A Study Of Conversion Of Religion In The Secular State Of India - A Few - Side Effects - Of Religious Diversity

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T17:21:17.841303+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:12:34.451+00:00

A STUDY OF CONVERSION OF RELIGION IN THE

SECULAR STATE OF INDIA: A FEW "SIDE EFFECTS" OF

RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY

Dr. Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Associate Professor, School of Legal Studies, LNCT University Bhopal, MP, India Rupa Jha, Research Scholar, Department of Law, School of Legal Studies, LNCT University Bhopal, MP, India

ABSTRACT

The caste system is deeply embedded in Indian society and has been recognized as a significant barrier to equality in society and human rights. Despite its commitment to safeguarding the religious freedom of its population and its constitution's declaration of secularism, Indian democracy finds it difficult to accept religious conversion. India carries different religions and caste systems in addition to being the world's largest democracy and one of the most populous nations. This article attempts to examine and analyze the sensitivity and rigidity of this system. The present study makes an effort to examine the research of a few researchers, demonstrating how choosing a different religion allowed the victims to live honorably and with dignity. Keywords: Secularism, Indian Constitution, Human Rights, Religious Conversion, Caste system

Introduction

A large number of contemporary democracies ensure the religious liberty of their populace by

eliminating religious criteria from the official concept of state identity established in their constitutions. In states like this, where the population is religiously diverse, interreligious contacts and interactions occur often in both social and political spheres. Still, in many of these states-including India-the issue of religious conversion presents a challenge to the secular nature of the state. While it is not a prerequisite for democracy, India's founding fathers chose early on in the nation's independence to draft a constitution built on secular and equitable principles (Brass 2000; Harel-Shalev 2010; Shani 2017). Indian democracy, which is dedicated to protecting its citizens' freedom of religion and has stated its secular nature in its constitution, is yet uncomfortable with religious conversion, especially when it comes to conversion to Islam or Christianity.

India is home to many different religions, including Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism, in addition to being the largest democracy in the world and one of the most populated countries. India is also the cradle of many major world religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism (Table 1). The religiously varied Indian society, as depicted in the Table, is composed of a Hindu majority and a number of religious minorities, each of which is entitled to minority rights in the area of religion. But it's evident that religious conversion, particularly to Islam or Christianity, still causes friction in India, a nation committed to safeguarding the religious freedom of its people and upholding the secular foundation of its constitution.

In addition to being the original location of several of the main global religions, including Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism, India, the most populous nation in the world and the largest democracy, is also home to a diverse range of other religions, such as like Zoroastrianism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism (Table 1). A Hindu majority and several religious minorities make up the religiously diverse Indian society shown in the Table, each of which is qualified for religious minorities' rights (Harel-Shalev 2017). Over centuries, the frequent migration of foreigners from both close and distant places has molded India's multireligious landscape. The Mogul monarchy's complicated connection with Muslims in India is demonstrated that one tactic used by the majority of Mogul emperors in India was forcing people to become Muslims (Eaton 1984 and Eaton 2014).

Table 1. Religious group in India (Harel-Shalev, A. and Levy, N. , 2019) Religious group Population 1951 (%) Population 2011 (%) Hindu 84. 1 79. 80 Muslim 9. 8 14. 23 Christian 2. 30 2. 30 Sikh 1. 79 1. 72 Buddhist 0. 74 0. 70 Jain 0. 46 0. 37 Religion not specified/other 0. 43 0. 9 Zoroastrianism 0. 13 Not counted Even in situations where this tactic was not employed, the imposition of taxes on jizya, which were levied against non-Muslims, drove or enticed many Hindus to become Muslims. During the British colonial era, a novel tactic to persuade Christian converts to convert was the British Raj's support for them and the legal benefits their offered (Kim 2003; Viswanathan 1998). Therefore, in order to know how India's conversion policy developed, it is imperative that one understand these pre-independence processes.

