PART III

CHAPTER I. – RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN OTHER COUNTRIES

The joint Committee appointed by the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America and the Foreign Missions Conference of North America in the year 1944, in their “Statement on Religious Liberty”, have defined the term as given below:-

“Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom for the individual to change his religion; freedom to preach, educate, publish and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to organise with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes”. (Religious Liberty: Bates, page 309.)

2. Religious Liberty, as defined above, has been in existence in India from times immemorial.  India is a land of many religions-Hinduism, majority religion, is itself a co-ordinated combination of various beliefs. It has survived through ages by its liberal and receptive attitude towards other faiths.  There have undoubtedly been controversies in India of a religious and philosophical nature but there has been perfect freedom of Conscience.  Coercion and religious persecution have been unknown in Hindu society.  The alleged persecution of the Budhists has been held to be a myth on critical research. [Budhist India by Rhys Davids, p. 211 (Sushil Gupta, Calcutta).]

The all-embracing polytheism of the early Hindus afforded ample scope for different beliefs to exist side by side without trying to oust one another.  Both Jainism and Budhism were deviations from some aspects of early Aryan faith.  “Their rise and progress, the standardisation of Jainism as a minor sect of ascetic tendencies; the extension, the export, the decline of Budhism within a Society of Hinduism,……… all were essentially peaceful.  The changes came by persuasion and by slow social pressures or movements, without clear conflict of group wills against other groups or against individuals”. (Religious Liberty : Bates, page 267.)

Hindu India provided in the person of King Ashok the Great, who subsequently became a convert to Budhism, a unique instance of goodwill and toleration towards other religions. One of his well-known inscriptions reads as follows:-

“King Piyadasi (Ashok) dear to the Gods, honours all sects, the ascetics (hermits) or those who dwell at home, he honours them with charity and in other ways.  But the King, dear to the Gods, attributes less importance to this charity and these honours than to the vow of seeing the reign of virtues, which constitutes the essential part of them.  For all these virtues there is a common source, modesty of speech.  That is to say, One must not exalt one’s creed discrediting all others, nor must one degrade these others Without legitimate reasons. One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honour befitting them.” (Religious Liberty, pp. 267-268: Bates.)

What a lucid and comprehensive exposition of liberty of religion? It is, as it were, “faith in the goodness of faith”.  Refraining from speaking well of one’s own faith and ill of others enables us to appreciate in a friendly discussion the truth and beauty in the teachings of other groups which enriches one’s own belief. Charity and toleration are thus developed.  Hindu India has maintained this spirit of religious toleration.

3. According to some of the Christian writers, intolerance in religion came in the wake of the advent of Christianity. Professor Guido de Ruggiero in his article on “Religious Liberty”, published in the “Encyclopedia of Social Sciences”, writes:-

“The antagonist in the major struggle of mankind for religious freedom has been Christianity, which accentuated the elements of intolerance included in its Hebraic heritage and supplemented them by the introduction of two new and potent incentives-the idea of a universal mission, a rigid dogma, the conception of the Church as an indispensable mediator between God and man.” (Religious Liberty: Bates, p. 132.)

In exposition of the above statement, Professor Raffini writes in his book “Religious Liberty”:

“When the idea of a single and universal God was set, first by the Hebrews and then by the Christians, against the ancient polytheism, there arose a new form of religious exclusivism, contrary to the old not less in its basis than in its effects.  The Gods of the other peoples were said to be false and fallen and religion lost its national and public character and became on the one side cosmopolitan and on the other proper to each single individual.  From this followed not only an inextinguishable spirit of proselytism but also the principle that he only could be saved who worshipped the true God, that is to say, the principle of absolute intolerance (italics ours). (Religious Liberty: Bates, p. 132.)

4. During the first three hundred years of its existence Christianity itself was faced with the question of how it could make its way in a non-Christian society ruled by the Roman Empire.  The question of its being intolerant, therefore, could not arise.  The early Roman Emperors looked upon Christianity with suspicion as it preached “novel principles and sanctions, not Roman”.  Until Decius’ Edict of 250 there was, however, “no general and systematic persecution of Christianity”. Then an era of torture and persecution started in full swing.  First, the Christians were required to sacrifice to the old Gods under penalty of imprisonment.  Then their Churches were seized.  Christian assemblies were banned, their bishops and priests were executed and even laymen of standing lost their posts, their properties and even their rights of residence. Ultimately their Churches were destroyed, their scriptures confiscated, their clergies imprisoned and subjected to great tortures and finally all Christian were required by law to offer sacrifice to old gods or die. There was a change in policy when Constantine rose to the throne of the Roman Empire. He issued an edict in 312 or 313 of conscience, for full rights to Christianity on an equality with other recognised religions, and for restoration of Church property recently confiscated.  Emperor Constantine was anxious to consolidate his vast Roman Empire comprising peoples of different faiths.  He considered Christianity as a useful handle in unifying the complex empire.  Thus “favour was soon advanced to privilege and privilege to prestige that approached exclusive power”.

5. The tables were now turned against other faiths. “By the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian, heretics were forbidden to build Churches, to assemble for religious purposes, or to teach their doctrines even in private.  They denied rights of bequest and of inheritance, even of contract.  Death was prescribed for lapse from Christianity into pagan rites.  By the time of Justinian pagans were required to hear instruction in the Churches and were subjected to exile and confiscation of property if they refused baptism. Young children of pagan families were to be baptized”. (Religious Liberty: Bates, p. 135.)

It is thus evident that repressive measures against non-Christians were plentifully decreed.  In fifty-seven years from Valentinnian I, no less than sixty-eight laws against heretics were enacted.

6. Theodosius II and Valentinian III (5th century) made deviation from orthodoxy “a crime against the State carrying even the death penalty”.  By 407, heresy was made a public crime.  Soon it was enacted that the Imperial service should receive “no one who disagrees with us in faith and religion”.  Thus Theodosius the Great, relentlessly pressed his subjects to conform to “Catholic (Trinitarian) Christianity”.  By the year 386, all public-discussion of religious issues was prohibited.  Imperial authority in spiritual matters was thus fully established in utter disregard of the “proud Christian conviction that the Emperor was not to be considered in terms of divinity”.

7. What was the attitude of Christianity towards the Jews after Christianity itself was in authority?

At first Judaism remained as in pagan Rome, “a permitted religion”, subject to certain disabilities.  It was characterised by Theodosian Code as “abominable superstition”.  Jews were not eligible to public office.  A Christian who adopted Judaism lost his right of bequest.  Exile or death was the penalty prescribed for the Jew who married a Christian wife. Capital punishment was awarded to a Jew who carried out proselytization of Christians.  In the seventh century in Spain, Italy and Frankish Empire, Jews were ordered to choose between baptism and expulsion. It is really a matter of great surprise how the Christians could justify “the severity and ostracism” practised by the entire community against the Jews with doctrine of “tolerance and protection” which the teaching of scripture required of them:

“The employment of organised religion on behalf of the State power and of State power on behalf of organised religion, both in contradiction of liberty, is found in the policy of Charlemagne among the Saxons.  In his first capitulary for them he not only provided extraordinary honour and protection for the Church, he decreed death for those participating in pagan sacrifices and for those refusing to accept baptism” (P. 136, Religion Liberty: Bates.)

8. Kenneth S. Latourette in his book “A History of the Expansion of Christianity” writes :

“The conversion of the Saxons was achieved by a combination of armed force and zeal of the missionaries.  The completion of conversion of the entire Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries, accomplished though it had been under the urge of imperial legislation, had probably not entailed the killing of as many non-Christians as did the winning of this comparatively small area in North-Western Germany” (Ibid, p. 136).

9. The above procedure was repeated again and again in the next thousand years of the history of Christianity from eighth to nineteenth century.  Invaders and conquerors have been employing the Church for the purpose of consolidating their political conquests.

10. Religious liberty was woefully crushed as a result of the unholy alliance between the Church and the State to persecute and torture those who did not subscribe to the official religions.

11. Reaction came at last.  There was demand for separation of the Church from the State and vice versa during the period (1500-1700) called the Reformation Era.  Luther led the movement of Reformation.  He gave expression in his early life to views like these: “Belief is a free thing which cannot be enforced”.  “Heresy is a spiritual thing which no iron can hew down, no fire burn, no water drown”.  Later on, there was, however, a change in his attitude.  His vehemence against his opponents, whether Roman Catholics or other sects, which did not follow his pattern, led hint to leap “all bounds of love and mercy” In one of his Table Talks he is reported to have said:

“Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source and bathe their hands in the blood of the Catholic Bishops, and the Pope, who is a devil in disguise.” (Religious Liberty: Bates, p. 156.)

