What's new

India’s perceived responsibility to protect Sri Lanka

Basically Rajapaska got India's support for war after he promised to devolve power to regional states so Tamils could have a stake in power. He has to make good on his promises otherwise Sri lanka as a country would be at loss for making India as their enemy. No other country could do anything about it in our backyard.

Let the Muslims of India have a stake in power.

Let the tribals of India have a stake in power.

Let the Dalits of India have a stake in power.

Let other minorities have a stake in power:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let the Muslims of India have a stake in power.

Let the tribals of India have a stake in power.

Let the Dalits of India have a stake in power.

Its a democracy,everyone has the same rights .
 
How democratic are anti-conversion laws?

You seem to have miss understood that law, as long as conversion doesn't happen because of the following reasons its ok:

The definition of force

All the anti-conversion laws share a common definition of what constitutes "force" in forced conversions. As the Rajasthan Bill provides, the definition of 'Force' includes a show of force or a threat of injury any kind, including threat of divine displeasure or social ex-communication.

It is uncertain how this prohibition will work in practice. For example, if a religion teaches that non-adherents risk divine displeasure (as with Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), teaching this article of faith may constitute an act of force under the Act. This may be contrary to the freedom to change one's religion. As HM Seervai points out in his discussion of the right to propagate, "[a] person cannot choose if he does not know what choices are open to him (sic)". As a result of the overly broad definition of "force", a person engaging another in order to bring about his or her conversion cannot inform the potential convert what the religion teaches about non-adherents. This limits the information that may be made available to the potential proselyte. An individual cannot fully exercise his or her freedom to change religion if such information is withheld.

The definition of allurement

According to the Rajasthan Bill: 'allurement' means offer of any temptation in the form of 1) any gift or gratification, either in cash or in kind; 2) grant of any material benefit, either monetary or otherwise.

The Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Gujarat anti-conversion laws rely on an identical definition. The Orissa and Arunachal Pradesh laws are worded slightly differently: inducement shall include the offer of any gift or gratification, either in cash or in kind and shall also include the grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise.

The High Court of Orissa struck this definition down as being too vague and passing into the realm of morality. Although the High Court's decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in Stanislaus vs Madhya Pradesh & Ors, the Supreme Court did not discuss this aspect of the High Court's judgment.

The potentially broad scope of the term "allurement" is troubling. Christian groups have expressed concern that the provision might be used to prohibit acts of charity, as they might be interpreted as "temptations" to convert. As charitable acts are also fundamental to many religious traditions, such an interpretation may restrict the freedom of its adherents to practise their religion or religious beliefs. It is conceivable that the provision of education or medical care by religious denominations might also be interpreted as "temptations" intended to induce conversions.

The definition of fraud

The Rajasthan Bill and Gujarat Bill provide: 'fraudulent' means and includes misrepresentation or any other fraudulent contrivance. The Acts in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh Acts state: 'fraud shall include misrepresentation or any other fraudulent contrivance'.

Once more, the imprecision of this definition is apparent. To take an extreme example, if an individual was told they would feel closer to God upon conversion and the converted person did not subsequently experience this degree of spirituality, would this constitute 'misrepresentation'? The legislation provides no guidance about how such a definition should be understood, and potentially it is extraordinarily wide in scope. Indeed, the very idea of the concept of "fraud" in the context of religious belief is fraught with peril for a secular form of government. How can a court adjudicate "fraud" in matters of faith without impermissibly entangling itself in the tenets of a religion?

The prohibition of conversions

All of the anti-conversion acts prohibit conversion in the following terms: No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religion to another by use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means, nor shall any person abet any such conversion.

Supporters of the laws argue they are intended to prohibit conversions or conversion attempts that are conducted by allurement, force or fraud. They suggest that such conversions are presently taking place, and that these laws are designed to criminalize such activities. The anti-conversion acts are therefore presented and titled as if their purpose were the protection of the 'freedom of religion'.

These laws, however, actually serve to infringe upon religious freedom and contradict rights protected within international agreements and the Indian Constitution. Such laws are motivated by a religious ideology driven by an irrational and insecure Hindu xenophobia that is antagonistic to religious minorities.


Misuse of democracy for democracy won't be tolerated by any sane democratic Govt
 
You seem to have miss understood that law, as long as conversion doesn't happen because of the following reasons its ok:

No misunderstanding.

Basically they persecute Christians.

---------- Post added at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 PM ----------

Very good treatment.

Same for Tamils in Sri Lanka :)
 
And the treatment of Muslims, Dalits, Tribals, Christians and North Easterners in India?

And female children?

That is discrimination by a minority of the people. Not constitutional discrimination to the extent that you take a minority in your country and practically deprive them of citizenship and constitutional human rights
 
Let the Muslims of India have a stake in power.

Let the tribals of India have a stake in power.

Let the Dalits of India have a stake in power.

Let other minorities have a stake in power:

Let us try to have another look at the topic of the thread,use a dictionary to understand what the words mean,and then stick to it.
 
That is discrimination by a minority of the people. Not constitutional discrimination to the extent that you take a minority in your country and practically deprive them of citizenship and constitutional human rights

All Sri Lankan citizens have the same rights according to the constitution.

Anti-conversion laws in India however, have been enacted, which persecute Christians.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No misunderstanding.

Basically they persecute Christians.

---------- Post added at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 PM ----------



Same for Tamils in Sri Lanka :)

Like our defence minister and goverment in charge who are christians right?
 
All Sri Lankan citizens have the same rights according to the constitution.

Anti-conversion laws in India however, have been enacted, which persecute Christians.

Plans to remove the Tamil version of the national anthem in your country is just another rock thrown by you people at the Tamils after years of subrogation. As stated above by Syama there is a difference between voluntary and forced conversions. If that is too much for your mind to absorb then read his thread early in the morning when there is more oxygen for you to inhale
 
Back
Top Bottom