Proposed Anti-Conversion Legislation: A Road to Therocracy
By, A.R.M. Imtiyaz
The anti conversion bill, introduced by the Buddhist Jathika Hele Urumaya (JHU) in 2004, was approved in January 2009, and thus Sri Lanka’s parliament is expected to vote on the bill either in February or March, depending on the impending re-occupation of the entire Northern region.
Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court in 2004 rules that the bill does not contravene the Constitution and it is arguably inconsistent with international law concerning religious freedom. The legislation with the blessing of the government by the Buddhist-Sinhala fundamentalists in Sri Lanka has raised profound concerns among the minorities, especially among Christians, a small minority of the population.
Anti-conversion legislation that alarms religious minorities states 7 years imprisonment and Sri Lankan rupees upto500, 000 ($ 4, 425) for conversion from one religion to another by using “force, fraud or allurement.” Briefly, any attempt to “persuade or influence a person to adopt another religion” would become a criminal offense and anyone convicted of offering “moral support [or] material assistance” leading to conversion could be imprisoned for up to seven years. (The Gazette of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Part I: Section (I)—General Government Notifications, Ministry of Buddha Sasana. No. 1322/4-2004, January 5, 2004 at §2. (“No person shall proselytize or attempt to proselytize any other person nor shall any person aid or abet such proselytizing.”); §8(a) (1); §8(a) (2).).
The opinions flows from the minority communities confidently fear that the law will extinguish freedom of religion, expression, and association for all Sri Lankans. At the core of religious freedom, arguably, is the guarantee that one may change one’s beliefs. It is obvious that anti-conversion legislation aims to strength Buddhism, which receives foremost place in Sri Lankan society as a matter of constitutional law.
Secular forces believe this legislation as another draconian step toward curtailing human rights and another step toward building a therocracy in Sri Lanka at the expenses of weakening the interests of the group and individual rights. Liberals affirm that the Anti Conversion Bill, which is in the pipeline to pass, would be a very bad and unrealistic piece of legislation that would suppress the individual and human rights and urge the government not be a party to endorse the whims and fancies of religious fanatics and extremists. It is a credible claim that the legislation will 'seriously erode' the freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed in the constitution and sanctioned by international conventions.
It is a fact that Sri Lankan Sinhala-Buddhist ruling has a long history to contain religious minorities’ rights. Since Sri Lanka’s judiciary has often bowed to Sinhala-Buddhist pressure, as it strikingly did in the last day or so, written laws on the constitution to safeguard, will no way help to rescue minorities. In the first week of August 2003, the Sri Lanka Supreme Court, interpreting Articles 10 and 14 (1) (e) of the constitution, categorically ruled that although it was permissible under the constitution for a person to manifest, observe and practice ones religion, it does not guarantee a fundamental right to ‘propagate’ religion. The judgment was in response to a petition field by Anula Irangani Fernando against a Bill titled ‘Provincial of the Teaching Sisters of the Holy Cross of the Third Order of Saint Francis in Menzingen of Sri Lanka (Incorporation)’.
The court concluded that clauses 3 (right to observe and practice a religion) and 5 (right to hold property) of the Bill are unconstitutional, because if a Christian organization owns property, that might induce others to convert, thus violating their freedom of religion. Clause 5 deals with the right of holding and receiving property both movable and immovable and or the power of disposing of such property. The court stated that this clause when combined with the objective of observance and practice of a religion or belief (clause 3), would necessarily result in imposing upon people who are defenseless, vulnerable or in need, improper pressure and inducement to adopt a religion or belief. This they stated would violate Article 10 of the constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion or belief
The Supreme Court further ruled that as Buddhism is the State religion, it is unconstitutional for Christian organizations that propose to carry out proselytization of the Christian faith to be able to be incorporated under an Act of parliament. Article 9 of the constitution guarantees Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly, casts a duty upon the State to protect and foster Buddhism. The Supreme Court held that the purpose of the Ministry in question "the spread of knowledge of the Catholic religion and to impart religious, educational and vocational training to youth" (clause 3) is inconsistent with Article 9 of the constitution; and therefore denied the right of incorporation. The object of clause 3 was seen as a threat to the very existence of Buddhism.
Conversion is equally the right of the person who is sought to be converted, as such it is of no consequence to her if it is not a part of the freedom of propagation of the religious group to which conversion is made, provided she/he is not subjected to force/fraud and inducement.
On examining the legislation and the Supreme Court judgment in light of the international instruments mentioned earlier, the Bill and the judgment seem to be encroaching upon the right to freedom of religion enshrined in those documents. There is a clear guaranteeing of the right to practice, teach and adopt any religion of one's choice and it cannot be denied that the proposed legislation, in effect, seeks to curtail the same right.