12. To the Duke of Saxony, Luther commanded both political and religious compulsions.  His words are significant.  “It will lie heavy on your conscience if you tolerate the Catholic worship for no secular prince can permit his subjects to be divided by the preaching of opposite doctrines”.  “The fact”, as pointed out by William Sweet in his book “Religion in Colonial America,” “is that the rise of Protestantism was accompanied by an unprecedented outburst of intolerance and cruelty in which both Protestants and Catholics participated”.

13. The spirit of intolerance exhibited either by the Catholics or the Protestants was not confined to heretics or the Jews but was directed even against each other.  John Robinson wrote as follows in the early years of the seventeenth century:-

“Protestants living in countries of Papists commonly plead for toleration of religions: so do Papists that live where Protestants bear sway though few of either especially of the clergy…… would have the other tolerated, where the world goes on their side”. (P. 155 ibid.)

Such is the history of religious liberty under Christianity in the West.

14. Let us now turn nearer home and study the question of religious liberty under the domination of the Christian countries of the West.  As pointed out by Shri K. M. Panikkar in his book “Asia and a Western Dominance”, the coming in of the Portuguese in India marks the advent of Christianity on Indian soil.  “With the Portuguese, Christianisation was a State enterprise”.  Since the power was Roman Catholic in its religion, it were the Roman Catholic missionaries who carried on missionary work.  On the recommendation of the Pope, King Joao III of Portugal appointed Francis Xavier and sent him to India for the propagation of Christian religion.  He landed ashore in 1542 and set to his work in right earnest.  He, however, soon realized that without State aid it was not possible to spread Christian religion in India.  Writing to Father Rodrigues he said:

“According to my experience the only effective way to spread religion India is for the King to proclaim by means of an edict to all his officials in India that he shall put trust only in those who will exert themselves to extend the reign of religion by every means in their power.”

To King Joao III he wrote as follows:

“To your servants you must declare as plainly as possible…… that the only way of escaping your wrath and of obtaining your favour Is to make as many Christians as Possible in the countries over which they rule.” (P. 382, Asia and Western Dominance)

In 1546, he wrote a letter to the King of Portugal requesting him to establish the Holy Inquisition, as it was called.  This “unholy and wicked institution” lasted for nearly two hundred and fifty years.  It perpetrated innumerable atrocities on both Christians and non-Christians.  It proved the worst of its kind, established anywhere.

15. The Portuguese power became ruthless the more it got itself established in India.  Royal Charters were issued from time to time making invidious distinctions between Christians and non-Christians and subjecting the latter to untold disabilities.  In 1559 an enactment was passed debarring all Hindus from holding any public office.  In the same year another law was enacted confiscating the properties of non-Christian orphans if they refused to be converted to Christianity.  Yet another law ordered destruction of Hindu temples and images and prohibited all non-Christian religious festivals. In 1560 all the Brahmans and goldsmiths were ordered to accept Christianity otherwise they were to be turned out of Goa.  By a law passed in 1567 the Hindus were prohibited from performing their important religious ceremonies such as investiture of sacred thread, marriage ceremonies and even cremation rites.  Hindu religious books were proscribed.  All non-Christians above the age of 15 were forced to attend the preaching of Christian religion.  Hindu temples were destroyed and in their place churches were built.  In 1575 another law was passed by which the Hindu nationals were debarred from their civic right of renting state land.  People of Goa were prohibited to use their native language by an order of 1684 and were allowed three years to learn the Portuguese language under pain of being proceeded against under law of the land.

The aim of all these enactments was to compel the people either to accept Christian religion or to leave the State.

16. The activities of the Christian Mission during the days of Portuguese’s sway in India were confined to South India and were carried on by the Catholic Mission.  The decay of Portuguese power in 1660, adversely affected the missionary activities in India.  The first phase of Christian Missionary activities in India, came to a close by the middle of seventeenth century.

17. From 1660 the second phase in the history of Christianity in India begins.  There was a great set back to Christian activities in India during the second phase.  In the words of Shri K. M. Panikkar, “The European Nations that followed the Portuguese in Indian ocean were interested solely in trade, and as they were organised as commercial corporations, the question of converting the heathens was of no significance to them”.  Further, the Dutch, who followed the Portuguese in the first instance, and the British, who displaced them ultimately, were Protestants and had no sympathy with the Catholic Order.  Till the end of the eighteenth century, the Protestant zeal for Missionary work had not developed.  Consequently there was a lull in Christian Missionary activities.

18. From the beginning the policy of the East India Company was one of discouraging the Missionaries.  Its primary concern was trade and it was felt that any interference with the religious beliefs and practices and social habits of the people of India would create a prejudice against the company and go against its interests.  From 1757 East India Company assumed political power in its hands.  Its decision to exclude Missions from territories under its sway became even more definite and pronounced.  The fact that organised Protestant Missions with political influence did not exist in England helped the company to uphold and follow its policy of religious neutrality.  By the end of the eighteenth century a spirit of evangelism permeated the Protestants as well.

19. A new phase of Christian Missionary activities in India set in with the abolition of the East India Company’s monopoly in 1813.  Till then no European who was not in the service of the East India Company could set his foot on Indian soil without the permission of the company, but when the ban was removed in 1813, any European could visit India freely and the company had no legal right to stop him.

20. The progress of modern Christian missions in India began with the consolidation of British power in the country.  The Catholics had done much work in the land but their work was limited to the areas in the south.  The fact that the political influence of the Portuguese was confined to a small part of India did not favour the spread of Christianity to other parts.  The number of converts and the areas they belonged to were limited.  The field of the Christian work became extensive during British rule in India.

21. Protestant missionary work in India was initiated by Dr. William Carey who landed in India in 1793 and settled in Serampore-a Dutch settlement, as the East India Company did not give him any quarter in their territory.  Dr. Duff joined Dr. Carey soon after and the two laid the foundations of Christian missionary work under the Protestant denomination.

22. The war of Independence of 1857 was a turning point in the history of Indian politics.  Thereafter the governance of India passed off from the control of the East India Company to that of the British Crown.  As regards the cause of the revolt there were two schools of thought in England at that time.  The majority view according to Mr. Arthur Mayhew, attributed the disaster primarily to popular resentment caused by the Government patronage and support of Christian missionary work in its educational and philanthropic side, by its legislation on Christian principles against social evils such as infanticide, suttee, and converts’ loss of civil rights and by the open profession of Christianity and support of  proselytising agencies by many of individual officers”.  The other view held was that catastrophy was the result of “nervous apprehension of the British Government, its dread of emphasising its true faith and occasional appearance of repudiating it and its pandering to heathen prejudice”.

23. There seems little doubt that the mind of the general populace was profoundly disturbed by the new policy in administrative and educational matters that had been followed by the Government since 1813.  Things, however, came to a head when under the very aggressive rule of Lord Dalhousie several laws were passed which struck at the very root of Indian social life.  In some cases he was no doubt, prompted by his zeal to help christianisation of the country.  Thus for example, a law was passed preserving the right of inheritance of a convert to Christianity in Hindu family.  There was already a seething mass of discontent amongst the people.  Thus, only a spark was needed to start the conflagration and the same was provided by the greased cartridges used in rifles. It was suspected that the fat of cow and pig was used for the purpose.

24. The British Government having realised the gravity of the situation decided to make administration of India as a direct responsibility of the British Crown.  To allay the excited religious feelings of the people of India Queen Victoria, at the time of assuming direct control, issued the following Proclamation in 1858:-

“Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of Christianity and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of religion, we disclaim alike the right and desire to impose our conviction on any of our subjects.  We declare it to be our royal will and pleasure that none he in any wise favoured, or molested or disquited by reason of their faith or observance but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law, and we strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under us that they abstain from all interference with religious belief or worship of any of our subjects on pain of our highest displeasure.”

25. The above Royal Proclamation has been considered as the Magna Charta of religious liberty and neutrality.  Till the year 1947, the official policy of the British India Government, in matters of religion, continued to be that enunciated in the above Royal proclamation.

26. There was however difference between theory and practice.  Although the British Government of India were wedded to a policy of religious neutrality, yet indirectly the Christian officials holding positions of importance, afforded considerable encouragement and facilities to the Christian missionaries with whom they had their natural affinity.  The Christians under the British rule in India enjoyed a priviledged position.  To quote K. M. Panikkar from his book “Asia and Western Dominance”, “Legislation Protected the rights of the converts to their share n the Hindu joint families and the decision of the High Courts enabled converts to blackmail their wives to follow them into the fold of their new religion.  The Government also encouraged the Missionaries to work among the backward tribes, being satisfied that Hindu opinion would not be offended by it.” The author further adds-“On the whole however it may be said that the British Officials preserved an attitude of neutrality and the British Government always vigilant, in matters affecting law and order and the loyalty of the elements on which they depend for their rule discouraged methods of propaganda offensive to the Hindu sentiments”.

