Behind India’s anti-conversion laws lies not the defense of faith, but the fear of freedom; turning a constitutional right into a controlled privilege.
The passing of laws under the pretext of preventing “forced conversions” has once again exposed the uneasy truth about India’s uneasy relationship with religious freedom. While the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, a growing number of state legislatures are enacting statutes that, in practice, stifle these freedoms. The latest, the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025 passed in Rajasthan, goes beyond reasonable limits by prescribing even life imprisonment for alleged violations. Behind the stated intent, one can discern a deeper anxiety a fear of religious freedom itself.
At the heart of the debate lies a profound misunderstanding. The very notion of “forced conversion” is a contradiction in terms. Conversion, by its nature, is an inner transformation of the heart and mind. It is not, and cannot be, produced by coercion, inducements, or intimidation. To suggest otherwise is to belittle human intelligence and agency. As the Second Vatican Council’s Dignitatis Humanae declared in 1965, “No one can be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his will, for the profession of faith is by its very nature a matter of free will.” Pope Paul VI hailed this declaration as the Council’s most significant achievement a decisive break from the shadows of compulsion.
The Catholic Church’s position could not be clearer. Faith must be free, or it ceases to be faith at all. Catechism No. 160 affirms: “The response of faith that man gives must be free; for this reason, no one can be forced to accept faith against his will.” To accuse the Church of encouraging forced conversions is not only factually wrong, but also a malicious distortion aimed at sowing communal suspicion. The Church’s mission through schools, hospitals, social work, and service to the marginalized is not a conspiracy of conversion but a witness of love, peace, and justice. That such service is misrepresented as “enticement” betrays either ignorance or ill intent.
This brings us back to the law in Rajasthan. Its provisions reveal its true character: an apparatus of intimidation. It allows anyone not just the concerned individual to lodge a complaint against a person seeking to change faith. It mandates publication of personal details, effectively exposing converts to harassment. It excludes reconversion to one’s “ancestral” faith from scrutiny, thereby creating a double standard. And it grants sweeping protection to officials, virtually placing them above accountability. Far from protecting the vulnerable, such provisions weaponize the law against personal freedom.
Yes, coercion or manipulation in matters of faith must be opposed. No religion worthy of its name condones exploiting ignorance or helplessness. But the cure being prescribed is worse than the disease. By criminalizing even voluntary conversions under the guise of scrutiny, these laws deny informed adults their right to choose their faith. They substitute state control for individual conscience. In effect, they reduce religious freedom to a licensed privilege, not a constitutional right.
This is where the danger lies. When “forced conversion” becomes a political slogan, it becomes a tool to delegitimize genuine faith journeys, suppress minority communities, and foster suspicion among citizens. The law is no longer about preventing coercion but about controlling conscience. That is an attack not just on minorities but on the very idea of India as a plural, democratic society.
India’s Constitution is not a fragile document to be bent by prejudice. It was framed to withstand the storms of division and safeguard fundamental freedoms. To paralyze it with laws designed to instill fear is to betray its spirit. Those who engineer these measures under the cover of protecting tradition or harmony are, in truth, eroding both.
Religious freedom is not a privilege to be granted grudgingly; it is a right intrinsic to human dignity. The Supreme Court has long recognized it as part of the basic structure of the Constitution. To dilute it now would be to weaken the moral backbone of our democracy.
The time has come to call out the duplicity: forced conversions must indeed be opposed, but so must forced restrictions on free conversions. The state must not police conscience. It must, instead, protect it. For in denying one’s right to believe freely, we deny the very dignity that makes us human.