Sri Lanka’s Sinhala-Buddhist dominated security forces and their paramilitaries are on the verge of re-occupying the Tamil dominated Northern island of Sri Lanka. Strong pro-Sinhala agenda has been conceived at the elite level to de-Tamilize the North, in order Sinhalanize the region with a careful political agenda of the defense colonization agendas. When that happens with the silent approval minority quisling leaders, it is very likely that the Sinhala extremists would go for the religious minorities. The Sinhala extremists would begin the institutionalized racism with the anti-conversion legislation. In actual fact, anti-conversion legislation is an abridgment of fundamental political freedoms. The Sinhala extremists care neither for the sentiments of the religious communities, nor genuine religious piety.
It is credible to believe that the successful enactment of the anti-conversion law could lead to consequences similar to those of the “Sinhala-only” policy, which was engineered by former Prime Minister S.W. R. D Bandaranayake in 1956 to woo the Sinhala sympathy.
The writer, Dr. A.R.M. Imtiyaz, is a political scientist from Sri Lanka, currently attached to the Department of Political Science, Temple University, USA.
_________________________________
Note:
In November 2002, Mr. Maheshwaran, former Hindu Cultural Affairs Minister, who was brutally assassinated allegedly by a group attached to the ruling Sinhala class, made a visit to Tamil Nadu, one of five states in India with anti-conversion laws. On his return to Sri Lanka, Maheshwaran made a public statement vowing to introduce a bill in parliament to curb religious conversions. In subsequent months, Maheshwaran repeated his intentions to introduce the bill to parliament.
A draft bill closely modeled on the Tamil Nadu anti-conversion law was prepared, leading to increased attacks on Christian churches in the following months.
According to Don Asoka Wijewardena, (“Anti-conversion laws within 60 days” Sunday Observer at 3, 18 January 2004) the proposed anti-conversion laws were drafted by a special multi-religious committee appointed by former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe in agreement with the former President Chandrika Banaranaike Kumaratunga. Prior to the dissolution of the Sri Lankan parliament in February 2004, Minister of Justice, Legal Reforms, National Integration and Buddha Sasana, W.J.M. Lokubandara stated that the act would come into effect within the next 60 days.). The JHU monks July 21, 2004 submitted a bill in Parliament seeking to outlaw religious conversions based on offers of cash or other incentives. - A.R.M. Imtiyaz
13 Comments
Yes Sri Lanka is a Sinhala Buddhist majority and thus Sinhala Buddhist dominated country.
The anti-conversion bill is consistent with the strategy of the Sinhala Buddhist Nationalist bloc in Sri Lanka society. This policy has continued post independence and surfaced in various forms at various points of time. This strategy is based on the fact that the majority demographic group in Sri Lanka is the Sinhalese and majority religious group in Sri Lanka are the Buddhist.
There is a sense of injustice felt by the Sinhalese, that they have been discriminated against by successive colonial rulers of Sri Lanka, namely the Portuguese, Dutch and British. The colonial rulers actively followed a strategy to proselytize the natives to Christianity during their respective periods in Sri Lanka. Many missionary schools and hospitals were established as centers for propagation of Christianity in Sri Lanka. Those who converted were rewarded with lands, wealth, and recognition. This lead to the creation of a rich, land owning urban English speaking class composed mainly of Christian Sinhala and Tamil families with access to education and positions in government. At the same time the western capitalist system was introduced with the establishment of companies and agency houses which controlled large swathes of Rubber and Tea plantations. The rural population was largely left to their own means as farmers and source of labour and blue collar jobs. With this background and the declaration of independence in 1948, there was the handover of power from the British to the Local Governing Class. This consisted mainly of the English educated gentry who were the cream of Ceylonese Society at that time.
The first moves towards Sinhalese Nationalism began to manifest in the 1950’s with the Sinhala only act, taking over of Missionary schools etc. In addition there have been outbreaks of violence directed against the minorities from time to time. On analysis, the objective of all these incidents has been to assert the dominance of the Sinhalese Buddhist over the perceived economic dominance of other demographic and religious groups. In the modern world with globalization and free exchange of ideas between races and religions the Sinhalese Buddhist feel threatened due to increase in conversion to other faiths. Significant numbers of Sinhalese who migrate and are exposed to western cultures are converting to Christianity. In addition with increased globalization there is significant conversion of Buddhist to Christianity in Buddhist countries such as China, Korea and Japan. In Sri Lanka too the number of Sinhalese Buddhist as a percentage of population has reduced to less than 70%. Hence the attempt to curb this trend by introducing an anti-conversion bill in parliament needs to be understood in the above context.
At the same time Government and Politicians need to understand that introducing draconian legislation to appease certain extremist lobbies is not the solution to the problem. The survival of any religion depends on its practicality and appeal to the intelligence of human society. Religion cannot be force fed to people to ensure its survival. If Buddhism is perceived to be extremist or discriminatory it would not help the spread of Buddhism amongst others, just as the activities of the Taliban and Al-Qaida are not conducive to the spread of Islam.