27. Before Christian Domination, India was under Muslim domination.  Although the first Muslim invasion of India took place in 711 A.D., yet “consistently progressive conquest” of India began about the year 1000 A.D. It was however from the sixteenth century onward that the “Muslims dominated Hindu society, in a political and military sense”.  Babar and Akbar however tended to be “indifferent to all, but the political aspects of religion”. But Akbar’s son, Shah Jahan, ordered in 1633, “the destruction of Hindu temples. which the faithful had begun openly to erect in his father’s time.” Intermarriages of Hindus and Muslims which were frequent in the Punjab and Kashmir were prohibited. “Aurangazeb, the puritan champion of Islam”, writes Searle Bates, “piled persecution upon repression”. In 1669 he issued orders “to the Government of all provinces to demolish the schools and temples of infidels and put down their teaching and religious practices strongly”. As a result a large number of Hindu shrines, including the famous Hindu places of worship suffered destruction. “Gross desecration”, writes Searle Bates, on page 270 of his book Religious Liberty, “was frequently added, such as the killing of cows in sanctuaries and the trampling of idols in public squares.  In 1679 Aurangazeb reimposed “the Jizya Tax on the unbelievers with the object of spreading Islam and overthrowing infidel practices”.  Hindu religious fairs were prohibited.  People were encouraged to embrace Islam by the offer “of grants to converts or of jobs in Government employ, or of liberation from prison”. These measures resulted in “a noticeable bulk of accessions”, to the Muslim immigrant minority from “weak portions of heterogeneous Indian Society”.  “The Mohamadan invasions”, in the words of Searle Bates, “helped to extinguish the fading Budhism and were severe upon the Jains.  The Sikhs, a relatively late sect to arise within Hinduism, preserved themselves by strong organization and by military powers, alike difficult to overwhelm and valuable to placate”.

28. According to Searle Bates, “In general India has not thought or organised or legislated in terms of the oppression of religion or of the liberty of religion.  Striving of religio-social groups there has been”. (P. 271: Religious Liberty.)

29. Coming to more recent times we find that in 1924 there was a Unity Conference held at Delhi.  Quite a number of Indian representatives of various religious Communities and political leaders attended the Conference. Mahatma Gandhi took a prominent part in the deliberations. The Conference passed a resolution on religious liberty, which rims as follows:-

“This Conference is emphatically of opinion that the utmost freedom of conscience and religion is essential and condemns any desecration of places of worship to whatsoever faith they may belong, and any persecution or punishment of any person for adopting or reverting to any faith, and further condemns any attempt by compulsion to convert people to any one’s faith or to enforce our’s own religious observance at the cost of the rights of others.

“With a view to give effect to the general principles promoting better relations between the various communities in India laid down in the above resolution and to secure full toleration of all faiths, beliefs and religious practices, this conference records its opinion.

“That every individual or group shall have full liberty to hold and give expression to his or their beliefs and follow any religions practice, with due regard to the feelings of others and without interfering with their rights.  In no case may such individual or group revile the founders, holy persons or tenets of any other faith.

“That every individual is at liberty to follow any faith to change it whenever he wills, and shall not by reason of such change of faith render himself liable to any punishment or persecution at the hands of the followers of the faith renounced by him.

That every individual or group is at liberty to convert or reconvert another by argument or persuasion but must not attempt to do so or prevent its being done, by force, fraud, or other unfair means, such is the offering of material inducement.  Persons under sixteen years of age should not be converted unless it be along with their parents or guardians, by a person of another faith.  If any person under sixteen years of age is found stranded, without his parents or guardians, he should be promptly handed over to a person of his own faith.  There must be no secrecy about any conversion or reconversion”.

Such in brief is the History of religious liberty in Europe and India, with special reference to Christianity.

30. We have so far dealt with the history of “Religions Liberty”.  Let us now consider the question of Religious liberty as it exists today in various countries (other than India),

31. There are at present four great religions prevailing in the world, viz., Hinduism, Budhism, Christianity and Islam. Hinduism prevails in India alone.  Budhism prevails in China and Japan.  Islam prevails in Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

32. The Christian countries of the world may be divided into three categories, viz., first those where Catholic Church is the prevailing church and secondly those where Protestant Church predominates, thirdly where orthodox church prevails.  Prominent under the first category are the States of Italy, Spain, Belgium and Portugal.  Russia and Greece are the countries of the Orthodox Church.

33. Let us first take Italy, which is the official seat of Catholic Church, being the residence of the Pope, head of the Catholic religion.  Before Italy became Fascist, the state was subordinate to the Church.  The Pope dictated even the politics.  When Mussolini came in power the relations of the Church and the State were readjusted by initial consent under what is known as Concordat.  Art. I of the Concordat lays down:-

“Italy recognises the Catholic religion as the sole religion of the State.”

Previous to the Lateran Agreement of 1929, Art. I of the Constitution of Italy read as follows:-

“The Apostolic Roman Catholic religion is the only religion of the State.  Other cults now existing are tolerated in Conformity of law.”

34. Pope Pins XI interpreted the said article as implying that any discussion of religion, written or oral, which might “easily mislead the good faith of the less enlightened” must be punished by law.  In Italy it is only the Catholic religion that is provided unqualified protection under the penal code (Arts, 402-405) against public abuse and libelous attacks.  If such offences are committed against other churches, extenuating circumstances are to be considered in assessing the offence.

35. In the matter of education, Art. 36 of the Concordat lays down:-

“Italy considers Christian doctrine in a form handed down by the Catholic tradition as the basis and apex of public education.”

Such education in Italy can be imparted only by teachers or priests approved by the Church authorities and any withdrawal of approval is at once effective against the teacher.

“Liberty of Conscience” in a Catholic State was interpreted to mean “liberty to accept the church’s guidance of conscience without interference by the State.” (Religious Liberty: pp. 42-45.)

36. Next in importance to Italy amongst the Catholic countries is Spain. “Religious liberty for other than Roman Catholics”, says M. Searle Bates in his “Religious Liberty and Inquiry”, “scarcely exists in Spain today, as has been largely true throughout the modern history of the country.”

37. The Catholic Church in Spain, in course of time, became a dominating power which had “subjugated the political power and was nearly omnipotent in public, social and economic life”.  There was reaction against this amongst the inhabitants and hence the Spanish Revolution of 1931-39.  The frenzy of the lovers of political freedom was let loose against the Church administration in Spain.  The Church in Spain came in for persecution at the hands of the Fascists who subscribed to atheism.  It is said that 20,000 churches were destroyed or looted, 16,000 priests, monks and nuns were either executed or murdered and 300,000 inhabitants lost their lives.  Peace was ultimately restored after this blood-bath between the Church and the State.  The accord with the Holy See reaffirmed the four articles of the Concordat of 1851 which ran as follows:-

“(1) Catholicism continues to be the sole religion of the Spanish nation, to the exclusion of any other, and is always to be maintained with all the rights and privileges which it should have in accordance with God’s law- and the prescriptions of the sacred canons.”

(2) Instruction in all schools shall conform in all respects to the doctrines of the Catholic religion, and, therefore, bishops and their aides shall have full and free supervision over the purity of faith, and customs and the religious education of youth, even in public schools.

(3) All authorities shall be charged with showing and causing others to show the bishops and the clergy the respect and consideration due to them according to divine precepts, and the Government shall grant effective protection and sup port to the bishops wherever they request it, particularly when they combat, “the inequity of men who attempt to pervert the souls of the faithful and to corrupt customs,” or whenever it is necessary to prevent the publication or circulation of evil or harmful books.

(4) In all other matters relative to the exercise of ecclesiastical authority and to the ministry of holy orders, the bishops and the clergy shall enjoy full liberty according to the sacred canons.” – “Religious Liberty”, pp. 14 to 19.

38. The Church has regained its position in Spain.  The head of the State has an important say in the selection of the Spanish bishops and archbishops, although the Pope participates in. the process.  Catechism is obligatory in all State Schools and the baptising of all children is insisted upon.

39. In Spain, Catholic Church occupies a privileged position.  “One people, one State, one leader, one faith, one Church” is the common slogan.  “No rights or status”, says Searle Bates, “exist for other religious beliefs or organisations of any sort.” A police order of 1940 decrees that, “through a generous tolerance of religious opinions of foreigners who reside in our country, in so far as they are not opposed to Christian morality or infringe upon police and health rations, “foreigners may continue to gather in chapels in which rites and ceremonies different from the Catholic religion are celebrated”.  The “general tolerance”, further orders that foreigners “must withdraw from the walls, entrances, doors and other visible places, any lettering, emblem, flag, or other sign which might lead to confusion of the said chapels with churches of the Roman Catholic religion”- ‘Religious Liberty’, pp. 19 and 20.

