Why the latest SC judgement may not check Dalits' ghar wapsi to Hinduism

In the backdrop of the row over Hindu outfits organising mass ghar wapsi programmes to reconvert people of Hindu origin back to Hinduism, a Supreme Court judgement has brought into focus a policy which serves as an allurement for people of Hindu origin to discard the religion adopted by their forefathers to come back to the Hindu fold.

Ruling on the scope of the policy extending reservation and other benefits only to Scheduled Castes (SC) who were either Hindus, Buddhists or Sikhs, a bench presided over by justice Dipak Misra recently held that a non-Hindu could revert to the caste of his Hindu forefathers on conversion to Hinduism.

The bench drew strength from an earlier judgement holding that a person, born to parents who had converted out of Hinduism, could get back the original caste of his parents on conversion to Hinduism.

The latest judgement extends caste benefits on reconversion so far available to a person whose parents had left Hinduism also to a person whose forefathers had been Hindus before conversion.

Coming back to the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the government had mooted nation-wide anti-conversion law as a solution. But that was then. Subsequent to the latest reconversion judgement, it goes without saying that such a law can check illegal conversion to other religions through allurements but probably not ghar wapsi to Hinduism by those whose Dalit forefathers had embraced Christianity or Islam. The legal bar against Dalit Christians and Muslims from availing the benefit of reservation unless they reconverted to Hinduism is virtually an incentive for conversion.

This, however, was not the rationale behind the policy. Though SC status as a matter of policy was restricted only to Hindus where caste system was prevalent, the benefit through judicial pronouncements was extended to families reconverting to back Hinduism.

First, to those converts whose SC parents were Hindus before embracing another religion and now to even those whose forefathers were SCs before they left Hinduism. Initially, all other religions were excluded on the ground that discrimination on the basis of caste was prevalent only in Hinduism. But later the rationale was given a go-by with the inclusion of Dalit Sikhs (in 1956) and Dalit Buddhists (in 1990) in the SC list. Subsequently, in 2004 the NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, approached the Supreme Court alleging discrimination against Dalit Christians and Muslims. The matter is pending before the court. The government may well be within its right to defend its policy but there is no bar in reviewing it. The question to ask in such cases is: Will a decision in favour of the government change the social reality? Apart from the fact that the policy as it stands today affects the freedom to profess a religion of one's choice, it is also not in consonance with the object behind reservation.

There is no reason to deny reservation with change in religion as reservation and other benefits are provided to SCs as recompense for centuries of oppression. The policy, as interpreted by courts, immediately confers benefits on a family coming back to the Hindu fold after generations and withdraws all facilities the day a Hindu converts to Christianity or Islam.

Should we continue to measure backwardness in this fashion? With backwardness associated with caste practically surviving conversions and posing fresh challenges to the society, the judiciary will continue to face questions on conversions and reconversions unless the government steps in to clear the anomalies that had crept in by including Dalit Christians and Muslims in the SC list.

No anti-conversion law can further the constitutional objective of ensuring freedom to profess religion of choice till such a policy exists.