Predatory Proselytisation

A Hate Crime essentially has two important ingredients – an underlying offence which has been committed coupled with a bias. A hate crime is supposed to have taken place when the perpetrator intentionally targets an individual or a property owing to his/her bias against a certain characteristic of that individual or his/her hatred towards that characteristic.

While these characteristics could be many, for example, race, colour, regional identity, sexual orientation etc, for the purpose of this category under the Hindu Hate Tracker, we would consider only religious identity and the faith professed by the victim (specifically the Hindu faith) as a characteristic underlying the motivation of the crime against him/her.

In the case of Predatory Proselytisation, the underlying crime is not the act of conversion itself since Article 25 of the Indian Constitution provides every individual with the freedom to choose and profess their religion.

The Indian Constitution guarantees Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.

From the provisions of the Indian Constitution, it is clear that every individual has the freedom of conscience and faith. This also extends to the right of an individual to choose the religion he/she wishes to profess, including a change of religion.

However, it is widely held that Article 25 does not include the right to convert another person to one’s own religion by force or coercion. Forcible conversions impinge on the ‘freedom of conscience’ guaranteed to all persons alike.

It is also to be kept in mind that it is clear that Article 25 covers not only religious beliefs (doctrines) but also religious practices (rituals).

The argument often presented to justify Predatory Proselytisation is that it forms a part of an individual’s right to profess their religion, and therefore, predatory proselytization is also protected under this right. This argument is predominantly made by Christians and Muslims since both are proselytizing faiths. The argument put forth is that often the Hindu community brands any proselytization as ‘predatory’ to deny Christians and Muslims their fundamental right to religion.

Before we define the boundaries of this category of crimes for the purpose of the hate tracker, it is imperative to understand what the existing judicial pronouncements say about the right to profess religion and predatory proselytisation.

In that regard, the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India becomes vital. Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1977 (1) SCC 677 outlines the contours of predatory proselytization and excludes it from forming a part of fundamental rights under Article 25.

The case in the Supreme Court arose from the challenge to the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swathanthraniya Adhiniyam, 1967 (“MP Act”) in the MP High Court by Rev. Stainislaus. The full bench of the MP HC upheld the validity of the law. The HC held, while referring to a number of judgements that Public order is a wide term – a term wider than ‘law and order’ and held that rampant conversion has the potential to disrupt public order. Hence, the Court held that the State Legislature is very well within its limit to Legislate an anti-conversion law under “public order” as mentioned in Item I, List II.

The HC essentially said that the MP Act was valid if the conversion is by force, fraud, or allurement.

While the MP HC upheld the MP Act, the Orisha HC struck down the Odisha Act.

It is pertinent to note that the MP Act penalized conversion by force, fraud or allurement and the Odisha Act additionally added “inducement”.

When the case went to the Supreme Court, both acts (MP and Odisha) were upheld by the Supreme Court (the SC upheld the validity of the MP Act and overturned the order of the Odisha HC striking the law down).

The SC held that the right to propagate one’s religion did not confer a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion. If an attempt is made to raise communal passions, e.g., on the ground that someone has been “forcibly” converted to another religion, it would, in all probability, give rise to an apprehension of a breach of the public order, affecting the community at large.

The SC said, “It is not in controversy that the Madhya Pradesh Act provides for the prohibition of conversion from one religion to another by use of force or allurement, or by fraudulent means, and matters incidental thereto. The expressions “allurement” and ’fraud’ have been defined by the Act. Section 3 of the Act prohibits conversion by use of force or by allurement or by fraudulent means and section 4 penalises such forcible conversion. Similarly, section 3 of the Orissa Act prohibits forcible conversion by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means, and section 4 penalises such forcible conversion. The acts therefore dearly provide for the maintenance of public order for, if forcible conversion had not been prohibited, that would have created public disorder in the States”.

While often, the established law falls short in combatting sophisticated methods of coerced conversion, for the purpose of this category of hate crime, the sub-categories adhere to the broad contours of the law.

The crimes included in this category would therefore have the following components:

1. There must be conversion of a Hindu victim to another faith
2. In the absence of conversion, there must be an attempt to convert the Hindu victim to another faith
3. The methods employed to convert the Hindu victim or attempt to convert the Hindu victim must include coercion, violence, inducement, threats, grooming, brainwashing, subtle indoctrination etc.
4. Any physical harm that befalls the Hindu victim for his refusal to convert to another religion, including but not limited to the victim committing suicide, would be included in this category.
5. The crimes included in this category do not necessarily adhere to criminal laws as defined by the secular framework the IPC follows. For instance, there are several cases that the law might deem not strictly illegal and/or will be left to the interpretation of the judiciary which limits itself to the ‘secular’ interpretation of the constitution which was drafted specifically to ‘safeguard the interest of minorities’ (as mentioned in the Constituent Assembly Debates). There are several instances that other religions consider a part of their right to religion, however, it infringes on the principle Dharmic framework of Hindus. Such cases would also be included in this hate tracker category.

