Anti-Conversion Bill: Not the Panacea by Moirangthem Prakash Singh

Anti-Conversion Bill: Not the Panacea
By MOIRANGTHEM PRAKASH SINGH

Rajasthan joins select group of states –Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa by passing the anti-conversion Bill, titled “Rajasthan Dharma Swatantraya Bill 2006� (Religious Freedom Bill). The Bill aims at maintaining “harmony amongst persons of various religions� and it is also intended to make “unlawful� means and “allurement� in religious conversions punishable. The draft mentions about a simple imprisonment of not less than two years, extendable up to five years to anyone who “converts or attempts to convert, either directly or otherwise any person from one religion to another by use of force or by allurement or by fraudulent means�. There is also a provision for fine up to Rs.50, 000. Any offence under the new law will be cognizable and non-bailable. And interestingly it has a provision for re-conversion to Hindu faith.

The act of “conversion� is defined in the Bill as:
renouncing one’s own religion and adopting another. One’s own religion has been explained as: religion of one’s forefathers. Conversion, for Sangh Parivar and many Hindu believers, denotes conversion to other religions such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Sikhism etc. For them, Hinduisation of tribals massively in the tribal belts, as an organized campaign with a hidden agenda, is not conversion.

Sangh Parivar and Conversion:

It is very interesting to ascertain Sangh Parivar’s dual role viz. anti-conversion and pro-conversion. While BJP is endeavouring to resists conversion by making stringent conversion laws, its saffron brigades are busy in attacking Christian minorities for alleged engage in conversion activities. Whether it is Keonjahar in Orrisa, or Dangs in Gujarat or Jhabua in Madhya Pradesh or Kota in Rajasthan, they are victims of Sang Parivar. Here a question arises: whatever Christian Missionaries are doing -- providing health, education and other welfare measures in interior areas where our governments have been neglecting for decades -- are only for conversion purpose? If they wanted they could have easily converted the entire nation during their two hundred years reign.

While strongly defying Christian or Muslim conversions, Sangh Parivar is busy in converting tribals into Hindus. In the tribal areas of Chhatisgarh, Gujarat, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, particularly BJP ruled states, as an organized campaign, Sangh Parivar is Hinduising tribals. Nothing is different Saffron brigade from the Christian missionaries in providing education, health services and other welfare measures by running schools, hospitals and hostels in the tribal belts with the only motive of Hinduisation. Mention may be made of Sarswati Sisu Mandirs, Ekal Vidyalayas, Vanvasi Kalyan Parisad etc through which tribal masses are being converted to Hindus. Festivals like Durga Puja, Ganesh Chaturvedi, which were never heard in these areas, are organizing by the Saffron family with huge state fundings. Hanuman and Shabri have been projecting among adivasis. Adivasis are taught how to offer puja and worship Hindu gods and goddess.

They justify Ghar Wapsi (reconversion) and Sudhi (purification) programmes claiming they have been converted earlier by forcibly or through allurement. For them tribals are Hindus only. They prefer to address them as vanvasis (forest dwellers) rather than adivasis (original inhabitants). Are they (Tribals) Hindus? They are nothing but tribals with their own beliefs and rituals. They have their own deities and distinct cultures.

Why Sangh Parivar Is So Worried About Conversion?

Every community in a pluralist society wants to increase its number as more number can assure more share in power which is not supposed to be in a constitutionally democratic country like India. Sangh Parivar wants to increase number of Hindu believers to enhance their political weight. That is why every conversion to Islam or Christianity is strongly resented by Saffron family as it amounts to loss of numbers and hence loss of political weightage. It is for this reason conversion becomes so furore for them and started reconversion programmes.

Sangh Parivar must try to understand the reason behind Dalits and Tribals’ conversion to other religions–discrimination, negligence, uprooted social hierarchies and illtreatments from upper castes. Glaring examples are of Meenakshipuram’s Dalit conversion to Islam and Ambedkar’s mass conversion to Buddhism.

