Archives: News

The UP Cabinet has cleared a draft ordinance against forceful inter-faith conversions for marriage, amid similar steps by other states.

Try this question:

Q. In a world where religiosity is rising, the contemporary liberal ideas seem outdated and incapable of handling dangerous issues of religious bigotry. Critically comment.

What is the proposed UP law on ‘love jihad’?

• The proposed law defines punishment and fine for three different cases.

1. Conversion done though “misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means” would face jail term of one to 5 years, and a minimum fine of Rs 15,000.
2. Conversion of a minor, a woman from the SC or ST would have to face a jail term from three to 10 years, with a minimum fine of Rs 25,000.
3. If such conversion is found at the mass level, then those guilty would face jail term from three to 10 years, with a minimum fine of Rs 50,000.

• It proposes among other things that a marriage will be declared “shunya” (null and void) if the “sole intention” of the same is to “change a girl’s religion”.

Who can convert and how can they do it under the proposed law?

• Under the new proposed law, anyone wanting to convert into another religion would have to give it in writing to the District Magistrate at least two months in advance.
• The government is supposed to prepare a format for the application and the individual has to fill the application for conversion in that format.
• However, under the new law, it would be the responsibility of the one going for the religious conversion to prove that it is not taking place forcefully or with any fraudulent means.
• In case, any violation is found under this provision, then one faces a jail term from 6 months to 3 years and fine of minimum Rs 10,000.

Need for such law

• The state of UP is witnessing rising incidents of forced religious conversions or conversions through fraudulent ways.
• The extreme right wing politicians in the state were quiet vocal against alleged religious conversions.
• There are cases of being allegedly lured and honey-trapped by men and those girls now seeking their help to free themselves.

Interfaith marriages and the Constitution

• The right to marry a person of one’s choice is a guarantee under Article 21.
• At the same time, freedom of conscience, the practice and propagation of a religion of one’s choice, including not following any religion, are guaranteed under Article 25.
• One set of rights cannot invalidate the other.

What do critics say?

• Such law to regulate matrimonial relationships between two consenting adults is simply against the constitutional guarantees.
• The right to marry a person of one’s choice flows from the freedom of individuality, naturally available to any individual.
• Hence, interfaith marriages and religious conversions should not be the matter of concern for social watchdogs.
• Hence, the mere statement of two consenting adults about the existence of their matrimonial relation is sufficient.

Democracy has evolved in many ways with time. The article examines its evolution in the Indian context.

Historical background of democracy

• In recorded history, the Greeks were the first to experiment with models of government.
• There were monarchies, oligarchies and democracies among the Greek city-states of the 5th Century BCE.
• Aristotle wrote that while monarchies were for the benefit of the monarchs and oligarchies for the benefit of men with means, democracies were for the benefit of men without means.
• Democracy has travelled a long way from those times.
• In the world’s successful democracies like the US, UK and India, there is a fine balance between the elected and non-elected institutions with enough safeguards.

How democracy worked in India

• There was much scepticism about the idea of universal adult franchise during the making of the Indian Constitution.
• But Rajendra Prasad assured the Assembly’s members about the raw political wisdom of the average Indian as also the strength of the other institutions to safeguard the democratic process.
• However, the infamous Emergency exposed the flaws in Indian democracy.

Gandhiji’s and B R Ambedkar’s approach

• Mahatma Gandhi was not a big admirer of the parliamentary system.
• Gandhi’s view was that in the British system, the parliament works only for partisan interest — and not for the national interest.
• He wrote in Harijan in January 1937 that by political independence he meant system suitable to Indian context i.e. Ram Rajya — sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority.
• B R Ambedkar too described democracy in India as “only a top-dressing” on an Indian soil “which is essentially undemocratic”.
• He underscored the importance of social democracy for the success of political democracy.
• Gandhi was referring to the tyranny of the British rule and Ambedkar was responding to the oppressive caste system.
• Neither was against democracy, but both were against the idea of “majoritarian rule”.
• For Gandhi, democracy meant the weak getting the same chance as the strong.
• For Ambedkar, it was about giving voice to the voiceless.
• For democracies to succeed, both believed that the parliamentary majorities need to be restrained through constitutional ethics and public morality.
• Constitutional ethics is about leaders respecting constitutional order, conventions and institutions.
• Gandhi’s greater emphasis was on public morality.
• He insisted that for India’s democracy to succeed, the Congress should convert itself into a lok sevak sangh and work at the grassroots level.

Consider the question “Public morality and unelected institution are necessary checks on the elected government not inimical to it. Comment.”

Conclusion

India’s democracy, as envisaged by the makers of its Constitution, thrived essentially because of the respect of the leaders for ethical constitutionalism and moral activism of the grassroots activists. Neither should see the other as an enemy and try to bring them down.