The Rhetorical Shadows of the Anti-Conversion Bill: Religious Freedom and Political Alliances in Sri Lanka

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe practice of proselytisation is increasingly challenged in many parts of the world, especially in South Asia. Laws to prohibit ‘improper’ or ‘unethical’ conversions are being discussed in several countries. International legal texts are vague and elusive when it comes to the practice of proselytisation, and are susceptible to different interpretations of how to regulate proselytism. Drawing on the argument that religious freedom is trapped within the antinomies of inviolability and regulation, I argue that anti-conversion legislation falls precisely into such antinomies. Hence, political actors are increasingly able to use such antinomies to legitimise and justify their own reading of international norms. A study of the policy process of the anti-conversion bill in Sri Lanka reveals that the formation of political alliances between religious affiliations had a decisive impact on the outcome of the process. This case shows how legislative reform on religious practice and proselytism may be played out in a local context with multiple religious communities, and the importance of formulating an inclusive legislative proposal that speaks to all stakeholders. This paper looks into the politics on the ground around the anti-conversion bill, and how several religious organisations (Hindus, Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, and Buddhists) formed and broke up political alliances during the process. In addition to the core argumentation to support and/or oppose anti-conversion legislation, particular alliances and affiliations were important during the process. Why did the All Ceylon Hindu Congress (ACHC) initiate the anti-conversion bill proposal, only to oppose it later? Why were the Catholic groups an interesting partner for the Buddhist nationalists when they sought to create a compromise bill in 2006? By considering the local religious and political context of Sri Lanka, this paper will argue how anti-conversion legislation is not solely dependent on international norms, but also upon the partners and affiliations advocating for them on the ground.