The real issue:

What becomes clear now is that the state itself through connivance of Sangh Parivar is diverting attention of people to non-issues instead of addressing the real ones. Both Christian missionaries and Saffron brigades, taking advantage of the poverty of tribals, are trying to bring tribals under their own folds. Nothing significant changes have brought to their lives. They are living in the same status what they lived in fifty years ago, becoming worse, in a sense that their identity, culture and indigenous knowledge are being looted. It will be a wise policy to get rid of tribals from their hardships, rather than making stringent the conversion laws, if they want to resist conversion. Anti-Conversion Bills not only forfeiting our constitutional rights, but will also increase the rift between the communities. All Democratic and Secular forces must collectively fight such fundamentalist challenges.

MOIRANGTHEM PRAKASH SINGH
Researcher
People’s Research Society (PRS)
E-7/138, Archana Apartment,
LLR Society, Arera Colony,
Bhopal-462016.
Ph. No.0755-4226442

E-mail:bemprakash@gmail.com

Critique of the bill by Rajeev Dhawan

Preliminary submissions on Rajasthan Dharma Swatantrya Bill, 2006 by Supreme Court Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhawan’s `Public Interest Litigation Support and Research Centre’

I. Introduction

1.1 This is a response to the Rajasthan Dharma Swatantrya Bill, 2006 which has presently been approved by the Rajasthan Cabinet and will be placed in the Legislature for approval.

II WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MAKERS DEVISED: RIGHT TO BELIEF, CONVERSION, PROPAGATION OF FAITH AND FREE SPEECH

2.1 The Constitution makers were concerned with the following fundamental rights:

(i) Freedom of speech and expression [Article 19(1)(a)]

(ii) Freedom of conscience [Article 25(1)]

(iii) Freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion [Article 25(1)]

2.2 While the initial draft of the Constitution did not include the term propagate, after deliberations in the Fundamental Rights Sub Committee, Minorities Sub Committee , the Advisory Committee and the Constituent Assembly, it was concluded that propagation would form a part of the right to religion.

Challenge in the Courts

2.3 This ambit of the Constitutional protection of conversion was examined by the Supreme Court in the Rev. Stainislus case in which the Madhya Pradesh and the Orissa laws were challenged on the ground of violation of Art. 25. The salient features of the judgement are the following:

(i) It held that what Article 25(1) grants is not the right to convert another person to one's own religion by exposition of its tenets."

(ii) It was held that since any attempt at conversion was likely to result in a breach of public order affecting the community at large, the State legislatures would have the competence to enact the legislation.

iii CRITIQUE OF THE rajasthan LEgisLATION: PURPOSE AND INTENT

3.1 In order to critique the Bill, the purpose and intent of the Bill has to be examined. While the malafide of a legislative enactment cannot be challenged, the Supreme Court has rightly held that ‘the Court can tear the veil to decide the real nature of the statute’. Tearing the veil will show:

(i) the legislative purpose; and,

(ii) its predictable effect

3.2 The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the present Bill states as follows:

It has been observed by the State Government that some religious and other institutions, bodies and individuals are found to the involved in unlawful conversion from one religion to another by allurement or by fraudulent means or forcibly which at times has caused annoyance in the community belonging to the other religion. The inter-religious fabric is weakened by such illegal activities and causes land and order problem for the law enforcing machinery of the State. [Emphasis added]

In order to curb such illegal activities and to maintain harmony amongst persons of various religions, it has been considered expedient to enact a special law for the purpose.

3.3 In the context of restrictions on fundamental rights, public order has specific technical meaning which has been narrowly tailored by the Supreme Court. The Court has held that public order is something more than the mere maintenance of law and order and acts which disturb law and order may not amount to a threat to the public order. Thus, public order is a narrower and more rigid classification of the former and the two cannot be used interchangeably.

3.4 According to the statement of objects and reasons, the introduction of this Bill was desirable and necessary because of the following reasons:

(i) Annoyance caused to a religious community; and

(ii) Law and order problems

Both of these reasons are completely inadequate to justify a restraint of the manner imposed in the Bill especially as:

(i) As has been seen, law and order is not congruous to public order and restrictions cannot be imposed on Constitutional freedoms on the ground of law and order. In the present context, if there are any inter-religious tensions because of conversion, the state has been amply empowered by the Indian Penal Code to deal with such situations. Chapter XV of the IPC gives the State wide ranging powers to deal with law and order problems arising out of religious tensions.