When the majority of the population was predominantly Hindu and rejected official Hindu priority in the early years of independence, federal India became a legally Hindu-dominated state instead of a civic-secular one. However, in the last few decades, laws against religious conversion have been passed in some Indian states, a sign of the continued discomfort about conversions in a democracy that upholds religious tolerance. Based on an examination of original sources, this paper presents the State of India's direct governmental measures surrounding religious conversions. It also looks at how Religion has had a lasting impact on modern India and assesses changes to India’s policy directives regarding religious range and conversions.

This study specifically attempts to map pertinent direct and indirect legislation and jurisdiction in India at the state and national-federal levels in order to explore policy tendencies surrounding religious conversion from the time of Indian independence to the present. It pays close attention to the reactions of Indian political leaders to the phenomena of Hindus becoming Muslims or Christians as well as the policies that keep people from converting. Intriguingly, the present study tackles the problem of religious diversity while demonstrating that the political rise of Hindu nationalism since the 1980s is not the only source of anxiety or antagonism to religious conversion. Instead, the

difficult task of proving that such disquiet or anxiety surrounding religious conversion has a considerably older history in India is taken on by this study. It influences the processes of constructing and disputing religious diversity and is supported by several historical and demographic factors. As a result, the first part of this essay gives a succinct summary of how conversion is understood in India as both a political and a spiritual act, as well as the way it illuminates the connections among politics, religion, the state, and society.

In the second half of the study, religious freedom and laws that indirectly addressed conversion during the early years of independence are examined; in the third section, laws pertaining to conversion passed by various Indian states are examined, along with the Indian Supreme Court's responses to these laws; in the fourth and final section, the state authorities—state, judicial, and federalstate—are compared and contrasted, and conclusions are drawn regarding the wider implications of faith and politics (Harel-Shalev, A. and Levy, N. , 2019).

1. An Overview of Religious Conversion, Religious Diversity, and the State in

India The process of changing one's religion has direct implications for the two religious communities involved-one has been abandoned, while the other has been adopted-and is of great significance to both of them. The circumstances behind religious conversions, according to Hames (2016), can provide light on how religious societies function and deal with fundamental identity concerns. A closer examination of conversion mechanics can help us understand the dynamics of coexisting minority and majority cultures as well as the ways in which democratic and secular states approach religion. Religious conversion was widely used in politics all across the world long before the concept of a nation state was developed. This norm enjoys almost universal acceptance in the more recent ages.

Since the development of the modern nation state, this procedure has grown more challenging, but it is seen to be advantageous to the nation as a whole because it permits some degree of control over religious demographics. Therefore, the study of religious conversion and variation in general requires a knowledge of the complex relationships that exist between religion and state. Rebe (2012) contends that the rise in democracy has not lessened the influence of religion, which has been more prevalent worldwide in recent times. Globally, state governance is still influenced by religion, albeit to varying degrees. The secularization theory is in conflict with this. In actuality, almost all democracies adhere to religious principles, practice some sort of

organized religion, support religious groups financially, and observe religious practices. This leads to a conflict that is present alongside the conflict between the diversity of religious practices and the goal for a single nation-state. There are several justifications for why the government controls religious conversion. Though they promise of promoting religious freedom, secular constitutional orders really represent a range of approaches to religion-state interactions, from separationist to accommodating and cooperative models, despite their promise of separating religious and state powers. The state's approach usually lies somewhere along a range, ranging from complete prohibition against religious conversion to complete protection against it, including propaganda and evangelism. Learning and self-reflection may be necessary for the person voluntarily converting.

Conversion can be seen as a challenging event that casts doubt on the integrity and character of the convert's prior religious group. In multireligious communities, religious conversion can be seen as an expression of the antagonism that exists between religious factions, which is a characteristic of religious variety. Religious conversion has implications on both a personal and political level. For example, based on their connection with a particular religion, different individuals have distinct rights, such as citizenship, benefits from affirmative action, and religious freedom in India and other nations (Thio 2010). Conversion in India is consequently both a spiritual and political undertaking, according to Viswanathan (1998), because it is located at "the nexus of spiritual and material interests".

