When a citizen must sign a declaration before entering a church, India must ask whether freedom of religion is still a constitutional right—or a privilege that minorities must prove they deserve. OSWALD PEREIRA reports
During his two-week, three-nation tour of the United States, Canada and Britain, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat spoke of the inclusiveness, oneness and universalism of Hinduism—and of a Hindu civilisation that embraces all humanity.
However, there is a striking contradiction unfolding in Maharashtra.
Christians in Maharashtra are being compelled by circumstances to do something they have never had to do before: sign a declaration that they are entering a church voluntarily.
The declaration is not required by the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026. Churches have adopted it as a precaution, fearing allegations of forced or induced conversion. Reports say such forms are being distributed after prayer meetings were disrupted and worshippers and pastors were questioned. The forms are meant to protect churches from accusations under the state’s new anti-conversion framework.
But the very existence of these forms should trouble every Indian, irrespective of religion.
Why should a Christian have to prove that he or she is exercising free choice in entering a church?
Why should a Hindu entering a temple, a Muslim entering a mosque, a Sikh entering a gurdwara or a Christian entering a church have to establish that nobody forced them to pray?
The Constitution does not say that religious freedom belongs only to the majority. Article 25 guarantees all persons freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations.
That word—all—matters.
Christians constitute barely two per cent of India’s population. Precisely because they are a small minority, the constitutional promise of equality becomes especially important. Democracy cannot mean that the majority enjoys religious freedom as a natural right while minorities are required to produce evidence that they are exercising theirs voluntarily.
There is an even more disturbing question. If churches feel compelled to collect declarations from worshippers because they fear disruption, accusation or harassment, what does that say about the atmosphere in which people belonging to a minority faith are being asked to practise their faith?
This is where Bhagwat’s international message faces its real test.
It is easy to speak of oneness in New York, London or Toronto. It is far more meaningful to defend the freedom of the person praying quietly in a small church in Maharashtra.
Critics of Bhagwat have accused him of hypocrisy: that the inclusive language heard abroad does not match the conduct of forces associated with the broader Hindutva movement at home. The Maharashtra episode gives that criticism uncomfortable relevance.
But the larger issue goes beyond Bhagwat, the RSS or even the BJP.
It goes far beyond the idea of India, itself.
If the concept of Hindu Rashtra is ever to be understood as compatible with the Indian Constitution, then its defenders must answer a fundamental question: what happens to the religious freedom of those who are not Hindus?
A Hindu-majority nation can exist as a demographic reality. But a constitutional republic cannot give one faith a higher claim to citizenship than another.
If Hinduism is truly universal, as Bhagwat suggests, then that universality must be visible not merely in international speeches but in the freedom enjoyed by India’s smallest religious communities.
The real test of inclusiveness lies not in the majority faith saying that minorities belong.
It is whether minorities can live, worship and pray without having to prove that they belong.
That is also the constitutional test of a Hindu Rashtra.
If Hindu Rashtra means a cultural civilisation in which every Indian—Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain or atheist—enjoys exactly the same freedom of conscience, then its defenders must demonstrate how that idea strengthens the Constitution.
But if it means that minorities must repeatedly establish their loyalty, prove the voluntariness of their faith and seek permission, formally or informally, to practise their religion, then it stands in direct tension with the constitutional idea of India.
The Constitution does not ask a Christian to prove that he is free.
It guarantees that he is free.
And that freedom does not come from the generosity of the majority. It comes from the Constitution.
Oswald Pereira, a senior journalist, has written ten books, including The Vijay Revolution: People Power & the Politics of Hope, Beyond Autobiography of a Yogi, The Newsroom Mafia, Chaddi Buddies, The Krishna-Christ Connexion, How to Create Miracles in Our Daily Life and Crime Patrol: The Most Thrilling Stories. Oswald is a disciple of Paramhansa Yogananda, and practises Kriya Yoga.
More Stories by Oswald Pereira
Some images are AI generated