(ii) Annoyance caused to a religious community is completely unacceptable as a ground for restricting Constitutional freedoms. The State is empowered under the IPC and the CrPC to regulate behaviour such as speech, publications, demonstrations, etc which may cause annoyance to religious communities.

IV. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE BILL

4.1 Short title, extent and commencement (Section 1)

Most legislative amendments have a provision stating that they shall come into force when the Government, in its discretion, deems fit to notify it by publishing it in the Official Gazette. However, in this case, there is no such discretion as the Bill itself provides that it shall come into force at once. In this respect, the Bill is placed on par with legislations such as TADA, POTA, which involve matters of such grave public implication and urgency such that the Government can have no discretion in them coming into force.

4.2 Definitions Clause (Section 2)

(i) The definition of unlawful is overbroad, circular and open to misinterpretation especially as it is dependant on the other provisions of the Bill, which are in themselves over inclusive and vague.

(ii) This definition of allurement is identical to the definition of the term ‘inducement’ in the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act 1967, which was struck down by the Orissa High Court on the ground that it was open to the reasonable objection on the ground that it was too broad and surpassed into the field of morality. While the judgement was later overruled in the Rev. Stainislus case, this aspect of the legislation was not discussed and is thus open to challenge

(iii) The definition of conversion shows the partisan nature of the Bill, which includes conversions, but does not include re-conversions. This means that, for example, conversions from Hinduism to other religions are covered in the section, but not re-conversions back to the original faith. It is pertinent to note that this narrow definition of conversion is an addition in the present Rajasthan Bill.

(iv) The definitions of force and fraudulent are extremely broad and cover a vast number of situations which could possibly be used to include activities of propagation. Any religious propaganda could be considered to be a misrepresentation or force within the meanings of these definitions.

4.3 Criminalization section (Section 3)

(i) This Section has criminalizes conversion or attempt to conversion, directly or otherwise. This is an extremely wide clause and within the scope of attempting, directly or otherwise, a whole range of religious activities can be included, including the propagation of religion.

(ii) It may also extend to cover incidental matters such as conversions according to personal laws. For instance, if a Hindu woman marries a Muslim and converts, and a Meher amount is fixed during the marriage according to Muslim personal laws, this would be covered under this section as conversion by allurement.

(iii) Further, the Section has also placed conversion and attempt to convert has been placed on the same footing, and the punishment is the same for both of them. This is in violation of the principle of criminal jurisprudence (recognized in the Indian Penal Code) that the attempt to commit an offence is less serious that the actual commission of the offence and thus must be differentially punished.

(iv) It also overlooks the various nuances of criminal liability for the abetment of an offence and simply provides a common liability.

4.4 Punishment section (Section 4)

(i) The punishment clause demonstrates the manner in which the Government has tried to criminalize religious conversions. The penalty is harsher than the penalty for offences like rioting, causing death by negligence, wrongful restraint, etc. Such a harsh punishment clause, combined with the broad inclusion in Section 3 creates a situation in which normal religious activities of propagation are hampered.

(ii) As has been mentioned earlier, the Bill ignores the principles of criminal jurisprudence with respect to the criminal liability for attempt and abetment.

4.5 Section 5

(i) While this Section provides for investigation by a senior level Police officer, it removes the prior sanction from the civilian district authorities which had been provided in preceding anti-conversion legislations. This concentration of authority in the hands of the Police and the lack of supervision from the district administration makes the Bill vulnerable to abuse.

(ii) Also, we see that it makes the offence non-bailable and this underscores the attempt of the Government to make any offence under this Bill a grave one.

(iii) There are no other provisions to ensure that the powers are not abused and that due process requirements are met.

(iv) The possibility of abuse of the powers under this Bill, especially at the hands of the Police leads to the Bill directly curtailing the right of religions, especially minorities, to propagate.

v Secularism

5.1 The present Bill can be challenged not only on the ground that is violative of the Constitutional freedoms of speech and religion, but also because it violates secularism, which is a part if the basic structure of the Constitution. In the case of the present legislation, it is clear that the State is actively intervening in a partisan manner to protect a particular religion from a perceived crisis. There can be no doubt that this Bill has been drafted with the legislative intent and purpose of preferring the rights of one religion at the cost of the minority religions. It targets particular communities both to stop efforts to convert and to create a situation of intimidation where others are unwilling to convert. Even in practice, the enforcement of the Bill will amount to community targeting and will be implemented in a manner which will exacerbate communal tensions. Thus, the Bill, both in purpose and in its inevitable effect is a violation of the secular structure of the Constitution.