The majority religion in India is Hinduism, which both upholds rigid hierarchies through the caste system and is viewed as a tolerant faith that encourages amicable conflict settlement, making it a unique case study for religious conversion (Gandhi and Ambedkar 2014). Additionally, as the illustration below shows, the phenomenon of converting to a non-Hindu religion puts Hindu tolerance to the test and has been known to incite violent and fundamentalist sides of Hinduism. The majority of the current study on religious conversion in India concentrates on conversion patterns to Islam and individual experiences with specific conversion trends and their local ramifications. These studies often look at laws governing women's position and the Hindu nationalist movement's anti-conversion stance (Harel-Shalev, A. and Levy, N. , 2019).

Therefore, the goal of the current study is to analyze state policy directly from a wider perspective, taking into account the different religious groups when doing so. With this goal in mind, the study delves deeper than the literal interpretation of the law and local legislation that

forbids conversion, exploring instead political acts and indirect policies that appear unconnected to conversion, such as articles in personal laws and the various legislative processes that establish affirmative action to elevate the status of the lower castes and the Backward Classes (BCs) of Hindus. Though they don't have the wide, multidisciplinary viewpoint required for the empirical research of religious conversion, these viewpoints nevertheless provide significant contributions to our understanding of the topic as a whole. Dudley-Jenkins (2008) claims that millions of Hindus have converted to Islam and Christianity, and it seems that the state is concentrating its efforts on tracking these conversions. The government has always reacted negatively to this type of conversion by lower caste groups, especially the Scheduled Castes (Dalits, Untouchables, and BCs.

In India, religious conversion typically stems from four interconnected factors that are difficult to distinguish (Desai 1991) a) spiritual quests. b) the inflexibility of the Hindu caste structure, which has left the Scheduled Castes and lower castes perplexed and demoralized. c) the advantages provided by proponents of other religions. d) political reasons.

2. Law at the national level, court rulings, and religious conversion

Modernity and secularism have been shaped in India by a number of elements, including population, culture, and tradition. After a bloody partition process marked by fierce fighting between Muslims and Hindus, the independent state of India was established. Though Pakistan defined as a Muslim country, India identified as a secular state that had legally taken a neutral attitude toward its different religious minorities. Even though the word "secular" was added to the Indian Constitution's preamble in 1976 with the approval of the 42nd Amendment, it was evident that the country's ruling elites desired a state that did not "belong" to any specific group. Because their leaders built the country in this manner, all Indians are entitled to the same civic and constitutional rights, including freedom of religion. Two legally worded clauses (clauses

14 and 15) in the constitution prohibit discrimination of any kind and ensure that every

inhabitant is treated equally before the law. Moreover, Muslim symbols were actually included into governmental insignia, and Mogul emperors who conducted massive, forced conversions

throughout the subcontinent were honoured with street names, in spite of the intense intercommunal strife that occurred in early India. Islam is deeply embedded in the national identity of India, as acknowledged by the Hindu founding authority who saw the Mogul era as a crucial part of the country's cultural past. The Indian constitution clearly forbids religious discrimination and leaves out the word "conversion. “The freedom of conscience is guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the constitution to all citizens, not simply followers of a particular faith. Everyone has the right to practice their religion freely under Articles 25, 26, 27, and 28 of the Indian Constitution. According to the Indian Constitution, all religions are equal before the state and cannot be given preference over one another.

It is within a person's right to preach, practice, and disseminate their particular religion. In independent India, it is illegal to purposefully make false remarks or disparage the religious beliefs (or values) of any specific community, as per Article 295 of the Indian Penal Code (1860). The Representation of People's Act (1951) seeks to prohibit the use of religion as a political campaign tactic and the encouragement of religious animosity among different communities. Such conduct is prohibited and seen as corrupt. Actually, the goal of these laws is to protect India's secularism and religious liberty. The final writing of the articles dealing to religious freedom was preceded by lengthy and heated arguments, as evidenced by documents from the Constituent Assembly debates.