These crimes would include a Hindu, male or female, being coerced, induced, harassed, threatened or brainwashed to leave their faith – Hinduism – and convert to another faith – typically Islam or Christianity. This category would also include more nuanced instances where a group of Hindus are threatened to either convert or leave their area of residence to affect an exodus of Hindus, making that area an exclusive ghetto for those following the proselytizing faith. This category would also include instances where threats, abuse, and harm befall the Hindu victims when they refuse to convert to another religion including, but not limited to, death (murder or suicide).

Such religiously motivated hate crimes would be divided into the following sub-categories:

1. Harassment for conversion leading to exodus
2. Conversion/attempts to convert by inducement
3. Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion
4. Attempting to convert/converting by denigrating Hinduism
5. Suicide after pressure to convert
6. Murdered for refusing to convert
7. Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination
   • Family claims grooming
   • Victim says was brainwashed/groomed
   • Family/friends of deceased victim says was brainwashed/groomed
   • Pattern of targeting Hindus
   • Rape and sexual assault/harassment
   • Conversion of minor

Why and how it is a hate crime

A religiously motivated hate crime is one where a victim is targeted because of the offender’s hostility towards the victim’s professed faith – whether the underlying act, in this case, constitutes a crime in the limited scope of the laws driven by a secular framework. Proselytisation itself is an act that stems out of the proselytizing faith’s inherent and theological hostility towards Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma). Christianity, for example, considers idolatry as a sin and likens it to immorality. Islam has a far more violent approach to idolatry with over 500 mentions of Kufr (non-believer) and Shirk (anything that does not conform to Islamic tenets) found in the Quran. In fact, the Quran has several verses that ordain its followers to convert the polytheists (Hindus in this case) by sword. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the hostility towards Hinduism in Islam and Christianity is theologically embedded. As such, any conversion by Muslims or Christians of Hindus is a result of hostility towards Hinduism. There are cases in fact where even faiths that don’t inherently harbour animosity towards Hinduism have been militarized to express hatred by a section of the adherents of the faith. Such faiths too indulge in predatory proselytization. For the purpose of this category, we would only focus on those conversions which have a component of coercion, force, threats, harassment, inducement, brainwashing and the like.

For the purpose of this category, though the argument that any conversion to Islam or Christianity stems out of inherent hostility towards Hinduism, we would not take into account conversions where the convert has changed his religion without any coercion or inducement but supposedly, a change of conscience.

International conventions on proselytization

Art 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) states as follows:

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”

From the above convention, it is quite clear that Art. 18 (3) permits the proscription of conversion to protect “public safety”, “order”, “health”, or “morals”. This is precisely what the Supeme Court had held in the Rev. Stainislaus case.

In fact, if one reads the Supreme Court judgement in conjunction with Art 18 (3) of ICCPR, it becomes evident that internationally, the standard of forced proselytization gives even greater power to the state to legislate than provided by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution since the word “order” has a broader scope than “public order”. This would also prove that the hate tracker’s decision to include certain instances of forced proselytisation which might not fall strictly under the IPC based on a secular framework adhered to international norms.

Parameters applied

1. The victim must be a Hindu
2. The perpetrator must be a non-Hindu.
3. For an instance of proselytization to be considered ‘predatory’ and be included in the hate tracker as a hate crime, a declared prejudice against the Hindu faith or the victim adhering to the Hindu faith is not required since hostility towards the Hindu faith is a given considering a) the theological hostility towards ‘idolators’ in Christianity and Islam b) the fact that there is an attempt to ensure that a Hindu abandons his faith to join another faith has an inherent component of hostility towards the victim’s faith.
4. For an instance of predatory proselytization to be included in this category, it is not necessary for the act to be considered illegal as per the limited purview of the IPC based on a secular framework. The International Convention on forced proselytization itself proves that the secular framework is not expansive enough to capture the essence of such crimes.
5. For a case to be recorded under this category of hate crimes, it is not necessary that the victim converts to another faith, any attempt to convert the victim by inducement, coercion, harassment, brainwashing etc would be considered a hate crime as well.
6. Cases where there is an institutional attempt at predatory proselytization will also be included in this category.
7. While several cases could be said to be a product of brainwashing, cases, where the converted Hindu says that they have converted due to a genuine change of heart/faith/consciousness, would not be included in this category unless there is evidence to prove brainwashing/coercion/force/harassment/inducement etc.
8. Cases, where Hindu men or women are specifically forced to convert by their partners or the family of the partners, do not form a part of this category since they are documented separately in the hate tracker in ‘women in relationship’ and ‘men targeted for being associated with non-Hindu women’ categories. Those definitions can be read here.