Religion is an intensely personal experience which is meant to bring out the goodness in man not to spread hatred and discord. Ultimately any Religion will be judged by the actions of its followers. It is well known saying in Islam that Truth cannot be sustained by Force, Wealth, Beauty or Deceit; Truth is sustained by Faith and Good Actions. Hence whosoever is a follower of Truth, will not be enticed by material benefits to convert his religion. Whereas those who convert for the wrong reasons are in fact shallow in their faith and may not be considered true followers of religion in the first place. As a Muslim, I do not see any threat in this piece of legislature to Islam. The only problem would be the misuse of this legislation to harass minorities. If it is implemented in the true spirit it may be advantageous to the minorities who would then not be forced to participate in various rituals.
Dr. A.R.M. Imtiyaz writes as if he is surprised that these things are happening...
But as even he notes the signs were up since at least 1956 (if not much earlier).
Why else is there a war going on?
What do you think will be the outcome if the LTTE is indeed completely defeated? - the euphoria of the power crazed extremists will simply accelerate the process of 'Sinhalisation'.
First it will be Tamils in 'welfare villages' then the rest for re-education as to the merits of being Sinhala-Buddhist.
.
Even if entire Lankan minorities are silenced or politically wiped out, Lankan conflict, like Israel-Palastenian conflict, is going to go on for years.
Lanka will never see economic recovery.
Our men are born to be labourers and our women are born to house maids.
:-)
NOTES TO KEEP IN MIND:
proselytization = Brain washing
Buddhism is Secular (Not God based religions)
Sinhala people are unique to Sri Lankan geography.
Tamil Homeland is where the "Tamilness" originated and thrive in. Where is that in Tamil Nadu (Tamil Country) India.
Muslims yes you have countries with Sharia Law in the middle east you can go there and live if you do not like Sinhala Buddhists and the freedom they offer.
This goes to ALL NON-Sinhala and Sinhala people.
Imtiaz and readers of Transcurrent are advised to google on " Fatwa apostasy" , "Islam apostasy" , Islam unbelievers" or any combination of "Islam", "apostasy", "Sharia", "Fatwa" or "unbelievers"
It is very difficult to make every unethical act an illegal one I view this proposed legislation in this angle.
I am a Christian and hold that Muslims should keep away from this debate. You should not throw stones from glass houses.
Dr. Imtiaz please enlighten us on relevant legislation in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan so that Sinhha Buddhists can learn to frame appropriate laws and legislation related to religion.
In any case Dr. Imtiaz this is not "Politiccal science". Having fooled Sri Lankans now you are trying to fool Americans too.
sinhala_voice,
you would do well, and it would the proper Buddhist thing to do, if you were to be historically factual and honest.
Yes, Sinhalese originated in Lanka. This is true. But the full picture is that Sinhalese has its origins and base/homeland in the mainly southern and interior regions of Lanka. So the claim to the whole of Lanka is unsustainable.
Tamil, or Tamilness, has its origins and base/homeland in the ancient southern region of the Indian subcontinent and it includes south India TN as well as the north east of Lanka.
As well parts of the ancient Tamil homeland dissapeared under the sea.
Also your isolationist version of Buddhism is false.
Furthermore, if you genuinely understood Buddhism then you would see the Buddhas universal ideas in all religions and all people. And you certainly would not tie it down to being Sinhalese etc.
this anti conversion bill was first introduced to the parliament by the late maheshwaran!
Sinhalese are genetically coded for barbarism, plundering and deceit. They have been brainwashed into Budhdhism that advocates the opposite.The Sinhala Budhists, torn between the two traits have now adopted 'pauperism' - a combination of both.
Tamils on the other hand have the history of treason and fratricide as a result of which they had to live second class citizens under differing rules and circumsances wherever they are. Perhaps this is genetically coded. Look at the history of cera, chola and pandiya. they rarely co-existed. Look at the Tamilnadu politics and Sri Lankan Tamils!
N2,
So is the Tamil Eelam or a Tamil Homeland in Sri Lanka.
GO TO WHERE MAJORITY OF TAMILS LIVE and FORM A HOMELAND there NOT IN SRI LANKA
"this anti conversion bill was first introduced to the parliament by the late maheshwaran!" writes on :billy" above. Purely out thirst for facts, could one knowlegeable reader enlighten us on this.
The reason this bill has come about is because of certain Christian groups. These Christian groups have caused problems in India as well where several states have already enacted anti-conversion laws. These Christian extremist groups need to reconsider how they go about converting people to their religion. If they were more sensitive and tolerant towards non-Christian religions then this bill wouldn't have arisen. There are always two sides to a story; there is no point in just telling one if one is interested in a solution.
sinhala_voice: "GO TO WHERE MAJORITY OF TAMILS LIVE and FORM A HOMELAND there NOT IN SRI LANKA"
Consider how stupid sinhala_voice's argument is:
The Sinhalese are a tiny minority on the planet earth.
Therefore, by sinhala_voice's kind of argument, they [the Sinhalese] should go to another planet and form a homeland there NOT on planet earth!