The freedom to spread incorrect information regarding religion was especially divisive (The Constitution of India, Art. 23[2] (1949), Harel-Shalev, A. and Levy, N. , 2019). The freedom to "propagate" one's religion was something that Christian legislators in the Constituent Assembly strongly advocated to be incorporated into the freedom of religion clauses. While the Christians saw proselytization and propaganda as vital tenets of their faith, many Hindu members of the Constituent Assembly felt that the Christians were misusing the "majority's generosity. " Speaking about the provision on freedom of religion, Lokanath Misra remarked, "This is the most disgraceful article, the blackest part of the draft constitution. " After a thorough reading of every clause in the constitution, it has not found any mention of "propaganda" as a fundamental religious right.

Sardar Patel, a prominent member of the Indian National Congress, consented to remove a language that prohibited conversion from one religion to another through force or undue influence. The clause had been strongly opposed by Christian organizations and individuals. The Constitution's sole mention of religious liberty was therefore positive, upholding religious freedom as previously stated, in spite of the opposition to the concept of conversion voiced by majoritarian Hindu Congressmen like Algurai Shastri and Purushottam Das Tandon.

After the adoption of Article 25 of the constitution, it was once again legal and permissible to distribute religious propaganda. With the proclamation that "The state shall have no religion of its own and all persons shall be equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice, and propagate religion," the courts in the Indira v. Rajnarain case of 1975 upheld the secularist status as a fundamental component of the constitution, supporting the approach taken by the parliament. But while the constitution grants everyone the freedom to spread their faith, Rao (2003) contended that it makes no mention of the basic right to convert someone else to one's own religion. Even though India is officially defined by its constitution as a secular democratic state, we contend that India has occasionally taken distinct positions for its Hindu and non-Hindu populations.

According to the constitution, those who practice Buddhism, Jainism, or Sikhism as well as those who convert to these faiths are all considered "Hindus. " We further propose that the very constitution establishes the basis for treating adherents of Islam and Christianity differently from those of the "local" Indic religions (Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism). As such, conversion within one's own religious tradition, or Atmaparivartan, is accepted and even encouraged in Indian society, while conversion from an Indian religious tradition to a non- Indian religion, or Dharam Parivartan, has become more and more politicized and looked upon (Heredia 2007; Stephens 2007). Despite some attempts (the cases in the Lok-Sabha Debates (LSD), 1954, 1960, 1978, 2003, 2011 are noteworthy examples), the Lok-Sabha did not establish laws that prohibited religious conversion.

However, concerns pertaining to conversion have been greatly impacted by two sets of federal regulations that are applicable to all Indian states and union territories (UTs) (federal India is composed of 29 states and 7 UTs that are controlled by Delhi). The "Hindu Code Bills of 1954–1956," which include both Hindu personal laws and affirmative action policies for lower caste Hindus, have a variety of unintended effects on converts from Hinduism to non-Indic religions.

3. Individual Laws and Religion Conversion

The Indian Constituent Assembly recommended the creation of "uniform personal laws" for all Indian citizens in accordance with secularism and the country's self-definition as a civic nation, in line with the vision of India's leaders during the early years of the independent state. The Indian constitution eventually adopted this idea as Article 44 (Harel-Shalev 2009; Lerner 2013), although the current personal laws pertaining to minority communities are still in place.

Nonetheless, the Indian Parliament amended the Hindu Personal Law in the 1950s. The liberal ideas of the constitution are sometimes at odds with the exceedingly rigid precepts of traditional Hinduism, which pertains to all aspects of social hierarchy and the caste system. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of an independent nation, and his associates were able to introduce changes to the law that may have made it more compatible with the democratic government, despite the inherent conflict. The Hindu Code Bills (HCB) of 1954–1956 effectively applied to all Hindu residents of the country and integrated the Hindu Personal Law (Galanter 1989). The Hindu Code Bills did not fully eradicate the caste system, despite Ambedkar's demands to the contrary.