40. Not to speak of freedom of conscience being guaranteed to non-believers in Spain, even the believers not subscribing to the tenets of the Catholic Church have no religious liberty in Spain as is evident from the following extract from the Report on Religious Liberty by Searle Bates:-

“According to the reports of the year 1944, it seems that twenty out of two hundred Spanish Protestant churches are now open.  Some pastors have been driven out of the country and others work under persecution, covert or naked.  All Protestant schools were closed.  In the large cities members are able to get along, but in smaller communities recognised Protestants are commonly refused employment, sale of goods and government relief.  No Spaniard can secure a certificate for leaving school or can enter the Civil Service unless he has official evidence of instruction in the Roman Catholic religion” -”Religions Liberty, p. 20.”

41. Portugal is often presented by the Catholic Missionaries as the Catholic State par excellence founded on the religious, political and social principles of the great encyclicals from Leo XIII to the present day.  There is no State Church as such in Portugal.  The Concordat, however, provides in Articles II and III an
open course for the Catholic Church in the Portuguese Republic:-

The Catholic Church may freely exercise her authority; in all the matters within her competence, she may carry out without impediment any acts consonant with her rules and jurisdiction……

The Catholic Church in Portugal may organise herself freely in harmony with the provisions of Canon Law and thereby constitute associations and organisations whose personality at law the State shall recognise.”-“Religious Liberty”, pages 97 and 98.

42. The place of the Church in education is well established in Articles XX and XXI of the Concordat 1940 quoted below:-

“The teaching administered by the State in public schools shall be guided by the principles of Christian doctrine and morals traditional to the country.  Therefore, the Catholic religion and Catholic morals will be taught in public elementary, complementary and intermediate schools to pupils whose parents or guardians have not lodged a request to the contrary.

For the teaching of the Catholic religion, the text-books employed must be passed by ecclesiastical authorities.  In no case shall religious instruction be given by persons not approved by the ecclesiastical authorities as competent.” – “Religious Liberty”, p. 98.

43. In the case of her colonial possessions the Portugal.  Government follows a policy which is a negation of religious liberty.  The Portugal Catholic Church has monopoly of spiritual training of African and Asian people.  The non-Catholic Missions are subjected to serious restrictions and discriminations in clear violation of religions liberty and of international agreements. Article 24 of the Colonial Act runs as follows:-

“Portuguese Catholic Missions overseas being an instrument of civilisation and national influence, and establishments for the training of staff for service therein and in the Portuguese Padroado, shall possess juridical personality and shall be protected and assisted by the State as educational institutions.”

Article 2 of the same Act lays down as follows:-

“It is the essential attribute of the Portuguese nation to fulfil the historic functions of possessing and colonising overseas dominions and of civilising the native population inhabiting them as also that of exercising the moral influence ascribed to it by the Padroado in the East.” (Religious Liberty, p. 515).

44. How did the Portuguese Mission authorities act in christianising and civilising the native population of India can be seen from the following extract on page 161 of “The Heritage of the Indian Christian”.

“The next comers were the Roman Catholic Portuguese who obtained the settlement on the west coast early in the sixteenth century, and proceeded to follow their usual policy of rapid christianisation of the Indian people under their immediate influence.  Thus, Goa remains nominally Christian to this day.  But this incident in Indian History is chiefly important because it provides St. Francis Xavier and his fellow-Jesuits with an opportunity for evangelistic work in South India.  The Portuguese soon discovered the Nestorian Christians in Malabar, and immediately sought by all possible means, fair and foul, to bring them under the obedience of the Pope, and to a profession of the orthodox faith.  By dint of wholesale employment of force, bribery, they succeeded in subjugating the larger part of them.”

45. In Columbia the Catholics have forbidden the evangelistic activity of non-Catholics, i.e., to proselytise or propagandise outside their places of worship (page 246, National Christian Council Review, May 1954).

46. “France” in the words of Searle Bates, “has not, since 1870, been considered a “Catholic country” in the old meaning and not in recent years a “Catholic State” in the new sense of corporative structure based on the doctrines of the encyclical fully supporting the Catholic Religion and Catholic education.  Yet France remains a nation in which Catholicism is first and dominant among religious influences. (Reli. Lib. p. 103).

“SWEDEN maintains a constitution of the year 1809.  Article 2 requires: “The King shall always belong to the pure evangelical faith as adopted and explained in the unaltered Augsburg Confession and in the resolution of the Upsala Synod of 1593”.  The King’s ministers must belong to “The pure evangelical Faith” as so defined (Article 4).  Freedom from constraint of conscience and protection of every one “in the free exercise of his religion, provided he does not thereby disturb public order or occasion general offence,” are secured by article 16.  To offices other than that of royal minister adherents of other Christian faiths and of Judaism may be appointed; but “no person not belonging to the pure evangelical faith shall take part, as Judge or in any other position, in the discussion or decision of questions relating to divine worship, to religious instruction, or to appointments within the Swedish Church.” (Article 28).  Reli. Lib. p. 524.

47. The imparting of religious instruction is compulsory in the State elementary; secondary and teacher training schools for all pupils whose parents are members of the State Church.  Only members of the State Church are appointed as teachers.  Denominational groups and persons not members of the State Church are not permitted to establish their own schools for children.  Up to the end of the 19th century Sweden was a Lutheran State in the full sense of the word and liberty of conscience was nonexistent.

“All administrative and judicial posts, the entire teaching and medical professions, required a Lutheran profession of faith.  Attempt to get a Lutheran to chance his confession were penal offences, and apostacy from the State religion made a Swede liable to banishment for life.” Reli. Lib. p. 205.

48. NORWEGIAN constitution is as old as 1814 with amendment from time to time.  Article 2 of the Constitution declares:

“The Evangelical Lutheran religion shall remain the public religion of the State.  Such inhabitants as profess this religion are required to educate their children therein. Jesuists shall not be admitted.” Article 4 implies active furtherance of the State religion by the Government, which acts for the sovereign : The King shall always profess, maintain and defend the Evangelical Lutheran religion, “More than half the King’s ministers must belong to the State church.  On the other hand, the king and his ministers prescribe the ritual and worship of the Church, appoint and discipline the Clergy (Articles 12, 16, 21).  Reli. Lib. p. 523.

The Cardinal principle of educational policy of Norway is that the children should receive “Christian education . Therefore, religious instruction is compulsory for all pupils in State elementary, secondary and normal schools.  Except as exemption is claimed by parents who have left the State Church.  Class teachers given religious instruction and are appointed with the approval of the Bishop Non-conformist schools are not given any State-aid. (Reli. Lib. p. 332).

49. In DENMARK Lutheran Church is the State Church.  King must be a member of the Church.  The State controls and subsidises the activities of the Church and has not yet given it a separate constitution. (Reli. Lib. p. M).

The Danish constitution of 1915 is based upon the document of 1849.  Article 3 of the Constitution lays down-

“The Evangelical Lutheran Church is the national Church of Denmark and as such it is supported by the State”. (Reli. Lib. p. 523).

In schools under State management all children receive instruction in the Bible, Shorter Catechism and Hymns in the lower classes and in church history in the upper class.  Each child of fourteen years or more belonging to the State Church, is obliged to attend “Confirmation classes” twice a year but can be exempted from actual confirmation on application. (Reli. Liberty p. 104).

50. Of the European States subscribing to Orthodox Christian Church, Russia is the most important example.  “At no time and in no land has the world known so dramatic a denial of religious liberty as in Russia since 1918”.  The provisional Government (1917) had freed all recognised Churches from State control and interference.  By the beginning of 1918, the Soviet decrees “nationalized Church property and the schools, instituted civil marriage and separated the Orthodox Church from State and school alike.” Freedom of conscience was granted and all restrictions of fights based on belief or non-belief were annulled.  Religious instruction in private was authorised, but was barred from all public or private schools, where general subjects were taught. (Reli. Liberty p. 2).

UP to 1929 the Constitutions of the various republics constituting the Soviet Union contained the following article :

“In order to provide the workers actual freedom of conscience, the church is separated from the State, and the school from the church, while freedom for religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognised for all citizens.  ‘The Stalin Constitution of 1936’, still in force, has the following provisions:-

“For the purpose of providing to citizens freedom of conscience, the Church in the U. S. S. R. is separated from the State, and the school from the Church, freedom for the conduct of religious cults and freedom for anti-religious propaganda is recognised for all citizens.” (Article 124).

The period from 1937 to 1939 was a period of persecution of the Church leaders and the Church.  In 1938 alone several prominent bishops were shot, while over fifty bishops were sent to prison or to the concentration camps.  A heavy rent charge was imposed upon Church buildings with the result that in 1937 alone 1,100 orthodox churches and hundreds of other places of worship were forced to close.  The Soviet statistics for 1940 showed that there were then 4,225 listed Orthodox Churches with 5,665 priests as against 46,457 such churches and 50,960 priests before the revolution 1917.  There were 28 Orthodox bishops and 37 monasteries in 1940, as compared to 130 bishops and 1,026 monasteries before Revolution.

The situation, however, changed by 1944.  The Central Organisation of the Russian Orthodox Church has been officially restored. (Religious Liberty, pp. 4-9).

