Dr. Krishnaswamy's quoting the constitution is imperfect. Art 25(1) says, “the citizens have the right to freely profess propagate and the practice subject to public order, morality and health and other provisions therein”.
Dr. Krishnaswamy says that TNadu is a state of communal harmony. If so why there were series of bomb blasts in Coimbatore, Udumalpet, Mettupalayam etc.
It is not without significance that Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan, Pakistan and B. Desh have banned proselytation.
Mahatma Gandhi said conversion means disruption of the family, coming in the change of dress, manners, language, food and drink. Therefore “if only I had the power to legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytising.” (Harijan - 11.5.1935.)
Fr. Paul S.J. (June 22 of The New Indian Exp.) states that discrimination shown to dalits by caste Hindus results into conversion. But I may say that discrimination exists even amongst Muslims. There are Shia, Sufi, Sunni Muslims - All at logger heads to one another. Why then no conversion from their side to Christianity? The heads of Christians would roll if any such a conversion takes place.
Gandhiji said “liquidation of untouchability amongst Hindus cannot be attained by the conversion of untouchables to any other religion. For it is the so-called caste Hindu who has to rid himself of the sin of untouchability. He can wash away the sin only by doing justice however to the outcaste.” (Harijan 20-4-1940).
I may affirm that quarrel with my wife does not give a license to my neighbour to poke his long nose and fish in troubled waters of my family.
Art 25 does not grant unbridged full freedom to practice of the religion of his choice.
In fact A. N. Ray, Chief Justice
of supreme court observed, “we have no doubt that it is in this sense that
the word 'propagate' has been used in Article 25(1), for what the Article
grants is not the right to convert another to one's own religion, but to
transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has
to be remembered that Article 25(1) guarantees “freedom of conscience”
to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion,
and that in turn postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert
another person to one's own religion because if a person purposely undertakes
the conversion of another person to his religion as distinguished from
his effort to transmit or spread the 'freedom of conscience' guaranteed
to all the citizen of the country alike.” Since conversion has the potentiality
of proliferating into the change in the demographic character of the very
country, it has to be banned forthwith.