Vi CONCLUSION AND FUTURE STRATEGY

6.1 It is evident from the foregoing discussion that the present Rajasthan Bill is constitutionally invalid and flawed due to the following:

· The Bill seeks to impose restrict the right to freedom of religion and speech on the grounds of law and order, which is constitutionally impermissible.

· The Bill direct and inevitable effect of the Bill is not only to regulate conversions, but also to cripple the right of religions, especially minority religions to propagate their faith.

· This affects the rights of an individual to be converted, which is a part of the fundamental right to religion.

· The Bill is partisan in its purpose and intent as it seeks to protect the community from which the conversions are taking place.

· The provisions of the Bill are over inclusive and provide enough loopholes for abuse of the powers under the Bill.

· It violates the requirements of due process and ignores principle of criminal jurisprudence.

6.2 In view of the above, the constitutionality of the Bill is open to challenge. The possible objection to this may be the Stainislus judgement of the Supreme Court, but those objections may be addressed as follows:

· The Supreme Court judgment in Stanislaus was directed towards only forced conversion or coercive conversion and thus has to be strictly interpreted.

· The judgement has not addressed the particular provisions of the legislations and they still remain open to challenge.

6.3 While the constitutionality of the Bill may be challenged, it is worthwhile as matter of strategy, to keep the following factors in mind:

· There has to be internal religious reform to create a structure for conversions which demonstrate that the conversion was genuine, informed and without force or coercion.

· Individual conversions where the intention of the convertee to freely convert can be clearly demonstrated should, as far as practicable, be preferred to mass conversions.

· As a precaution, it is necessary to work on the presumption of the validity of the Act, when passed, and devise litigation strategies which will minimize to the extent possible the rigors of the same.

Hindutva Conspiracy Clear in Rajasthan : Dr. John Dayal

Hindutva Conspiracy Clear in Rajasthan "Freedom of Religion Bill"

PRESS NOTE Dr John Dayal, Member, National Integration Council, Government of India

The Milli Gazette Online

Law experts say bigoted legislation can be challenged in Supreme Court

Non-BJP Political parties to meet, decide on major campaign with Civil groups

It was my privilege to be Chief Guest at a very special public meeting called by over 20 Civil Society groups of Rajasthan in the State Capital on 1st April to consider the People’s response to the so called Rajasthan Freedom of Religion Bill which has been adopted by the Cabinet of Chief minister Vasundhra Raje Scindia and is sure of passage in the Legislative Assembly where the Bharatiya Janata Party, the political arm of the fundamentalist Hindutva Parivar, has a stranglehold majority.

Father Raymond Coelho of the Rajasthan Christian Forum presided, and social activist and PUCL leader Kavita Shrivastava moderated the proceedings which were marked by the presence of representatives of almost all opposition political parties, as well as a colleague of eminent jurist and Supreme Court Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhawan. Dhawan sent a written critique making clear that the Bill can be challenged in the Supreme Court of India. [I give later the full text of the Controversial Bill and the comments of Advocate Rajeev Dhawan’s group]

It has been decided to call an all-Party meeting to ensure a vigorous, if doomed, challenge in the Assembly, appeals to the Governor and the President of India , as well as mass mobilisation and education of the people, and finally a challenge in the Courts.

I and a mixed team (Christian pastor, Supreme Court Advocate Catholic Nun, Hindu journalist) had last month investigated the crisis in Kota where the MA Thomas father and son of the Emmanuel Mission are being methodically and systemically targeted by the police and district authorities under pressure of the BJP leaders, including the state Home minister. The State judiciary is allowing itself to be part of the game. We had then seen the negative aspects of one of India ’s largest states with a beautiful people whose past is full of acceptance. Their kings had got their daughters married into the Mogul dynasty. Their kings and prime ministers had invited Jesuits to open schools and colleges, bequeathing them vast tracts of land. Their leaders have sought the presence of nuns to take care of the destitute and the orphans. And yet we saw the district collectorate (offices of the administrative chief of the district) virtually look like temples and police and officialdom share a religious bigotry with their political bosses.