51. Second in importance amongst the countries having Orthodox Church is GREECE.  The Constitution of Greece grants freedom and protection of rights to every recognised religion.  The Church of Hellas is established by the State, which pays the bishops and exercise supervision of all temporal matters in church affairs. Spiritual authority vests it the synod of all the bishops.  Marriages and baptism of evangelical groups are recognised as valid.

Art I of the constitution lays down as follows :-

“The Dominant religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ.”

“The Orthodox Church of Greece is inseparably united, from the dogmatic point of view, with the Great Church of Jesus, Constantinople, and every other Church of Jesus Christ of the same dogmas, observing immutably, like it, the holy apostolic and conciliar canons and the holy traditions.  It is autocephalic; it exercises independently of every other Church its sovereign rights and it is administered by a Holy Synod of arch bishops.  The ministers of eve cult are subject to the same surveillance, on the part of the State as those of the dominant religion.”

“The liberty of conscience is inviolable.

All the known cults may be exercised freely under the protection of the Law, provided they are not contrary to public order or to good morals.  Proselytism is forbidden.” (Religious Liberty, p. 525).

The official definition of term Proselytism as given below not only guard against the possibilities of its abuse but prevents any religious change even by persuasion or information.

“Any attempt by force, or threats or illicit means, or grants of promises of financial or other aid, or by fraudulent means or promises, or by moral and material assistance, or by taking advantage of any person’s inexperience or confidence or by exploiting any person’s necessity or spiritual (mental) weakness or thoughtlessness, or in general, any attempt or effort (whether successful or not) directory or indirectly to penetrate into religious conscience of persons (whether of age or under age) of another faith, for the purpose of consciously altering their religious conscience or faith, so as to agree with the ideas or convictions of the proselytising party.”-(Religious Liberty, P. 112).

52. Of the remaining Christian countries, Great Britain, Germany and U. S. A. deserve special mention.

53. Question of religious liberty in GREAT BRITAIN centred round the historic position of the Church of England as the National Church.  The King and the Lord Chancellor must be members of the Church of England.  Twenty-four bishops and two arch-bishops are members of the House of Lords.  The Church enjoys properties and endowments.

The problem of the church schools and religious education in State schools of England has aroused controversy.  In the elementary and secondary schools under the control and management of the Church of England religious instruction is imparted.  In the State school, religious education does not exist.  Some persons in localities of the first type wanted religious instruction to he nonsectarian or varied from the Church of England type or voluntary only. Some parents in localities of the second type asked for more positive religious instruction being imparted to their children than was the case.  Dr. Henson has suggested a solution.  He says:

“If instruction in Christian faith and morals were made compulsory (subject to a conscience clause) in all schools, if the State limited its direct concerns to secular subjects and entrusted the religious instruction to the local education authorities, there is little reason for doubting that in a very short time the problem would be happily solved.” (Religious Liberty, page 88.)

54. In GERMANY before the National Socialist Party came in power it reassured the various religions by including the following demand as one of the Twenty-five points it stood for-

“We demand religious freedom for all denominations, so long as they do not endanger the stability of the State or offend against the German people’s instincts of morality and decency.  The party as such takes its stand on a positive Christianity, without committing itself to any particular creed.”

As soon as it came in power, it assumed, “that religion could be utilised for its own purposes of unity and morale and that autonomous elements of faith, spirit and organisation could be assimilated or crushed”.  Dr. Adolf Keller, a Swiss writer, says in his book “The Church and the State” as follows:-

“In the legislation and church policy of the State since 1933 an effort has been made to adapt or to assimilate the Church to the State to include her life within that of the nation, to introduce the principles of national socialism into the fellowship of Christ to impose the Fuehrer principle upon her and to make her a school of National Socialist Education.

“The irruption of State power into Church administration, the imprisonment of bishops, the banishment and harsh treatment of pastors, the closing of churches, questionable electioneering methods, the financial privation, were means used during this period, which were regarded by the confessional group as persecution and misuse of State power to the undue advantage of one party in the Church.” (Religious Liberty, pp. 21-22).

The Church rose up in resistance against the totalitarian dictatorship.  In the Evangelical Church Manifesto of 1935 the issue was made clear:-

“The German people is facing a decision of greatest historical importance.  The question is whether the Christian faith is to retain its right to exist or not……… Powers of the State and of the party are being used against the Gospel of Jesus Christ and against those who profess it……… Three years ago millions of Evangelical Germans welcomed the new beginning in the life of our people with warm hearts.  They did so with all the more joy because the Government of our Nation had said in its first proclamation of February 1, 1933, that it would ‘firmly protect Christianity’ as the basis of our whole moral system.” (Religious Liberty, page 25.)

The principle of religious liberty was thrown to the winds. There was not only interference by the State in religious matters, but violation of religious liberty:-

“One of the major breaches of religious liberty has been the gross interference with pastors and priests and their work. By October of 1934 more than 1,000 pastors had been arrested or had suffered some form of police intervention.  On the single day of March 11, 1935, 700 pastors were arrested, and 5,000 others were visited by the Gestapo, ‘telling them exactly where they and the State stood for’.  In 1937 virtually the whole leadership of the Confessional Church was put behind bars as common criminals.” (Religious Liberty, page 26.)

55. The Jews of Germany were subjected to untold oppression.

“In March of 1938 the Jewish religious communities lost their status as bodies of public right, and their officials were deprived of civil service standing.  On November 7 of that year, a young Jew shot a Secretary of the German Embassy in Paris.  Within twelve hours over 400 Jewish synagogues and places of worship were dynamited and fired.  Jewish shops were systematically pillaged and wrecked; while 60,000 more Jews were rushed to the infamous concentration camps.  Fearful economic exactions were put upon the enfeebled Jewish community.  The last Jewish children remaining in German schools were dismissed.” (Religious Liberty, page 32.)

56. Let us blow Advert to the U. S. A.- “The nature of American constitutional and judicial systems is such as to link together constitutions, major laws and court decisions into one complex.” (Religious Liberty, p. 529).

The constitutions of the various States declare and protect tile rights of their citizens to religious belief and its exercise in terms summed up in the following statement of Dr. Zollman in his book “American Church Law”:-

“Every individual has by nature the inherent, inalienable and indefeasible right of worshipping and serving God in the mode most consistent with the dictates of his conscience: that none shall be deprived of this right; that no human authority shall in any case interfere with or in any manner control or infringe it; and that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious faith, worship, belief, sentiment and profession shall forever be allowed, secured, protected, guaranteed, and held sacred.  It follows that every person is at liberty to profess and by argument to maintain his opinion in matters of religion; that every denomination is to be equally protected by suitable laws in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship ; that none will be subordinated to any other or receive any peculiar privileges or advantages-in short, that no preference will he given to no discrimination made against any religious establishment, church, sect, creed, society or denomination or any form of religious faith or worship or system of ecclesiastical policy.  Absolute freedom to choose such religious belief as his judgement and conscience may approve his thus become the birth right of American citizenship.  Any civil or political rights, privileges, capacities or positions which a person may have or hold will not be diminished or enlarged or in any other manner affected by his religious faith, nor will he be disqualified from the performance of his public or private duties on account thereof.  He will not, on account of his religious opinion, persuasion, profession, and sentiments or the peculiar mode or manner of his religions worship, be hurt, molested, disturbed, restrained, burdened, or made to suffer in his person or property”. (Pages 531-.32 ibid).

57. Liberty of conscience is guaranteed by the court as well as constitute. “Liberty of conscience and belief is preserved alike to the followers of Christ, to Buddhists and Mohammedan, to all who think that their tenets alone are illuminated by the light of divine truth, but it is equally preserved to the skeptic, agnostic, atheist and infidel, who says in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” (Religious Liberty, page 534.)

Is the United States of America a Christian country in the juridical sense? Various court decisions on the question are in. the affirmative.  This fact has great bearing on the legislation of the country.  Dr. Zollman comments in standard work “American Church Law”, as follows:-

“The fact that the prevailing religion in the United States is Christian cannot but exercise a potent influence.  Since the great body of the American People are Christian in sentiment, our laws and institutions “must necessarily be based upon and embody the teaching of the Redeemer of Mankind.  Christianity has been declared to be the alpha and omega of our moral law and the power which directs the operation of our judicial system.  It underlines the whole administration of the Government, state or national, enters into its laws, and is applicable to all because it embodies those essentials of religious faith which are broad enough to include all believers…… It follows that certain acts which would be deemed to be indifferent or even praiseworthy in a pagan country are punished as crimes, or misdemeanors in America.  This is nor done “for the purpose of propping up the Christian religion, but because those breaches are offenses against the laws of the State”.  At least half of the Ten Commandments are on the statute books in one form or another.  These facts have led to the formulation of the maxim that “Christianity is a part of the law of the land” (Religious Liberty, page 533.)

