The Rajasthan state cabinet has officially approved a new anti-conversion law aimed at preventing forced or fraudulent religious conversions, with the government taking decisive action to safeguard religious freedom in the state. Addressing the media, Deputy Chief Minister Prem Chand Bairwa defended the law, asserting that it is necessary to protect individuals from being coerced into changing their religion under false pretenses.
“People were lured into converting their religion, a religion they did not understand or know fully. This has caused serious concern,” Bairwa said, explaining the rationale behind the law. He emphasized that the government has carefully examined similar policies from other states before drafting the law, ensuring that the new legislation addresses the complexities of religious conversions and offers effective measures for prevention.
The proposed law categorizes punishments for those involved in forced conversions, with the goal of deterring practices that exploit vulnerable individuals through promises of marriage, money, or false cures. Bairwa assured that the law would not affect voluntary conversions, emphasizing that individuals have the right to choose their religion but that coercive methods will no longer be tolerated.
“We have analysed similar policies from other states and created a framework that is fair yet stringent in order to stop forced religious conversions,” Bairwa stated. The law is part of a broader effort by the state government to ensure that individuals’ religious choices are made freely and without outside manipulation or pressure.
The anti-conversion law has sparked debate, with supporters praising it as a necessary step to prevent exploitation, while critics argue it could infringe on individual freedoms. However, the state government remains firm in its stance, with the aim of creating a framework that protects both religious autonomy and the well-being of citizens.
The Rajasthan government’s move comes at a time of increasing national focus on religious conversions and has the potential to shape future discussions on religious freedom and individual rights in the state.