The meeting in Jaipur introduced us to the political fighters of this land of warriors --- Marxists with just one legislator in the Assembly but the passion of a multitude, Muslim and Sikhs, and scores of Hindu-led Civil groups keen that such a law besmirch their proud history of secular society. Kavita Shrivastava herself led the charge of civil society.

Having seen the law operate in Orissa, Arunachal and Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh, and later introduced in Gujarat and then Tamil Nadu, I know first hand what its real intentions are – to deny Dalits the Freedom of Choice in matters of Faith and liberty, to bring the State to assist only one religion, and to divide citizens and their privileges and rights on the basis of religion. Such laws – the second one keeps Dalit Christians out of the paternal love of Indian law as provided in the Constitution -- communalise an officially secular India . I have had official reason to ask Chief secretaries and Collectors the number of forced or fraudulent conversions they have seen, caught or punished. In twenty-five years and four states, the answer has been Zero, really Zero. In fact, AICC chief Dr Joseph D Souza and I, with much help from Udit Raj, had the undiluted pleasure to see the conversion of 700 or so Dalits in a church in Chennai – to Buddhism! With the state’s brutal police later beating up the contractor who provided the chairs !!.

In fact the manner in which Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalitha first imposd the anti conversion law to woo the Hindutva BJP and its cadres, and the alacritiy with which she then withdrew the law (if not yet fully) goes to show the utter sham of the reasons behind the politicians falling back to such a law when the elections loom large.

Rajasthan has close to 70 million people, with not more than 100,000 Christians. Why, then, is the government afraid of this micro minority, each speaker at Jaipur meting wondered. To them it was clear that it was to make it punitive for Dalits to seek the liberty of freedom of faith, it was to Hinduise the polarise the body polity. It was to win political advantage. The vagueness of clauses of the law was to make it convenient for subservient police and civil officials to harass the people. (Jaipur, 2nd April 2006)

source : milligazette.com

Joint Statement on Anti-Conversion Legislation in India

We, the undersigned, represent a broad range of religious communities and organisations in India. We are drawn from Protestant, Roman Catholic, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist faiths and none. We believe passionately in basic universal human rights. One of the most basic rights is the freedom to adopt, change, practise, teach and observe the teaching of a religion. This is set out in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the freedom to freely profess, practise and propagate religion is enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Five states in India have already enacted legislation which restricts or impairs the right of citizens to freely convert from one religion to another. As the Rajasthan Government introduces its own law, we believe that we must raise our voice.

We consider that these laws seriously infringe and undermine religious freedom, and violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Constitution of our nation. Furthermore, we believe these laws deepen and worsen religious divisions, conflicts and violence instead of enhancing the search for religious tolerance, harmony and mutual respect. While we unreservedly condemn any unethical or improper conduct, and any 'forced conversions', on the part of evangelists and religious teachers in their efforts to communicate their faith, we believe that the use of the terms 'force', 'fraud' and 'allurement' have been poorly defined in the legislation, and that the vague definitions both restrict religious and charitable activities, and create ample opportunity for abuse and unjust prosecution.

We believe that enshrining these terms in legislation gives credence to the rhetoric used by extremists against religious minorities, and publicly legitimises opposition to a wide range of religious activities. We believe these laws are superfluous and serve only to intimidate religious minorities and to obstruct freedom of faith.

We especially abhor the additional penal provisions in four state laws, where the converted person is a woman or a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, and call for full freedom of faith for the most vulnerable sections of Indian society.

We urge the Governments of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan to repeal these unjust laws. We call on all religious and political leaders in India to work together to find ways of addressing disputes through dialogue and through non-violent, non-legislative and non-discriminatory ways. We call for a new climate of equal rights, religious freedom and harmony based on mutual respect for one another as human beings. Finally, we ask the international community to support our call.