Nonetheless, discrimination against the Scheduled Castes was made illegal with the passage of the Untouchability (Offences) Act 20 concurrently. The Hindu Code Bills prohibited the practice of polygamy, the self-immolation ceremony known as sati, and other archaic, non-democratic traditions. They also made it illegal to discriminate in who was permitted admission into temples. They were also in favor of women's rights. Close inspection of these legislation, however, indicates that the Hindu Code Bills also had another effect: they reduced the privileges of Hindu converts to non-Indic religions (Kim 2002). The Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act are the legislation that make up the Hindu Code Bills.

Converts to Islam or Christianity have challenges from each legislation, which imposes various limitations, including: 1) The Hindu Marriage Act's clause 13(1) ii provides legal grounds for divorce in the event that one partner converts to another religion and renounces Hinduism. 2) According to clause 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, children born to converts are not eligible to inherit their Hindu relatives' property. 3) A convert cannot be the guardian of their own child according to clause 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 4) The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act's Clauses 7, 8, and 9 stipulate that a person who has ceased to be Hindu is unable to stop their partner from adopting a kid or from offering the child for adoption. Furthermore, according to clause 18 of the same law, a convert is not eligible for maintenance, or alimony. In the case of Chandrashekharan v.

Kulundurivalu, the court determined that a convert from Hinduism to Sikhism, Buddhism, or Jainism does not lose their Hindu identity, providing additional evidence of the favor given to the Indic religions. As a result, people who change to Zoroastrianism, Islam, Christianity, or Judaism are no longer considered Hindus and conversions to Zoroastrianism or Judaism are not common, but many

Hindus have decided to follow Islam or Christianity, and this decision has an impact on them. Throughout India's early history, the nominally secular nature of the state and the multiplicity of religions inside it were stressed by both the Parliament and the judiciary. That being said, even in those days several laws and public policy campaigns suggested a clear preference for those who stayed Hindu as opposed to those who left the religion. The state rationalized its position by citing the idea that caste-based discrimination had religious origins in Hinduism. Fernandes (2011) claims that because religious conversions of British Columbians to Muslim or Christianity have often been linked to severing from the religious basis of caste, the state believes it is acting lawfully in upholding its policy of excluding former Muslims and Christians from welfare programs.

This theoretical defence of the social side of conversion, however, does not address conversion to Buddhism or Sikhism. Instead of encouraging a neutral or secularized approach to social inequality, the state has chosen to distinguish between BCs among Christians and Muslims and BCs among Sikh, Buddhist, and Hindu communities. This has allowed the state to deliberately create disparities between "local" and "foreign" religions.

4. Religious Diversity and 'Anti-Conversion' Legislation: Bills for Religious

Freedom During the first two decades of India's independence, there was no state-level legislation to control religious conversion, despite the fact that laws intended to control religious conversions existed in various parts of the country prior to independence (Osuri 2013). The constitution recognized the freedom to practice and spread religion, but it also placed restrictions on it, as stated in Article 25, which addresses "public order," "morality," and other matters. Article 25: Freedom of conscience, including the right to practice, profess, and spread religion. First of all, Subject to the other provisions of this Part, public order, morality, and health permitting, every individual has an equal right to freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess, practice, and spread religion.

The State prevent from enacting new ones that: (a) regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity that may be connected to religious practice; (b) provide for social welfare and reform or open Hindu religious institutions to all Hindu classes and sections. Nevertheless, the national legislation and Article 25 of the constitution, in the opinion of the leaders of several Indian states, were insufficient to regulate (and, to some extent, control)

religious conversion. As a result, several states have decided to pass different Freedom of Religion Bills, which place more explicit restrictions on religious conversion, since the late 1960s (Kim 2002). Conclusions The borders of neutrality must be defined by the State; hence no secular state can ever be merely neutral or impartial toward other religions (249 in Marc Galanter (1992)). India is a special State because it upholds secularism while maintaining its spirituality through laws, judiciary rulings, state policies, and constitutional requirements.

The fundamental elements of religion-state relations in India include preserving a reasonable balance between secularity and religiosity, appropriately addressing religious sensitivities of the populace, avoiding discrimination against citizens based on their religion as much as possible, and working to treat them equally regardless of their religious affiliation (Tahir Mahmood 2011). Studying religious conversion in India can help us understand religious variety by introducing fresh ideas and frameworks. Several significant concerns are brought up by the examination and breakdown of Indian governmental policy toward religious conversion: Although just one-fifth of Indian states have passed legislation regulating religious conversion, policies addressing the matter differ throughout them.