58. The constitutional legal system confers positive aid upon religious societies by exempting their property from taxation.

The United States generally prohibits by law or by Court interpretation of State constitutions, sectarian instruction in public schools.  Private schools are allowed great freedom in organisation and programme.  There is a growing conviction about the importance of imparting religious instruction in the building up of character and giving values in life and a demand is being made for the imparting of religious and moral education of a non-controversial type in State schools.

In the words of Dr. Zollman:

If there is any one thing which is well settled in the policies and purposes of the American people as a whole, it is the fixed and unalterable determination that there shall be an absolute and unequivocal separation of Church and State, and that our public school system supported by the taxation of the property of all alike-Catholic, Protestant, Jew, gentile, believer and infidel-shall not be used directly or indirectly for religious instruction, and, above all, that it shall not be made an instrumentality of proselyting influence in favour of any religious organisation, sect, creed, or belief.” [Religions Liberty, p. 339.]

59. We have so far dealt with the countries under the sway of Christianity with reference to the religious liberty that their constitutions allow.  Let us now deal in passing with the countries where Buddhism is the dominant religion.  They are Japan and China.

Article XXVIII of the Constitution of JAPANESE EMPIRE reads thus:

“Japanese subjects shall, within limits of law, not prejudicial to peace and order and not antagonistic to their duties as subjects, enjoy freedom of religious belief.”

Religious freedom is limited to belief.  It is to be exercised within limits of law of the land and consistent with the duties of the individual to the State as its subject. (Religious Liberty, p. 49.)

The idea about the Emperor of Japanese Empire as something of the divine is peculiar to the Japanese.  In the words of a distinguished member and officer of the Diet, “He (the Emperor) is to the Japanese mind the Supreme Being in the Cosmos of Japan, as God is in the universe of the Pantheistic philosopher.  From him everything emanates, in him everything subsists…… He is supreme in temporal affairs of the State as well as in all spiritual matters.”-[Religious Liberty, p. 51.]

Shinto is the State religion.  In the words of Professor Genchi Kato,-

“This is not a religion adopted purposely by the State as are the State religions in the West, but the religion of the heart and life of every Japanese, male and female, high and low, old and young, educated and illiterate.  For this reason a Japanese never ceases to be Shintoist, an inborn and steadfast holder of the national faith of the way of the Gods as a group religion, as distinguished from a personal or individual religion, even though he may adopt the tenets of Buddhism or Confucianism-probably Christianity in Japan has not been excepted--as his personal or individual religion. In effect, this means that rejection of Shinto by a Japanese would signify treachery to the Empire and disloyalty to its Divine Ruler……The Emperor is incarnate Deity and occupies in the Japanese faith the position which Jehovah occupied in Judaism…… We cannot pass over the fact that these ceremonials (at the shrines) are accompanied by a faith in the divine aid of a great spiritual power.”-[Religious Liberty, page 51.]

“Private religions”, says Searle Bates, “may be cherished in addition but not in conflict; in subordination to the State religion, not in absolute allegiance.”

All education in Japan is dominated by the Imperial Prescript on Education.  The elementary schools of the State are compulsory and universal, with uniform text-books prepared by the Department of Education.  Secondary and higher schools, public and private, vary somewhat in type but not in programme and directive in so far as civic and moral education are concerned.

60. We now come to CHINA.  To quote Searle Bates,- 

“China is essentially a secular country, say some, a country of diffuse and diverse religions, say others.”

Article 15 of the Constitution says:

“Every citizen shall have freedom of religious belief; such freedom shall not be restricted except in accordance with the Law.”-[Religious Liberty, page 510.]

61. There is no dominant religious faith in working relation to the State.  The social and ethical teaching of Confucianism are widely influential in the cultural nationalism of the country.  The Buddhist religion has been accepted into the general culture.  Confucianism, Buddhism, Mohammedanism and Christianity are the established religions in China.  There is a constitutional pledge to religious freedom.  Despite multiplicity of religious faiths, China is known as “a land of tolerance and social harmony”.

China has no religious instruction in the public system and refuses recognition to elementary or junior or middle schools which impart religious instruction. Senior middle school and colleges may have elective course in religion and religious exercises.  The official position is summarised in the following Government reply to a petition submitted by twelve church bodies for permission to impart religious instruction in private schools:-

To sum up, there is not only one religion.  If we allow each religion in the name of education to vie one with another to propagate religion, the natural tendency will be to create division and strife.  The Ministry of Education, in order to guard against such a possible future calamity, is obliged to impose these restrictions which do not apply only to Christianity but to the other religions as well.

Hence, to have elective religious courses in junior middle schools and to have the privilege of worship in primary schools embodies obstacles too difficult to permit the Ministry to grant the request.”-[Religious Liberty, page 343.1

62. We have dealt above with Religious Liberty as provided under the constitutions of countries under Christian and Budhist domination.  Let us now have just a passing review of the Religious Liberty in the Muslim countries.

ISLAM controls the entire life of the Muslims.  According to Islamic conception, “Church, State and the Community are one entity”.  “Orthodox Islam”, writes M. Searle Bates, (P. 9) “is the contrary on religious liberty and finds no room for the concept as developed in Western lands.  In principle it forbids apostasy under dire penalty and provides for change of faith only toward Islam.” Another English writer S. A. Morrison writes in his book “Religious Liberty in the Near East” as follows:-

“Freedom of religion in the Near East has been commonly understood to mean freedom of worship, that is. the right of each community to conduct its religious services in its own way without official interference……………… The wider meaning of religious freedom, implying the right to persuade others or to change one’s faith, has never gained general acceptance”.

The writer goes on-

“Nothing arouses the resentment of Muslim officials and of public opinion so much as the mention of Christian evangelistic work (tabsheer).  On the other hand, every facility is given to pro-Islamic propaganda, and governments themselves lend their support to it, as an adjunct to their policy of nationalism.  The way is made easy for conversion from Judaism and Christianity to Islam, and various inducements financial or matrimonial, are dangled before the potential convert.  Economic discrimination against members of minority groups in the Government service and in private firms has been a potent factor in many so-called conversions. (Religious Liberty in the Near East, pp. 9-10).

Illustrating this point, M. Searle Bates points out that IRAN forbids religious propaganda in general and absolutely prohibits “proselytizing” of minors.  The law of the land assures freedom of worship but permits meeting only in churches, not even in private houses. (Religious Liberty by Bates, p. 10.)

63. EGYPT’S constitution declares that “Islam is the religion of the State”.  A Royal decree is necessary for the building of a church.  The TURKISH Constitution allows freedom of service and provides that “no one can be disturbed on account of the religion, rite, or sect to which he belongs, nor for the philosophic opinions which he professes.  All ritualistic ceremonies which are not contrary to the public order or morals, or inconsistent with the law, are authorized.” The civil code of Turkey declares that adults of eighteen years and over are free to adhere to the religion of their choice.  Proselytising in general is severely discouraged, and in the case of the young it is kept far outside of practical possibilities. (Religious Liberty, pp. 10, 13.)

Death penalty for apostasy from Islam is presumed to be still effective in parts of Afghanistan and Central Arabia.

64. Writing about religious freedom in education S. A. Morrison says in his gook on page 9:

“It is perhaps in the field of education that Christian missionary work has been most resented, Muslim Governments claiming that it is their duty to protect Muslim children from exposure to the teaching of a religion other than their own. Thus the parents are denied the right of deciding the form of religious education which their children shall receive.  Some Near East Governments have gone further in requiring instruction in Islam for Muslim pupils in all schools…………”.

For example, in Egypt teaching a pupil a religion other than his own while he is still a minor and incapable of true discernment, is declared as an offence against public order and morals.  The teaching of Islam according to prescribed syllabus, to all Muslim students, whether reading in Government or Mission schools, is compulsory.

The fundamental position, of the Government of Egypt is well-stated in a circular of the Ministry of Education, issued in 1940.

“Without question, to teach a pupil a religion other than his own, while fie is a minor and incapable of true discernment, is an offence against public order and morals.  No State which recognizes its duties towards its subjects for the protection of their religious beliefs approves it.  The freedom guaranteed to religions beliefs does not approve it, either.  This freedom is undermined if an educational institution seeks to influence young pupils by teaching them beliefs other than their own”. (Religious Liberty, p. 12 by Bates).

“The medical, social and educational work of foreign missions”, says S. A. Morrison, in his book, “is generally appreciated so long as it is felt to be divorced from any religious or political objective.  If, however, there is suspicion that foreign missions are the agents of a foreign political power, or of a foreign culture, or are actively propagating the Christian faith, steps are usually taken to curtail their freedom.  Direct limitations may be imposed in the name of public order, or because Christian missionary work may be said to contravene “good morals.” Alternatively, the restriction may be indirect, through the control of visas or transfer of money from abroad”. (Religious Liberty, in the Near East p. 10).