In solidarity,

Ms Susan K.E. Alexander
Advocate, Mumbai, Maharashtra

Mr Gollapalli Ambedkar
Vice President, Ambedkar Dharma Porata Samithi

Ms Tehmina Arora
General Secretary, Christian Legal Association of India

Mr B. Arunkumar
Founder President, Dr Ambedkar Educational Society, Vizag

Mr Awtar Singh Bahar
Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Mr Gaddam Balakrishna
President, Andhra Pradesh Arundhathi Bandhu Seva Mandali

Mr A. Balanadham
Honorary President, Dalitha Praja Samithi

Mr Anshuman Bhomia
Advocate, Delhi Bar Association

Mr M. Dharma Bodhi
Ambedkar Dharma Porata Samithi

Mr Gudapati Brahmaiah
President, Dalitha Bahujana Sramika Union

Mr B.S. Chalam
Convenor, Janachaitanya Mandali, Andhra Pradesh

Mr S. Chandaraiah
All India General Secretary, All India Saamatha Sainik Dal, Hyderabad

Mr Kum. K. Damayanthi
Co-convenor, Janachaitanya Mandali, Andhra Pradesh

Mr B.D. Das
Advocate, High Court of Orissa

Rev. Manes Das
Executive Secretary & Director, Eternal Life Fellowship Society

Dr John Dayal
President, All India Catholic Union
Secretary General, All India Christian Council
Member of National Integration Council

Mr P. Indira Devi
President, Bahujan Teachers Association

Mr Ronald D'Sa
Advocate, High Court of Karnataka

Dr Joseph D'Souza
President, All India Christian Council
International President, Dalit Freedom Network

Mr Linus Emmanuel
Advocate, High Court of Goa

Mr Manoj V. George
Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Mr Ingilala Gnanabhodi
President, Ambedkar Dharma Porata Samithi

Mr Kallu Gopal
President, Dalit Rights Protection Society, Hyderabad

Dr. Gopinath
Director, Phule Ambedkar National Institute of Social Sciences

Mr William Gordon
Project Coordinator, Awana Clubs India

Mr C. Bala Guruvaiah
Ambedkar Dharma Porata Samithi

Mr B. Harinath
President, AP Buddist Trust, Hyderabad

Rev. Richard Howells
General Secretary, Evangelical Fellowship of India

Professor Dr Kancha Ilaiah
Head of Political Science Department, Osmania University

Mr Zafarul Islam
General Secretary, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind

Bishop Francis Jackson
Karnataka Fellowship of Independent Churches

Mr Philip Jadhav
Coordinator, National Council of Churches of India

Mr Alex Joseph
Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Mr Mohan Kadambavanam
National Director, Awana Clubs India

Mr Siddiram Kamble
President, Dr B.R. Ambedkar Buddhist Society

Mr Kasim
State President, Federation of Progressive Fronts, Karnataka

Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan
General Secretary, All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat
Editor, The Milli Gazette

Mr M. Mala Kondaiah
Ambedkar Dharma Porata Samithi

Fr. George Koovackal
Director, Messengers of Peace & Harmony

Mr Ganta Suresh Kumar
Convenor, Janachaitanya Mandali, Andhra Pradesh

Mr Korivi Vinaya Kumar
President, Dalit Bahujan Front

Mr K. Ashok Kumar
General Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Dalitha Kalamandali

Mr M. Prema Kumar
President, All India Confederation of SC/ST Organisations

Mr M. Raj Kumar
Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Ambedkar Yuvajana, Hyderabad

Mr S. Varun Kumar
President, Bahujana Vignana Kendram Trust

Mr B. Leela Kumari
Convener, Dalit Women Literary Parishad

Mr Jessy Kurian
Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Mr Vijayesh Lal
Coordinator, Religious Liberty Commission, Evangelical Fellowship of
India

Mr Polepaka Jesroon Levi
Advocate, Nagpur, Maharashtra

Mr Manoj Macwan
Advocate, Gujarat Bar Association
Legal Advisor, Church of North India

Mr John Matthew
Advocate, High Court of Kerala

Professor Dr Tahir Mahmood
Chairman, Amity University Institute of Advanced Legal Studies
Member of National Committee for Religious and Linguistic Minorities

