Conversion bans in India

In today's New York Times, and also in the current issue of the New Republic, we learn about the efforts of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) -- the Hindu nationalist party that heads India's ruling coalition -- to employ laws that penalize religious conversions.

Apparently, many lower-caste Hindus ("dalits") have converted to Buddhism and Christianity. This is from the New Republic:

"Traditionally a tool of Christian missionaries, conversion became a political strategy in 1956, when, during a mass ceremony, B.R. Ambedkar, a dalit leader, convinced half a million untouchables to convert to Buddhism to protest exploitation. Since then, another three million dalits have become Buddhists. And, according to John C.B. Webster, a leading authority on conversions in India, hundreds of thousands of dalits have quietly turned to Christianity. In the southern states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, isolated villages have recently switched to Islam, whose influence is growing as young Indians return to the region after working in the Persian Gulf.

To be sure, conversion is no panacea. Its benefits can be largely symbolic, since upper-caste Hindus still view converted dalits as second-class citizens. Still, says Webster, conversion allows untouchables to redefine themselves primarily in terms of religion rather than caste, removing some indignities. And joining India's well-funded and well-organized Christian community, which runs some of India's best schools, can also bring significant social and economic benefits."

TNR also reports:

"The Freedom of Religion Bill . . . punishes anyone who converts another person through force, fraud, or 'allurement' with up to three years in prison and a fine of about $2,200. Taken literally, it doesn't seem to violate the constitution's ban on caste discrimination or its promise to protect freedom of religion. But its fine print targets dalits who want to convert to Christianity and Islam. Aravinda Pajanor, a constitutional law expert based in Chennai, says the law singles out untouchables by imposing stiffer penalties for converting them than for converting other groups."

Many reasonable people, in many religious traditions, have expressed concerns about aggressive and otherwise unworthy "proselytization" efforts. And, many of us might concede that a government could have a common-good interest in taking steps to expose such efforts, in order to protect the freedom-of-conscience of its citizens. Today's articles suggest, though, that the motive underlying India's anti-conversion efforts is little more than raw politics: Hindu nationalists worry that conversions to Islam, Buddhist, and Christianity threaten their demographic power base. Is there anything to be said in defense of the developments described in these articles? Or -- as it seems to me -- are we seeing un-freedom in its most raw form?

Rick

UPDATE: See my response to Rob's post, above.