65. “In Muslim eyes”, writes S. A. Morrison, on page 9 of the same book, “the apostate is traitor, both to his religion and to his community.” The spirit of nationalism which has emerged in the countries of Middle Last also as a result of secular spirit prevailing in the advanced countries of the West, lays emphasis on the necessity of “National Unity, based on a common culture,” and whether the basis of this Unity was sought in race, as in Turkey, or in religion, as in most other Muslim countries, “Christian and Jewish minorities with their different culture came to be regarded as elements of weakness within the national organism”.

“Fear of all forms of western imperialistic penetration in the Near East, Political, economic or cultural is another factor that has affected adversely the position of the minorities”, says S. A. Morrison.

66. There exists at present a deep-rooted suspicion of foreign imperialism in the minds of the people of the Near East countries and only too often their belief is that, directly or indirectly, missions are the agents of a foreign Government.  Government of the Near East countries are, in particular, “suspicious of foreign educational institutions, lest these be used for either religious or political propaganda”.

“Belief in religious liberty”, says S. A. Morrison, “was the result of a long drawn-out struggle in western countries.  That struggle is as yet in its early stages in Muslim lands.  Some Muslims have caught the vision, and would hasten its realisation by the complete separation of religion and politics.

“The major issue in Near East countries today is”, Says S. A. Morrison, “whether they will follow the road of modern democracy towards equality of all citizens, irrespective of their race or religion, or whether they will cling to the Orthodox Muslim conception of the superiority in all aspects of life of the Muslim over the non-Muslim”.

67. Such in brief are the constitutional provisions pertaining to religious liberty in the various countries.  In the next chapter we shall consider the position pertaining to the Religious Liberty under the constitution of Free India.
 

CHAPTEIR.  II.-RELIGIOUS LIBERTY UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

India having deliberately decided to follow the road of modern democracy towards equality of all citizens irrespective of their race or religion, it will be interesting to examine the extent of religious liberty permitted by the Constitution of India.

2. The Preamble to the Constitution secures to all its citizens:

(a) Justice, social, economic and political.

(b) Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.

(c) Equality of status and of opportunity, without any distinction of caste, creed or colour.

3. Religions liberty guaranteed under the Constitution is dealt with under more than one heading viz:

(a) Freedom of conscience, of free profession, practice and propagation of religion.

(b) Freedom to manage religious affairs.

(c) Freedom to establish and administer educational institutions.

4. Freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution under the above headings is, however, not absolute but is subject to certain restrictions deemed essential in the interest of the welfare of the State.  Thus, article 25 (I) lays down that the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion is subject to “public order, morality and health”.  Paragraph 2 of the same article further lays down that “Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice.” Similarly, article 26 of the Constitution contains a provision to the effect that “The right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to own and administer movable and immovable property acquired for the above purposes and even the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion is subject to public order, morality and health.” The administration of property is further subject to the law of the land.

5. The State, not being wedded to any one religion, follows a policy of religious neutrality in the matter of education. Article 28 (1) of the Indian Constitution lays down:

“No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.”

Private bodies, however, have been guaranteed freedom to establish and administer educational institutions of their own choice and to impart religious instruction therein subject to the “Conscience Clause”.  Article 28 (3) runs as follows:-

“No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may he conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto.”

The doors of both the State and the Government-aided private schools are open alike to all the citizens.  Admission to these Temples of Knowledge cannot be refused on the basis of “religion, race, caste, language, or any of them”.  Article 29 (2) says:

“No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.”

6. The Constitution of India provides against discrimination in administration on the basis of religion.  Article 15 (1) says:

“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”

Similarly, article 16 (1) and (2) provides for equality of opportunity to all citizens in the matter of public employment.  It says:

“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.

In the matter of award of grant-in-aid to denominational educational institutions, discrimination on the basis of religion is ruled out under the Constitution. Article 30 (1) runs thus:

“The State shall not, in ranting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority whether based on religion or language.”

7. In considering the Fundamental Rights given under the Constitution one should not forget its preamble. The preamble is not like the preambles of other ordinary Acts. It is a solemn declaration of our whole purpose. In fact it is the very seed which has sprouted, grown into mighty tree and borne fruits in the subsequent Chapters and Articles of the Constitution.

This preamble, as has been quoted in the beginning, says that:

“We, the people of India……… give to ourselves this Constitution in order to secure to all its citizens Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.”

There is no doubt that a Constitution though mainly meant for its citizens has also to provide for foreigners living within its territory.  Our Constitution has also done that.  But a distinction has to be drawn between the rights available to its citizens and those available to a foreigner; even as the duties towards the State of citizen and a foreigner are not the same.  Quite a number of provisions are undoubtedly applicable to all persons residing in. the country irrespective of the fact whether they are Indian Nationals or aliens.  For example, article 14 of the Constitution declares that “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” The safety of persons and personal property of all persons, citizens or non-citizens, are guaranteed under Article 20, 21, 22 and 31 of the Constitution.  Article 25 likewise guarantees freedom of conscience to all the inhabitants of the State.  There are, however, some other provisions of the Constitution which confer rights exclusively on the citizens of India.  Thus, under Article 19 (1) certain rights regarding freedom of the individual appertain to citizens only.  The article is given below:-

(i) All citizens shall have the right-

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India 
(f) to acquire, hold and dispose of property; and
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

The “Seven Freedoms” guaranteed under Article 19 (1) are, however, subject to five limitations contained in clauses (2) to (6) of the same Article.  These restrictions may be imposed by the “State” Legislatures in the interest of the security of State, public order, decency or morality, protection of Scheduled Tribes, etc.

The distinction made in the Constitution between citizen and non-citizen has an important bearing on the rights and duties of the foreigners, and have special significance for the purpose of our enquiry.

8. We have quoted in this chapter constitutional provisions relating to religious liberty in India. In the foregoing chapter we dealt with the facts of religious liberty under the respective constitutions of other countries.  A comparative study discloses that, viewed in the light of religious liberty, the countries of the world may be divided under two main categories, viz.-

(1) Theocratic States, i.e., those having State religion.
(2) Secular States, i.e., those having no State religion.

By the very nature of things there are likely to be discriminations and preferences, whether overt or covert, in favour of the State religion in the States under the first category.  Followers o the State religion enjoy rights and privileges which are denied to others.  The principle of equality of all religions cannot, therefore, fully operate in these States.

An overwhelmingly large majority of Islamic and many of the Christian countries fall under this category

9. Secular States may be further sub-divided into two classes, viz.-

(a) Those where the very idea of religion is hated and discarded as a dangerous thing. 
(b) Where religion as such is respected.

In the former countries it can be said that religions liberty has no place, not for the reason that the State is wedded to any particular religion and therefore, there is leaning of the State in favour of that religion, but for the reason that all religions ate looked upon with disfavour.  There is, therefore, no freedom for any religion.  Communist countries would fill under this category.

In countries under the second heading, there is equal regard for all religions and no discrimination in favour of any one.  The followers of all religions are allowed freedom to profess and practise a religion of their choice subject to certain qualifications (e.g., public order) applicable to the followers of all religions without any distinction.

India falls under the second heading. There is no doubt that there is a multiplicity of religions in India.  But India seeks “unity in diversity”.  It is only through a “reverential approach” to faiths other than one’s own that one can realise “the principle of equality of all religions”.

We can do no better than quote from Mahatma Gandhi’s writings about the need of the hour:

“The need of the moment is not one religion, but mutual respect and tolerance of the devotees of the different religions.  We want to reach not the dead level, but unity in diversity. Any attempt to root out traditions, effects of heredity, climate and other surroundings is not only bound to fail but is a sacrilege.  The soul of religions is one, but it is encased in a multitude of forms.  The latter will persist to the end of time.” (Christian Missions, p. 34, Nova Jivan Press).

10. Following this dictum of the Father of the Nation, the framers of the Constitution, in their anxiety to preserve the secular nature of our State, have guaranteed equality to all religions.  But if the followers of any one religion deny it not only in their mental attitude but in their outward conduct and behaviour, then it becomes the duty of the State to keep an eye on the religions activities of the votaries of different religions and to step in wherever there is any misuse of their rights threatening public order or solidarity of country.  This is an obligation imposed by the Constitution.

11. This is borne out from the discussions that took place in the Constituent Assembly when this Article 25 of the Constitution (Article 19 of the Draft Constitution) was being considered.  Dealing with the scope of Article 25 (then Article 19) Shri K. Santhanam, Lieut. Governor of Vindhya Pradesh, then a member of the Drafting Committee, spoke as follows:-

“Sir, I stand here to support this article.  This article has to be read with Article 13.  Article 13 has already assured freedom of speech and expression and the right to form association or unions.  The above rights include the right of religious speech and expression and the right to form religious association or unions.