The findings of this study demonstrate a discrepancy between the reality of India at the start of the twenty-first century and the founding founders' aspirations to establish a secular, democratic state that is neutral toward religious identity. State legislators have a history of enacting laws that are less circumspect and "politically correct" than the framers intended. However, this study demonstrates that even the state's early laws favored the Hindu community in India and discriminated against non-Indic converts through a number of indirect but nonetheless present methods. According to Nadkarni (2003), India's painful history with religion-based separatism is what gave rise to the debate over religious conversions in that nation.

Both the government and the general population are concerned about the possibility that a Christian majority region may eventually want to secede from India, a fear that some in India consider to be genuine. Conversely, other academics contend that the laws now in place adequately prevent any false conversion trend, negating the need for additional anti-conversion legislation. They adopt the stance that mass conversion movements do not, in any event, exist in contemporary India (SAHRDC 2008). Undoubtedly, the choice of a person to adhere to a certain religion, to stop practicing a particular religion, or even to change their faith is regarded as a fundamental human right (UN 1981). A complete ban on people's ability to convert to

another faith, even in cases when this is done without coercion or cruel persuasion, would be a concerning development that goes against the nation's constitution. However, India's government are essentially opposed to the act of converting others to a different faith, even as the nation places restrictions on its residents' ability to change. Thus, neither India's legislators nor its judicial authorities view proselytism as a fundamental right. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the country's first minister of law, was among the well-known converts in India. He was from the BCs and said that democracy is inherently incompatible with Hinduism's Varna (caste) structure. As a result, he battled against caste prejudice, declared his intention to convert in 1935, and eventually became a Buddhist in 1956 (Ambedkar 2014).

Following Ambedkar's conversion, some 500,000 members of the Scheduled Caste became Buddhists (Jaffrelot 2005). In fact, studies (Bankar 2012) demonstrate that the conversion of those who endured extreme discrimination and humiliation as BCs to Buddhism has altered their psychological makeup and increased their sense of self-worth. The religious conversion of Ambedkar and his supporters in 1956 is credited with bringing about this transition. A complex relationship between religious diversity and democratic regimes is best illustrated

by looking at the case of India. Governmental structures and legal frameworks must respect religious plurality everywhere in the world (Blank 2012). Absorption of religious minorities frequently runs against to the nation-state's essence and its inclination to establish inclusive and unifying institutions. An analytical lens and insights into the nature of religious diversity in Asia and beyond can be obtained from the study of religious conversion.

REFERENCE

1. Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji. 2014. Annihilation of caste: The annotated critical edition,

ed. S. Anand. New York: Verso Books.

2. Bankar, Neekanth. 2012. Hope and self-esteem correlates of religious conversion.

Indian Streams Research Journal, 1(12): 1–4.

3. Blank, Yishai. 2012. Localising Religion in a Jewish State. Israel Law Review, 45(2):

291–321.

4. Brass, Paul R. 2000. Elite groups, symbol manipulation and ethnic identity among the

Muslims of South Asia. In Nationalism: Critical concepts in political science, eds. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, Vol. 3, 879–911. London: Routledge.

5. Desai, Ankur R. 1991. Caste and communal violence in post-partition Indian Union. In

Communal riots in post-independence India, ed. Asgharali Ali Engineer, 10–32. Hyderabad: Sangam Books.

6. Dudley-Jenkins, Laura. 2008. Legal limits on religious conversion in India. Law and

Contemporary Problems, 71(2): 107–27.

7. Eaton, Richard M. 1984. Approaches to the study of conversion to Islam in India. In

Islam and the history of religions, ed. Richard C. Martin, 106–124. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

8. Eaton, Richard M. 2014. Rethinking religious divides. The Journal of Asian Studies,

73(2): 305–8.