Subcategories and why it is a hate crime

Harassment for conversion leading to exodus

There have been cases where the Hindus living in an area, often with a majority dwelling belonging to non-Hindus or those harbouring animosity towards the Hindu faith, the Hindu residents experience pressure, and threats. The pressure, threats or coercion is employed with two aims – the non-Hindu residents of the area want the Hindu residents to either convert their religion to the religion of the dominant residents or leave the area and relocate, so the area could be turned into an exclusive ghetto for adherents of the non-Hindu faith or those who harbor animosity towards the Hindu faith. In several cases, the aim of exodus is explicit. However, in several cases, the demand for the exodus of Hindu residents is not explicit, however, harassment by non-Hindu residents leaves the Hindu residents no option but to leave the area, thereby, turning the area into an exclusive ghetto of non-Hindu residents. In such cases, there are instances of harassment or threats to the Hindu residents explicitly. For example, in the Hauz Qazi case of 2019, the Muslim residents claimed that mob violence against the Hindu residents had been triggered by a parking dispute. However, the violence did turn religious with a temple being desecrated and directed specifically against the Hindu residents. The Hindu residents of the area were clear that the violence was religiously motivated and one of the motives was to affect an exodus of the Hindu residents. In such cases, even though the perpetrators have not explicitly expressed the aim of affecting exodus, the given circumstances and harassment, coupled with prevailing circumstances and precedent point to the intention of exodus and therefore would be categorized under this sub-category. Such crimes are religiously motivated and therefore are hate crimes.

Conversion by inducement

Predatory Proselytisation is not just limited to threat, harassment, force and violence, but it also has contours of stealth. In several cases, the Hindu victim is exploited to convert, with non-Hindus taking advantage of their poverty. In such cases, the Hindu victim who is suffering financially is offered monetary benefits, including lucrative offers for jobs, health treatment etc, to induce the victim into changing his/her religion. In such cases, the religious identity of the victim and the aim to disenfranchise him from his faith form the heart of the crime. Also, taking advantage of and exploiting an individual’s economic vulnerabilities is widely acknowledged as exploitation, forms of which are often penalised by law. Such cases therefore are considered religiously motivated hate crimes since the victim’s religious identity forms the very heart of the crime itself.

Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion

Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats in this case find its root on discriminatory grounds which have the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. In this subcategory, we would only include cases where the victim was harassed, threatened or coerced to convert. Cases where attempts were made to convert but the victim resisted would be documented in another sub-category. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes.

Attempting to convert by harassment/threat

Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats in this case find its root in discriminatory grounds which have the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion and forceful circumcision. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment in an attempt to make the Hindu victim abandon his/her professed religion and adopt the religion of the perpetrator. In this subcategory, we would include cases where the non-Hindu perpetrator harassed, threatened or coerced the victim to convert, however, the Hindu victim did not convert to another faith. Cases where the victim was converted owing to the harassment and threats would be documented in another sub-category. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes.

Attempting to convert/converting by denigrating Hinduism

In several cases, Hindus are converted or an attempt is made to convert Hindus by denigrating their faith, Hinduism. In such cases, the Hindus associate with the non-Hindu perpetrators often by choice and then, the attempt to convert them by insulting their faith, showing the faith down etc begins. An example of this would be a non-Hindu gathering where the Hindus are attending the gathering of their own free will. However, once they attend the gathering, there is an explicit attempt to convert them by abusing their faith and hailing the faith of the perpetrator. The denigration of the Hindu faith is often based on misrepresentation of the Hindu faith, its doctrine and scriptures, and insult to espoused traditions if not blatant lies about Hindu beliefs and ways. Such conversions or attempts at conversions are driven by animosity towards the Hindu faith and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes.

Suicide after pressure to convert

When there is pressure, threat, or coercion employed upon the Hindu victim to convert to a different religion, in several cases, owing to the humiliation or pressure/threat, the victim commits suicide. In such cases, the pressure/threat/intimidation/coercion/violence itself is driven by animosity towards the victim’s Hindu faith. The pressure/threat that is employed leads to the Hindu victim taking his own life. Since the victim’s faith is at the heart of the pressure to convert and the ensuing suicide by the victim, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes.