“Therefore, Article 19 is really not so much an article on religious freedom but an article on what I may call religious toleration.  It is not so much the words “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion” that are important; what are important are the governing words with which the article begins, viz., “Subject to public order, morality and health.”

“Hitherto it was thought in this country that anything in the name of religion must have the right to unrestricted practice and propagation.  But we are now in the new Constitution restricting the right only to that right which is consistent with public order, morality and health.  The full implications of this qualification are not easy to discover.  Naturally they will grow with the growing social and moral conscience of the people.  For instance, I do not know if for a considerable period of time the people of India will think that purdah is consistent with the health of the people.  Similarly, there are many institutions of Hindu religion which the future conscience of the Hindu community will consider as inconsistent with morality.

“Sir, some discussion has taken place on the word ‘propagate’.  After all, propagation is merely freedom of expression. I would like to point out that the word ‘convert’ is not there.  Mass conversion was a part of the activities of the Christian Missionaries in this country and great objection has been taken by the people to that. Those who drafted this constitution have taken care to see that no unlimited right of conversion has been given.  People have freedom of conscience and, if any man is converted voluntarily owing………… to freedom of conscience, then well and good.  No restrictions can be placed against it.  But if any attempt made by one religious community or another to have mass conversions through undue influence either by money or by pressure or by other means, the State has every right to regulate such activity. Therefore, I submit to you that this article, as it is, is not so much an article ensuring freedom, but toleration for all, irrespective of the religious practice or profession.  And this toleration is subject to public order, morality and health.

“Therefore, this article has been very carefully drafted and the exceptions and qualifications are as important as the right it confers.  Therefore, I think the article as it stands is entitled to our wholehearted support.” (pages 834-835, Draft Constitution-Constituent Assembly of India, 6th December 1948 Debates, Volume II).

N.B.-Article 13 of the Draft Constitution corresponds to Article 19 of the Constitution.

12. Although the question relevant to our enquiry regarding religious freedom has probably not come up for decision before our High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, yet the interpretation of Article 25 of the Constitution came before the High Court of Bombay in a different context.  And it may not be out of place to quote the following observation from their judgment in Civil Application No. 880 and Miscellaneous Application No. 212 of 1952, dated the 12th September 1952, reported in A.I.R. 1953, Bombay, page 242.  Chagla, Chief Justice says:-

“(4) It may be said that both Articles 25 and 26 deal with religious freedom, but, as I shall presently point out, religious freedom, as contemplated by our Constitution, is not unrestricted freedom.  The religious freedom which has been safeguarded by the Constitution is religious freedom which must be envisaged in the context of a secular State.  It is not every aspect of religion that has been safeguarded nor has the Constitution provided that every religious activity cannot be interfered with.” (page 244).

“Article 25 protects religious freedom as far as individuals are concerned.  The right is not only given to the citizens of India but to all persons, and the right is to profess, practise and propagate religion.  But here again the right is not an unrestricted right.  It is a right subject to public order, morality and health, and further it permits the State to make any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity, although it may be associated with religious practice, and there is a further right given to the State and that is that the State can legislate for social welfare and reform even though in doing so it may interfere with the profession, practice and propagation of religion by an individual.” (page 244.)

13. In the same judgment, Justice Shah says - 

“Article 25 has conferred upon the citizens and others residing within the State freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion.  That is subject to the legislative power of the State Legislature to legislate so as to regulate or restrict the activity of any person which may be associated with religious practices.  The right, therefore, which is conferred by Article 25 is not an absolute or unfettered right of freedom of professing or practising or propagating religion, but it is subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular, associated with religious practice.  Similarly, that right is also subject to the social welfare and reform legislation of the State. Therefore, Article 25, while conferring a right upon the citizens and other freely to profess, practise, and propagate their religion, does not confer upon the citizens and others an unfettered right to carry on economic, financial, political or secular activities in association with religious practices, nor does it prevent the State from passing any legislation for purposes of social welfare and reforms, even though such legislation might directly or indirectly be inconsistent with the religious beliefs of some of the religious denominations.” (page 252-A).

14. It may also be interesting to quote the following passages occurring in the judgment, dated the 16th March 1954, of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 282:-

“We may refer in this connection to a few American and Australian cases, all of which arose out of the activities of persons connected with the religious association known as ‘Jehovah’s witnesses’.  This association of persons, loosely organised throughout Australia, United States of America and other countries, regard the literal interpretation of the Bible as fundamental to proper religious beliefs.  This belief in the supreme authority of the Bible colours many of their political ideas. They refuse to take oath of allegiance to the king or other constituted human authority and even to show respect to the national flag, and they decry all wars between nations and all kinds of war activities.

“In 1941, a company of ‘Jehovah’s witnesses’ incorporated in Australia commenced proclaiming and teaching matters which were prejudicial to war activities and the defence of the Commonwealth, and steps were taken against them under the National Security Regulations of the State.  The legality of the action of the Government was questioned by means of a writ petition before the High Court and the faith Court held that the action of, the Government was justified and that S. 116 which guaranteed freedom of religion under the Australian Constitution, was not in any way infringed by the National Security Regulation”-vide 67 C.L.R. 116 at page 127 (H).

These were undoubtedly political activities though arising out of religions belief entertained by a particular community.

15. “In such cases”, as Latham C. J. pointed out, “the provision for protection of religion was not an absolute protection to be interpreted and applied independently of other provisions of the Constitution.  These privileges must he reconciled with the right of the State to employ the sovereign power to ensure peace, security and orderly living without which constitutional guarantee of civil liberty would be a mockery.” (pages 290-291 A.I.R., Supreme Court, 1954).


CHAPTER III.-MISSIONARY ACTIVITIES IN MADHYA PRADESH SINCE INDEPENDENCE AS DISCLOSED BY ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

The dawn of Independence saw India on the threshold of a new era.  Widespread efforts at political, economic and social reforms were initiated.  The nation’s particular keenness on securing for all minorities including Christians a place of genuine honour and importance was immediately noticed in the Drift Constitution.  Notwithstanding the unpleasant memories associated with the advent of the Western Christian Missionary activities in India and the methods used by foreigners under a foreign Government, notwithstanding that in the fight for Independence Christians as a whole had little or no share, apart from a man here or a man there, in spite of bitter memories of the partition of the country on the basis of religion and in spite of the pleadings of some of the powerful parties in the country, our rich and ancient culture and civilization found natural expression in the words of our Prime Minister, “As long as I am at the helm of affairs India will not become a Hindu State” (India’s Minorities, page 21).  A truly secular and democratic State was set up.  In the land of about 350 millions, most of whom are Hindus by religion, a place of honour was assured to a minority of about 10 millions.

2. It is not without reason that the majority community in India today thinks that the minority sentiments should respond to the large-heartedness and liberal gesture of the framers of the Constitution to make India strong and progressive.  The attitude of the minorities may not have been very helpful in the past, backdoor methods to sabotage the national movement may have been used, but the country expected that after Independence there would be perfect harmony with and trust in the majority.  This hope was further fortified by the withdrawal by Indian Christians of their claim to have separate electorates in certain provinces.  On the ground that reservation of seats implied lack of confidence in the majority community, representatives of the Indian Christians declared before the Constituent Assembly that they were not in favour of such reservations, and consequently on the 28th May, 1949 the Constituent Assembly abolished reservation of seats for all minorities except Harijans and Tribals.  But within a short time of the passing of the Constitution reports of undesirable activities, chiefly at the instance of foreign Missionaries, started pouring in from different parts of India.  On the other bind, it was urged on behalf of the Christian Community that the guarantees provided in the Constitution were not being followed by certain State Governments and that Christian Missionaries were being harassed in the exercise of their rights to propagate their religion.  It is, therefore, our purpose to see what the facts are as disclosed in the oral and documentary evidence gathered by us.

3. We have mentioned elsewhere that a sudden fillip was given to Missionary activities after the passing of the Constitution. We shall deal with the evidence which has been brought before us to indicate the extent of foreign assistance received by the various Missions.

Foreign Money

From January I950 to June 1954 a sum of Rs. 29.27 crores of rupees had been received in India.  The details are as below:-
 

U. S. A.
... ... ...
20,68,63,000
Canada
... ... ...
1,67,56,000
Belgium
... ... ...
6,47,000
Denmark
... ... ...
33,91,000
France
... ... ...
7,61,000
Germany
... ... ...
11,16,000
Norway
... ... ...
27,97,000
Sweden
... ... ...
64,41,000
Switzerland
... ... ...
15,77,000
Aid received from the non-sterling area
 ... ... ...
14,72,000
     
 
Total
24,18,21,000
     
From sterling area U. K.
4,83,89,000 }
Rest of the sterling area
25,29,000 }
5,09,18,000
     
 
Grand Total
29,27,39,000

This was the information supplied by Government of India as based on the figures compiled from the statistics maintained by the Reserve Bank.

4. In the absence of appropria