9. Fernandes, Leela. 2011. Unsettled Territories. Politics and Religion, 4(1): 108–35.

10. Galanter, Marc. 1992. Law and society in modern India. New-Delhi: Oxford University

Press.

11. Gandhi, Mohandas K. 2014. Hind Swaraj: Indian home rule. Auckland: The Floating

Press.

12. Hames, J. Harvey. (2016). The Brighter Side of Medieval Inter-Religious Encounters.

Medieval Encounters, 22(1–3), 1–12.

13. Harel-Shalev, A. and Levy, N., 2019. Some ‘Side Effects’ of Religious Diversity:

Exploring Religious Conversion in the Indian Secular State. In Religious Diversity in Asia (pp. 93-118). Brill.

14. Harel-Shalev, Ayelet. 2009. The problematic nature of religious autonomy to minorities

in democracies. Democratization, 16(6): 1261–81.

15. Harel-Shalev, Ayelet. 2010. The challenge of sustaining democracy in deeply divided

societies: Citizenship, rights, and ethnic conflicts in India and Israel. Lanham: Lexington Press.

16. Harel-Shalev, Ayelet. 2017. Gendering ethnic conflicts: minority women in divided

societies – the case of Muslim women in India. Ethnic and Racial Studies 40(12): 2115– 2134.

17. Heredia, Rudolf C. 2007. Changing gods: Rethinking conversion in India. New-Delhi:

Penguin Books.

18. Jaffrelot, Christophe. 2005. Dr. Ambedkar and untouchability: Analyzing and fighting

caste. London: Hurst.

19. Kim, Chang Hwan. 2002. ‘Freedom of religion’ legislation in India: The Hindu-

Christian debate on religious conversion. Mission and Theology 9: 227–246.

20. Kim, Sebastian C.H. 2003. In search of identity: Debates on religious conversion in

India. New-Delhi: Oxford University Press.

21. Lerner, Hanna. (2013) “Permissive constitutions, democracy, and religious freedom in

India, Indonesia, Israel, and Turkey.” World Politics 65(4): 609–655.

22. Mahmood, Tahir. 2011. Religion and the secular state: Indian perspective. The

International Center for Law and Religion Studies. http://www.iclrs.org/content/ blurb/files/India.rev.2011.05.16.pdf Accessed 01 February 2016.

23. Nadkarni, Mangesh V. 2003. Why is religious conversion controversial in India?

Economic and Political Weekly, 19: 1562–1563.

24. Osuri, Goldie. 2013. Religious freedom in India: Sovereignty and (anti) conversion.

Oxfordshire & New York: Routledge.

25. Rao Ventkatachaliah, Manepalli Narayana (Justice). 2003. Freedom of religion and

right to conversion. Delhi: Eastern Book Company.

26. Rebe, Ryan J. 2012. Re-examining the wall of separation: A cross-national study of reli

gious pluralism and democracy. Politics and Religion, 5(3): 655–70.

27. Shani, Ornit. (2017) How India Became Democratic: Citizenship and the Making of the

Universal Franchise. London: Cambridge University Press.

28. South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre. 2008. Anti-conversion laws:

Challenges to secularism and fundamental rights. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(2): 63–73.

29. Stephens, Robert J. 2007. Sites of conflict in the Indian secular state: Secularism, caste

and religious conversion. Journal of State and Church, 49(2): 251–276.

30. The Constitution of India, Art. 23[2] (1949)

31. Thio, Li-ann. 2010. Caesar, conscience and conversion. Paper presented at the

International Association of Constitutional law conference, Mexico. December http:// www.juridicas.unam.mx/wccl/ponencias/11/357.pdf Accessed 01 February 2016.

32. United Nations. 1981. Declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of

discrimination based on religion or belief, November 25, G.A. Res. 55, U.N. GAOR, 36th Sess., Supp. No. 51, U.N. Doc A/36/684.

33. Venkataraman v. The State of Madras. SC 229 (1951).

34. Viswanathan, Gauri. 1998. Outside the fold: Conversion, modernity, and belief.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.