Mr Mariswamy
State President, Dalit Christian Federation, Karnataka

Bishop Karam Masih
Church of North India

Mr Mani Mekkunnel
Secretary, Conference on Religious India

Ms Aneesa Begum Mirza
Former Mayor, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

Mr P. Muniyappa
President, Buddhist Society of India, Andhra Pradesh

Mr K. Dhinakar Murthy
General Secretary, Ambedkar Dharma Porata Samithi

Mr K.S.N Murthy
Division In-Charge, Janachaitanya Mandali, Andhra Pradesh

Mr M. Muthanna
President, SC Rights Protection Society

Mr I. Mysaiah
State President, Andhra Pradesh Ambedkar Yuvajana, Hyderabad

Mr Gadipe Nagaiah
President, Dalitha Sanghala Parishat

Mr J.Narayana
President, Dr Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangram, Nizambad

Fr C.M. Paul
Former President, Signis India

Mr B. Patnaik
Director of Support Services, Evangelical Fellowship of India
Commission on Relief

Rev. Dr. Enos Das Pradhan
General Secretary & Chairperson, National Council of Churches of India

Mr Dappu Prasad
General Secretary, Janachaitanya Mandali, Andhra Pradesh

Mr P. Pavan Prasad
Convenor, Janachaitanya Mandali, Andhra Pradesh

Rev. Manohar Prasad
Presbyter-in-Charge, Karnataka Central Diocese, Church of South India

Mr Dondapudi Mohan Prasad
Convenor, DBF Kala Mandali

Mr K. Praveen
President, Ambedkar Jana Jagruthi Sena

Dr Udit Raj
President, Indian Justice Party
Chair, All India Confederation of SC/ST Organisations
Member of National Integration Council

Dr V.T. Rajshekar
Editor, Dalit Voice

Mr M.P. Raju
Supreme Court Advocate

Mr Boge Raja Ram
General Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Ambedkar Yuvajana, Hyderabad

Mr Kaki Ramarao
Convenor, Janachaitanya Mandali, Andhra Pradesh

Admiral L. Ramdas
Former Chief, Indian Navy

Mr Rapolu Ramulu
President, Ambedkar Sanghala Samakya, Hyderbad

Mr D. Kalyana Rao
President, Bharatiya Bouddha Parishat, Vizag

Mr G. Muralidhar Rao
President, All India SC/ST Rights Protection

Mr K. Venkateshwara Rao
State EC members, Ambedkar Dharma Porata Samithi

Mr L. Krishna Rao
President, Janachaitanya Mandali, Andhra Pradesh

Mr N. Babu Rao
General Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Dalitha Mahasabha

Mr Rajeswar Rao
Co-convenor, Janachaitanya Mandali, Andhra Pradesh

Mr Aparna Ray
Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Rajiv Rufus
Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Mr Lansinglu Rongmei
Advocate, New Layer Chamber Supreme Court

Rev. Sunil Sarhar
Convener, Truth Seekers Society International

Mr Y.B. Satyanarayana
President, Centre for Dalit Studies

Ms Mary Scaria
Supreme Court Advocate
Justice & Peace Commission

Mr Stephen Ronojit Sen
Director, Hand of Hope Legal Services

Mr Bheema Sena
President, Bahujana Natya Mandali

Mr K.M. Shareef
President, Karnataka Forum for Dignity

Mr I. Shekar
President, Andhra Pradesh SC/ST Sarpanchula Sangram

Dr Yoginder Sikand
Former Professor of Islamic Studies, Jamia Milia Islamia

Mr Prashand Solomon
Organising Secretary, United Christian Action

Mr Ella Sonawane
Assistant Secretary, Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge

Mr Singaram Sureshkumar
Advocate, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Mr Kamal Sutanpuri
Solicitors & Advocates, Fox Mandal

Mr M. Venkata Swamy
Treasurer, All India Saamatha Sainik Dal, Hyderabad

Mr K. Vidyasagar
Vice President, Andhra Pradesh Ambedkar Yuvajana, Hyderabad

Mr Dilip E. Williams
Director, New Delhi YMCA

Mr C.L.Yadagiri
President, Jajjanaka Kala Mandali

Mr P. Yadgiri
State President, All India Saamatha Sainik Dal, Hyderabad