Memoranda for Submission to the Chief Ministers of the Two Telugu States.


Articles-25 and 30 of the Indian Constitution

Dt:  2/5/18


Articles-25 and 30 of the Indian Constitution


Dr T.H.Chowdary*


Article-25 of India’s Constitution confers fundamental right for every citizen to  profess, practice  and propagate one’s faith; that is religion. Hindus  do not  propagate and convert others whereas Christians (and Muslims) do so. When the draft of their  Article  was  discussed in the  Constituent Assembly, there were serious objections from eminent members of the  (Consembly) against  the third element, namely propagate.   Several Christian Church associations even from 1944 onwards have been proclaiming that no Constitution  of India would be acceptable to them if it does not  guarantee the fundamental  right for Christians to evangelise and  convert as that is  their essential duty in the nature of an injunction from Jesus Christ himself. The Christian members of the Consembly vehemently  and stridently  demanded for the inclusion of the  word,  “propagate”.  


2. While speaking on this provision,  Sri Loknath Misra, an eminent  parliamentarian and scholar observed, “….to my mind  article 19 (which became Art-25 in the   final version  of the   constitution) is a Charter for Hindu enslavement. I do really feel that this is the   most disgraceful article the blackest part of the draft constitution. I beg to submit that I  have considered and studied all the constitutional precedents and have not  found anywhere,  any mention of the  word propaganda as a fundamental right relating to religions…propagation of religion brought India into this  unfortunate state and India  had to be divided into Pakistan and  India. If  Islam  had not come to impose its will on this land, India would have been  a perfectly secular  state and a homogeneous state. …if you accept  religion, you must accept  Hinduism as it is practised by an overwhelming   majority of the  people of India….”


3. Prof  K T Shah was another  eminent member of the Consembly. He too was opposed to have this fundamental right to propagate  religion  put in our constitution.   While opposing this  provision,  he moved an amendment  which  ran, “ provided that no propaganda in favour of any one religion which is calculated to  result in change of  faith by the induvial affected shall be allowed in any schools or colleges  or other  educational institutions;  in any hospital or asylum or in any other place or institution where persons  of a tender age or of unsound mind or body are eligible to be exposed to  undue influence from their teachers, nurses or physicians, keepers or guardian or any other person set in authority above them and which is  maintained fully or partially from public revenues or is  in any way aided or protected by the  government of the  Union or of any state or public authority  therein”.



4. Unfortunately Jawaharlal  Nehru was for  the fundamental right not only to profess and practise  but even to propagate. He smothered all   opposition from Congress men and had  his way to put  this  fundamental right to propagate   religion. Dr. Ambedkar ’s pleading that  this should be  in the  Directive Principles and not as  fundamental right was also opposed by Jawaharlal Nehru.  The  right to convert Hindus by Christian missionaries  which did not  exist during the   190 years rule of Christian Briton over India, was foisted upon India by Jawaharlal  Nehru.


5. Nehru’s  daughter , Indira  Gandhi smuggled   the words “secularism” and “socialism  into the preamble of the constitution through the 42nd   amendment to  the constitution  during the Emergency ( 1975-1977) when almost all opposition  MPs and leaders were put in jail or had to go underground. They left these two  words  undefined and  unexplained. In practice, “secularism” has come to mean anti-Hinduism and  appeasement of  Muslims and Christians, giving them rights and privileges through Article-30  rights and privileges which do not extend to Hindus, namely the establishment of  educational institutions  of  the choice of the minority religions, without limit and  on any subject, a right that is denied to the Hindu majority.  The Supreme Court did rule that the  right to  propagate does not  confer the  right to  convert.  The evangelists and  “secularists”  however hold, that propagation inherently intends to gain converts.


6. The latest demand of Christian groups in Andhra Pradesh for creation of a separate state for Christians  (converts) and the  riots to back this  demand  were  prophesied  by the late  Loknath Misra and  Prof K.T.Shah among others. The anti-Hindu provision  in the Constitution are a shame and are  crying for rectification.


(718 words)