Three Dalit ministers in Karnataka, ShivarajTangadagi, Minister for Kannada and Culture; P.M. Narendraswamy, Agriculture Minister; and K.S. Basavanthappa, Muzrai Minister responsible for religious endowments, were recently stopped by police from entering the venue of a religious ceremony at Mysuru Palace. The person who stopped them was none other than Mysuru Superintendent of Police C.B. Rishyanth, an IPS officer, who was accompanying Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar. The incident happened during the traditional Nandi Dhwaja Puja associated with Mysuru Dasara celebrations near the Kote Anjaneya Swamy Temple on the Mysuru Palace premises. But it is a different story that they were finally allowed to enter the venue after the CM’s intervention.
The CM has ordered an inquiry to find out why this happened and on whose instructions. Did the police act on their own, or were they acting on orders from the Mysuru royal family? Or were they initially prevented because of caste discrimination? Or were there some security instructions? If it was done due to security reasons, did it mean there was a security threat to the CM from his own ministers? These are among the many questions that arise from the incident in which three Dalit ministers were prevented from attending a public religious function.
Whatever the reason, the incident has sparked a debate in social and political circles, particularly because similar cases have been reported in the past in which even high-ranking members of the Dalit community were denied entry into temples.
According to the Financial Times, Babu Jagjivan Ram, a prominent Dalit leader and former Deputy Prime Minister of India, faced caste-based discrimination at the Jagannath Temple in Puri. Initially, he was denied entry to the temple. The priests subsequently relented, reportedly in view of his high position in the government, but refused to allow his wife and other family members to enter and perform puja. Deeply offended by this discriminatory attitude, Jagjivan Ram refused to enter the temple or offer prayers there.
Former President Ram Nath Kovind also reportedly faced harassment at the Jagannath Temple in 2018. Temple servants allegedly blocked his way to the sanctum sanctorum and shoved his wife. In another incident highlighting the persistence of caste-based discrimination, former Union Minister Devendra Makwana disclosed at a public meeting that he had been denied entry to a temple in Delhi even while serving as a minister.
P.L. Punia, a former IAS officer of the Haryana cadre who later served as Chairman of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, was reportedly denied entry to the Jagannath Temple in Puri on account of his caste.
On Aug. 10 this year, the Shri Ram Sena Dharmarth Seva NyasSangathan, a radical Hindu organisation, washed and ritually purified the Ramlila Maidan in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, where Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge had addressed a rally. While the BJP distanced itself from the act, the organisation’s leader, Girish Chandra Pandey, claimed the ritual aimed to restore the ground’s religious and cultural sanctity after the political gathering. The Congress, however, condemned the incident as an act of caste discrimination against Kharge, who belongs to a Dalit community.
There have been countless instances of Dalits being denied entry into temples or of temple premises being washed after their entry, reflecting the deeply entrenched caste prejudice among some upper-caste priests, who regard the presence of people from oppressed castes as polluting or defiling the sacred space.
The question, therefore, is: If elected ministers and senior bureaucrats can be prevented from participating in a public religious ceremony or from entering a temple without a clear and valid explanation, what does that say about equality and the dignity of ordinary citizens, particularly those from historically marginalised communities?
Caste-based discriminatory incidents take place every day in our country despite the Constitution of India and the Directive Principles of State Policy clearly prohibiting caste discrimination and abolishing untouchability. Practising caste-based discrimination is utterly inhuman, humiliating and a severe assault on the dignity of an individual. Ironically, this is happening in 21st-century India.
Does it amount to an offence if such people decide to leave their ancestral religion to escape daily humiliation from their own religious counterparts and embrace another religion, such as Islam, where they feel they will be treated with dignity and respect? Will it be a crime if they go to a mosque where they can stand shoulder to shoulder with other worshippers, including the elite of the Muslim community, and are welcomed with honour and esteem? Will it not be attractive to embrace a religion where they can rise to become an Imam or a priest and lead prayers in mosques and churches? Will it be described as a consequence of ‘fraud, coercion, allurement, undue influence, or deception’ if a Dalit becomes a Muslim to escape daily harassment and perpetration of injustice against them by socially upward people of their own religion?
It was because of the daily indignities that 300 Dalit families (around 1100 individuals) belonging to the Pallar-Dalit community of Meenakshipuram (later renamed as Rahmath Nagar) in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu converted en masse to Islam in 1981. An inquiry conducted into the incident by the Director of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Welfare of the Government of India made it clear that it was not a case of ‘forced conversion,’ but to escape daily indignities heaped on them by upper-caste people of their own religion.
The Meenakshipuram incident was followed by the conversion of around 150 Dalit families to Islam in Utharakosamangai village in Ramanathapuram district. Subsequently, a large number of Dalit families in and around Peraiyur village in Madurai district also embraced Islam, seeking to escape persistent persecution and caste-based discrimination at the hands of caste Hindus.
In 2024, two neo-converts, Raja Mohammed and Abdul Razzaq, told the media in separate interviews that Dalit Hindus had embraced Islam ‘willingly’ because it offered them the self-respect and dignity that had been denied to them for centuries. According to Raja, conversion had freed Dalits from the shame, humiliation and rejection imposed by a society in which untouchability continues to persist even to this day. Razzaq recounted how his sweetmeat business in the villages had collapsed after his caste identity became known. His conversion to Islam, he said, had helped him break free from the chains of social exclusion and discrimination. Their accounts suggest how conversion to Islam represents not merely a change of religious identity but also an assertion of human dignity and a search for freedom from caste-based oppression.
