Bharat cannot afford the luxury of political denial when allegations of forced, fraudulent or inducement-based religious conversions are surfacing with disturbing frequency. The issue is not about targeting any particular faith. It is about protecting an individual’s freedom of conscience—and ensuring that nobody is bullied, blackmailed, deceived, financially induced or threatened into changing religion.
That distinction must be made loud and clear.
Article 25 guarantees every citizen the freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion. But that freedom does not mean a licence to force, defraud or manipulate another person into conversion. Indeed, the existing legal framework in several States already recognises this distinction, prohibiting conversion through force, fraud, inducement or undue influence. By March 2026, 13 States had enacted or passed anti-conversion legislation of varying degrees of stringency.
Yet every time the government seeks stronger scrutiny, particularly of foreign-funded organisations, the familiar chorus begins: “minority rights are under attack”, “religious freedom is in danger” and “this is politically motivated”.
But why should legitimate scrutiny frighten anyone?
The Narendra Modi government’s proposed amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act are precisely aimed at making foreign funding more transparent and accountable. The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25 and now before a Joint Parliamentary Committee, seeks to establish a mechanism for supervision and management of foreign-funded assets when an organisation loses its FCRA registration. The revised FCRA Rules notified in June have also strengthened reporting and made registrations more specific to approved activities and States.
Most importantly, the government has made it clear that legitimate faith-based welfare activities remain eligible for foreign funding across communities, while proselytisation-oriented activity is restricted. The rules apply irrespective of religion.
That is not persecution. That is regulation of foreign money in a sovereign country.
The Kakinada case is particularly disturbing because the allegations go far beyond a theological dispute. A rifle-shooting coach has been arrested in connection with the death of a man and a subsequent family suicide pact, while allegations have emerged of harassment, blackmail, property-related pressure and attempts to force conversion. These are allegations that must be established through a proper investigation and trial, not through television studios or social-media verdicts.
But precisely because the allegations are so serious, they cannot simply be dismissed as “communal propaganda”.
The same principle must apply everywhere. If a Christian gathering is violently attacked by Hindus, the attackers must face the law. If a Muslim employee is accused of coercing a Hindu colleague, it must be investigated impartially. If Christian organisations are accused of using inducements to convert vulnerable tribal communities, the allegations must be investigated rather than automatically dismissed. And if Hindu groups intimidate Christians or Muslims and attempt forced “Ghar Wapsi”, they too must face the same law.
The law must be religion-neutral, but it cannot be conversion-neutral when coercion is involved.
This is where the Opposition needs to come out of denial mode. Questioning the misuse of anti-conversion laws is legitimate. Demanding safeguards against false cases is legitimate. Defending Article 25 is legitimate. But pretending that every allegation of coercion is manufactured merely because it is politically inconvenient is not responsible politics.
Nor is opposition to tighter FCRA scrutiny automatically evidence of wrongdoing. That would be an equally reckless assumption. But the question deserves to be asked: if foreign funding is clean, documented and being used strictly for lawful charitable or religious purposes, why should greater transparency and auditability be feared?
Foreign money must never become a hidden instrument for altering social relations, financing coercion or creating communal fault lines. If investigators establish that foreign funds are being channelled into unlawful conversion networks, intimidation or activities threatening public order or national security, the response must be uncompromising.
At the same time, the Modi government must ensure that FCRA enforcement is transparent, evidence-based and applied equally to every faith and ideology. That is how it can defeat the charge of selective targeting.
Bharat’s religious freedom will not be protected by ignoring coercive conversions. Nor will communal harmony be protected by pretending that every allegation is false.
Freedom of faith means the freedom to believe, not the freedom to force someone else to believe. Foreign charity is welcome; foreign-funded coercion is not. And political parties that genuinely have nothing to hide should have no objection to stringent scrutiny of foreign money.
