and amendments by MSC. The Chairman, Sardar Patel, took a vote, and the amendment to add the word “propagate” was accepted. 20/41

The Advisory Committee sent the clauses on Fundamental Rights to the Constituent Assembly on 24/04/47, which included the following clauses about conversion: 21/41

Clause 13: All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion subject to public order, morality or health, and to other provisions of this chapter. 22/41

Clause 17: Conversion from one religion to another brought about by coercion or undue influence shall not be recognized by law. 23/41

Christians were relieved that the word “propagate” was retained. But some Hindu members were not satisfied with the result of the Advisory Committee, so the debate on conversions continued in the Constituent Assembly. 24/41

The clauses on fundamental rights came to the Constituent Assembly on 1/5/47. The word “propagate” was accepted without debate in Clause 13. But Munshi proposed two amendments in Clause 17—word “fraud” be added, and prohibition of conversion of minors be inserted again. 25/41

F. R. Anthony argued that an absolute prohibition of conversion of minors would contradict Clause 13, and suggested adding to Munshi’s amendment, “except when the parents or surviving parents have been converted and the child does not choose to adhere to its original faith” 26/41

J. J. M. Nichols-Roy said that one must remember the spiritual aspect of conversion. A law preventing conversion of minors, he said, would “oppress the conscience of the youths who want to exercise their religious faiths before God”. 27/41

Purushottamdas Tandon, the future president of Indian National Congress, challenged Christian positions. He expressed that Hindus have reluctantly agreed to right of religious conversion and “the majority” of the Assembly was against conversion of minors. 28/41

Ambedkar opposed the amendment sought by Munshi saying that earlier committees had considered the matter thoroughly; and that prohibition of conversion of minors would lead to “many evil consequences” that it “would be better to drop the whole thing [amendment] altogether” 29/41

The matter was, however, referred back to the Advisory Committee. Meanwhile Christians made efforts to communicate to the members that they had “no desire to build up communal power for political ends through conversion” 30/41

Gradually, Christians gained confidence of other members of the committee and Munshi, the main Hindu protagonist, himself became “sympathetic” towards the Christian position. When, on 30/8/47 Sardar Patel suggested that Clause 17 be deleted, it was largely accepted. 31/41

The Drafting Committee headed by Ambedkar presented the draft Constitution on 21/2/48 to Dr Rajendra Prasad, the president of the Constituent Assembly. 32/41

The clause on conversion read: "Article 19 (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion." 33/41

The draft constitution was published and people of India were given the opportunity to express their views before it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly. Many Hindus still opposed Article 19 for including the word “propagate”. 34/41

Many members who were not Christians argued to retain the word “propagate” because it applied not only to Christians but to all religious groups. Besides, they said, there were enough safeguards against any misuse in the draft constitution. 35/41

As mentioned earlier, K. M. Munshi had become sympathetic to Christian position. He realised that this issue would have to be resolved through compromise and mutual understanding. He insisted that there would be no political threat caused by conversion in India. 36/41

In his speech in CA, K. M. Munshi said that “it was on this word [propagate] that the Indian Christian community laid the greatest emphasis, not because they want to convert people aggressively, but because the word ‘propagate’ was a fundamental part of their tenet…” 37/41

In his concluding remarks he said: “The Minorities Committee the year before the last performed a great achievement by having a unanimous vote on almost every provision of its report. This unanimity created an atmosphere of harmony and confidence in the majority community. 38/41

“Therefore,” K. M. Munshi emphatically said, “the word ‘propagate’ should be maintained in this article in order that the compromise so laudably achieved by the Minorities Committee should not be disturbed. That is all that I want to submit.” 39/41

This speech by K. M. Munshi on 6/12/48 proved decisive and the article was included in the Constitution as Article 25 in the section on the “The Right to Freedom of Religion”. 40/41

SOURCE: Sebastian C. H. Kim, “In Search of Identity: Debates on Religious Conversion in India” (OUP, 2005) and Constituent Assembly Debates. 41/41