The fallout of the Meenakshipuram was the birth of the Hindu Munnani(Hindu Front), a version of RSS in Tamil Nadu, that prevented further conversion of Dalits to Islam. Subsequently, the then Tamil Nadu government led by Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandran of AIADMK constituted a one-man commission of inquiry headed by retired High Court Judge Justice P. Venugopal to probe the issue. The inquiry report openly recognised that deep-seated caste discrimination, untouchability and recurring social clashes between the Pallar (Dalit) and landed Thevar communities had created an environment that triggered the mass conversion.
However, rather than urging the government to take concrete measures to eradicate caste discrimination, end the daily humiliation of Dalits, safeguard their dignity, and ensure justice and equal treatment for them in society, the commission recommended that the Tamil Nadu government enact a stringent anti-conversion law to prohibit religious conversions allegedly carried out through ‘force, fraud or material allurement’.
Surprisingly, the report did not establish that the Meenakshipuram conversions had taken place through force, fraud, or material allurement. The mass conversion attracted extensive media coverage, during which the converts themselves stated that their decision to embrace Islam was motivated by caste discrimination, humiliation, and mistreatment at the hands of upper-caste Hindus, rather than by the prospect of material benefits. The allegation of coercion by Muslim organisations also appeared difficult to substantiate, given their lack of political power in the state. Had the conversions been carried out through force, the AIADMK government and the police could have invoked the existing legal provisions and taken appropriate action.
However, the M.G. Ramachandran government ultimately put the commission’s recommendations on hold and shelved the report due to political sensitivities and concerns over minority backlash. But the commission’s report influenced future state policy. Decades later, in 2002, Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa cited these historical findings to enact the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Act. However, following widespread political protests and subsequent election setbacks she faced, the act was officially repealed in 2004.
As of 2026, 12 Indian states have enacted laws regulating religious conversions, commonly referred to as anti-conversion laws and officially designated as Freedom of Religion Acts or similar legislation. Odisha was the first state to introduce such a law in 1967, followed by Madhya Pradesh in 1968 and Arunachal Pradesh in 1978. Chhattisgarh adopted its legislation in 2000, while Gujarat enacted its law in 2003. Himachal Pradesh followed in 2006, Jharkhand in 2017, and Uttarakhand in 2018. Uttar Pradesh introduced its law in 2020, followed by Karnataka and Haryana in 2022 and Rajasthan in 2025. Maharashtra also enacted legislation in 2026. Several of these laws have subsequently been amended or strengthened, introducing stricter provisions and heavier penalties.
Although these laws are designated as Freedom of Religion Acts, their implementation and practical impact, in fact, impede the exercise of religious freedom. Critics argue that these laws violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, particularly the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion under Article 25. Their constitutional validity has been challenged before the Supreme Court by several organisations, including Christian and Muslim groups. The apex court is examining these challenges to determine whether the laws are consistent with the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. Several Muslim and Christian activists have been arrested under these legislations in several states, and some have reportedly spent prolonged periods in prison awaiting trial. Critics argue that the laws can be used to harass religious minorities and those involved in facilitating voluntary conversions, raising serious questions about the protection of freedom of conscience and the right to choose one’s religion.
An impartial analysis suggests that the existing anti-conversion laws violate constitutional and fundamental rights of individuals to embrace a religion of their choice. Rather than addressing the caste-based discrimination, humiliation, and indignities that drive some people to leave their ancestral faith, these laws restrict their freedom to seek a life of dignity and equality through religious conversion.
By making these observations, I do not intend to persuade anyone to change their religion. As a Muslim, I believe that Islam does not permit me to compel anyone to embrace the faith through force, fraud, deception, or material inducements. At the same time, Islam enjoins its followers, both men and women, to share its teachings with all humanity, irrespective of a person’s social, political, educational, or economic status. The Constitution of India, too, guarantees the freedom to profess, practise, and propagate religion.
Islam also does not permit Muslims to impose their beliefs on others through coercion. Faith must be embraced through free choice and sincere conviction, not through force or inducement.
The Holy Qur’an unequivocally declares, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). This principle makes it clear that faith must be a matter of personal conviction, not coercion, and that no one should be forced to embrace Islam. We are not police officers, nor is it our responsibility to compel anyone to accept a religion. The Qur’an repeatedly reminds us that ultimate guidance rests with Allah and that no human being can guide another unless Allah wills it (28:56). The use of force to secure religious conversion is, therefore, wholly incompatible with this fundamental Islamic principle.
At the same time, conveying the message of Islam to others in a respectful, peaceful, and dignified manner should not be misconstrued as coercion or as an attempt to induce conversion through improper allurement. Sharing religious teachings is fundamentally different from compelling someone to change their faith. The distinction between peaceful religious propagation and coercive conversion must be clearly understood and respected.
Therefore, anyone who attempts to force another person to embrace Islam acts in violation of the Qur’anic principle that there can be no compulsion in religion. This principle highlights Islam’s rejection of coercion in matters of faith. The presence of substantial non-Muslim populations in many Muslim-majority countries reflects the fact that coercion in change of faith is not allowed.
Ultimately, it is for those who have suffered centuries of humiliation, ostracism, and social exclusion to decide whether they wish to continue bearing these indignities or seek to escape them through lawful and peaceful means, including changing their faith. Such a decision is a matter of personal conscience and individual freedom, and their right to make it must be respected in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the land.
[The writer is Chief Editor of India Tomorrow news portal. Email: itnnchiefeditor@gmail.com]