a contextual missiology of the spirit - eTheses Repository ...

As in some other states, a law banning religious conversion has been introduced in
Rajasthan as another measure to counter conversion. 146 Pentecostal leaders have
suggested that the chief purpose has been to make conversion illegal and this has
created more religious tension. The minority representative of a Pentecostal
organization argued that they regard it as a hidden move to put all Christian
workers in prison. Pentecostals, like other Christians, look at the anti-conversion
law with suspicion. Careful observation of the proposed law creates doubt about
its purpose. 147 They see it as a part of a hidden agenda of the Hindutva advocates
as this law has been introduced mostly under the BJP rule. Pentecostal leaders
point out the ambiguities in the law. For example, the sections on ‘Definitions’
and ‘Explanation.’ Explanation (a) says that ‘Own religion’ means one’s
forefathers. That means any person can accept Hinduism from any other religion
because that will be termed as homecoming to the religion of their forefathers.
However, moving from Hinduism to another religion will be interpreted as
conversion. Explanation (b) implies that they cannot preach or teach
eschatological topics like ‘life after death, and heaven and hell.’ The Law says
that those convicted will be imprisoned for at least two years, and this can be
extended to five years. It is not possible to obtain bail for this offence. Such a
harsh punishment causes Pentecostals to believe that the chief intention behind
such a move is to put all Christian ministers in prison. Pentecostals disagree with
146 The Rajasthan State Assembly passed an Anti-conversion Law in 2006 but it never became
enforceable law as the Indian President did not approve it. However, the Assembly re-introduced
the Law and passed it on 20 March 2008 despite the previous Law 2006, still awaiting the assent
of the President. See Appendix 4, for a copy of the Bill 2006 and Appendix 5 for a copy of the Bill
2008.
147 Some prominent Pentecostal leaders discussed the details of the law with me on 8 May 2006 in
Jaipur. The Bill 2006 (Appendix 4) is used for discussion. It is clear that both the Bills do not
differ in matters of our discussion in this paper, except years of imprisonment. Compare
Appendices 4 and 5.
220