Should India ignore US report on India’s anti-conversion laws?
Who has authorised the US to enforce ‘international human rights law’? Does the US bind itself to international law?
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recently released an updated report on “India’s State level Anti-conversion Laws”. As a global superpower the US has self-assumed a commitment to promote a rules-based international order with democratic values and individual freedoms. It, of course, seeks to champion an international order that it believes to be in the interest of all countries and peoples in the world.
For a long time, the US has been trying to coerce, persuade and influence other countries to follow its leadership and adopt social, economic and strategic behaviour as per its beliefs and conviction.
It is with this mission that the US Commission on International Religious Freedom prepares reports on the status of religious freedom in other countries and makes a set of recommendations to the US Government for necessary action. Those who prepare such reports, of course, do not make foreign policy, conduct diplomacy or implement US policies towards other countries.
They appear to be committed to their jobs and collect information about the state of religious freedom in other countries, make analysis and produce reports. The State Department does not accept such reports lock, stock and barrel and selectively uses the information in relationship with other countries.
Many countries around the world clearly do not go by the information and conclusion of the reports, but at the same time continue to practice “religious freedom” as per their own rules, customs and tradition.
Some countries, such as China, prepare counter reports on religious freedom and point out the state of the religious freedom and minority issues within the United States are not so adorable.
It is important that the US State Department takes note of such reports and seeks to prevent the findings in the report from adversely affecting US friendship and cooperation with friends and allies.
The latest report on “India’s State level Anti-conversion Laws”, in this sense, raises certain issues and concerns that need the attention of appropriate US Government agencies. India may also consider raising some questions about the legal and appropriateness of this report with the United States.
First, the report says that “Repealing India’s statelevel anti-conversion laws is necessary to comply with international human rights law for the right to freedom of religion or belief and to help prevent the country’s religious freedom conditions from further deteriorating.”
Who has authorised the US to enforce “international human rights law”? Does the US bind itself to international law? Is there any country other than the US that claims the right to make extra-territorial laws and expects other countries to voluntarily follow those? The Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Office recently pointed out that the “United States has for years been imposing sanctions on individuals and entities without national criminal jurisdiction and in the absence of universal jurisdiction”. This USCIRF report’s recommendation is yet another suggestion seeking US jurisdiction over other countries.
Second, this report attempts to make a legal argument against the anti-conversion laws in some Indian states by pointing out that “The UDHR [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] and the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] also protect the right of an individual to persuade or support another individual to convert voluntarily to a different religion or to no religion at all. Article 18 of the UDHR protects the right of individuals to manifest their religious beliefs ‘in teaching, practice, worship, and observance’.”
It is important to underline that UDHR and ICCPR give these rights to “individuals”. Do the same provisions give similar rights to organised religions and groups to convert other individuals? Do those laws permit NGOS of other countries to directly or indirectly get involved in efforts of some groups in third countries to convert individuals? Will the US, for example, allow Saudi-backed groups to convert American citizens to
Islam on US soil?
Moreover, the report is right in saying that “…international human rights law also prohibits any individual or group of individuals from coercively converting any other individual or group of individuals to a different religion or to no religion at all.”
But its understanding that “India’s state-level anti-conversion laws prohibit conversions under circumstances that go beyond coercion, using broad and vague language” carries no conviction. In what way Uttar Pradesh’s Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 is vague when it says that “no person shall convert or attempt to convert” another individual, directly or otherwise, by “misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means”?
Does the commission have the authority to decide whether a particular law, enacted by constituent states in another country, is vague? This report can have negative implications over evolving strategic partnership between the most powerful democracy and largest democracy in the world. After prolonged mistrust and ups and downs, India-us relations have been moving in a positive trajectory and such reports should not be allowed to create avoidable road bumps. Both the Ministry of External Affairs and the US State Department should take note of it and prevent negative fallouts in the relationship. Minority issues in the US and India are very complex. While academic studies on religious freedom around the world are welcome, governments should refrain from interference in internal affairs of other countries.