Murdered for refusing to convert

When there is pressure, threat, or coercion employed upon the Hindu victim to convert to a different religion, in several cases, the victim refuses to succumb to the pressure/threats. Once the victim refuses, the perpetrator proceeds to murder the victim owing to his/her refusal to convert. In such cases, the pressure/threat/intimidation/coercion/violence itself is driven by animosity towards the victim’s Hindu faith. The murder then is another hate crime driven by the victim’s refusal to abandon his professed faith, Hinduism, and convert to the religion of a non-Hindu perpetrator. Since the victim’s faith is at the heart of the pressure to convert and the ensuing murder of the victim, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes.

Proselytisation by brainwashing

Religious brainwashing essentially means the often subtle and forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up their religious beliefs to accept contrasting regimented ideas. Religious brainwashing also involves propaganda and manipulation. It involves the systematic effort, driven by religious malice and indoctrination, to persuade “non-believers’ to accept allegiance, command, or doctrine to and of a contrasting faith. Cases of such brainwashing are far more nuanced than direct threats, coercion, inducement and violence. In such cases, it is often seen that there is repeated, subtle and continual manipulation of the victim to induce disaffection towards their own faith and acceptance of the contrasting faith of the perpetrator. While subtle indoctrination is widely acknowledged as predatory, an element which is often understated in such conversions or the attempts of such conversion is the role of loyalty and trust which might develop between the perpetrator and the victim. Fiduciary relationships are often abused to affect such religious conversion. For example, an educator transmits the religious doctrine of a competing faith to a Hindu student. The Hindu student is likely to accept what the teacher is transmitting owing to the existence of the fiduciary relationship. The exploitation of the fiduciary relationship to religiously indoctrinated victims would also be included in this category. Since the underlying animosity towards the victim’s faith forms the basis of predatory proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes.

Examples of Predatory Proselytisation

Case 1

Two individuals, Ganesh Rajunkar and Johny from Indore, were arrested by the Madhya Pradesh Police on July 5, 2023, for hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus and attempting to coerce them into converting to Christianity. The duo faces charges under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sent to jail. The arrest follows a complaint by a woman named Ramdevi Kurmi, who alleged that the accused had attempted to lure her family into converting to Christianity by promising to pay off their debts and fund their children’s education and weddings. Kurmi reported that Ganesh insulted Hindu deities during a visit to her home and later attempted to persuade her with monetary offers.

On June 30, accused Johny and his wife had invited Kurmi for a ‘prayer meet’ to which she had refused to join. Despite her refusal, the accused continued to denigrate Hindu beliefs, leading Kurmi to seek help from Hindu organisations and file a police complaint. Ganesh, a former snack factory worker, allegedly faced complaints of coercion from fellow workers before turning to domestic work. The workers complained that the accused lured them for money and forced them to convert their religion to Christianity. He and Johny, reportedly close friends, conducted weekly prayer meetings, offering money to attendees. Ganesh, who converted to Christianity recently, faced controversy in 2020 when his wife’s death led to disagreements over funeral rites between him and his mother. Ganesh wanted his wife to be cremated the Christian way. However, his mother wanted him to follow the Hindu process of cremation. Eventually, the woman was cremated as per Hindu rituals. Police recovered a photo of Jesus and some Christian reference material from Ganesh’s home.

This case is a classic case of predatory proselytization since the Hindu individuals were given money to convert, exploiting their poverty. Giving money and incentive to convert to another religion is one of the classic examples of conversion by allurement. The other thread in this case is attempts at brainwashing since while offering allurement, the Christian missionaries were also denigrating Hindu deities.

Case 2

In Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand, a father-son duo was arrested by the police for allegedly forcing a girl to convert to Islam. The victim’s father filed an FIR, accusing his daughter’s friend and the friend’s brother of attempting to convert her, along with forcing her to wear a hijab, offer namaz, and marry the boy. The boy’s father was also implicated. Mujeeb Khan (22) and Babu Khan (45) were apprehended by police at Rishikesh railway station after fleeing. They were charged under sections 354 and 3/5 of the Uttarakhand Religious Freedom Act 2018, with additional charges against the son for molestation.

This is a far more clear-cut case of predatory proselytization. In this case, there was explicit force and thread upon the girl to convert to Islam. The father and son duo in this case tried to convert her by specifically forcing to marry the boy and follow Islamic practices like offering Namaz and wearing a Hijab.